The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Thursday, July 7, 2005. In
attendance were Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard, Ms. Whicker, Mr. Kirchoff,
Mr. Thibo, Mr. Matrana and Mr. Haase.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Carlucci administered the roll call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
Mr. Matrana made a motion to approve the June 6, 2005 Plan
Commission minutes as submitted. Second by Kirchoff. Motion carried.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Haase reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public
Hearings. We have some continuation requests and I will let Mr.
Valanzano run us through those.
Mr. Valanzano said the first two, Primary Plat PP-05-004, Mid-
States Engineering for Cambridge Square West is companioned with DP-05-
022 for the development of a Staybridge Suites Hotel. They were not
quite prepared at the Design Review Committee last month and the Design
Review Committee asked them to push it back for one month on the
development plan. They suggested that they delay both the development
plan and the primary plat and have them both together next month.
Mr. Haase asked, is that continuation to August 1st?
Mr. Valanzano said yes.
Mr. Thibo made a motion to grant a continuance of PP-05-004 and
DP-05-022, Mid-States Engineering to the August 1, 2005 Plan Commission
meeting. Second by Ms. Whicker. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said if there is anyone in the audience on that, there
will be no more public notification on that other than this meeting and
that has been continued to August 1st, which is the first Monday in that
month.
Mr. Valanzano said the next two cases are filed by Opus North
Corporation for a development at the southeast corner of Perry Road and
Airwest Boulevard. Those are companioned petitions. One is for
development incentives and one is for architectural review, both on the
same site. They were kind of in a state of limbo in front of DRC with
a couple of different options. DRC asked them to refine their plans
and come back. So, both of those cases are being continued and those
will be with notice. I don’t believe they sent a notice for this
hearing so those would be continued until August 1st with notice.
Mr. Haase asked, with notice by the petitioner and the Town as
well?
Mr. Valanzano said we will publish it again and they will send an
individual notice.
Mr. Thibo made a motion to grant a continuance of DP-05-017 and
DP-05-019, Opus North Corporation. Second by Ms. Whicker. Motion
carried.
Mr. Valanzano said the final two petitions for continuance are
companioned petitions for architectural and site design review and
development incentives for First Industrial Development. This property
is at the northeast corner of Perry Road and Reeves Road. They also
had a couple of options on the table in trying to figure out exactly
how to come up with their final design. There were too many unanswered
questions for DRC at that point. They went back to the drawing board
and they also filed a variance petition that is going to be heard on
July 18. So, depending on the outcome of that it will depend exactly
on what is brought in front of you as a Plan Commission on August 1st.
So, that petition also needs to be continued. I need to confirm
whether or not they sent their notices out and if they did not send
notices out, it would need to be with notice.
Mr. McPhail made a motion to grant a continuance of DP-05-020 and
DP-05-21, First Industrial Development to the August 1, 2005 Plan
Commission meeting. Second by Mr. Thibo. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said we don’t have any expedited petitions. We have
several other petitions. Would any of those petitioners be here to
request a continuance? Being no one requesting a continuance we will
continue with our public hearings. We will be looking at RZ-05-010 and
PP-05-007, Saratoga Associates.
Mr. Valanzano said the first pair of petitions that we have in
front of the Plan Commission deal with the 13.3-acre tract of ground in
Saratoga. This piece of ground is located right in this area. The
railroad that runs through Saratoga or the abandoned railroad that is
being converted into a trail system runs through east/west. Saratoga
Boulevard comes up on the west side of it and CR350 on the north.
That particular parcel was originally slated for development as
an elementary school. In discussions with the school system they have
identified that they no longer need this particular site for a school.
As part of the original rezoning for Saratoga, it was initially thought
that this area might be used either for school purposes or residential.
It was narrowed down to elementary school purposes. Comments at the
initial meeting said if it ever got used for any use other than school
purposes, it would have to come back to the Plan Commission by the way
of rezoning. Since the school no longer needs the property the owner
is petitioning to rezone that property from the PUD for the elementary
school to a PUD for residential for up to two to four units an acre
consistent with the other areas within Saratoga.
The second part of the request is to provide for primary plat
approval to divide the parcel into 39 lots, which brings it to a
density of right at three units per acre.
In reviewing the case there are a few issues that come to mind.
One is in terms of density and the matching up of this proposed
development with surrounding developments. Saratoga basically has two
different residential classifications. They had residential at two to
three units an acre, which primarily went from about this line on north
and then two to four units an acre down in this area. Some of these
areas are for village residential. But the primary single-family
designations were two to three units an acre or two to four units an
acre for single-family. They are asking for the two to four
classification, which would allow for lot sizes down to 11,000 square
feet.
The next issue is really in terms of the lot size and appropriate
transitioning between this development and other developments. When
Staff was reviewing it, we were paying a lot of attention to the border
of Plainfield Manor along Lisa Lane. We also looked at the lot sizes
over in Willow Pointe and the lot sizes in this area, Homestead or
Saratoga Place. What we found is in Willow Pointe the smallest lot
size right in this area is approximately 17,400 square feet in area.
In Saratoga Place the smallest individual lot, I believe, was this one,
which has an area of 17,400 square feet. Up along in Homestead up in
this area the lots get a little bit smaller but still the smallest lot
in this particular area was a 12,200 square feet.
In the petition that you have before you the lots that are
proposed, the lots that are most affected abut Lisa Lane, are these.
Lot sizes in those areas run from 11,078 square feet to 11,400 square
feet and that is along this north arTehaa.t is part of the issue
that I wanted to point out to you in terms of the lot sizes that exist
in the other subdivisions that abut the Plainfield Manor Subdivision
and the lot sizes proposed here.
In terms of residential design guidelines, which is always an
issue with residential developments they have provided statements that
they will comply fully with the residential design guidelines that were
adopted by the Town. If they have a single-family development that
comes in that wants to propose an alternate to that, they would have to
file another approval petition with the Plan Commission and come before
a public hearing to make any modifications to that. Otherwise, as of
now, they would be complying with the residential design guidelines.
In terms of buffering there were commitments in the initial
rezoning to provide five trees per 100-foot along the common boundary
with Plainfield Manor. They are proposing to continue to do that. We
had some discussion with the petitioner in this particular area where
there is a stand of trees on the back of those two lots. I talked to
the petitioner about the willingness to preserve some of those trees.
I think they are willing to do what they can although not put in a full
tree preservation area. I will let Mr. Harstad respond to that a
little more specifically.
In terms of the plat the issue that we have identified is first
and foremost the connection of the road system through Kenwood to Lisa
Lane. Staff believes that it is necessary that the connection be made
to provide for continuity of the street network in the area. We have
worked with the petitioner to provide as indirect a design as possible
so that connections can still be provided but not encourage a lot of
through traffic. In reviewing the petition internally with Staff we
feel that the majority of the use of the connection that is proposed
here from Lisa Lane through this development will actually come from
the residents on Lisa Lane going through here to take traffic south on
Saratoga Boulevard to U.S. 40 and will provide for more benefit to the
people in Lisa Lane existing than would provide to the new residents in
the Kenwood area trying to go north from here. That was our opinion
and that has been later supported by some material provided by the
petitioner in having their traffic consultant look at the project who
indicated from other developments in this area 80% of the traffic heads
south verses 20% heading north. So, the thought that the majority of
the traffic in this development will head south seems to be verified
from existing circumstances in the area. We believe a lot of that
traffic will go south to U.S. 40 to take Saratoga to Moon Road to
Hadley Road to I-70 and also to provide for a pedestrian connection
through that area to provide a connection to the trail system. Also,
you have in front of your stations a letter from the fire marshal, Mr.
Foster supporting the connection through this subdivision as a public
safety issue. I’m urging the Plan Commission to support or require
that connection.
Another issue was drainage. There are some existing drainage
situations in the area. There is currently existing a drainage
easement that runs pretty much in this area through the property and
another one that comes across here and down into that. Those easements
need to be vacated through the County in order for this project to move
forward, as proposed. That will have to be done through the County and
the County will require that drainage concerns from those two easements
be fully accommodated and accepted into the drainage plan of this
project before they would be willing to vacate those easements and
allow this one to move forward.
There is a comment in a letter from the County engineer
suggesting that Lisa Lane also be resurfaced through there. That is
something that I’m not sure Staff is in support of. That is an
existing condition that if it is bad enough to need resurfaced, it
needs to be addressed through existing circumstances as opposed to
having a developer from another project go through there. Considering
looking at the traffic study the volumes may actually stay the same or
go down on Lisa Lane. I just wanted to point that out for your
information.
Finally, in terms of transitioning and matching things up the
building setback line issue, at these two lots in Kenwood in
particular, when you come out of Lisa Lane, their platted front setback
line is at 50 feet. The setback for the rest of Saratoga is at 25 feet
when you come through on all of their internal private streets. Just
looking at that transition it looked like an obvious miss-match. I
talked to the petitioner and starting at this point they started
tapering their setbacks, the required building setback line to match up
with the 50-foot to provide a transition and smooth the transition
between the developments and that is on both sides of the street. So,
you don’t have one home setback 50 feet and the next setback and 25
feet and providing that kind of disconnect in terms of development.
With that those are the major issues that we have highlighted and
had to present to you for your consideration and I would be happy to
answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Haase said I had a question about the Statement of
Preliminary Plan for Kenwood/Saratoga that was included. What is this
that I’m looking at?
Mr. Valanzano said the first page and about a quarter is the
proposed preliminary plan for the PUD that says this is how we are
going to develop the site, this is what we are going to do. After that
is the attachment of the original PUD that is in place for the rest of
Saratoga. Basically, what the first page did is incorporate in all of
the standards that are currently existing in Saratoga now.
Mr. Haase said I have an Exhibit “A” also attached to that.
Mr. Valanzano said that was part of the original PUD of Saratoga.
Mr. Haase said so Exhibit “A” is for R-5 high-density, which has
nothing to do with this area.
Mr. Valanzano said it doesn’t in that it sets some of the lot
size standards. I’m sorry I think that might be for the multi-family
areas.
Mr. Haase said yes it is.
Mr. Valanzano said that was attached to the original PUD but
doesn’t really relate to this. What we are talking about here is the
standards that would provide for 11,000 square foot lots as a minimum.
But then we have the plat, which if approved, specifies all the
individual lot sizes throughout the proposed subdivision.
Mr. Haase said we are asking for a rezoning for this to go from
what to what?
Mr. Valanzano said from a PUD for an elementary school to a PUD
for residential for up to two to four units an acre consistent with the
remainder of Saratoga.
Mr. Dave Harstad, Vice President of Denison Properties said I’m
representing Saratoga Associates tonight. As Mr. Valanzano mentioned,
we have two cases before you tonight, a rezoning, which results from a
thought that this site would originally be an elementary school site.
It really became an exclusive zoning classification, a very limited
zoning classification, for an elementary school site and the school
corporation decided that they did not want to build on it. There was
really nothing left to do but to rezone it. So, here we are before you
tonight to develop this as residential, which is appropriate for the
site.
Secondly, we are here to request approval of our primary plat.
Let me orientate you into the site. As Mr. Valanzano said, it is a 13-
acre site. As you can see, the site is long and narrow. It is about
1,000 feet wide and it’s about 500 or so, give or take, wide or high I
should say. The only possible connection is to Saratoga Parkway here
and to Lisa Lane here. Obviously, the railroad corridor prevents a
connection here, which limits layout and the existing layout of
Plainfield Manor. So, really the site lays itself out. The entrance
was placed as far north as possible at the request of Staff. The bridge
is down here. There is a slight rise there. The desire was to prevent a
possible conflict, if we put the entrance farther south. In addition,
as you know, Saratoga Parkway curves here and we want to have line of
sight going this way so that cars coming around the curve are visible
to those exiting the area there. So, that is the basics of the site.
In terms of our layout of the site it was really guided by four
things. First it was guided by the commitments, which were made in 1994
when Saratoga was master planned and went through that process.
Generally speaking, and I won’t go through all of the details of the
residential commitments made in 1994, but basically what they require
is that all lots, whether they are two to four or single-family
residential two to three, that they be minimum 11,000 square foot lots.
That they have minimum widths of 70 feet and minimum front and rear
setbacks at 25 feet and such things as if it is a one-story dwelling,
it has a minimum of 1,500 square feet. If it is two-story, it has to
be 1,700 square feet. In addition, as Mr. Valanzano mentioned, along
the common boundary of Plainfield Manor we are required to plant five
trees per 100 feet, which there is about 1,000 feet. We have about 50
trees that we need to plant. Three of every five need to be
evergreens. So, that was the first thing that guided our layout of the
plat.
The second thing, of course, was your Subdivision Control
Ordinance. I will show you our original concept. The original concept
was to actually put a cul-de-sac in and not connect Lisa Lane. But the
more that we talked to the Town officials and fire officials and, of
course, reading your Subdivision Control Ordinance, which clearly
states that the stub streets should be connected and not have cul-desacs
like this. We agreed with Staff and Mr. Valanzano in particular
and fire officials and traffic officials that advised the commission
and said that we believe it is acceptable and perhaps even desirable to
make this connection. It is not something that we are wetted to. If
the consensus of the community and the commission is to have a cul-desac,
we are happy to do that. That was the way that we originally drew
up the plans.
We had a brief traffic study done, as Mr. Valanzano mentioned,
and it has been submitted to all of you. I apologize to you that you
got it today but that is sometimes the way things work. The back of
the envelope analysis by Chet Skwarcan with Traffic Engineering is a
very well respected traffic engineering company here in Hendricks
County. It was their opinion that based on the existing conditions and
the traffic flow in the area that this development would actually
lessen the traffic impact on Lisa Lane than increase them. That is
certainly open for interpretation but that was the opinion of a
professional traffic engineer.
The third thing that guided our development of this is the
residential design guidelines. We thought it was important. We think
it is a very good document and we think having brick or other masonry
material wrap buildings of a nice size, 1,700 square feet, something in
that range, would create a great product for the community and fit in
well. And it would enhance the Saratoga Subdivision that we have been
involved with for so long. We are trying to do our best to try to make
it a great place for Plainfield and for the greater Plainfield
community.
Lastly, what guided our development are the restrictive covenants
that we have in place for Saratoga and that we have in place for each
of the neighborhoods in Saratoga. So, with that background let me sort
of briefly go through the layout, as we have done it. I explained why
we did the entrance the way that we did. It is named Kenwood. This
road will be called Kenwood Way. This will be Lisa Way transitioning
to Lisa Lane here and that was at the request of Town Staff. Because of
the curve we needed to slightly rename it. We like the name Lisa Lane
and Lisa Way and since it would be confusing to rename that street so
that street remained that way. I also talk briefly about the
connection there and I’m certainly available to answer questions.
We are talking a lot about lot size and whether it is appropriate
for this community? In laying this out we had a big challenge given
the available connections and the size of the site. The difficulty was
we wanted to avoid, as made clear in your Subdivision Control
Ordinance, double frontage lots. We didn’t want to run the street
here. We had to put a row of houses here. We didn’t want double
loaded houses here. We wanted to have two houses fronting both
streets. We didn’t want a street fronting this nice amenity that you
worked hard to create along the pathway. So, when you add up the
numbers from here to here, the lot depths are maxed out. That is what
we have to work with. I suppose they could get a little wider but they
are 10 feet wider than required by the zoning commitments. I
personally live on an 80 x 120 lot and I think it is great.
But let me respond briefly to Staff’s comments about the adjacent
subdivisions and the appropriateness of the lot size. I will start
first with the obvious and that is Claymont. The lot sizes there are
4,000-5,000 square feet. This will, obviously, have a big impact on
this development so we have to transition. An 11,000 square foot lot
is a nice size lot. Being the developer of Saratoga we, of course, are
very proud of the work that we did at Saratoga Place and Homestead
Sections one and two. I would just like to briefly show you those to
show you that what we are proposing here is very much in concert with
what we have already done out at Saratoga and what is existing out
there.
I will start with Yorktown, which Ryland is currently working on
Saratoga Parkway. Of course, you know that it is this here. If you go
down the lots here, all of these lots are 11,000 square feet. These
are 12,000 square foot lots. These are all 11,000 square foot lots.
You get some bigger lots here and here and here just because of site
configuration. But the subdivision across the street is approximately
an 11,000 square foot lot subdivision. So, that is Yorktown.
Here are the two plats that we did for Homestead. They are
12,000 square foot lots and 11,000 square foot here. As Mr. Valanzano
said, as you get into the corner areas, it is more difficult to lay out
lots. There are always inefficiencies when you do cul-de-sacs and turns
and have odd shaped parcels as these clearly are. But again it is
residential two to four or it is approximately three dwelling units per
acre but less than that for these, as Mr. Valanzano mentioned. But
these homes, if you go out there and drive it, are precisely what we
are proposing for Kenwood. In addition to that you are going to have
your residential design guidelines, which require a very high quality
home to be placed on the lot.
Let me talk about Saratoga Place. It is a single-family zoned
subdivision but again look at the configuration of the site. There are
inefficiencies created by having to do a cul-de-sac and by having just
a very odd shaped subdivision. That explains much of the size rather
than sort of a deliberate attempt to keep large lot zoning north of the
other railroad right-of-way. It is just simply something that I
disagree with Staff on.
Let’s move down to Plainfield Manor, our neighbor to the north.
It is a 32-lot subdivision, seven of which, abut Kenwood. It is
County, as you know. It is not part of the Town of Plainfield. It is
on septic, which in part, creates the larger lots. Some of these lots
are almost 300 feet deep so really when you think about the depths of
these here, they are blessed by having neighbors that are 200-250-285
foot deep here so it is not like they would be right on top of each
other. In addition to that they will have a required tree barrier
between the two of them.
As Mr. Valanzano mentioned, we made this building line match so
that there is a smooth transition and really a seamless transition
between the two neighborhoods.
In Willow Pointe three lots abut Kenwood. If you fly spec your
plat in front of you, you will see that these lots are larger. We have
a 17,000 square foot lot here, a 14,000 square foot lot here. These two
can’t get any bigger unless we make it one lot because the main sewer
connection for the entire subdivision goes to this manhole here. So,
this is certainly not a buildable area here. So, these two lots lay
themselves out unless you are going to require that we create a 30,000
square foot lot or more, we are going to do these two lots. That’s
really two large lots and very good ones. This one here is 16,000 and
these two are 11,000. We did that here as well. We have larger lots
in these three here. As I explained earlier, these lots really lay
themselves out.
The last issue mentioned was the storm water. We have worked
with County staff and I will bring out our survey here. The survey
shows that there is an easement here. There was a drain tile and we
believe it was crushed. You often get pooling of water here as it runs
down here. We will remedy that by having catch basins, which will
catch the water that is currently coming down Lisa Lane and put it into
the pipe that runs down here. That is the plan for remedying the storm
water system. In addition to that we certainly have rear yard swales,
sub-surface drains to keep the water out of the sanitary lines so we
have sub-surface drains running all along to deal with drainage. So,
we believe we are making drainage in some respect better for Plainfield
Manor. In addition to that when you think about the water quality of
the Town, what is currently running through a field will now go into
these catch basins and there will be water quality devices installed in
the appropriate manholes so that water that is, in part, coming from
Plainfield Manor, the water will be improved. So, we are doing a
little part to help with the storm water quality. I should also
mention that we worked with the Town Engineer, Mr. Belcher, on direct
discharge into this pipe rather than having on site retention. Banning
Engineering is currently studying whether there is sufficient capacity.
We believe that there is. It is a 48-inch pipe in here so we are
confident that is the case but before any final plat is approved we
certainly need to have Mr. Belcher’s approval of that and the
appropriate studies to assure that. So, that is the condition that is
listed in the Staff Report and it is something that we certainly are
more than willing to agree with and necessary to do.
So, I’m available for any questions. We spent a lot of time
working on the details of this subdivision. We think it is a great
site. We think it will be a great amenity for the neighborhood and
make the Town better. We are really excited to get the ball rolling on
this site. With that I’m available for questions.
Mr. Haase said the catch basins are they just going to be in the
streets?
Mr. Harstad said there is a street catch basin here so water will
run down Lisa Lane here rather than getting bogged down in Plainfield.
Then as it goes here, I believe it is here that there will be a snout
and that is a water quality device, which filters out debris, etc. It
will enhance water quality. It is not something that we are just
doing. It is an IDEM rule five requirement.
Mr. Haase asked, are there any catch basins in the back yards?
Mr. Belcher said there are two different locations where that
storm pipe is extended. I believe this right here has sub-surface
drains coming to it, which is to Lisa Lane about one lot down to the
left. And then there is another one here about mid way on Lisa Lane
and the Plainfield Manor area. This connects through the current plan.
Both these pipes come to the site.
Mr. Haase asked, then where does that storm water flow to?
Mr. Belcher said it goes directly to White Lick Creek. There is
a 40-inch pipe underneath the trail system.
Mr. Haase said your cul-de-sac design would you put that back up
there. Can you tell me how many lots that contains?
Mr. Harstad said it has the exact same number lots, 39 lots. We
don’t lose a lot or pick up any lots. It is laid out pretty much the
same.
Mr. Haase said the trees that you are supposed to put along
Plainfield Manor is there any reason that we couldn’t get you to also
put those along Willow Pointe’s boundary?
Mr. Harstad said if that is what it takes, we will agree to that.
Willow Pointe just came along too. They could screen as well.
Mr. Haase said but they are existing.
Mr. Harstad said we have been here for 10 years. I don’t want to
be argumentative. We will agree to do that.
Mr. Haase said your development has been there but your
development prior to that was a school. This is a whole different
development.
Mr. Harstad said if that is something that the commission
desires, we can get that done.
Mr. Haase said I think that would be appropriate.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who has any
questions on this matter?
Mrs. Kristy Cooper and Sean Cooper said I live at 3696 Lisa Lane.
Mr. Haase asked, could you show us where that is in relationship
with this?
Mrs. Cooper said we are Lot 38. It is pretty clearly stated how
I have typed out what my concerns are. As far as the tree line that is
currently there, it is on the field. It is not on our property. We
bought our property in February knowing that it was supposed to be an
elementary school site and not a housing development. So, I really
liked the tree line when we bought the house. We were sheltered from
that field. I can stand in my second-story window and I still cannot
see that field. So, any planting that is done would be nice but it is
still not going to shed my view for what I have now. It will
definitely change the view from the back of my home.
The next concern about the trees, as I stated there, in Saratoga
Place there is a barrier fence that I have a picture of on the second
page of my pictures that you can see. There are no trees planted there
and it does clearly abut up to one of the homes in Plainfield Manor.
Most of the other homes backing up to Saratoga Place and Homestead for
the most part have trees. I have no idea who planted them but it is
clearly shown it was not followed through here on the tree provision
that was supposed to be followed. So, as a homeowner, I’m concerned
that everything can be on here and in the end there are no trees
planted and where do we stand? I want to make sure that when I go to
sell my home, someone’s house 10-15 years down the road doesn’t have
siding falling off of it and I can’t sell my home because of the way
the neighborhood looks. Most of the homes in Plainfield Manor are
mostly 50% to 100% brick, which I know cannot be accomplished with
these new homes but the fact that they are going to put masonry on the
front would be nice as well.
I had some concerns pop up. I was listening to some of the
speaking going on here. I’m definitely concerned about the connection
to Lisa Lane. At first I really didn’t have concerns but the more that
I thought about it I have a seven-year-old son who rides his bicycle on
the street because we have no sidewalks. We are not annexed into the
Town of Plainfield so I’m assuming that we are not going to be getting
sidewalks and as far as the traffic pattern, most traffic going to
family goes south but traffic going to Avon and Danville and the
Plainfield Aquatic Center will go north and go through Plainfield
Manor. It would make more sense to drive all the way to Saratoga
Parkway and around to CR350. So, I cannot say that I believe that the
traffic pattern will not increase in Lisa Lane because I think it will.
Therefore, being a County street who is going to maintain it? The
County will probably not like the fact that the housing addition that
is annexing into the Town of Plainfield is using our street and it is a
County street and not a Town.
Also, the lot sizes they are pretty much the same as what is
south of the bike path trail way but all of the homes that it abuts up
to most all of them are of a significant size so it does make sense
that they could be a little bigger. But I definitely like the idea of
the cul-de-sac better than the connection because we have to worry
about the safety of our kids. That is my most main concern.
Ms. Jennifer Cottrell at 3720 Lisa Lane said I have a petition to
present to the Council from all residents of Lisa Lane opposing the
connection of Lisa Way onto Lisa Lane. We all prefer the cul-de-sac.
I will give that to you. It contains signatures of all homeowners on
Lisa Lane. As Mrs. Cooper mentioned, we are very concerned about the
tree line in the back. I also have a very large stand of pines behind
my home that I could possibly lose out of this and knowing that this
was going to be a school designated property when I moved there almost
five years ago was one of the reasons that we also moved there. You
will find that there are many retirees that have lived there since that
neighborhood was built and many new families that have come in within
the last five years moved there because it was a dead-end street.
There are many more children on that street there today that are not
going to be safe. We have walkers with no sidewalks. It is out of our
way to come around through Saratoga Parkway to go into Town.
Also, most of the neighboring subdivisions only have one way in
and out of them for safety reasons. So, again that is another reason we
would like for the cul-de-sac to be there. We definitely would like to
see the tree barriers there. We are very concerned about the size of
the lots because the size of the lot is very consistent with what is
attaching to our property values and many of us are very concerned that
the property values will decrease because of the type of housing mix to
us is inconsistent. I’ve been told a lot of things that were promised
with other Saratoga subdivisions were not followed through and many of
you know that those houses are falling apart. They cannot be sold.
Many of them are for sale and many of them are in foreclosure and
repossession at this time.
So, we are very concerned about that and also with the drainage
issues. We want to make sure that there are sufficient catch basins
and drainage along the back line along Plainfield Manor. A lot of
water stands in the back because that field tile has been crushed.
Mr. Haase asked, could you show us where you are on this map?
Does it abut this subdivision?
Ms. Cottrell said yes. I live in Lot 35.
Ms. Petronella Shirels said I built a house back in 1975. I’ve
lived there for 30 years. We had a dirt road and I was promised once
upon a time that there was not going to be a school built but a
library. Then it changed to a school. Then when Saratoga built, they
promised that they would put a berm with nice ferns between the house
behind me on Lot 22 and ours, which was never done. All we got was a
cheap rail fence. I don’t think it is fair. The homeowner behind my
lot has a drain coming out of his house. It is a pipe. I have been
told that is from the water softener. It is not connected to the
ground. It just runs in his yard. It has eroded. The dirt there and
the water pools there. I’m not in very good health. I called the
health department because water was pooling there and I was concerned
about the mosquitoes. Their reply says, “That’s the way that they do
in Saratoga, they just let the water drain in their backyard. If you
see mosquitoes, call us and we will spray.” I sure don’t want to see
that now because I don’t have any confidence in the Saratoga people
period because we have been told too many stories. They have not
followed through.
Mr. Rick Glen at 700 Christian Ct., Willow Pointe said I have a
piece of property on the west end that abuts the east end of this
proposal. One of the reasons that I bought the lot, actually I have
two lots, at the time because I was told this would not be developed.
I have seen quite a bit of Saratoga. A lot of what is built there is
sub standard in my opinion. I don’t think what you are going to find
in something like this, as the gentleman stated, would be of benefit to
any neighborhood. The developers have already factored in the cost of
this land when they were originally going to give it to the school
system. To me I think, if we want to do something that is right with
this piece of ground, how about we give it to the Town and let the Town
do something with it. The cost of this, the developers have already
taken care of. When they did their entire development, they realized
what they were doing. This was something that they presented, I
believe at the time, as an inducement to get the Town to go along.
There is no purpose in taking away something that they really never
figured on in the first place. Let’s just do something right and not
put this subdivision in.
Mr. Bill Thomas at 704 Christian Ct., Willow Pointe, Lot 27 said
I agree with the thoughts of Mr. Glen wholeheartedly but I just wanted
to state some facts for the council. If you look at the two
subdivisions directly adjacent to Kenwood and that is Plainfield Manor
and Willow Pointe, as was stated earlier, the smallest lot in
Plainfield Manor is 17,000 square feet. The smallest lot in Willow
Pointe is 17,000 square feet. If you look at Kenwood, out of the 39
lots, there is one lot greater than 17,000 square feet. There are nine
lots greater than 12,500 feet, which leaves 30 lots less than 12,500
feet. Claymont, I believe, is the name of the other subdivision, but
the two real subdivisions affected by this subdivision are Plainfield
Manor and Willow Pointe and the facts are the facts. While yes I agree
with Mr. Glen from a first priority standpoint if that is not going to
happen, we ought to at least look at lot sizes adjacent to the lot
sizes in the other two subdivisions.
Mr. Larry Hill at 3659 Lisa Lane said I wasn’t going to say a
word this evening but I hear a lot of lawyer talk, development talk and
I hear a lot of average citizens like myself trying to give you a
message. I think the number of people that showed up tonight should
present a real message. The only thing that I’m going to ask this
board is to do the moral and prudent thing involved here. I am one who
has not lived there since the addition was formed. The reasons that I
did move in there was because it was a dead-end street with a little
amount of traffic. It was safe for children to play and as someone
else has already spoken, there are no sidewalks so basically the kids
have to ride their bikes in the driveways if they are paved and not
gravel, or in the street. I understand that they claim to have had a
professional traffic study people. If you live there, you know better.
My children, who do not live with me but live with their mother, live
in Claymont. If they ride their bikes across that field that the
school is supposed to be, it is five blocks. If I drive around there,
it is a mile. So, everybody in this addition is going to come right
down Lisa Lane. If you approve this, that means we are going to have
two to three times, at least, the amount of traffic than we have now up
and down that street. We are going to have a longer period of time to
gain speed as they come by my house, which is in the middle of the
area. You are asking us to concede that and some privacy of living on
the dead-end street and you are still not going to give us sewers or
water or any other advantages of being in the City. Right now we are
serviced by the Plainfield Fire Department but if we need the police
out there, we have to call the Hendricks County Sheriff and they may be
there in two minutes or they may be there in two days. I realize that
is an aggregation but I’m trying to make a point and I think you need
to pay attention to these people. Fortunately, I’m not going to be
there too awfully much longer. My plant is being closed down. I work
at Chrysler and I’m afraid I’m going to be moving out of State but I’ve
enjoyed having the solitude and the safety for my kids to play there
and I think the people who are buying my house have that same
privilege. So, if you are not willing to spend the money for sewers,
water, police protection, all the things that the Town of Plainfield
affords us, then don’t ask us to take all of the traffic and all of the
evasion of privacy. Do the moral and prudent thing and if you want to
build this addition and you want to approve that, I understand
progress. But they have as many lots to sell if they make it a cul-desac
as they do if they connect it to Lisa Lane. I’ve talked to quite a
few of the people behind me and my name is on the petition and I think
the high majority of them only want to stop the traffic and that is
their main concern.
Mr. Larry Brozek at 3628 Lisa Lane said just this afternoon I
purchased Mr. Hill’s house at 3659 Lisa Lane. My main concern is the
connection of Lisa Lane to Lisa Way. I have no young children myself.
I have two grown sons who maybe one of these days will produce some
young children that will run around the street. Like my neighbor right
there his kids go running out in the street and there is no real
concern about somebody clobbering them because they come down most of
the time at a reasonable speed. That is my main point.
Mr. Larry West at 3699 Lisa Lane said I’ve been in heavy
construction for 42 years next month. When the other gentleman
mentioned about we had no sewers or no water or no storm sewers I don’t
want them. Because for every foot you go in the ground you go three
foot wide and to put a sanitary into Lisa Lane, if ever, you will take
every tree out on both sides of the street because you can’t do it in a
50-foot easement. I’ve worked on these jobs for years.
Secondly, the sidewalks, I don’t want sidewalks. I don’t want
nothing to do with Plainfield. I like it the way that it is. We
bought there because it is quiet. I’m getting ready to spend an extra
$20,000.00 on 3699 Lisa Lane and all you have to do is turn off U.S. 40
and go north and the first thing that you see is cracker boxes jammed
together and fronts doors on the side because there is no room on the
front. I really don’t know of anybody that would want one of those
things. I personally don’t even want them built back there and they
are across the street from the neighbors that are going to have them
back there. I think you could find something else to do with that 13
acres. Run hogs in there, anything. I have a bad attitude and I’m
sorry. I’m trying to be nice. I come from a four-letter world and
that usually gets people’s attention. It also gets me thrown out but
this whole thing I don’t know a lot of people on Lisa Lane. I sort of
stay to myself. I work 80 hours a week but I don’t want anything to do
with City limits. I don’t want anything to do with ever be taken into
the City. I would just assume burn my house down. It’s not worth it.
Developers, we’ve moved a lot of dirt building apartment complexes,
housing developments for Milestone, etc. and all they are about is
money. That’s what it is all about. Money makes the world go around.
I’m sure that is why Plainfield has annexed that because they want the
tax money, which is fine but leave us alone. Instead of planting trees
put a 12-foot fence up, solid across the back. That was mentioned once
before from the people that I have talked to but now it turned into a
couple of trees. Trees aren’t good enough. Separate them. Why should
our property go down to cracker boxes? They can’t sell the ones that
are for sale down there now. Nobody wants them. They are rentals. A
lot of them are rentals. We have talked to many realtors that will
testify of that. They told us that it turns into a rental community.
Why do we want another one? For other than a nicer word I don’t want
any minorities out there. My wife tells me I’m politically incorrect.
I am because I can be. I don’t want to see a change. I don’t like
change. I like Lisa “Lake.” That is my water gauge. When it gets to
my driveway, we have an inch and a half rain. Leave it alone. I would
rather it be a gravel road than paved. I don’t want nothing done to it
and that’s why these people are here. If they want a cul-de-sac, give
up two lots and make a complete turn around. You don’t need a cul-desac.
So, let the fire marshal talk about that, if they talk to him
because the other thing developers, to me, are like used car salesmen
when their lips are moving, they are lying and I’m sure his lips were
moving.
Ms. Jill Vietor at 3736 Lisa Lane, Lot 34 said if you notice,
most of the lots that they are proposing that abuts up to Plainfield
Manor, most of these people, will have a neighbor to the building
behind them. My lot will have three. So, I guess my issue with this
whole proposal, one of the issues, is the density of this. I live on a
half-acre lot. I have to mow my yard with a riding lawnmower and most
of the people on Lisa Lane have to. Not all of them do. I think most
of them have riding lawnmowers because the lot is big enough because we
need them and we like it that way. I just would hope that
consideration would be given to increasing the lot sizes in this
proposal.
Ms. Shirley O’Conner at 3612 Lisa Lane, Lot 36 said we bought
that lot in 1976. We have raised our kids. The house is paid for and
we have remodeled it and keep it well taken care of. We reasonably
landscape. If this land was originally set aside for the school, why
can’t it be set aside for a park? We have the water park. We have the
trail. What’s wrong with a nice, good park for all of those kids in
the other community? My kids are grown. Sometimes the grandkids come
over. They ride their bikes in the street because we know it is a
dead-end street but there is no reason we can’t have that as a park.
Thirteen acres is not a large amount of land. It is too small for a
school. A nice park, especially with a water park there, I think would
really be nice. There is no park on that side of Town. There is
nothing for the kids to do on that side of Town. If they have to put
the houses in, he is saying either a cul-de-sac or tying it to Lisa
Lane. Have they considered a big “U” shape thing in there? You don’t
have a cul-de-sac so the fire department doesn’t have to turn around on
it but if it is just a big “U” shape area, you can come right back out
and it still gives the fire department plenty of room.
Mr. Tim Cottrell said my wife spoke earlier. We are on Lot 36. I
just have a quick question for the developer. Most of the surrounding
communities at Saratoga are built only one-way in and out and they also
have cul-de-sacs. I noticed tonight when he put up his map of the new
one they just started, it has a cul-de-sac so why does the fire marshal
not have a problem with that one but they have a problem with the one
behind our homes? I would just like for him to address that or maybe
the fire marshal.
Ms. Pat Mitchell said I live in Willow Pointe, Lot 9. There has
been a lot of discussion and I guess I’m not as negative on Saratoga as
a lot of people are probably because I haven’t experienced some of the
particular things that a lot of the people in the audience have
experienced. I personally believe that it provides for some housing
that was suitable and has been well used in Plainfield, parts of it. I
also believe that there are parts of it that are completely below the
standard of what I always have thought of Plainfield for the last 30
years. I think any of you who live here have to admit to yourself that
you wouldn’t want to live next-door to Claymont. We are comparing
things that we are putting in and we are acting like it is a big deal
that we have lots that we are going to put in that are larger than
Claymont. I would hope to shout that we would have lots larger than
Claymont. The gentleman says he lives on a lot that is 80 x 120 that
is fine. He chose to do that. We chose people that lived around to
have the 17,000 square foot lots. I don’t think mine is quite that big
in Willow Pointe but it is plenty big and I did think there was going
to be a school behind my subdivision when I bought my lot. I don’t
know that particularly 13 acres has already been allocated throughout
the other Saratoga and the cost provided or not. It might be naive of
us to think it can be used for some kind of a Town project. But is it
out of reason for us to ask that we not have anything similar to what
some of the Saratoga product already is? For example, when I heard the
gentleman indicate that we were going to have masonry wrap, I don’t
think that is what he meant. Maybe I misunderstood what he said but
does he mean masonry wrap or does he mean masonry on the front? What
does he mean by that and could we, as a council, ask that the homes be
upgraded so that they do have masonry wrapped and we could not talk in
averages as far as the lot sizes are concerned? When you look at the
lots that border Willow Pointe he may talk about averages but the point
is there are two of those lots that are 11,000 square feet up against
lots that are 17,000 or more square feet. So, that makes no sense
whatsoever. So, I think we have to get away from talking about averages
and look at where it really touches Plainfield Manor and Willow Pointe
and then look at the quality of the homes that we want to put into that
subdivision. So, that Plainfield can be proud of it, not just now but
10 years from now or 15 years from now and not look back at something
in the way of Claymont.
Mr. Eddie O’Conner said my wife was up here a while ago. I
believe it is Lot 36. We have been out there, like she said, since
1976. When Saratoga first came in, they came out and they told us, “We
are going to put privacy and separate you people.” The most we have
seen is two of the people. You say you are going to block the privacy
and stuff off. The way I understand it when the lot sold, people have
to put three trees on the lot and not five. Am I not correct? Ever
since Saratoga has come in, they have lied to us. We were supposed to
have like a little pantry off of U.S. 40. One of the other gentlemen
said cracker boxes up there. Have you gone through Saratoga lately?
You see the siding coming off of houses. It is buckling. They are
junk. When we built out there in 1976, zoning rules were you had to
have complete brick on your house. We did. My brick is not coming
off. It is been out there since 1976. These have only been out there
in the last five years and they are falling apart. I can’t see where
they are going to be helping us any. They are going to be depreciating
our house. I don’t know the aerial view here. I don’t know who drew
the lines on here. They are showing the tress kind of on our property.
According to the survey stakes that somebody has come out and put up
the trees are on the other side of the black line. So, they are going
to take them out. I’m sure they are going to take them out. So, are
they going to put just a privacy thing up or a couple of trees or like
I said some of the people haven’t even done that.
Ms. Julie Beck at 708 Christian Ct. said I directly abut up
against this neighborhood. It’s in Willow Pointe, Lot 29 I think it
is. It is one of these lots over here. I’m probably not going to say
anything that somebody else hasn’t already said but I just wanted to be
heard. We bought our lot in 2003 and we bought it thinking that it was
going to be a school. I believe that if Plainfield is not going to put
a school there, I would like to see some other community resource that
we all can use like a park or whatnot. Should the board decide to
rezone it as a neighborhood, I would like to see the lot sizes doubled
so that there are 15 lots in the neighborhood and not 40. Until you
mentioned it they hadn’t talked about having a buffer along the back of
this row of houses that abut up to our neighborhood. I don’t like the
idea that they don’t have that plan put in there. Some large trees or
maybe take those lots out and put a neighborhood park in there.
Mr. Haase said we’ve had quite a few come up so I’m going to let
the petitioner come back up and address some of the issues. I would
appreciate it if we would listen to what he has to say. If there is
someone else who wants to come up and speak after he is done, we will
allow that but only bring up new issues or slight clarifications to
what he has already answered.
Mr. Harstad said I just want to again thank the commission. We
worked extremely hard on this proposal. We think it is a terrific
proposal. We think it will be a nice addition to Saratoga. We think
the density is appropriate and we think your Subdivision Control
Ordinance and the guidelines that you have worked so hard on will
address many of these issues.
Let me address specifically some of the issues. Generally, as
you know, I’m sure you have done a lot of land use work in your careers
and when there is ever an unknown, it is very easy to envision a parade
of horrible low-quality verses high-quality development. We have taken
the time and effort to deliver a good product and that is certainly our
goal.
Regarding lot sizes I guess I just want to reiterate that it is
difficult to conceptualize in your head an 11,000 square foot lot. It
would be great to take everyone on a bus and look at 11,000 square foot
lots. These are big lots. They are twice the size that is at Claymont
and unlike one that a remonstrator mentioned. They are very large
lots. They are great for raising families on and provide plenty of
room for a minimum 1,700-foot two-story house, a large house. So,
super-sizing lots don’t necessarily create quality. It also is
inefficient. The Town has spent a lot of time installing sewers, etc.
and sprawl is something that we are trying to avoid here. We want to
efficiently use the land and the facilities that have been built at
Saratoga.
Traffic is also certainly an issue. We have worked closely with
Staff and we have come to agree with Staff that the connection is a
good thing. If the commission disagrees, we will go back to the
drawing board and use a cul-de-sac. But we request approval as drawn
with the connection to specifically the motions proposed by Staff. If
you go to RZ-05-010, we request approval of that with the exception of
statement one, the large lot size.
One last thing about lot sizes I mentioned this issue that we
have here. Do you want double frontage lots? The answer is no. It is
bad planning. We could make them wider I suppose but what does that
really accomplish? It is the setbacks at Willow Pointe and with
Plainfield Manor that I think that people are most concerned about.
Making the lots wider really will not be affective. Lots are in
conformance with a well-planned set of commitments that were agreed to
when this community was master planned and we think it is a good plan.
Regarding PP-05-007 we urge your approval and are agreeable to
all five conditions.
One gentleman asked about the fire so just a very brief
clarification what the Subdivision Ordinance says is once you get over
a certain number of lots you can either provide two points of access to
a subdivision or you can provide a boulevard entrance. Basically put a
landscaped area to provide basically two roads. To address the
gentleman’s question that is why it is drawn this way and how the fire
marshal addresses these issues.
Lastly, regarding trees we will do everything we can to save
every tree we possibly can. If we didn’t believe that, we would have
taken these trees down 10 years ago or 10 months ago. It is our land.
We are free to do with it whatever we want so we preserved these trees
because we want to preserve every tree we possibly can. As the
gentleman, Larry West, mentioned we have sub-surface drains that will
go in and inevitably he mentioned a six-inch pipe requires a trench
that is wider than six inches. It is possible that we will have to
remove some trees when we do that. We will do everything we can to
avoid it. We want to preserve as many trees as we can but some are
going to come down regardless of what happens. Here this lot we get
into a building pad area so some of those trees will have to come down.
There have been some comments, which some were fine and some were not
but if you do want to characterize a developer as someone who is
motivated by money, a lot of trees are more valuable. We want to
preserve everything that we can.
Mr. McPhail said your commitment on building standards, are you
saying that you will meet the basic building standards?
Mr. Harstad said sections two and seven of your residential
design guidelines we will agree to abide by or as an alternative,
provide a separate set of guidelines that will first have to come
before the Plan Commission.
Mr. McPhail said the basic standards in the building guidelines
are 1,700 square feet and all brick wrap on the first story. Is that
what you are committing to?
Mr. Harstad said yes sir.
Mr. Haase said it was an all brick wrap on the first story all
the way around and a minimum of 1,700 square feet.
Mr. Harstad said it says the exterior walls of a single-story
residence should contain a minimum of 85% brick or stone veneer
exclusive of windows and doors. We are agreeable to that.
Lady from the audience asked, 85% of both stories.
Mr. Harstad said that is correct.
Mr. Haase asked, 85% of what?
Mr. Harstad said I’m just reading your design guidelines.
Mr. Haase asked, is that on the single-family?
Mr. Harstad said it is a one-story building. A two-story
building the exterior walls shall have 100% of the first floor covered
exclusive of windows and doors.
Mr. Haase said the two-story would have 100% on the first floor.
Mr. Harstad said correct.
Mr. Haase said or a one-story building would have 85%.
Mr. Harstad said correct.
Mr. Haase said there were a couple of questions on drainage and I
believe Mr. Valanzano said the County and the Town of Plainfield would
both have to work together to make sure the drainage is actually
improved and particularly not worsened. So, there would be a joint
effort to make sure that happens before any further development could
occur on this property.
Mr. Valanzano said there are two easements that run through the
property along the north property line from the end of Lisa Lane off to
approximately this location and then down through here. With those in
place that’s going to affect quite a few lots that would be nonbuildable.
So, they really need to vacate that easement in order to
make those lots work for them. The County has indicated that they are
not going to vacate those lots until they are sure the drainage plans
with the Town are properly taken care of and designed to accommodate
all of the drainage needs in the area.
Mr. Haase said so the developer and the Town’s engineer have to
satisfy the County. That probably takes care of the drainage issue.
The drainage should improve substantially. There have been some
questions of this always being a proposed school lot. I know since the
development has occurred it was proposed to be given to the school
system. The school system has decided not to use it and that is why we
are here tonight. The developer wanted to have the ability that if this
was not to be used by the school system, that we would review it for
some other type of development. Rather than just granting him the
right to do that I know the Plan Commission required him to come back
in for a public hearing. We were looking forward at that time. We
could have just let that happen as redevelopment without a public
hearing. We didn’t feel that was fair to the Town nor adjacent
citizens.
On the comment I would look to the planning department that
irregardless to what happens here to check out that density along the
back property line. To make sure the trees that were supposed to be
put in have been put in and maintained and Lot 22 in Lisa Lane, Ms.
Shirels has a surface water issue and if we could look into that from
the lot behind her to make sure everything is going well and get in
touch with her to let her know what is going on. That is what I got
out of that that we need to address as a Town.
As far as the park issues go, that actually would be a Town
Council issue. So, that is where those issues would be sent as well as
sidewalks and sewer and water, which we would have to bypass Mr. West’s
property to get that put in.
Mr. Brandgard said we heard a couple of comments relative to Town
amenities, etc. If you were in the Town, you would have those
amenities available to you. If you want water and sewer, you put that
in. We don’t automatically put that in. The street is a problem but
it is not a problem that the Town can solve. As far as the condition of
Lisa Lane, that would have to be a County project. With that said when
we were moving the dirt for the aquatic center on CR350 it kind of tore
the road up but we went back in and repaired it and brought it up to a
higher standard than it has ever been. That is because we helped tear
it up and we put it back and it is a County road.
Who is the builder going to be out there? We heard a lot of
comment about the quality of what has been built out there thinking
this is what is going to go on this property. Do we know who the
builder is?
Mr. Harstad said at this time no we don’t.
Mr. Brandgard said on Lisa Lane, it being a dead-end, I suspect
the County required it to be a dead-end so if something developed south
of it, it could be connected. We require that generally of developers
for the same reason. It is a safety issue for the fire department and
the police department so that you have more than one way in and out of
the area, if it can be done that way.
Mr. Tim Cottrell said the neighborhood they just started last
month he just showed, it’s right here, only one way in and one way out.
Most of the neighborhood that Saratoga has built is one way in and one
way out. Why is ours being attached to this one? I don’t understand.
Mr. Brandgard said as I said, where possible, you try and do an
area where you have more than one way in and out or you have a loop
system or road where you come in here and you loop around and come out
the same place but it is separated. You have a lane in with a
separation and a lane out. So, it helps fulfill the same where if
something happens, you still have more than one way in and out.
Mr. Cottrell asked, why couldn’t they do this with theirs instead
of running down our street? You are talking about 100-foot of asphalt
at the beginning of this new area verses coming down our street and
endangering our children. The Town of Plainfield is not going to help
pay to fix our street. We already have trouble getting Hendricks
County to take care of our street. They come and do lousy patch jobs.
You’ve heard all the comments on the flooding that we have on our
street and you bring these extra cars down our street and I guarantee
you, nobody is going to go through this neighborhood, it is faster to
go out the other way for us. These cars are going to start going
through our neighborhood to get to Avon and to all the shops in Avon
going to work north. They are going to help put extra stress on our
roads that we are already having trouble with Hendricks County taking
care of. None of us want it.
Mr. Brandgard said I understand your argument.
Mr. Ed O’Conner said for your comment on the dead-end down there
it used to be a cul-de-sac down there. It is adjacent to the end of
the drive for the school buses to come down and turn around. A farmer
decided he didn’t want to lift his plows up and go around and he plowed
right on down through it. I know because I worked for him. I wasn’t
the one who plowed them, he was but I do know he did that. The same
way with the natural drainage ditch we had. The County said okay you
have to put the natural ditch in and he runs a six-inch tile out there
and that’s it. We don’t have anything. The County keeps telling us we
aren’t going to do anything until Plainfield does something. That is
the reason over the years we have always had trouble with water out
there. A six-inch tile does not take care of all the water out there
plus two coming in off the field. So, they came out and they have
redone it and re-dug it out and trenched it out and it is a lot better
now. But they also did a little bit of rework on everything. But I
have a hole in the back of my yard that has tile down it and I have
three tiles that come into it. A roadwork sign is laying on top of it
flipped upside down and that is what the County has done for us. They
are not going to do anything until you guys do anything according to
them. There was originally I think somebody said there are two lots
17,000 square feet, those are two lots that was probably off of Lisa
Lane. There were like two or three lots that never were sold. How
they ended up in Saratoga I don’t know because they were originally
Plainfield Manor.
Ms. Charlene Whitfield at 3715 Lisa Lane said I’ve lived there
for over 25 years. We like it because it is quiet. I understand you
can’t always prevent development but most of us went through the first
Saratoga meetings. I apologize for the snickering and things. I have
pictures of the water problems we have. I know Saratoga put in sewers
and I know they have, whatever those big ponds are called that look
like big punchbowls, but I have pictures if you want to see our street
after it rains. I think that if they developed it and developed it
nicely in accordance to Willow Pointe, some custom homes, nobody would
be upset. I don’t know necessarily that we need to hook onto Lisa Way.
I just feel like we need a voice in what happens to where we live.
Mr. Brian Marsh at 3701 Lisa Lane said one of the things that has
caught my attention is the first gentleman that spoke said something
about they were going to discourage new traffic from coming down Lisa
Lane. I would like to get a little clarification on that whether there
would be discouraging signs. I’m not sure what that means. As far as
continuity, if they connect the streets, there is no possible way that
it would be seamless. It is a totally different type of construction.
There is no doubt in mind there is no way you could blend a 30-year old
neighborhood with brand new homes. It is not going to match up. Most
of the people out here tonight probably it depends on your prospective.
Some people don’t want it at all. It probably depends on whether your
property adjoins or not. But for the most part if it didn’t connect to
Lisa Lane, there would probably be a lot less opposition, in my
opinion. And as for the gentleman who spoke earlier as far as he
suggested eloquently that maybe people were reacting a little bit
hysterically to the unknown, I would suggest that if they are reacting
hysterically, it is because of what is already around them.
Mr. Charles Rohrer at 3693 Lisa Lane said I’m right across the
street from the O’Conner’s. Ever since the development started in
Saratoga there has been a sign up there on the 13 acres, however much
it is, advertising that it was set aside for public use. If it is used
for anything else but public use, there is an issue of false
advertising. I don’t know if anybody has thought of that or not. You
have heard of several people here tonight that bought their homes in
Lisa Lane and in Willow Pointe because of that sign that says that
property was set aside for public use. I’m sure that there are several
people in Saratoga itself that bought their property because of that
sign that said that the property was set aside for public use. If it
is used for anything else but public use, there is an issue of false
advertising. Keep that in mind when you do your decisions.
Ms. Paula West at 3699 Lisa Lane said the first comment that I
have is I did not know how eloquent people could be when their homes
are threatened and our homes are threatened. Our peace, our quiet is
threatened, our safety is threatened and I wanted to say that to
emphasize to the commissioners that when you buy a home, as you
probably know, you buy for safety, you buy for the neighborhood and you
buy for what you want. When you propose running a road through our
subdivision, our little street, you have changed the complete nature of
where we live. Another point I had was we talked briefly about the
sub-standard housing that is behind us and all around us except for one
side. I’m a nurse practitioner and I have several clients who have had
their houses foreclosed on in those crummy cracker boxes. I would hope
that this Town would not want another issue like that. This is not a
crummy Town. This is a wonderful little Town and I like the County and
I like living here but I have actually, since I saw that map, talked to
my husband about selling our house and I don’t want to move. Moving is
horrible but I do not want to live in a sub-standard and unsafe
community.
Mrs. Cooper said the residential design guidelines that Dave
Harstad just let me look at, when were those put into place?
Mr. Haase said 2003. I don’t know the month.
Mrs. Cooper asked, when was Saratoga Place built?
Mr. Haase said before that.
Mr. Brandgard said those guidelines were put in place to preclude
the type of homes that we have out there in Claymont particularly.
Mr. Haase said the residential design guidelines were worked on
by the Plan Commission. We learned a lot about the thickness of vinyl.
This is about the highest standard that we make in the industry. The
standards have been increased and are above and beyond what Claymont
is. It is not to pick on Claymont but Westmere also brought these
guidelines about and we have substantially increased our standards and
they are agreeing to do the development to the higher standards that
the Town has asked them to do. The brick wraps, as we discussed
earlier, are a huge indication that it would not be like the Claymont
Subdivision.
Mr. McPhail said the basic building standards that they committed
to will very well meet the standards of all the homes on Lisa Lane.
They are 1,700 square foot with a large size garage and 85% brick on
the first floor. That very well meets the standards of the homes that
you live in. If they elect not to do that and there are alternates to
that basic building standards, then we start talking about the vinyl
and all of those other things. A two-car garage has to be 484 square
foot of usable garage space. Those types of homes with the basic
building standards will meet the quality of homes that you folks live
in. If they elect not to do that, which they haven’t, I think they
tried to leave the door open on that, there are a lot of requirements
in terms of vinyl and design guidelines beyond that that were not in
affect when the current homes were built. I feel confident with the
commitment that they made tonight that the quality of the homes should
not be an issue.
Mr. Kirchoff said I would agree with that. The concern that I
had, as I look at this map and the comments that we have made tonight,
this is somewhat a transition area in Claymont, which we all sit here
and say if we had to do it over, we wouldn’t be doing that. It is
adjacent to two nice neighborhoods with much larger lot sizes. So, my
struggle is how do we help this transition area not devalue or be
negative to the two neighborhoods? I’m not sure how to do that. I
have a concern about density. I have a concern about lot size. I do
not have a concern about building standards. I think we have taken
steps to take care of that. This is a location that is somewhat of a
transition area and if someone could help us think about how we do
that, I think we can make this a good project and protect the two nice
neighborhoods that are adjoining that.
Mr. McPhail said I agree and I think there is a very natural
barrier and boundary between Claymont and this development. The trail
is there. There is a natural barrier and that should have a lot less
consideration than transitioning to the other two neighborhoods. I,
too, am very much concerned about lot size. Our R-2 Residential
District is a 15,000 square foot minimum lot. Then you go down from
there and that is a little bit smaller than adjoining property owners
but Willow Pointe is an R-2 development. Their lots could go down to
15,000 square feet and there are probably some close to that, I don’t
know, but that is a standard that we have established and I believe
that is different than it was in 1994. I read the minutes of the 1994
Plan Commission when this PUD was approved. Mr. Haase is absolutely
correct, the school site was discussed and it was discussed that if the
school did not go there, they had the right to come in and ask for a
rezoning. That is well recorded in the minutes. One thing that I
could not find in reviewing those minutes was any discussion in
connection of Lisa Lane in the future. There was a lot of discussion
about folks from Lisa Lane and lot sizes and building quality and all
of that but I could find nothing that discussed the connection of the
roadway, which surprised me a little bit.
Mr. Haase said I think the Saratoga people actually thought it
was going to be a school site. I think they genuinely stepped forward
for the Town of Plainfield and really thought that would be a good
thing for this community with the number of children involved in the
development that would almost fill the school there. So, they never
actually anticipated in coming back in tonight.
Mr. McPhail said I believe the original layout of Lisa Lane there
are two roads that are stubbed there. So, it appears at one time there
were plans to expand that particular subdivision. I have a lot of
mixed concerns about the connectivity of that road. I certainly
understand the peace and quiet and the increased traffic. I also look
at it from a public safety standpoint and although you folks are not in
the Town limits the Town has an interlocal agreement with all the other
agencies in the County and in an emergency the Town of Plainfield is
probably going to be the first responder. If you don’t have an
emergency, you are going to wait for the County’s response but if you
have a real emergency, we are probably going to be there first. And
that is certainly a concern from the fire department and they have
expressed that concern. There are two sides to the issue on the road.
Mr. Brandgard said when talking about lot size, especially
looking at the surrounding on the east and the north, my simple
calculation says if you gave up three lots, you would have lots almost
the same size that is what is around it. But again the comment was
made about trying on the south side to have those smaller because of
the Claymont. I think the path and in there is enough separation where
that is not that big of an issue. The issue of connecting up with Lisa
Lane I am somewhat concerned because of the state of that road. The
County is probably not going to do anything about that until it becomes
part of the Town, if it ever becomes part of the Town. That is
typically the way that it works. We just saw some pictures of water on
the road. I don’t believe the water on the road has been directly
caused by Saratoga. Anything on Saratoga you would see a problem in
your back yard and not in your front yard. I think the major problem
there is there was never a good storm drain put in there to take that
water out. The problems that were mentioned in the farm field, which
is the area that we are talking about, has probably contributed to that
some. I guess at this point and time, as much as I think connecting
Lisa Lane is the proper thing to do from the community’s standpoint, I
think putting a loop road in there coming out, if that fits the
ordinances, is probably the best way to go there. Really I would like
to see this go back and have it re-looked at. Larger lots generally
generate a higher level of house than a smaller lot although that is
not entirely true because if you look in Carmel, you will see some
expensive houses on very small lots. It is more a case of what the lot
cost but at the same time I think when you look at this area the way
that it is positioned, I think a lot better can be done there.
Mr. Haase said I have some issues with the lot size. I think it
should echo the Saratoga Place lot sizes. They seem to be
substantially larger than what we are dealing with here, maybe not but
I think they ought to replicate the Plainfield Manor and Willow Pointe
lot sizes a little more closely. As far as connecting to Lisa Lane, I
think it should be done. I think in time these folks would like it. I
understand tonight why they don’t want it done. At some point and time
if and when Plainfield Manor gets brought into the Town, it would be
advantageous just to everything for those to be connected. With that
said I think a cul-de-sac development probably could be built here with
the cul-de-sac bordering and then a permanent barrier put in until at
which time 10-20 years then a connection could be made at that time
when it was wanted by both parties. So, I think we should still design
it to happen but just not today. That is kind of where I am.
Ms. Whicker said in reviewing the density and where the
petitioner had mentioned a sewer connection had prevented a larger lot
due to the fact that it would create a 30,000 square foot lot and there
was a lot of talk about public use. Perhaps where there might be such
a sewer connection preventing a placement of a home, there could
perhaps be a common ground area that could be used by those that lived
there. That would help making the lots bigger without having to look
at that sewer connection as a boundary for a lot line.
Mr. Harstad said we would be happy to take another look at it if
the commission thinks it is a good idea. I think it is appropriate to
move on the rezone request. I would respectfully ask that you move
that forward striking condition number one. And any other concerns
that you have about lot sizes can be addressed through the primary.
Mr. Haase said to notify the audience and members here tonight
we, as a Plan Commission, do not rezone property. We bring it before a
public hearing to make a recommendation to the Town Council for them to
do the rezoning. So, no rezoning will be done here tonight but merely
a recommendation to the Town Council either with a favorable,
unfavorable or no recommendation. I’m going to guess at the next Town
Council meeting, which would be next Monday; they will act upon the
rezoning request. Mr. Brandgard doesn’t that take two meetings and two
votes?
Mr. Brandgard said three.
Mr. Haase said so it would actually take three meetings of the
Town Council to finalize the rezoning of this property. The Town
Council meets on the second and fourth Mondays of every month.
Mr. McPhail said it is a pretty short window to get it to the
next Council meeting.
Mr. Carlucci said it probably wouldn’t get there Monday anyway.
Mr. Haase said the rezoning probably wouldn’t be complete until
October to just kind of let you know.
Mr. Brandgard said I know that the petitioner wanted to separate
the two items and just go with the rezoning but since these two are
kind of connected together I would rather not have them disconnected.
He has requested a rezoning here and then he has come back with a
primary plat that fits the rezoning. I would like to see what his new
primary plat is before we rezone it.
Mr. Haase said if he wants to go forward with it as it is
tonight, the two to four dwelling units per acre does not meet what I
think the criteria should be. That allows the lots to be too small.
So, if he wants to go forward with that tonight, I’m going to push for
an unfavorable recommendation. Also, he wants to strike out number
one, which could be a little large but not necessarily and that is also
a strike not in his favor to carry this forward.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said I apologize for continuing this. It is not the
board’s policy. We have continued very little in my tenure on the
board but I would ask that maybe the people from both the subdivisions,
Plainfield Manor, Willow Pointe might get together outside here and get
one or two people to contact us. So, that we can disperse the
information to one person so that you all get all of the information as
the Town would give it. There will be no further notices by mail.
This is your only notice. I would say that there is a 50/50 chance
that it will be continued from the August meeting because they may not
have time to get everything done on redoing whatever we feel needs to
be done. I think we have given them some guidelines tonight. So, with
that said I want to thank you all for coming. I hope to see you all
here in August and we are going to take a five-minute recess.
We are going to reconvene tonight’s meeting. We will move onto
DP-05-016, Parsons, Cunningham & Shartle Engineers requesting
Architectural and Site Design Review.
Mr. Valanzano said the next project you have in front of you is
Architectural and Site Design Review at 2350 Stafford Road. The
proposal is to build approximately a 750,000 square foot
office/warehouse and repair facility for Epson. The property will run
the full gamut from Stafford Road on the south. It’s approximately 82
acres in size, the Bridgefield Subdivision is on the southeast side.
The Metropolis Parkway will be built along the north property line and
start to curve up in this particular area. So, the property has
frontage on an existing gateway of Stafford Road on the south and what
may very well become the future gateway on the north when the
Metropolis Parkway comes in. So, one of the notes you will see in the
Staff Report is as we look at the building that comes up to
approximately at this point now, there is an interim finish on the rear
facade. We have asked them to provide you with building elevations
both an elevation of what that rear facade will look like at the
interim and then what it might look like in the future as it is built
out. So, you will get the impact of what is going to be there on the
future roadway to the north.
In terms of the building elevations, in going through the design
review process with the DRC, they do have a main office pod at the
southwest corner of the building. And they have added architectural
elements to the south facade of the building and architectural
treatments on the southeast corner to dress up that side of the
building. On the southeastern side of the building, if there is
anything that you would call an outside storage or operations, they are
proposing a 150,000-water tank and pump house and a trash compactor.
Those would both be located behind and approximately 30-35 foot tall
screened wall. On the site plan the water tower and pump house are in
this area. This is south now and Stafford Road is over here. The
Bridgefield Subdivision is in this area. The screened wall is going to
come out from the building in this direction. It comes out about 40-50
feet so all of that is going to be virtually hidden from any view from
Stafford Road and very well screened from the east.
In terms of the landscape plan they have submitted an amended
landscape plan that is dated today. The primary aspect of the
landscaping is the preservation of existing trees along the east and
along the north line. There will be new landscaping installed along
the west and along the south and along the east where the Bridgefield
Subdivision exists at the southeast portion. We had them go back in and
supplement the landscaping or the existing vegetation where there are
gaps to supplement that with pine trees. Having gone out to the site
and looked at it, a lot of the existing tree canopy that was there is
up kind of high. So, if you are walking around or in your back windows
in your homes, you are still going to see out and the only thing that
you would have there would be maybe an eight-10 inch trunk of a tree,
which is a substantial tree but there is no low level screening. So,
we have asked them to provide for substantial low level screening
through this area. The screening will be fast growing species and will
tolerate the shade underneath the trees and provide, not just a threefoot
hedge, but more of a six or eight foot hedge that will provide low
level screening for the people that live in the Bridgefield
Subdivision. So, they won’t be looking straight across and have that
gap in there in the tree canopy.
Another interesting note on the landscaping is all of the
foundation plantings that would normally be allocated around the
building will be clustered around the Stafford Road side. So, you can
see foundation landscaping there. If a new addition gets built out
here, I’m assuming we are going to look for foundation plantings along
the north side as well, but for now, everything is allocated to the
south line of the building.
One of the big aspects of this project is a creek relocation.
You can see from the aerial photo George Creek runs through the
property from northeast to southwest. In order to make the property
somewhat developable your choices are you either do a bunch of little
small buildings in there or relocate the creek. What they have done is
propose the relocation of the creek that will go along the north
property line and then along the west property line. The work that has
been undertaken out there right now is pursuant to DNR permits for the
relocation of the creek.
Another aspect of that relocation of the creek is provide a
temporary re-routing of the creek along this alignment along the east
property line and then on the south property line until the new creek
bed gets constructed and gets established. We need somewhere for the
water to go in the interim. After that is done and the creek is rerouted
and then the new creek alignment is reopened a shallow
depression will remain in this area through here and then through here.
It will break about at this point so some storm water runoff from the
dock areas of the building will come into this depression and drain out
this way to the creek as part of the water quality and storm
management. And then from this portion of the site will drain forward
along Stafford Road and come out and come into the project or to the
creek in that area.
Staff’s concern over that had to do with the maintenance and
assuring that the area would be able to be maintained as a manicured
lawn area and not grow up in cattails, etc. There is a letter that I
placed at your stations this evening dated today from Panattoni
Development. It is a two-page letter and it talks about how they will
maintain the property. The last three paragraphs on the second page
basically provides for a commitment from Panattoni, as they will be the
owners of the property, that they will assure the maintenance of that
property in a good and clean fashion.
Condition number five in the Staff Report talks about the
drainage features along the east and south property lines be maintained
as a manicured open lawn areas. You might just want to say, “as set
forth in the letter from Mary Zurbuch dated today, July 7, 2005.” That
would just tie the two items together.
I apologize to the petitioner because this is a little new in
terms of a condition or recommendation but there have been discussions
about being able to use the creek channel area somehow as a Town trail
way system. It would be in order to provide a connection from the trail
and Stafford Road through this area to the Metropolis Parkway to get to
the Metropolis as opposed to having to continue across Stafford Road
and the truck entrances here and here. After you get past Bridgefield
there are a couple of more truck entrances and then you go up Perry
Road and you have another couple of truck entrances. This would
provide a somewhat safer route to get through. There have been some
very, very preliminary discussions but what we would simply ask is that
Panattoni agree to work with the Town to provide an easement. It is
not defined right now but work with us to be able to provide some sort
of connection from Stafford Road up into this area and across and then
out on the north side.
Mr. Carlucci said an additional part to this is Plainfield is
working with INDOT and has been able to incorporate into the redesign
of SR267, which we are paying for, the tunnel under SR267 between
Lincoln Bank and the Hendricks Regional Health. We will be able to
bring people under SR267 straight north to Stafford Road and across
Stafford Road to get onto the trail and go all the way out to White
Lick and Newby Lane Park or to cut north along the Epson project in the
Metropolis. We feel that has great continuity with our trail system.
You can finally find a way to get over SR267 and we are urging more
people to walk opposed to people driving out there. We want to
continue to pursue that with Epson and Bennett.
Mr. Valanzano said the last comment I would make is we did get an
amended landscape plan today. It just basically corrected some typos.
There were very minor changes, if any consequence to it. I would just
suggest under the recommended motion, condition number two, just refer
to the landscape plan file dated July 7th on that. Basically, there was
a mismatch between the engineers and the landscape architect and a
couple of trees were in the driveway. There were some typos about some
species and those have been corrected. With that I would be happy to
answer any questions and turn it over to the gentleman from Panattoni.
Mr. Jason Auer with Panattoni Construction said I’m here with
Paul Meyer with JRA Architecture and their group of consultants to
answer any questions. I want to take this opportunity to thank the
chairman and the commission and the Staff for the opportunity to be in
front of you this evening. Without further ado I would like to have
Mr. Meyer walk us through the site plan.
Mr. Paul Meyer with JRA Architecture at 3939 Priority Way,
Indianapolis, In 46240 said I think Mr. Valanzano really went through a
lot of the basics as far as how our site has been situated and how we
worked with the Town. Actually, there are a couple of projects, one is
unrelated to the actual Epson project, but that is the stream
relocation project, which he spoke about previously. The Epson project
basically is about 800,000 square feet of total building area. There
are some second-story areas inside the building. They are bringing
over 420 employees from their Park 100 facility into this Midwest
distribution center. They are also consolidating some other operations
inside their company to come to this new facility.
I think you are all aware where the site is. There is a lot of
construction activity out there and you can start to see the creek
relocation project to be formed out there.
I think as far as the site layout, the bulk of our parking is to
the south, which the primary main building entrance is on the southwest
corner of the building, which we will see when we pull out the
elevation here in a minute. The majority of the truck traffic is routed
to two gated areas to bring them in and separate the car parking, which
is basically the parking entrance for the cars at the center of the
site, the truck entrances over to the east and west sides of the
building. I think the primary truck entrance is going to be the
easternmost drive that would allow the trucks to do a counterclockwise
motion around the building. So, it will be the main gate. I believe
the one to the west is going to be mainly a truck exit and a car
secondary exit gate.
I think Mr. Valanzano spoke a little bit about some of the buffer
zones that we have created around the building. We have gone through
an inventory plant specie and the planting along the perimeters of the
building along the site. We were attempting to use that to use as our
screen. We have come in with a lot of under-story planting along the
residential, as we spoke about earlier. We have worked with DRC in the
Town in putting together additional plants to fill in some of those
gaps, which were identified as the site was walked and also as we
looked at the landscape plans throughout the process here. We realized
the north side of the site may one day become a secondary collector
because of the category of the street over there and at some point in
the future we will have another primary facade that will need to be
brought before the Plan Commission when the building is added to.
Right now the building wall that is to the north is really a firewall
for loss prevention purposes in the building. We have come back to
DRC’s recommendation and through TAC and added some architectural
features so that it is not just a big blank wall at this point. I
think the thing that we would like for you to keep in mind is the wall
is somewhat a 1,000-1,200 feet away from what will be the future street
right-of-way to the north. Along the west line we tried to reuse
existing vegetation there as much as we could. I think we have some
supplementary plants that are going in there and the main thing to
remember is that with the whole creek relocation process there is going
to be an extensive reforesting of that whole area. So, eventually that
is all going to grow back in and really be pretty dense.
We talked about the pump house and the screened wall that is on
the east side of the building at the southeast corner. We came in and
added additional landscaping to help as you drive on Stafford Road so
that landscaping helped fix that up and makes it less visible. The
screened wall itself is about 30 feet tall and approximately 50 feet
long. The water storage tank we have is 28 feet in diameter and
approximately 28 to 30 feet tall depending on how the grades work. So,
we really think that is going to screen most of that from Stafford
Road. The landscaping again I think we are using evergreens there so
that will be a greenbelt in both seasons, both winter and summer.
I will go to the building elevations. On the top of this board
is the south elevation. It is going to be kind of tough to zoom in
here probably because this building wall is approximately 600 feet long
but that elevation shows the screened wall here on the far right. It
is really a little offset on the front corner and it also shows a
secondary entry feature in which we established on that corner to break
up the overall facade. The way the Epson program is as far as how they
are going to use the building they want a single entry for employees
and visitors and all that traffic is really routed over to the far west
side of the building. Then their office space is really a two-story
office space. It comes in at almost half way down the south wall of
the building. You can see where that is basically on the window
openings. The remainder of that area is their repack
operation/distribution operation. So, that is really mostly
warehouse/distribution operations that go on the rest of that wall.
What we did is we treated the corner on that eastern edge of the south
elevation and raised the panels up again to kind of emulate what we did
over at the west entry. Then we used some paint to kind of create a
dark feature. We used the blue band like we have on the canopy. Some
time in the future if Epson ever leaves the facility, we will need
another primary entry anyway so we kind of opened that up to a secondgeneration
use.
The elevation down on the board from that one is the temporary
north wall of the building. This wall is going to be approximately
1,000-1,200 feet from the northern property line.
Mr. Haase said you mentioned that twice but I’m looking at a
scale here that doesn’t show it being that far from the north property
line. Would you look at this for me here? This is 120 feet. Is this
the north property line here or is that just the building?
Mr. Auer said this is the north property line here and this is
the building expansion.
Mr. Haase said here is 120 feet from here.
Mr. Auer said this is future building.
Mr. Haase said I’m okay now.
Mr. Auer said I think there is another 800 feet of building
there.
Mr. Haase said this is a full build-out.
Mr. Auer said yes. Again, once we do that addition to this
building we will have to go back through the whole process again.
Obviously, if the rules change at that point, we will have to do
something different.
Mr. Haase said that is okay I just need to know what I’m looking
at.
Mr. Auer said it is kind of hard to read because it is so far
away. What we also showed here is a concept drawing underneath that.
What we would do right now if we had to come in on the north elevation
of that building, if we would propose two years from now and have to
come back with a new addition, we would definitely add two entry
features to the north wall and do the glass and canopies and things at
that point since it is going to be kind of a main street there.
The east and west elevations are primarily the utilitarian
elevations. We have created some vertical accents to break up the
monotony of the long/horizontal expanse of the building here. Almost
every area that they have available to them they have truck dock
positions at the walls. There is also some compactors that they are
going to sprinkle in there. We just started to pin down the exact
location of that. There will be no dumpsters here. They are all going
to be trash compactors. I think they are proposing five or six
locations across the east and west facades of where those will be
located.
I think we have attempted to address DRC’s concerns as we go on
through this process. We have our full design team here so if there
are any questions we need to entertain from a landscaping standpoint or
engineering standpoint or even on the creek relocation process, we are
prepared to answer any questions the commission may have at this point.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, do you have any plans to access to the north?
Mr. Auer said not at this point.
Mr. Carlucci said that may be because they can’t get through that
creek.
Mr. Auer said that may be difficult. We have gone through this
long and difficult process with DNR and IDEM to create the stream
crossing. I feel they would have a negative view if we decided to pave
over a large portion of it or any portion of it.
Mr. Thibo asked, out of that 82 acres how much property does this
development take?
Mr. Auer said the creek relocation for this project is 14 out of
the eighty some acres.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who has any
questions on this petition?
Mr. Dan Goble at 4382 Bridgefield Road said one question that I
had was this other ditch. I walked the property last Saturday. This
has been eliminated and is real soft and have you done a study on the
creek at its capacity because it runs pretty good sometimes. My other
question probably wouldn’t have to do with the building itself, it
would be Epson because on the east side of the addition Brylane hasn’t
been very good neighbors and neither has John Deere. The noise
pollution is what I’m talking about.
Mr. Jerry Witt at 4426 Bridgefield Road West said I have an
extreme concern with my property value and what it is going to do when
this is done. It is going to change the scenery significantly.
Another thing is the noise level and it’s right at my back door. Every
time you pull a truck out from under a dock door the dock plate comes
down slow and then slams. You can just imagine what that would sound
like in the middle of the night. Mainly, my property value and how it
is going to do. I know what it has done the last eight years, almost a
little over nine years and my property value has increased tremendously
because I know Plainfield is short on housing and property values in
Plainfield has went up. I’m strictly against it but I’m just one
person.
Ms. Beverly Padgett at 4401 Bridgefield said I’ve already talked
to the contractors a little bit. One of my issues right now is the
dust factor and the fact that these guys are over there working 14
hours a day. The construction trucks all go backwards and when they go
backwards, they go beep, beep, beep, beep. Picture that 14 hours a
day. I know they have to get this done but our houses were there first
and just a little bit of consideration would really do a lot as well
with watering things down. We can’t sit outside. Air conditioners are
running and we are sucking up dust; our motor is going to burn out in
our air conditioners. If that happens, who is going to take care of
it? For years I’m on the west lake of the horseshoe and everyone has
drained across and at our driveway there is a drainage pipe that goes
underneath the road. It crosses over and then drains out into what was
a farmer’s field. There was field tile out there. Where are we going
to drain to now? That is an issue with us, is our drainage problem.
Mr. Joe Pfeifer with KCI Technologies said my particular project
was mainly working with the stream relocation of the project. The
small intermittent tributary here in question really comes out of a
field tile in this area right in here. We took into consideration part
of the stream relocation. Any drainage will come out of here, which
will be rerouted back down the eastern property line back down into the
floodplain area here and through that depression, which they are
referring to, which also has an under-drain to maintain dry conditions
on a regular basis. That was taken into consideration and we have
designed to counter for that drainage into the entire site project.
Mr. Haase said the drainage behind the subdivision to the west is
that your call?
Ms. Jessica Hartman with Parsons, Cunningham & Shartle Engineers
said we are responsible for the site design. This particular project is
unique in the fact that Mr. Pfeifer has done a great job in outlining
the property. There is a very good drainage outlet so on two sides you
have the relocated George’s Creek and on the other two sides, as Mr.
Valanzano mentioned, there is a water quality swale that will be used
for any off site water that was currently draining on the property will
go into either one of those two features. So, there is no proposed
berms. There won’t be any blockage of any off-site drainage.
Mr. Haase asked, could you point out where those swales are going
to be on the east side of the property?
Mr. Pfeifer said there are two swales through here that are
around the site of the project.
Mr. Haase asked, how wide and deep?
Mr. Pfeifer said 50 feet wide and approximately two feet deep.
They should actually improve some of the drainage conditions that you
are having here that now they have a lower outlet to discharge to.
Mr. Haase asked, how far from the property line will that begin?
Ms. Hartman said every 15 feet.
Mr. Auer said I would like to address first Ms. Padgett’s concern
about the dust. She brought that to my attention prior to the meeting.
We are fully committed to provide dust control. We are full-time
watering the site as we speak in these dry conditions and we will work
closely with Ms. Padgett to make sure we are satisfying the dust
control needs to the entire site. We are very concerned with that.
As far as the noise it is an industrial building. I think it is
fairly consistent with the park out there. We don’t look to be making
any excessive noise through operations but there will be trucks
traveling through there. If there is any other questions regarding
that, I think we are consistent with what is required out there.
Mr. Haase asked, do you know their planned hours of operation?
Will it be 24 hour?
Mr. Meyer said I think the majority of the work is a single day
shift but there are some split shifts so I’m not sure of the exact
operation. I know there is a small night crew there and I’m not sure
what they are doing, if it is warehousing or the shipping and packing
area.
Mr. Carlucci said I did get a call from Ms. Padgett the other day
about the dust. I called Ms. Zurbuch and she indicated that
immediately she would get Poindexter to get a watering truck out there.
She was going to visit the site yesterday. I did see a watering truck
out there so she assured me she would do the best to keep the dust
down, which is becoming a challenge when there is not a spec of rain
out there.
Mr. Auer said that particular day consequently was the day we
were running sanitary sewer across her access so there was a period of
time during that day when we couldn’t bring water trucks in or out.
But as soon as we were through, the trucks came in and took care of
that the best we could but we don’t perceive that as being an issue at
this point.
Mr. Haase said to address the question about property values I
don’t think anybody up here is qualified to speak on that. You claim
they have gone up so that is a good thing. The only thing that I will
say that we are doing here tonight is approving a development on a
piece of property that has been rezoned to accept this kind of
development. So, whether the building is there or not the zoning is in
place for it to happen at some point and time. What it actually does
to your property if they keep going up, that is obviously a good thing
but I don’t know if it will or not because I’m not a real estate
person.
Mr. Goble said about the lighting on the sides of the building
because Brylane’s building those lights are so bright and almost all of
the other warehouses have hoods over them to direct the lights down.
These flood our subdivision.
Mr. Haase said we are all supposed to be shielding those lights
downward with a flat lens is all that is allowed by ordinance. So,
Brylane is probably one of the buildings that prompted such an
ordinance to be drafted. We keep trying to improve but we learn as we
go.
Mr. Auer said for the record I concur with you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Haase asked, does the petitioner have anything that he would
like to close with?
Mr. Auer said no. Just again we certainly appreciate the
opportunity. We are excited to work with Plainfield again and we think
it will be a good addition to the community. Again, we appreciate
everybody’s time.
Mr. Haase said at this time we will close the public portion of
the hearing and open it up to any comments or questions from any board
members. If not, we have a motion before us to act upon this public
hearing and the Chair would accept a motion.
Mr. Carlucci asked, can I request that somewhere included in the
motion a comment that Panattoni work with the Town of Plainfield on
that easement or right-of-way or something to be able to get that trail
north and east toward the Metropolis?
1.
The Development plan complies with all applicable
Development Standards of the District in which the site is
located.
2.
The Development Plan complies with all applicable
provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a
waiver has not been granted.
3.
The Development Plan complies with all applicable
provisions for Architectural and Site Design Review for
which a waiver has not been granted.
4.
The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its
surroundings.
5.
The proposed development is consistent with the intent and
purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
1.
Substantial compliance with the site plan and building
elevations file dated June 17, 2005.
2.
Substantial compliance with the landscape plan file dated
July 7, 2005.
3.
Substantial compliance with the lighting plan file dated
June 17, 2005, the cut sheets file dated June 3, 2005, the
floodlight cut sheets filed June 14, 2005 at DRC and the
glare shields for the floodlights file dated June 17, 2005.
4.
Signs shall follow the sign hierarchy set forth in Article
5.5 of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
5.
The drainage features along the east and south property
lines shall be maintained as manicured open lawn areas at
all times as set forth in a letter by Mary Zurbuch dated
July 7, 2005.
6.
Panattoni will work with the Town of Plainfield on easement
and right-of-ways for extension to the trail following the
relocation of George’s Creek.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. McPhail made a motion to suspend the rules to complete the
agenda. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said the next hearing will be PP-05-006, Plainfield
Crossing, LLC.
Mr. Valanzano said the next petition that you have in front of
you is a Primary Plat request for Plainfield Crossing. The property is
at the southeast corner of the proposed Shady Lane and U.S. 40. It is
an incremental plat. They propose to divide approximately 15.75 acres
into two or more lots. Part of the reason for this is, as part of the
development of Wal-Mart and the Town’s involvement with that, the
Town’s activity has resulted in the construction of a regional
detention basin. The grass area that was out in front of the old Wal27
Mart, the old Galyan’s was part of a detention area at that point and
time. With the regional detention basin being built farther to the
southwest this site was set aside as part of the detention system.
With the Town working with Wal-Mart a regional detention system is
being built in this area, which ends up freeing up this portion of
ground from that type of encumbrance. As a result, this area is now
available for development. The cases that you will be hearing
immediately after this are proposals for Architectural & Site Design
Development Incentives for construction on this parcel of ground. What
you have in front of you now is to primary plat the 15.75 acres that
wraps around here to allow for the outlot and for the rest of this
area. And depending on how future development occurs in this area it
may just be one additional that might break it up in two or three, we
are not exactly sure but that is part of what the incremental process
provides for.
One of the issues in looking at this development is the need to
provide for the extension of Shady Lane along the west property line.
Here is the entrance of Shady Lane at U.S. 40. Easements exist in
terms of being able to get to the Wal-Mart site now but we need to be
able to provide for the connection. Right-of-way exists to come from
Gladden Road up to approximately this point out. We have the right-ofway
coming in and coming up to about this point from Gladden Road. Get
the right-of-way as part of this plat down to this point, I’m sorry,
actually down to this point. This plat actually comes down so the
right-of-way would come all the way down to that point and we pretty
much have the connection ability to get to U.S.40 to Gladden Road on
the extension of Shady Lane.
That is looking for a 60-foot right-of-way there and we are
asking that be dedicated either at the time of their first secondary
plat is recorded, which would probably be for the National City Bank
building on this lot. The Staff Report says 90 days but in discussions
with Mr. McGillem we are suggesting to change that to 120 days to give
him a little more elbowroom to make sure everything gets done. But one
way or another within 120 days you would either have right-of-way by a
separate grant or by the recording of the plat for the National City
Bank, which would provide for that right-of-way all through there. So,
those are the two issues. The other items with respect to drainage and
utility easements identified in the Staff Report they are shown on the
plat file dated on May 6th. So, we are in good shape on all of those
other details and I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Ben Comer at 71 W. Marion St., Danville said I’m here on
behalf of the landowner who has filed a petition for a plat. I really
don’t have any further comments at this time. There are really no
outstanding issues that I know about. We are still working to resolve
right-of-way issues and we are confident or at least hoping that it
will get resolved. There are no issues with the Staff Report in any
way, shape or form so if you have any questions for us, I have nothing
further to present to this commission.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who has any
questions or comments about this public hearing? Being no one coming
forward we will close the public portion of this hearing and move to a
motion.
1.
Compliance with the Town Standards, including but not
limited to: Plainfield Ordinance No. 1-96 regarding
Floodplain Management; Plainfield Ordinance Nos. 4-94 and
3-86 regarding Sewage Works; Plainfield Ordinance No. 17-97
regarding Drainage; Plainfield Ordinance No. 19-97
regarding Municipal Waterworks and Plainfield Ordinance No.
18-97 regarding Access Permits.
2.
Compliance with the standards and specifications of the
Plainfield Subdivision Control Ordinance.
3.
Right-of-way for Shady Lane from U.S. 40 to the south
property line of the site shall be included on the
secondary plat recorded for the outlot located at the
southeast corner of U.S. 40 and Shady Lane or provided by
separate instrument as approved by the Town Engineer within
120 days of the date of this approval, whichever occurs
first.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said we will then go to our final two public hearings
for tonight, which is DP-05-015 and DP-05-018, Plainfield Crossing,
LLC.
Mr. Valanzano said the petitions that you have in front of you at
this point and time there are two requests. One is a development
incentive to reduce the depth of the required front yard along the new
Shady Lane from 30 feet to 20 feet, which is authorized as a
development incentive under the ordinance by providing for additional
landscaping and going from a Level 1 to a Level 2. They have provided
a complying landscaped plan. The drive lane from the bank is going to
be going around the west side similar to the way the drive lane at
Mike’s Car Wash came across along U.S. 40. They got an incentive to
reduce that driveway there and provided the hedgerow along that. We
have asked National City to do the same thing we asked them to do
there. It is a Level 2 landscaping plus the hedgerow where the yard is
reduced for the driveway coming along the side along Shady Lane.
In terms of the Architectural and Site Design Review I would note
in the Staff Report that we have identified that there are two waivers
that were needed. We have received today an amended set of building
elevations that raises the parapet, the final brick parapet around the
middle portion of the building, the final one foot eight inches that is
necessary to screen to the same height as in the canopy units on all
sites. So, the second waiver is identified in the Staff Report
regarding screening of the roof-mounted units is no longer necessary.
If you look at the building elevations you have in your package, if you
can just remember and imagine and know that they are 18 or 20 inches in
height in that parapet where it comes around, it gets high enough to
screen. What is colored in there is the areas where the units would
have been visible under the initial proposal. What they have brought
in today is an elevation that raises that parapet along the entire area
where the colors are. Twenty inches is necessary to get to the top of
the mechanical units. So, if you picture at that top point of that
colored area, the brick parapet reaching that height, that is what they
have brought in as the elevation today.
Mr. Haase said on page six of seven all four red areas would be
gone.
Mr. Valanzano said they would be covered by a brick parapet wall.
So, that waiver portion of the request goes away. We do still have the
request of the waiver in terms of the building percentages of the
secondary material being at about 18 or 19% of the west facade. DRC
reviewed that and was supportive of that request being consistent of
the rest of the building. Note that the petitioners have also made
other plan modifications requested by Staff during the review process
and DRC. They now have provided very good pedestrian connectivity out
to Shady Lane up to U.S. 40 to existing and proposed sidewalks there.
So, I believe we are in very good shape with the site layout. We have
a building that complies. Within one or two percent on that one facade,
we are in good shape there. And I would just ask that on the motion
that any reference in the waivers to the screening of the mechanical
units can be deleted and that the condition number four under the
Architectural and Site Design Review about substantial compliance with
the building elevations that can simply go to the date of July 7, 2005
and everything else can come out of that item because they have
elevations that fully comply at that point. With that I will be happy
to answer any questions.
Mr. Ken Sebree with Sebree Architects with offices in Avon said
I’m representing National City Bank. We didn’t bring a lot of
exhibits. We anticipated probably that it was going to be a long night
and you have in your packets pretty good photographs of everything that
we propose to provide. This is a prototype design. It was adapted by
National City a couple of years ago. They built several around
Indiana. It is very similar to the one that they built in Avon last
year so that will kind of give you a visual of what it is going to look
like. As you drive by the one in Avon, you see the rooftop units
screaming at you as you drive by so I think this is probably a good
move to suggest putting the parapets on this in order to totally screen
the mechanical units. As Mr. Valanzano said, I believe that we have
complied with everything that was asked as far as the landscape
ordinance. There will be a Level 2 along Shady Lane and I would be
happy to answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Haase said from U.S. 40 to the south side of that lot what is
that falloff of the property?
Mr. Sebree said I have to think about the contour map but
probably actually from U.S. 40 the sidewalk on U.S. 40 may be four
feet. Of course, I think it looks like more than that but you have
that big hole to go through that will be filled in.
Mr. Haase said so the south side of the lot will be even with the
parking lot that already exists.
Mr. Sebree said exactly. We are going to keep the little rightin/
right-out driveway that is on U.S. 40 that was built last year when
they reconstructed U.S. 40. It is in perfect location for that but it
is going to be a right-in/right-out only. Then the other access would
be to turn south on Shady Lane until you get to really the south side
of this property and then turn east where there will be a private
access road across the parking lot to carry us to the southeast corner
of this bank lot. And we will turn in at the southeast corner. And
bank property, I’ve done a bunch of them, you always maintain a
counterclockwise rotation around the building with your traffic because
that gets the driver on the right side of the car when he gets around
to the drive-thru. Those are kinds of things that we have to think
about in planning these facilities. This is a pretty tight lot so we
had to utilize all of it that we could in order to get the parking in
circulation and Plainfield has quite a stacking rule as far as drivethru
traffic goes so we had to do some special things with our site
plan in order to get stacking in compliance.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who has any
questions or comments? Being no one coming forward does the petitioner
have anything that he would like to close with?
Mr. Sebree said I believe we have covered all of the comments of
Staff and we just solicit your approval.
Mr. Haase said we will then close the public portion of this
hearing and we will have two motions to act upon tonight so we will
take them individually.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, Mr. McGillem are you comfortable with the
ingress/egress and the traffic flow and stacking, etc.?
Mr. McGillem said we worked very closely with them in making
several modifications and I think it will work fine now.
1.
The Development Plan complies with all applicable
Development Standards of the District in which the site is
located.
2.
The Development Plan complies with all applicable
provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a
waiver has not been granted.
3.
The Development Plan complies with all applicable
provisions for Architectural and Site Design Review for
which a waiver has not been granted.
4.
The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its
surroundings.
5.
The proposed development is consistent with the intent and
purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
1.
Represents an innovative use of building materials which
will enhance the use or value of area properties.
2.
Is consistent with and compatible with other development
located along the Gateway Corridor.
3.
Is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield
Zoning Ordinance.
1.
Substantial compliance with the site/landscape plan file
dated June 17, 2005.
2.
Substantial compliance with the Canopy Lighting cut sheets
file dated May 20, 2005, the pole light cut sheets file
dated June 17, 2005 and the photometric plan file dated
June 17, 2005.
3.
Substantial compliance with the ground sign and wall sign
details file dated May 20, 2005.
4.
Substantial compliance with building elevations file dated
July 7, 2005.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
1.
The Plant Unit Value to be provided in the required yard or
required bufferyard exceeds the normal standard for such
yard by a multiple of 2.0 or more.
2.
The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its
surroundings.
3.
The proposed development is consistent with the intent and
purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
1.
Substantial compliance with the Landscape Plan file dated
June 17, 2005.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
Panattoni II – Perry Road: Requested plan modifications
Mr. Valanzano said I put a reduced set of drawings at your side
earlier this evening. Panattoni building, which is just to the north
of Bridgefield and going north over to the Brylane building, south of
their existing building where Panattoni building one is and then the
lot for two bridges the north side of the Brylane building. This was
approved for the development of a 450,000 square foot industrial
building. They have asked if they could come in and administratively,
under substantial compliance, expand it to a 500,000 square foot
building, which you have on your plans. What I highlighted on your
drawing is the portion of the expansion. The reason that we decided to
bring it in is couple fold. One is it was our opinion that had this
petition been brought in to you with a 500,000 square foot building
with landscaping that they showed and building elevations they showed
you probably would have approved it. However, under the guidelines
that are established in the ordinance if the building had been built at
450,000 square feet and they came in and asked for an addition, it is
over 10,000 square feet or the percentage identified so they would have
had to come before the Plan Commission. With that going on and the
fact that the Bridgefield Subdivision is going to be completely
surrounded we have asked them to provide for the landscape plan for
that south line to show that the south landscaping that was approved
for the 450,000 square foot building will indeed be able to be planted
and stay in place. They provided us with that detailed wall. They
moved a couple of trees a couple of feet. It is basically the same
landscape plan but we wanted to bring that in front of the Plan
Commission and have the Plan Commission say that this 500,000 square
foot layout is substantially the same as the 450,000 square foot plan
that you approved as opposed to us saying that administratively.
Because if they had already built the building, we would have had to
bring it back here under a full new petition.
Mr. McPhail made a motion to approve the 500,000 square foot
building as proposed. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Motion carried.
OTHER COMMENTS
Mr. Haase said the Brylane facilities is such a thorn in
everybody’s side. We need to visit them and get them to park their
trucks in appropriate areas or to get them off their property. They
are parking them out along Perry Road parallel. They are also along
the north of the side of the building. They are also parallel parking
them there, which are not parking areas. I don’t know who is in there
or if they are just parking trailers in there but it is just kind of an
eyesore there anyway.
Mr. Kirchoff said we had comments about the lighting. Is there
any way that we could ask them to consider it?
Mr. Haase said yes even if it is just the west side.
Mr. Carlucci said I know that Jeff Banning and Jay Higbee went
out there with a light meter and it wasn’t reading very much at the
requirements at the property line. Was it a half-foot candle?
Mr. Valanzano said when it was built, it met the requirements in
terms of the foot light distribution at the property lines, which is
only a half foot candle but the problem is they still created that hot
spot and glare that you see more than the actual light that you are
providing. That site is one of the main reasons that we changed the
ordinance to provide for the down-shielded lighting even on the walpacs.
Mr. Carlucci said we have to deal with Prologis on a couple of
other things.
Mr. Haase said I did get the update on the Abbey-Tibby dumpsters
so thank you for that.
Mr. Valanzano said I have a meeting with that gentleman on July
29th.
Mr. Carlucci said we probably will have a recommendation for the
Town Council prior to the next Plan Commission meeting on a new
planning director.
