plainfield plan commission july 2, 2018 7:00 p.m. call to ... · plainfield plan commission...

Plainfield Plan Commission 07-02-18 1

PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION

July 2, 2018

7:00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER

Mr. Bahr: Today is July 2nd, welcome everyone to the Plainfield Plan Commission meeting. I’d

like to call the meeting to order.

ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM

Mr. Todisco: Mr. Phillip-here

Mr. McPhail- here

Mr. Brandgard- here

Mr. Kirchoff- here

Mr. Bahr- here

We have Mr. Smith and Mr. Slavens not present.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr. Bahr: If you would, join me by standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Bahr: Approval of minutes. I gather that you’ve had time to review the minutes from last

month’s meeting. Any corrections?

Mr. Kirchoff: I have several. Most of mine are typos and the wrong person credited for their

comments. I’d be happy just to hand them to somebody to correct them.

Mr. McPhail: I do have one thing I’d like to publicly state. The minutes on page 6 where we

were talking about rezoning the I-3. It said that I was comfortable with it, and I said that I was

uncomfortable with it. I want to make sure that’s corrected.

Mr. Kirchoff: So, can we approve them with minor corrections?

Mr. Daniel: Subject to scrivener’s errors, yes.

Mr. Berg: You can present those to staff, we’d be more than happy to make those corrections.

Mr. Kirchoff: I would so move.


Mr. Phillip: Second

Mr. Bahr: We have a motion and a second. All in favor?

(All ayes)

OATH OF TESTIMONY

Mr. Bahr: This is a public hearing and is designed as to allow public input regarding the subject

matter. Anyone in attendance planning to administer testimony, please stand for the Oath.

Mr. Daniel administers the Oath of Testimony

Mr. Daniel: While we’re dealing with administrative matters, this is a seven-member board, we

are two members short this evening. It takes a vote of 4 members to take action on any matter

of petition. If anybody at this time would like to have their matter continued and return when

there’s more members available to hear your matter, this is the time for you to do that.

Mr. Bahr: Seeing none, we’ll proceed.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Mr. Bahr: Guidelines for the public hearings: the proceedings are recorded, please come to the

podium, located in the front of the meeting room, give your name and address and make your

presentation. Please make your presentations as concise as possible; try to limit your

presentations to five minutes or less. We have a lot in attendance, which is very positive, and

we want to hear everyone. Each speaker will be allowed to speak only once. If possible, please

designate a spokesperson for groups supporting or opposing the project in which is at hand.

Following your presentation, please print your name and address on the speaker sheet at the

podium to ensure the official records reflects your appropriate name and address. With that I’d

like to turn over to Eric for a brief introduction.

Mr. Berg: Thanks Mr. President. I’m sure many of you have met him as he’s been around for

just less than a month, but this is our first meeting of the Plan Commission with our new

Planner/Code Enforcement Officer, Ty Whitson. He comes to us from Alabama A & M. We have

a high regard for him; we think he’s going to do well.

Mr. Bahr: We welcome you to Plainfield from Alabama. Our first item for the agenda is TA-18-

002 – Town of Plainfield – a proposal to amend Article 7: Sign Regulations of the Plainfield

Zoning Ordinance. Draft to be provided at September meeting.

Mr. Jones: Yes, this is the amendment that was originally brought up back in January. I gave

each of you a copy of that at your stations. I worked with staff and legal to come to this

particular draft. I believe it’s the best workable solution to our problems. They're not big

problems but just things that we need to straighten up. This way, by continuing to your

September 6th meeting, that’s the Thursday after Labor Day, that way it gives you plenty of time


to look it over. Next month’s agenda doesn’t look much lighter, so maybe the September

agenda will lighten up for that. It also gives you plenty of time to look it over and ask staff or

legal if you have any questions.

Mr. Philip: So, do we need a motion to continue that, Mel?

Mr. Daniel: You can, yes.

Mr. Philip: Okay. I move, Mr. President that TA-18-002 be continued to the September 6th Plan

Commission meeting.

Mr. McPhail: Second

Mr. Bahr: Voice vote

(all vote yes)

Mr. Bahr: PUD-18-001 – Strategic Capital Partners.

Mr. McPhail: Mr. President, I believe in our packet we have a request to continue that to the

August meeting and I would so move.

Mr. Brandgard: Second

Mr. Bahr: Do we do a voice vote?

Mr. Daniel: Yes

Mr. Bahr: All by saying aye.

(All ayes)

Mr. Bahr: DP-18-009 – UPS Outbuildings.

Mr. Jones: Thank you. You may all recognize this particular project. This is the UPS project when

it first came to you, I believe it was for a development plan amendment to allow for a few

changes on the site. Since that time, they have revised their plan to create a master

development plan, which is what's before you here this evening. The site is located at Bradford

and Ronald Reagan, the southwest corner of the intersection. Everyone is probably very familiar

with it now. The elements of this particular project are pretty extensive since you’ve first heard

it. The applicant is here this evening and will elaborate a little more in detail. What I’ll try to do

here briefly is bring you up to date on where things are and then they can go through the

project a little more extensively. Since this was brought to you, it has returned to the Design

Review Committee where the whole idea of the master plan was first originated. They have

given it a favorable recommendation. There was also in this application if you recall, a customer

service and employee entrance building of about 3300 square feet in this location right here. It

was required that a use variance would need to be obtained from the Board of Zoning Appeals

for the customer service element of that building due to the fact that it is zoned I-2 and the


retail customer service use was not a permitted use. They have appeared at the Board of

Zoning Appeals in June and received a favorable vote at that hearing. There is also, part of that

original was a truck wash center. That’s the second building just south of the customer service

building. The second item that required a variance, the applicant had requested semi-tractor

parking in the north area of the site between the building, the front of the building, the north

façade and the street for Bradford Road. Approximately a total of 139 tractor parking areas.

Those would be a wrap around the west side building, between the building and Klondike.

There's about 24 spaces in this area and then you have, I think it’s somewhere in the

neighborhood of 55 spaces directly in front of the site and then there are some additional sites

that come around to the side here. They did receive the variance request from the Board of

Zoning Appeals on that. As a part of that approval they agreed to install to a planting level of

8.5 across the north of the property between the parking and the Bradford Road right-of-way,

as well as adding a 6-foot fence in that area. They’ll elaborate on that also a little bit more in

detail, shortly. Other elements of the project have been reviewed. There is still a little bit of a

transportation issue that is kind of outstanding. Scott Singleton, Director of Transportation is

here this evening and I believe he’d like to address that.

Mr. Singleton: Good evening. One thing we’d like to just explain, we’ve gone through and

they’ve updated their traffic study and they’ve actually brought their traffic engineer here as

well. But this change, if it was approved obviously, this area that they want to propose to use

for tractor parking, was car parking and then provided an access for all of these parking spaces

here. The employee parking is going to be among these spaces here, and then also to use the

Klondike Road ingress/egress point to help disperse their traffic. So, if you can recall throughout

the number of steps this particular development has gone through, we continually squeeze.

And what that is, is it’s reflective of UPS’s desire for their operations to basically have their car

parking and truck traffic completely separate. So, that’s resulting in their proposal here to have

their car parking here that’s being replaced and then this would be securely fenced off from

cars and now cars are primarily looked to enter and exit at this point. They did do an update to

their traffic study. The indications are from an ingress point coming into the site, there’s really

not much of a concern because of the shift times and things like that. They can get on to the

site okay. There is a concern with exiting the site. That’s going to create some significant

queuing inside their facility. They are aware of that. They do have some steps to try and

mitigate that internally from staggering their shifts and then they’ve also talked about possibly

putting a, I think they are prepared to put in a gate somewhere in here so that if there was an

accident in here and they couldn’t exit the site, they could open the gate and redirect traffic

through their site to get over to Klondike Road or even possibly down into this area here. That

detail may not have been fully worked out as to where that gate would go, but it wouldn’t

change the concept of the idea that they would at least have a relief valve to push that traffic

elsewhere if it were to become an issue. One item that we can speak to; in the future I think

that what the intent is on their part, we have looked at the possibility of having an egress point

through the drive that goes to the water tower so that they could actually just exit out there.


We wouldn’t want anybody coming in to the site from there because of the concept of the free-

flowing rate from Bradford to Reagan, but as an exit point we think we would support that. So,

as their traffic grows and as the traffic on Reagan grows and Bradford Road grows, that might

be something we look to in the future. Again, this is an internal problem that they might be

looking to fix, and they might want to come back and have that conversation with us, but it’s

not part of this proposal today, but it’s an option to relieve that. If you have anymore specific

traffic questions, their engineer is here to answer.

Mr. Kirchoff: So, you’re talking about loading Bradford more so, than you are Ronald Reagan

with automobiles?

Mr. Singleton: Yeah, from an ingress standpoint coming in. It’s going to load this whole

intersection more. You know, the traffic that was originally forecasted to come here and take a

right and come in here to park, that traffic is likely to come all the way up Bradford now, take a

right and come in. So, that’s not going to necessarily be a significant change at this intersection,

but certainly some of them will probably likely come to this intersection and add a few more

left turns, but not a significant number from what was originally forecasted.

Mr. Kirchoff: Thank you.

Mr. McPhail: I thought as written proposals for this facility grew, we were really counting on

Klondike Road to relieve a lot of that automobile traffic, particularly those people going south

or west. I’m quite concerned that they want to cut that ability to use that…

Mr. Singleton: To use Klondike? Yeah, they're going to find it very challenging to do that, so

what you're more likely to see is the right, right and around. What we think Kent, to some

degree that will happen, obviously everyone will choose the path of least resistance over time.

Klondike will favor more All Points traffic than staying on Bradford. So, you’ll see more right

turners coming out of All Points coming down Klondike Road in favor of this area being more

congested. So, somewhat of a self-leveling. It certainly changes the dynamics of this site in a

tough spot.

Mr. McPhail: I thought you said they were going to gate that where automobile traffic couldn’t

get through there.

Mr. Singleton: Yeah, so their traffic, UPS’s traffic will be coming in and out of this location right

here. What I’m saying is, All Points traffic from the park, outside of UPS, the Kohls, the Walmart

and Prime, they are more likely to find that Klondike is less traveled and use that rather than

coming all of the way to Reagan if they want to go south, just because there won't be much

traffic on Klondike because this facility is not using it as heavily.

Mr. Philip: Anything left for them to avoid, all the congestion when he gets to the UPS facility.

Mr. Singleton: Yeah, ultimately the whole idea of Klondike is to redirect traffic away from the

US 40/Ronald Reagan interchange and give them alternatives. And to your point Kent, this is


definitely not the ideal situation that we would have liked to have in place, but it is obviously

important to UPS and their operational desire, so that’s what they're wanting to do.

Mr. McPhail: I’m not sure I can support that.

Mr. Singleton: Certainly. Their traffic engineer is here if you’ve got any questions for him.

Mr. Jones: Thanks Scott. One kind of last thing to close here. I did want to point out that there

was a total of 139 semi-tractor parking stalls to be located in that northern area; 96 of them

would be in the front of the buildings themselves between Bradford and Klondike. The other

thing that was included in the variances were 133 compressed natural gas filling locations for

the site itself. Many of them are across the front of the north side of the building while every

other parking stall would have a compressed natural gas filling area. Then finally, the other

significant item that I’m sure you’ve noticed in the packet is the proposal of three above ground

fuel tanks and again, I’ll leave that up to the applicant to explain a little more in detail. Lastly,

there was a good deal of concern from the beginning about the mound that you might see from

Ronald Reagan. It’s currently in the area of 34-35 feet. They would like to bring that down a bit.

Working with staff, we’ve gotten a commitment that it would not, or their volunteering a

commitment that it would not be below 25 feet without reappearing here before the Plan

Commission at some future date. That might also be with the development of the building out

there along Ronald Reagan, they’d be back with that anyway, but at no time would that mound

be less then 25 feet. That allows for a really proper screening from Ronald Reagan as you look

into that parking area and the proposed Vectren site. Again, they’ll go in to that. With that, if

you don’t have any other questions for staff, I’ll invite Mr. Tuohy up.

Mr. Tuohy: Good evening. Mr. President, members of the Plan Commission, my name is Brian

Tuohy. I am here representing the petitioner. Thank you for your time and hearing our case this

evening. Could you set up our slide please? Thank you. I have to admit, that’s the most scared

I've been about this case all day. I just want to get that out front. Thanks again for hearing our

case. Here with me tonight are a number of people from UPS, from Kimley-Horn, our engineer,

from Pepper Construction, the contractor that’s developing this, from JRA and most

importantly Mr. McPhail, our traffic engineer is here to address some concerns about the

traffic. In a nutshell, what we’re seeking is development plan approval for some proposed

improvements to the site that’s up on the screen. If it’s okay with the Plan Commission, I’ll start

over here in the northwest corner and sort of move around like so to illustrate what we

propose to do. Here’s Bradford, here’s Ronald Reagan, there’s the water tower that everybody

knows, here’s the existing UPS building. What we would propose to do is fit in with what is

around us. We think that this isn’t a rezoning, but this use does. So, across the street we have

the Hoosier Tent and the distribution warehouse to the north. So, that’s looking directly across

the street from UPS. And then we have, that’s the building right across the street from us that is

a distribution warehouse, so that’s on the north side of Bradford. Here we have the Regal

building again, distribution warehouse, that’s just to the west of us on the other side of

Klondike Road and here’s our neighbor even further west, Tempur-Pedic again, on the south


side of Klondike Road. This illustrates I think, all of the pieces of a master development plan

that we would like to seek approval for, or that we are seeking approval for tonight. The pieces

of it, as Terry advised the board, if you start here in the northwest corner of the site, we would

propose to have our truck parking here. I’ll show you in a minute, I’ve got a video that shows a

rendering of how that will look, and it would be heavily screened with about an 8.5 level of

landscaping and I think Terry mentioned a 6-foot fence, but actually we would like to put an 8-

foot fence in there. We would like to use part of the fence that’s existing back here now, which

we are replacing with a sound wall, which I’ll also address. But that will have the effect and I’ll

show you, of screening this very well. What that does members of the Plan Commission, by

moving that tractor parking up there, it takes trucks that have been parked really close to the

residences down here in the south and moves them up to the north. It also allows UPS, because

it likes to use a counter clockwise route with trucks and trailers, apparently, it’s safer for drivers

to drive around a site like this, counter clockwise. It eliminates some trips by tractors along the

south side again, away from our southside residential neighbors. We would propose to build a

customer service building and also the employee entrance which would be right here. Then the

truck wash, which would not be… it’s not like Mike’s Car Wash; we wouldn’t wash any other

truck other than the trucks that are at our facility. It would be behind it screened by again, this

fence and landscaping and screened by this customer service building which is where you could

also pick up a package or drop off a package for UPS delivery. Then we would propose to put

fuel islands over here in this area, so behind this employee parking area. And then CNG which

stands for Compressed Natural Gas, UPS would like to use a number of compressed natural gas

trucks. We have some environmental benefits and also, they're much quieter than semis. So,

they would fuel those trucks in this area here. Terry mentioned this time filler, and I’ll show you

some pictures of those. Those are a sort of smaller individual filling equipment, which I’ll show

you in a minute and then we would have the above ground storage tanks in this area right here

and then the trailer parking that we will expand, in this area. Our mound is about right here so

if you can picture that, that mound will stay in existence in large part, as it exists today, but the

back side of it, the west side of it will be cut away and that’s where this trailer parking area

would go. So, if we start up here in this northwest corner, that’s where this fence would go, like

so. This would be an 8-foot tall wooden fence, which is very similar in part of the fence that’s on

the south side property. It would come down here to the edge of the customer service area and

then it would resume again, right here to screen where this compressed natural gas area is, and

the filling sites are, and then come along here and screen this parking area here and also screen

this proposed MSA. Members of the Plan Commission, MSA is where Vectren would bring the

natural gas to the site and I think they call this a “meter service area”. I can show you again, a

photograph of what that looks like here in a second. So, what would our front door look like?

Which I think is important to the Plan Commission. This is illustrative of that 8.5 very heavy

landscaping and then in front of that would be that 8-foot fence. 8.5 is the level of landscaping

that would be placed in front of where these tractors are parked. This is considerably heavier

landscaping than our neighbors have either across the street or down the street and a fence

blocking the view of that. So, this shows how that fence would come in behind that


landscaping. So, your view from the road, and I’ll show you in a minute, you would see that

landscaping last and then that 8-foot fence and behind that would be our tractors. So again,

we’re up here in the northwest corner of the site. So, now if you could just kind of walk with me

here for a minute. We’re starting at Klondike Road which is right there. There’s our neighboring

property owner, and we’re going to go east towards Ronald Reagan. So, here’s the landscaping

as we start here, with that 8-foot fence behind it, then this is coming into the center of our

building. The tops of those trucks are visible behind that 8-foot fence, but again, that’s a fairy

considerable distance from the road. And if you come further east, because of the change in

the grade, the trucks become less and less visible. When you get to near our front door, you can

just barely see the trucks from the Bradford Road. The natural gas time fill area, these are what

those look like. Those would be behind that fence, not visible from Bradford Road or Ronald

Reagan. So here, just to take us back to our site, what I just showed you is this area right across

here, across the north side of the property with the proposed landscaping and fencing and

what’s called time fill stations. These are the two buildings that we would build. So, the building

in front would be the customer service building. The truck wash would be behind that, so if you

go back one, the truck wash is back here, blocked from view by the customer service facility.

The trucks would enter in on the south side and come out the north. And this again, is not like a

Mike’s where there is a fair amount of noise from that. All the noise, if at all, would be if you

head north across from where our industrial neighbors are, across the street. But there's not

the giant blowers and noise from a residential kind of car wash. Plus, that building is about a

quarter of a mile from our nearest residential neighbors, which, when I get to this point, will

now have a 10-foot sound barrier wall. So, in addition to the smaller fill sites, we have some

pumps for compressed natural gas and those are shown on the site plan and these are

photographs of what those pumps would look like. You’ll note there's no canopy, so we don’t

have like a gas station canopy with lighting to be seen from the road. These will also be

screened, again by that 8-foot fence that we’ve been talking about. We have some typical

diesel and unleaded fuel islands, again no canopy over those. This is the compressed natural gas

station. And we actually have a young woman here from TruSTAR, if you have any questions

about that. But, in my unscientific understanding, when Vectren builds their MSA, then they

bring the gas into this location, and this would be like a holding tank. Instead of an above

ground storage tank for liquid fuel, this is the area where our compressed natural gas then is

disseminated out to the pumps on the site. And it will be screened by the 8-foot solid fence,

which I’ll elaborate again in a minute. The planning department was concerned about the sight

lines and the views from Bradford and Ronald Reagan, understandably concerned. So, what we

did is we had Pepper do a cross-section showing that from Ronald Reagan, you can not see the

tops of these above ground fuel tanks because of the change in grade and also because of the

fencing and landscaping that we will install in front of it. And from Bradford, it’s more than two

football fields, it’s almost 630 feet and you’d be looking through a parking lot and trying to look

through fencing and landscaping, which I’ll show you in a minute. My point is, those above

ground storage tanks are next to not visible on our site. So, this is the view as it exists today

from Ronald Reagan. There’s the mound, the water tower. There’s a fairly extensive amount of


trees and plantings around that water tower now. The area that I’m speaking of is behind all of

this. So, I think there's very effective screening along Ronald Reagan. This is from the other

direction, that last photograph was looking southwest, this is looking northwest. There's that

mound and the areas we’re talking about improving are behind that mound. So, to sort of

summarize now, I’ve taken you from this corner to the center of the site, and now down into

this area. So, here is where those fuel tanks are and that compressed natural gas. Again, that 8-

foot fence is all around this, then you’d be looking through this parking lot. Plus, you’d have this

landscaping that I’ve showed you along here. And then on the east side of the site, off Ronald

Reagan, we have the water tower, the mound and that tree line. So again, not to delay the

point, but the internal improvements in this area are a long way from the roadways and not

very visible at all, which we’ll illustrate. This is an exhibit showing our landscaping plan along

the northeast corner. This is an exhibit showing the mounds. And the other reason that the

trailers aren’t visible behind this mound, the red is showing the existing mound as it exists

today. The blue is showing the mound after we would cut the back out of it and have trailer

parking. What all of those numbers tell us is that that trailer parking, that surface of that trailer

parking lot will be a minimum of 25 feet, between 25-30 feet below the top of that mound. So,

the measurement that’s important I think, is a trailer is about 13 feet 6 inches tall, so there’s

going to be two times that height of a trailer… the mound at two times the height of that trailer

will block that from view from Ronald Reagan Parkway as well as the existing water tower and

foliage along there. Vectren will put in this MSA, which I’ve mentioned a couple of times, that

“meter service area”, we think that’s what that will look like. That’s kind of the areas where the

gas first comes into the site and it will be screened with that 8-foot fence that I mentioned.

They may have their own fence around it also, we’re not sure exactly what that’s going to look

like, but that’s a typical meter service area. This is a video that was created by Pepper using the

elevations of a car driving down Bradford, and also a vehicle driving along Ronald Reagan. So,

we’re starting just east of Klondike Road and we’re heading… So, this is the view heading north

on Ronald Reagan, there's the mound we’ve been speaking of on the left, there's the tree area

around the water tower. In a minute, about right back there are the tops of those gas tanks.

And now I've come to the corner of Ronald Reagan. So, that area right in here, members of the

Plan Commission, that will be our employee parking. So, you would be looking through that

landscaping, through that employee parking area to see that 8-foot fence and then you can

barely see the tops of those gas tanks. Now to go to the view from Bradford… okay so now

we’re traveling east on Bradford. There's our building. Here’s our customer service building

right here, you can see that blocks the view mostly of the truck wash. Now we’re heading

towards Ronald Reagan. You can see that fence in the background back there. This parking lot

would have cars in it, and there you can barely see the tops of that tank area. Members of the

Plan Commission, when we’re finished I understand there will be 1,317 trees, shrubs, pines,

deciduous and ornamental trees on the site. That’s a part of this very heavy landscaping that

we’ve talked about. We had a meeting with our neighbors from Medallion Meadows. We had

one meeting before our earlier presentation to the Plan Commission and then we had another

meeting in June and we advised them that the 10-foot sound wall that I mentioned which will


be installed in lieu of the fence that’s back there now, would be installed by October of this

year. I believe that as early as tomorrow or Thursday, we would come to Plainfield’s permit

department to apply for the permit to start construction of that wall. And it’s the same sound

wall supplier as the wall that was used by INDOT on the installation of sound wall on I-465. So,

we think that will have a significant impact improvement for our neighbors. So in summary,

what we would greatly appreciate your favorable recommendation on, is approval of our

customer service building, approval of our truck wash, and approval of the tractor parking that

we showed you on the north side, approval of the fuel filling permits that we described, as well

as the approval of the above ground storage tanks, and then approval of the employee parking

that we would relocate as described in Terry’s presentation, and approval of the trailer parking

area, and lastly, approval of Vectren’s meter service area. With that, we do have our traffic

engineer here. And we also have the contractor and the site engineers. So, we’ll certainly try to

answer any questions that you might have. I appreciate you allowing me to go over the allotted

time. Thank you.

Mr. Bahr: Thank you. Any comments?

Mr. McPhail: Just for the record, Mr. Tuohy presented the neighboring buildings, the Hoosier

Tent buildings is in the Town of Avon and not subject to our regulations and you can tell that by

looking at the difference of the buildings, I just want you to know that’s not in our town. I’d like

to hear from the traffic engineer. You know, when we approved the development on this site,

the original development was two buildings and a lot less projected auto traffic than this

project. So, when this project came in we really focused on getting that Klondike Road in there

and being able to divert some of that traffic as the employment levels ramped up. Not only

here, but in the rest of the industrial park. I’m very much concerned with them blocking that

access. I certainly did not expect to hear that this evening.

Mr. Ficek: Thank you. My name is Bryant Ficek, I’m the traffic engineer for the applicant. Thank

you for having me here. So, I did the original study for the UPS site and I came back to do this

study as well. What we did, we went back and took new counts at the site, redid everything,

looked at what was happening today and projected that into the future. One of the important

things we did was look long term at it, so the results we had for the traffic study looked at not

only UPS but growth in the area. We looked out, we added 20 percent to Bradford, Ronald

Reagan. So, we looked out beyond what’s happening today, so some of the results you see are

future. They’re looking out at what could happen if traffic continues to grow. Part of our study

too was looking at the peak hours. So, we looked at a couple different peak hours, the a.m. and

p.m. peaks. Again, part of the issues we’re looking at are in those p.m. peaks… look at the full

hours of the day for 22 hours of the days, 23 hours of the day, some of that stacking goes away

and it’s all internal. So, part of the purpose from the traffic standpoint of this is to have that

360-view for the trucks and everything, they can go around the site. So, from that standpoint,

we are now making full use of Klondike by taking these tractor trailers, they are able to divert

from Ronald Reagan, go over to Klondike and go either way. So, that’s a big benefit of having


this plan in place. It also takes package trucks from UPS and redirects them all to Klondike. So

again, from that standpoint we’re trying to get more use of Klondike from those two uses. So,

as we looked at the traffic studies, we looked at that long term. The a.m. was fine, both entry

and exit. There was the p.m. peak where we were seeing initially in our study, some backups on

the interior of the site as they tried to exit onto Bradford. As people came into the site, there

were no issues. So, from the public road standpoint we saw no issues there. No stacking on the

public roads, it was all internal to the site. Working with the Town and discussing with UPS as

well, there are some things they're doing to make that traffic not as we initially modeled it, so

we looked at it again. What I mean by that is, when we looked at it we assumed that it was

more of a school type atmosphere; shift gets done, everybody leaves, hops in their cars, you

have that tight 15-minute window. That is not the case here. There is employee screening as

people leave so there is a metering of people out into the parking lot, which stretches that out

a little bit more. So, people are exiting more over a period of time rather than in a tight

window. There is also, as we talked with UPS, there are also break rooms, there’s opportunities

for people to sit and wait of they don’t want to leave in that heavy period. They can wait, talk to

people, take a break, take their time on exiting. One of the things we talked about with UPS as

well is trying to encourage some carpooling, put in some incentives in that way. We can get

some carpooling and some other things that also takes the traffic down. But when we

reanalyzed it and looked at it without that school traffic, but now over that longer period of

time, again no problems on the entry. We were looking at this queuing and that dropped back

to 10 or so cars, but it was kind of a rolling que where people are, they're still moving but it gets

back a little bit and at that level, long term view that was acceptable from our standpoint. From

that traffic standpoint, talking with the Town, what the issue became was, well, what happens

if we do have an accident there, car breaks down, road construction, for some reason that isn’t

available. That’s where we looked at having that second access. So, through a gate up here to

give them access around to Klondike, a secondary one, if there’s issues, we can come back, we

can open this up through here and have an exit to Ronald Reagan and that would also take

some of that traffic off, reduce that queue. Just to summarize, from our standpoint, looking at

that long term view, we’re looking at that p.m. peak where we saw that internal stacking, but

there are ways to reduce that. Again, some of them UPS is already doing. We think as we move

forward, we think the plan is good. We think that the 360, we’re going to have access to

Klondike for those package trucks, for those semi-trucks, which is going to increase the use of

that road and take it off of Ronald Reagan. With that, if there’s any questions, I’d be happy to

answer.

Mr. McPhail: How many shift-turns do they have?

Mr. Beasley: Ken Beasley, 10095 Bradford Road. Are you talking about working shifts? Currently

we have the preload at twilight and then night, so the twilight would come in around 5:00 p.m.,

4:00-4:30 p.m. depending on when they start, they change it throughout the week. Then they

go to like 10:00 p.m. That’s all part-time and then the 10:00 p.m. till like 4:00 a.m., then the

4:00 a.m. to like 9:00 a.m. and then the 9:00 a.m. to the like 4:00-4:30 p.m.


Mr. McPhail: What’s your projected total employment?

Mr. Beasley: I’d have to go back and look that up. I know in total they could have up to 200

package cars. I’d have to get more information on it from the inside. It’s an automated facility,

so there’s not as many people as we typically have in a facility.

Mr. McPhail: Thank you.

Mr. Kirchoff: Could you give us a sense of when you…the traffic engineer… could you give us a

sense of what would cause you to open the gate to get access to Klondike? That’s one reason

we built Klondike Road, it was for vehicular traffic. So, what would prompt you to say it’s time

to open that gate and get cars out on Klondike?

Mr. Ficek: Well right now, upon opening, we would have it just for emergencies. As they look at

it in the future they’d have to see if operations start to break down for some reason and they

need it for successful operations. Everyone has an interest in safety for employees. So, they're

going to be looking at that for sure to take a look and see. If we need it, it’s there. We don’t

think it’s needed. Again, I point out that use of Klondike, we will have access for trucks, semi-

trucks, package trucks. And that’s a primary to getting that 360 around the building, is allowing

those other trucks to use Klondike.

Mr. Kirchoff: Is that 24/7?

Mr. Ficek: Yes

Mr. McPhail: Well you know, break rooms and staggered sounds good, but in reality, they're

going to leave as quick as they can. There are not going to be very many people hanging around

in that breakroom and to try to avoid that rush hour traffic.

Mr. Ficek: I agree, it’s not like half of the people are going to be sitting there, but it’s a handful

and it makes a difference. Also, with the employee screening that they have, as I understand it,

it’s similar to an airport screening, that you stagger people through. So, even if they all leave as

fast as they can, there is a metering so to speak of how they can get out.

Mr. McPhail: Well, I certainly, I’m not a traffic engineer, but I can tell you that if this thing starts

building up and we start stacking up in that parking lot and stacking up on the roads, we’re

going to have a serious problem and we’ve been concerned about that from day one since this

facility moved in.

Mr. Ficek: One of the things in all of the scenarios, there's no stacking on the public roads. This

is all interior to UPS and that’s that future p.m. peak that we again, thank can be managed

appropriately.

Mr. Bahr: When you speak of stacking, and everybody else probably knows this but I don’t, are

you referring to tractors being stacked, or employees being stacked?


Mr. Ficek: So, when we talk about that, we’re talking about one access. We’re talking the

employee access to Bradford. This is where, in our initial review before we looked at that

employee metering and some other factors, we saw that internal stacking as they tried to get

out onto Bradford for that future p.m. peak. Other accesses that we looked at, we did not see

the back ups accumulating. So, everything else was fine.

Mr. Bahr: That’s the employee, not the tractor?

Mr. Ficek: It was the employee one that we had that initial concern discussion with the Town

about, which led to again, revealing how the employees exit. So, it’s not the school, it’s the

longer, over a longer period of time. Breakrooms, carpooling, secondary access through the

gate or again, coming back and accessing trough the water tower drive if necessary.

Mr. Bahr: Thank you.

Mr. McPhail: I have more questions, but after the public hearing.

Mr. Bahr: Very good, thank you very much. If you would please, sign the register.

Mr. Beasley: One other comment is that allowing our tractor trailer drivers to park out there, it

gives them access to the building and use of the sidewalks to the facility. If we don’t put them

there, then we have to put them out in the lot and they would have to cross through the drive

path and most of our traffic is at night, so we would have our drivers walking back and forth

through the drive path in the middle of the night. That’s the main reason, for their safety that

we are doing this.

Mr. Bahr: Thank you. This is a public hearing, so at this point I’d like to open the meeting for any

public comments. First, those in favor of the project if you would, approach the podium and

state your case. Seeing none, those opposed to the project, one at a time come to the podium

to give your comments. Seeing none, I’d like to open it back up to the Commissioners.

Mr. Daniel: You need to close the public hearing.

Mr. Bahr: This is my second time doing this, all right, that’s why I have Mel. At this point we’d

like to close the public meeting.

Mr. Kirchoff: My first question would be for Brian since he’s at the microphone. What kind of

feedback did you get from the Medallion Meadows meeting?

Mr. Tuohy: We had it at the fire station, we had about a dozen folks and they were very

pleased. That would be the sound. I think they want to see the wall and they were pleased that

we gave them a date of when it was going to happen. They asked us to explant some dead trees

and replant live ones, we agreed to do that. They wanted to make sure of the distance from

their houses as to the above ground storage tanks. It turns out they’re about a quarter mile

away, they're actually closer to the below ground storage tanks where the Speedway gas

station is. And they wanted to make sure that the truck wash was north of them and actually


behind the extended building so that there's a building and a berm and a sound wall between

them and the truck wash. So, those were the primary concerns and we had about an hour and a

half public meeting and they thanked us for our time.

Mr. Kirchoff: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Tuohy: It was well received I thought.

Mr. Kirchoff: The next question I have would be for, I guess UPS itself. Is this extra plan it? And

the reason I ask is the last time you were in here and you asked for that conveyor building, I

believe it was you or one of your people saying you had no plans for any other additions to this

site.

Mr. Beasley: Yeah, you asked us if there were any other building expansions planned and I said

we didn’t have any other building expansions planned but we had site improvements that I

wasn’t aware of all of them or their details. Like even on the fuel line design right now, I don’t

have all of the details on it. The city asked us to put together a master plan, so we put

everything that we’re aware of on it. Right now, currently that’s everything, although it’s not all

completely designed.

Mr. Kirchoff: Because you didn’t know last time, what do you not know now?

Mr. Beasley: I don’t know of any future developments.

Mr. Kirchoff: And I think this came up in perhaps DRC, but all the fueling is just for UPS?

Mr. Beasley: Correct

Mr. Kirchoff: No other vehicles in there?

Mr. Beasley: UPS only.

Mr. Kirchoff: Okay. And then this is just, having been on the board of CIRTA, I hope that you

work with CIRTA on carpooling and van drivers to cut down on your line coming in.

Mr. Beasley: Our people leave at different times. Even in the sections of the building they work

in they leave at different times. The drivers all leave at the same time, a small window in the

morning, but they don’t come back at the same time. There’s a large window of when drivers

are coming back in. It would be difficult to get them back at the same time even if we wanted

them to.

Mr. Kirchoff: All right, thanks.

Mr. McPhail: I have a question for staff and/or maybe the petitioner. There's a lot of wooden

fence on this site and it deteriorates. How can we enforce proper maintenance?

Mr. Jones: I’ll speak to some of the conversations that we had about that particular thing and

the applicant can explain their side of it. Their request was to reuse the fence that’s on the


mound currently and other locations. Which given that request, seemed like a fair use of that

material and in light of what was needing to be done along the front, if they were to obtain the

variance for parking, somewhat seemed reasonable from the Board of Zoning Appeals

standpoint, I believe. The other thing too, is that what it does provide initially is an immediate

screening. As the landscaping matures it would be hoped that in the long term that that fencing

would, that the usefulness would no longer be necessary. We looked at some of the screening

around in other locations. You have the Reeves Road, we use that example a lot, Reeves and

Perry. The Home Depot site along Reeves there east and west. At the time that that building

was put in there was a residence across the way, so there was a good deal of concern. And so,

over the years if you look at that, it’s a solid barrier that that fence wouldn’t give you and it’s a

natural solid barrier of greenery. So, it would be the hope that in the long term that the

landscaping would fulfil all of the screening needs that would be necessary from Bradford. So,

long term maybe the fencing wouldn’t even need to be repaired or replaced. That’s the thing,

that in order to do that, that would facilitate a need to come back, if it was going to be

eliminated. They would have to come back to this body.

Mr. McPhail: I don’t think you answered my question. If it starts deteriorating, how can we

enforce maintenance? Proper maintenance?

Mr. Tuohy: I've got a couple of answers. One, the DRC asked us specifically not to stain that

fence, but to leave it in the color or shade that it’s in now because they thought that is it

weathered, that would be the best look. And secondly. That fence is also our security, so it’s

important to us that it stay intact to keep people from coming in and out of our site except

through our guarded checkpoints. Lastly, I don’t know your code well enough to say this, but it

seems to me that you could create a commitment either to maintain the fence in a good

condition or it would be somewhat similar to, you’ve got to cut your grass, or you get cited, if it

becomes unsightly. But, in just these improvements, this is about $13 million worth of

improvements. That fence is maybe more than $1 million itself. So, it’s a substantial investment

that we’re not going to let deteriorate. But if the Board would like, I’m sure we can fashion a

commitment to address that concern of the ongoing maintenance of it.

Mr. McPhail: Yeah, thank you.

Mr. Jones: And to that end, based on that statement and their willingness to give voluntary

commitment to do that is perfectly acceptable to staff. Not to mention the fact that, I guess a

little closer to your question is that any deterioration to a point is a violation of the approved

development plan. So, they would be subject to that, but I think with this commitment that

they're offering here, that adds an extra layer as well.

Mr. Phillip: Mr. Tuohy, correct me if I’m not remembering properly, but I think we got a similar

commitment the last time you were in about the fence closest to Medallion Meadows.

Mr. Tuohy: You did, with the fence and the wall, yes.


Mr. Phillip: Okay.

Mr. Kirchoff: This is very futuristic, this is for Scott. What thoughts have you had on the

potential of them using our access road to the water tower to Ronald Reagan? Would that just

be a right out only? What conversations have you had there?

Mr. Singleton: Yeah, that discussion came up somewhat late in our overall review. It wasn’t part

of the original study to be honest with you, but as we were going back and forth looking at the

study and understanding the impacts of their site, that kind of came up. So, I think they're in

favor of it, they just don’t look to make that investment up front unless they kind of need it in

the back. So preliminary, what that would look like, would just be like you said, it would be a

right out only. We don’t want to have the inbound traffic merging with the free-flowing right

coming around, accelerating, trying to get on to Reagan. So, a right out only. It would come

with some kind of a modification to the drive that had a gated access for inbound, because

obviously our trucks would need access into the water tower site, in which they’ll be able to use

that. They’ll be able to pull in, probably get out and unlock a gate and then get through and lock

it behind them after they’ve left. So, that’s how we foresaw handling that. It would also

probably come with an expectation that this area, this lane that tapers around right here to

merge back in with Reagan, and then their turn lane to their facility widens out about right

there, so I think what we would do, we would look for that to get kind of connected in/tied

together, so that there's actually longer run-off for the traffic and more merging opportunities

for the exiting traffic.

Mr. Kirchoff: Very futuristic, but I was just curious to what you were thinking.

Mr. Singleton: Yeah, so I think we do have an option down the road about that. And of course, I

would add, we’re looking at this area so intently and from so many different angles on what's

happening with All Points, what Avon is doing with County Road 100, and then our own

challenges down here at the Reagan/US 40 intersection. There are other improvements, things

that we think will help to relieve some of the traffic. It’s not going to change how much traffic is

on Reagan, it’s just going to change how it gets to Reagan. So of course, that does talk about

that Klondike Road and that Bradford Road intersection, but it does look like there's an

opportunity to relieve some of that traffic in the future.


Mr. Singleton: Sure

Mr. McPhail: I might suggest that we add a commitment similar to this that at any time in the

future, the Town of Plainfield determines a need to use Klondike Road for auto traffic, UPS will

provide access via the north end of the building to the employee parking area. Pretty simple.

Mr. Bahr: Other questions? Comments?

Mr. Phillip: Ready for a motion?


Mr. Bahr: I’m ready for a motion.

Mr. Phillip: Mr. President, I move that the Plan Commission approve DP-18-009, as filed by Sean Lalley United Parcel Service, Inc, a development plan for a proposed Master Development Plan for an existing warehouse/distribution building on 82.23 acres finding that:

1. The Development Plan complies with all applicable Development Standards of the District in which the site is located.

2. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted.

3. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions for Architectural and Site Design Review for which a waiver has not been granted.

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

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

If Approved: That such approval shall be subject to the following commitments:

1. Applicate voluntarily commits to height of 25 feet for earthen berm along Ronald Reagan Parkway, unless additional reduction is approved by the Town of Plainfield Plan Commission.

2. Substantial compliance with the site plans and building elevations dated, June 18th, 2018.

3. Improvement Location Permit (ILP) approval, building, and fire protection approval will be required.

4. If at any time in the future the Town of Plainfield determines a need to use Klondike Road for auto traffic, UPS will provide access via the north end of the building to employee parking area.

Mr. Kirchoff: Second.

Mr. Todisco: Mr. Phillip- yes

Mr. McPhail- yes

Mr. Brandgard- yes

Mr. Kirchoff- yes

Mr. Bahr- yes

DP-18-009 is approved.


Mr. Bahr: Very good, good luck. At this point we’d like to move on to RZ-18-003 – Plainfield

Tech Park – A request to rezone 17.5 acres from GC (General Commercial) and AG (Agriculture)

to I-2 (Office/Warehouse Distribution) in the vicinity of Camby Road, west of SR 267.

Mr. Jones: This is a rezone request of Denison Properties for the southwest corner of the

intersection 700 South and SR 267. You’ll see it in this location here. Its approximately 17 acres,

includes property just west of the intersection. The property in the immediate intersection is

zoned GC (General Commercial), owned by the applicant as well. The property to the north is

the Assembly of God Church. And the property, also owned by the applicant is zoned I-2 and

what would also be the southwest corner of the interchange at I-70 and SR 267 zoned I-2, that

was part of a rezone in 2011. Continuing on around counter clockwise, the property in this

vicinity right along 700 S, zoned General Commercial and Office Development. Then wrapping

around the rest of the west and the south of their property, that is currently zoned Residential

RB by the County, single-family detached. As we looked into the project of the request, to the

right here is the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan identifies the area to the north

to be Highway Commercial; Industrial Warehousing on the east side. This is conservation

district on the south of 700 S and to the east of SR 267; with the remaining area, the 2016

comprehensive plan to be Residential Low Density. The site itself in question requesting the

rezone this evening is shown by the comprehensive plan to be Residential Single-Family Low-

Density housing as well. The site itself currently is zoned GC, so it’s fair to make that

clarification. So there, as stated in the staff report is the conflict with the comprehensive plan.

The applicant is here this evening and can go into detail with this. However, I’d like to ask Scott

Singleton, the Transportation Director, had some concerns concerning the comprehensive

plan/thoroughfare plan and how this might affect transportation in the area with respect to

potential frontage roads.

Mr. Singleton: Thank you, I just wanted to point out one thing. I know this is a rezoning

question and we’re not getting into the traffic details yet, but what I wanted to kind of bring up

and I’ve talked to Mac about this, there’s opportunities to work this out in the future, but

there’s also opportunities to work it out as part of this process. So, this parcel line is zoned GC

today and you can see it has current access to the church. The actual map, and Mac correct me

if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure I’ve got it right, this parcel, a little sliver of this, is part of the

rezone request to I-2. So, this would leave the expected access point opposite on the south side

would probably be opposite of this drive here. So, having that drive there for the south side, the

drive is likely to be beyond the church, access to the industrial area. So, there’s a bit of a

potential of a staggered drive set out there. We’re not 100% comfortable yet, we’re looking at

that with Mac’s guys and engineers as part of the overall roadway design. So, just because of

that sliver, I just kind of wanted to point out, going through the zoning process now and the

way it’s written up, this portion from here would become I-2. We haven’t quite yet submitted

to those access points, so that could play into it. Like I said, Mac’s aware of it. He knows the

flexibility he can have with the access inside the zoning restrictions that are there. But I did

want to kind of point that out, that that little sliver is kind of in question still. Once we finalize


our access discussions as part of a development plan or applied in process. If anybody has any

questions about that, I’ll be happy to try and answer them. So, that’s the sliver there, its about

100 and some odd feet between the two parcel lines. Does that make sense to everybody? I

know I’m not doing a great job at explaining that. Okay, thank you.

Mr. Jones: Some of the things we’re trying to do with staff on the rezone, is look at these a little

more in depth with respect to the way that the actual site, if it’s rezoned, may develop. A little

more microscopically than just very globally. Whether it does or doesn’t meet the

comprehensive plan and whether it does or doesn’t kind of make sense from a general

perspective as far as whether it’s a good idea for a zoning change or not. What we’re trying to

do is have the applicant bring forward a little more information upfront so we can put some

meat on those bones and so we can get answers to the questions that Scott’s bringing up here

this evening. It puts us in an awkward position and not a lot of way we can make what we

consider to be comprehensive recommendations or reports on the rezones themselves

Mr. Kirchoff: When we do rezones we try not to get into the development ideas.

Mr. Jones: No, we’re not talking about asking for development plans…

Mr. Kirchoff: I understand that, but I just think you have to be careful going down the road

when you’re just talking about rezoning.

Mr. Jones: Sure. With respect to this particular request, there were also six commitments we

received today, actually we received them Friday, but weren’t able to get them opened, and

Mr. McNaught was able to provide them today, so we do have them here and provided them

for you at your stations. We should have had them in the memo… yes, in that packet there, yes.

And they're up there on the screen. I can leave that for Mr. McNaught to go into in detail. If you

have any other questions, I’d be glad to try and answer those.

Mr. McNaught: Mr. President and Commission, for the record my name is Mac McNaught,

offices at 320 North Meridian Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. Thank you for your time this

evening. If I may hand out a little bit of history, it might be helpful. Again, this give you a little

bit of history. If I could add some colored commentary in addition to the colors that you see on

the page. On the north side of Camby Road and the south side of Camby Road there were about

six houses in 2005 that were in various states of disrepair or condition. And as you know, this is

a noise abatement area by the airport. The airport had, on parcel B, the 1 acre that is included

in our application here, had a noise abatement demonstration house, as you may recall. It

showed people how they could stay in place in this area if they replaced windows and added

extra insulation. Over 2005-2006 we removed those houses in various states of disrepair and

the airport was pleased about that, I think the Town was pleased. When we came forward with

a rezoning to General Commercial on both sides, the north side and the south side we found

out that IKEA and Cabela’s and Gander Mountain and other such regional uses or health care

uses were not coming to the interchange and so in 2011 given a scarcity of land for industrial

and also a greater demand for smaller industrial buildings, we approached the Plan Commission


and the Town Council on the north side for a rezoning and that was approved with appropriate

commitments. Then in 2015 we acquired parcel B from the airport and we tore down that

house and were beginning the process of disposing of non aviation real estate. So, we were

able to work something out and acquire that property. It had not been annexed into the Town,

so we filed an application for the annexation and asked that it be brought into the Town in the

I-2 District. Mr. Perona worked on that and the fiscal plan shows Industrial. There's a little bit of

ambiguity as to whether it actually came in zoned Industrial. So, we went ahead and included

that in our petition, that’s one of the reasons we’re before you here this evening. The next

thing to happen was we were able to acquire last year, the former Kelly Strange property and

his two sons are here today. In October the Plan Commission and Council approved a rezone

into the I-2 classification, adding about 12 acres. So, there are approximately 60 acres as Terry

described being the southwest quadrant of the interchange of I-70 and SR 267. The church

property owned by a private business man in Carmel is zoned GC and then the corner

surrounded by the church parcel is zoned General Commercial. South of the parcel B was an

acre owned by the Guilford Township Trustee, and you may know or recall that there's a Civil

Defense Siren there on that property, in the gravel drive. There's a short, rough gravel drive to a

pole and that Civil Defense Siren is there. We approached Mr. Ellis last year at his Board and

worked out an arrangement where we acquired that property. That property is annexed in

Plainfield, but is zoned Agricultural, which is another reason why we’re here this evening. As we

worked with developers who are interested in either coming to Plainfield or expanding what

they have here in Plainfield, again a demand for smaller buildings in that 180,000-200,000

approximate square foot range, so we thought to clean up two parcels, the one from the

airport and the one from the Guilford Township Trustee. We would file the case that you have

before you this evening. Just one clarification in terms of the neighborhood, I met with Mr. and

Mrs. Jocelyn, the owners of approximately 12 acres to the south. Mr. Jocelyn explained to me

that his property was zoned Highway Business by Hendricks County and I just wasn’t aware of

that and when I looked it up, he’s correct as to the parcels he and Mrs. Jocelyn own, fronting

County Road 825. The parcel to the south and then the Russell Daum Farm, now Ellen Daum

Farm on to the south as Mr. Jones related, is zoned by the county for Residential. I have to

admit, in receiving the staff report and learning about the 2016 comp plan, I’m a little surprised

by the (inaudible) of this area. For Single-Family when you have an existing parcel zoned

General commercial, that struck me as a bit unusual. You obviously have a highway like SR 267

bordering it on the east, and then of course you have the overflights of the airport, which

spurred me to find out more about that. I contacted Eric Anderson, the Real Estate Director at

the airport and his office relayed to me that there are approximately 145 flights per day,

commercial flights, and that Federal Express has 65 gates currently and they’re adding 28 gates,

and each gate represents a nighttime departure. Well, if you add those up you’re at 238 gates

or flights and that’s about 1 every 5 ½ minutes. So, there’s a bit of activity happening there as

well as the interstate. Mr. Jones mentioned the included commitments, just to make absolutely

sure, I think you have those… I just wanted to make sure you had the commitments that

addressed, similar to the north side, addressed buffering… of course in this case to Highway


Commercial to the west, but still we’ve included that; and there's a heavy tree line there that

we would not disturb; and then square footage; and then we were asked to address the façade

of the building that would be visible from Camby Road, so we’ve addressed that particular

development detail as well. In terms of traffic, we submitted in 2005 a traffic study for the

south side of what we’re doing here today. It showed trip generation based on General

Commercial uses, which as Scott and I talked about, are greater than industrial I-2 Office, Light

Industrial uses. We also in 2011 submitted a traffic study. Mr. McGillem reviewed those and I

know Scott has those and has reviewed them. The real key to what's happening here is the

intersection of SR 267, that’s the real bingo item. It needs to be reviewed carefully and we will

obviously work with Scott and make sure that we understand that. Butler, Fairman & Seufert is

working on that now. In terms of specific access points, we have the whole primary plat process

to proceed through as well as development approval. I think we can resolve precise or exact

location of curb cuts. The thing we did is we took six separately owned parcels on the south

side of Camby and consolidated into one ownership. So instead of four, five, or six curb cuts

with each property owner only having access, we were able to coordinate that. With that, I will

sign in and be glad to answer any questions you might have.

Mr. Bahr: Thank you very much. There being no questions, we’ll open this portion to the public

meeting. I ask that those opposed to the petitioner, approach the podium and give us your

comments.

Mr. J. Jones: Mr. President and members of the Plan Commission, good evening. My name is

Jim Jones, 6844 Cottonwood Drive, Plainfield, Indiana. Really, there's probably two areas I

would say that myself and the neighbors, I wouldn’t say right now that we represent the whole

neighborhood, Marilyn, she’s normally here, she’s out of town… can we get the slide up there

that shows the site? First is just the infrastructure of the area as it relates primarily to traffic. I

would say that going forward, once this moves out of this Commission, there's going to be a

sense that this is okay, there’s a plan to address it, I believe we’re probably getting so far down

the road, no pun intended there, that we’re going to have problems. If you see that east/west

road, that’s 700 or Camby Road I think is what its identified as here, essentially what’s going to

happen, the neighborhood in the northwest corner where we live in right now is going to be

land-locked. We’re going to only be able to come out the 825 E. There will be so much traffic

here because, I think the gentleman here was talking about that, there is no plan to use SR 276,

all of the traffic is going to be funneled in from the east and west here. Even the rezoning that

has been approved in the past up in here. That’s going to potentially add more traffic. Any day

of the week you can see people riding bikes, walking, jogging; I think what you’ll… because we

really don’t have any access to north of I-70, but facilities, the trails and things. I say that, but

we get the grandkids and bikes inside the Tahoe and take them to Hummel Park we have

access, but right now we can't get up through there unless we’re on the road. So, we have a

real big concern about not having an actionable plan. I know there's different definitions of

plan, how’s the traffic going to be addressed? How are the citizens going to be able to exit? Is

this road really just for the businesses and we have to use this one road out? I’m sure we could


get out a different way, but that’s the big thing. There's other infrastructure I would ask, is

there any plan to construct a development or improvements in this area? I didn’t see it in the

comprehensive plan.

Mr. Brandgard: A quick answer, this is just dealing with zoning. When they come in with their

plan for using it, that’s when we direct the traffic plan, the infrastructure plan as far as water

and sewer and everything down there. That will come with the development plan.

Mr. J. Jones: An acceptable plan will come with that?

Mr. Brandgard: Yes.

Mr. J. Jones: We can guarantee that?

Mr. McPhail: Absolutely

Mr. Brandgard: Absolutely, that’s the way it works.

Mr. J. Jones: Okay

Mr. Kirchoff: You saw the questions on the earlier case, didn’t you?

Mr. J. Jones: Yes Sir, but I also heard that like with UPS, that businesses will come back and

come back and come back. And I did hear that they are concerned about the safety of the

people within there, but it’s because, sounded like to me, they're increasing their

activity/volume from the original. That’s going to happen, and I don’t blame the businesses for

doing that and they should ask for everything that they can get. Right? That’s my concern.

Mr. Brandgard: When we did the other annexations and zoning, we had said that the traffic

from this zoning activity will be directed to SR 267. We won't give a road improvement that

would suggest trucks should go into your residential neighborhood. We can direct trucks out.

Mr. J. Jones: Well, they're going to go in there because they’re going to make the wrong turn.

That’s going to happen.

Mr. Brandgard: Well, what I mean is your standard truck traffic, it should not go that way. We

can design it, we try and design it to keep it out of there.

Mr. Bahr: Yeah, but tonight’s meeting, and correct me if I’m wrong, isn’t designed around the

development, it’s designed around the zoning of it.

Mr. Jones: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Bahr: And then the development would come at later date, which would be reviewed.

Mr. J. Jones: But my understanding is, once it’s approved for this zoning, then we’re telling

people that you can advertise this parcel, this type of building and this type of activity could go

on here, which suggests that someone’s thinking… Okay, I’m not here to argue the process.


Mr. Phillip: Mr. Jones, as an example though, you’ll get notice. When they come back, in order

to do all of this, you’ll get noticed again that there’s going to be a public hearing and talking

about the plan in particular, which really is kind of the opportunity for your bite at the apple

around how the plans for the transportation and the other infrastructure would work.

Mr. J. Jones: Okay, all right.

Mr. Phillip: So, not to be mean, it’s much more that it’s a process. It’s kind of what we live with.

Mr. J. Jones: Okay, thank you.

Mr. McPhail: Yeah, and I might add to that... I don’t remember the year that we first annexed

that first one, but it was early 2000’s wasn’t it? We spent a great deal of time talking about

traffic. And if I remember right, 825 got a bridge down there south a little bit, south of 700.

That is an issue for you today?

Mr. J. Jones: Yes

Mr. McPhail: And that the County is going to have to help us participate in as we go, because

you folks are in the county. But we have spent a great deal of time in the past talking about

traffic and trying to protect your neighborhood and I assure you we will do the best job we can.

Mr. J. Jones: With respect to the zone I-2, if I have this correct, Article 2.13 defines that? Do I

have that right?

Mr. Phillip: They’re checking it.

Mr. J. Jones: Let’s assume that is it for right now. Paragraph 2 under “a” says, “special exception

uses”, the exception in this case, I think, means it can be used for these special exceptions?

Mr. Daniel: Not necessarily. Special exception means that it requires additional approval by the

Plan Commission.

Mr. J. Jones: Okay, that’s a good thing. From our perspective we see a sewage treatment plant

and we see a water treatment plant, truck terminal. Truck terminal to me, just goes right back

to that first issue of traffic. So, it would be, I guess similar to the infrastructure plan part of the

development plan?

Mr. Daniel: Yes

Mr. J. Jones: 6844 Cottonwood Drive, bring your swim trunks, I’ll supply the adult beverages, at

best 2-3 planes an hour at our house. I’m not questioning your data, I’m just saying I don’t

know, they're in the air, I guess there's got to be more than one direct route but in about 8-9

hours, there’d be 2-3. Thanks a lot.

Mr. Phillip: Thank you, Sir.

Mr. Bahr: Thank you Mr. Jones. Did you sign in?


Mr. J. Jones: I did.

Mr. Bahr: Anyone else opposed to the project?

Mr. Crum: I’m Danny Crum, 8002 Edgewood Court, Plainfield, Indiana. Not to belabor the point,

but I think I’m in line with Mr. Jones. I’m not sure what the air traffic…We know living in

Plainfield you're going to have air traffic, so I think that point is irrelevant, I don’t really know

what that has to do with anything. But just to go on record to say that we live in Low Density

housing. A very nice neighborhood, easy on and off to I-70. We’re just concerned with industrial

coming in.

Mr. Bahr: Thank you, Sir. Anyone else, please? Yes, Sir.

Mr. Milton: Joe Milton, 8205 Dogwood Court. My concern is more about what this will do to the

property values in that neighborhood. I’ve seen other areas similar to ours where industrial

comes in on the edges and it was a real detriment to property taxes. We have homes in that

area ranging anywhere form $150,000 to over $500,000. I realize that there's still a plan

pending, but any kind of change in zoning could have a real negative effect on our property

values and I just want you to take that into consideration. Thank you for your time.

Mr. Bahr: Thank you for coming. Other comments opposing the project? Hearing none, any

comment approving the project? Seeing none, at this point I’d like to close the public meeting

and open it up to the Commissioners for comment, discussion.

Mr. Phillip: Either staff or Mac, can you tell me how many acres are already zoned I-2 there?

That Denison owns? They're a continuous property?

Mr. Jones: Yes, on the north side there’s 60 acres zoned Industrial.

Mr. Phillip: Thank you

Mr. McPhail: I just might make one comment. You know, the bulk of this that he’s asking to

rezone is currently zoned General Commercial. It’s my opinion that a development General

Commercial would create more traffic and more issues for the neighborhood than I-2 would,

but that’s my opinion. General Commercial could have 24/7 traffic in and out of it. You might

have that with I-2, but there’s going to be peaks.

Mr. Bahr: That section of SR 267, that’s four lanes at that point, or does it bottle neck down to

two?

Mr. McPhail: That’s about where it chokes down. Isn’t it?

Mr. Belcher: Just north of 700 it bottle necks down.

Mr. Bahr: The Master Plan did not include this area. Staff presented earlier, and this was not

part of the comprehensive plan.


Mr. Jones: This particular property is designated on the comprehensive plan to be Low Density

Single Family Detached, and obviously it’s zoned General Commercial. That’s the 2016…

Mr. McPhail: We missed a vote there.

Mr. Kirchoff: Yeah, that’s… that area needs to be addressed.

Mr. Jones: The only things that I would point out is, if the desire is to go forward with the

rezone request, we may want to start taking a look at that area as potential development south

of there because of the interest that might generate, continued zoning request of this nature.

So, it might be one of those things that if it’s desired to move forward, maybe we look at the

comprehensive plan in that area and take a little closer look. Just a suggestion.

Mr. McPhail: We had to have made a mistake. A noise abated area and designated it

Residential, we made a mistake. That’s all I can tell you. If it’s undeveloped, if it’s already there,

that’s one thing.

Mr. Bahr: Any other comments?

Mr. Brandgard: I think that the commitments that were made that affect some of the thoughts you presented is the statement of commitments (inaudible), it’s hard to read, but commitment 1 is:

1. The development of the subject property shall comply with the Gateway Corridor standards of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance, as amended.

Number 2 is:

2. The developer, Denison Partners, LLC, shall work closely with the Town of Plainfield to install truck traffic control measures in order to keep, as much as possible, all semi-trucks to Camby Road and not accessing roads west and south of the subject property.

Number 3:

3. The maximum square footage of any one building on the subject property shall not exceed two hundred twenty thousand (220,000) square feet.

Which out here is a pretty small building. And Item 4:

4. Light fixtures for the parking, loading and driveway areas shall be designed to include “cut off” shields so as to direct illumination downward. Maximum height of any parking lot or driveway light pole shall be 26’.

5. A thirty-five-foot (35’) buffer shall be maintained along the western boundary of the Real Estate by preserving the existing trees and vegetation, save for removal of dead or dying trees, or installation of necessary storm water related elements.

Mr. Bahr: Would the petitioner like to respond?

Mr. McNaught: I think the staff has done a fine job of analyzing the case and you have everything before you. The traffic I think is an important question. The traffic studies that we submitted to the Town in 2011 with that Industrial rezoning, prior to rezoning, show at least


four lanes of traffic, four lanes of roadway at the intersection. In a recent TAC meeting, a discussion was held to potentially add a fifth lane so that you’ve got two dedicated left turn lanes as you turn north on SR 267, dedicated 3 lanes going due east and a dedicated right turn lane going south SR 267. So, that’s the east bound and of course you would have at least two, possibly three lanes coming west. So, it would be a substantial improvement to what is there today and would anticipate everything we have in terms of north and south of this section of Camby Road. And I think would adequately serve a single-family neighborhood. The bigger question I think is signalization or whether there would be thought of a roundabout at SR 267 and Camby Road. There was some interesting discussion by staff of that, to have listened to that discussion, I’m no traffic engineer, but I know it was, I know Mr. Belcher was very clear. He felt that, with Scott also joining in the discussion, that having two left turns would be critical and adding a dedicated right turn lane southbound to a three lane would also be critical. So, I think that would more than adequately handle… if you look at Stafford Road intersecting SR 267, this road isn’t carrying the kind of load that Stafford Road is.

Mr. Kirchoff: This intersection, I can tell you, in the near future will get lots of attention. Another topic for another time, because we want to talk about rezoning. I guarantee we will have lots of conversations about this intersection.

Mr. Singleton: I think the thing that we may have lost and not explained is that when this got its original zone, as Mac was referencing the traffic studies, all of those improvements were addressed. Its not like we don’t have a plan for how this is developing. What we’re really looking at, and what Mac mentioned earlier, when you switch from GC to I-2, the truck traffic will increase, but the overall traffic volumes actually tend to reduce, and they tend to be more concentrated on a shift change type set up, you’re not constantly in and out like your interstate traffic would be. So, there is a plan, there’s an analysis that’s been done. There’s going to be a signal probably happen at that intersection. It’s under INDOT’s jurisdiction, so of course we’re going to go through the process to go through the design for all of that based on the analysis and what could develop on the east side. But for this rezoning, there was no further analysis done, it was already done previously.

Mr. Bahr: Thanks Scott.

Mr. Kirchoff: Are we ready for a motion?

Mr. Bahr: Please.

Mr. Kirchoff: I guess my question is, on the tail end, we do have commitments (inaudible)…

Mr. Daniel: Yeah, it’s submitted to the Town by the developer and identified on Exhibit A. the staff can attach those in.

Mr. Kirchoff: Okay. I move that the Plan Commission certify the zone map amendment request RZ-18-003 as filed by Denison Properties, LLC petition to zone approximately 16.53 acres from GC General Commercial and 1-acre AG Agricultural to I-2 Office/Warehouse Distribution located at the southwest quadrant of the SR 267/I-70 interchange south and north of CR 700 South with a favorable recommendation subject to the following commitments being submitted on Exhibit A forms prior to certification to the Town Council.

Mr. McPhail: Second



Mr. McPhail- yes

Mr. Brandgard- yes

Mr. Kirchoff- yes

Mr. Bahr- yes

RZ-18-003 is approved.

Mr. Bahr: I’d like to move on to RZ-18-004 – ATM Hospitality

Mr. Berg: As I know Brian has a PowerPoint on this, I’m going to keep it short. This is a rezone of the CI part of the parcel there and it’s owned by Mann Properties. They will be bringing a Primary Plat and a development plan, we’ve been told in September. So, that’ll be the next couple of steps. Perry Road, Hartford Avenue. Again CI, you’ve got your General Commercial over in this area here, and this is your I-2. As I mentioned in the staff report, this is kind of a transitional area between the more tourist or Commercial areas and the Industrial. On the comp plan this is showing as Light Industrial. Even the Embassy Suites is showing as Light Industrial. Again, at that time it was thought that perhaps that could move that direction, and we’ve had many discussions about the comp plan. But again, as Terry mentioned there might be some things that we need to revisit as we go on. As I mentioned, Hartford and Perry, this portion right there is seeking to be rezoned. And again, this is kind of another way of looking more at that kind of transition from the tourist and hospitality-based economy towards the industrial. As I said, I know Brian is just itching to come up here and do a PowerPoint, so I’m going to have a seat.

Mr. Tuohy: Good evening members of the Plan Commission, again Brian Tuohy, my address is 50 South Meridian and I represent the petitioner in Case No. 18-004. Thank you for your time tonight in hearing our case. I’d like to introduce you to the petitioner, it’s Dr. Mark Kendra and his two daughters who are also Dr. Kendra and Dr. Kendra and Mrs. Kendra, Cheryl Kendra who drove down tonight from Highland, Indiana, from the north part of our state. Maybe most interesting is, Mark Kendra, Dr. Kendra is the Secretary for the Highland Plan Commission. So, he’s well aware of what you folks do. So, thanks for hearing our case. Eric did a great job at keeping it brief and I’ll follow suit. The site is right here, and Mann Properties owns the entire site and they have that flex space building that’s right there facing Perry Road, which I’ve learned has had a couple of different names attached to it in some of the Google Earth Maps. And then of course, just across the street is Homewood Suites as you so well know, the convention center and Embassy Suites. Then to the east and north, industrial uses. So, it’s kind of tucked in between some Commercial and some Industrial uses and its currently zoned CI. We’re asking to zone it General Commercial. Not because we need all of those other General Commercial uses, but because a hotel is not a permitted use in a CI zoning. So, that’s the purpose of our rezoning. The Kendras would purchase this site and it would be an investment of between $8.5-9 Million. They would propose to build and own a hotel which is part of the Holiday Inn Intercontinental Flags of hotels. Here this is a sort of tighter view of the site. Here’s


the convention center and where the Embassy Suites is going and here’s the industrial uses on each side of it. This is a photograph looking straight north of the site. This is looking southwest at the hotels across the street. So, that driveway right there is the driveway into the back of the Mann Property. That is the back of the Mann Property, so that’s looking south, that would be our south border. Here’s the Mann site. What they would propose to do is just purchase this parcel right here from the Manns and that’s where the hotel would go, it’s about 5 acres. So, this is the part of the site that would go from CI, which the whole site is now, to GC, should this receive approval for rezoning. As was mentioned, this is not a development plan approval. We would have to come back with a detailed development plan showing what this building would look like, how it would lay out on the site, some operational details. We did submit to the planning department a couple of different renderings of how it could look. There’s one version of the hotel on that site. So, here’s the Mann building now. Another version would be like this with those details of how we access/go in and out of the site would come in the development plan approval should we get to that stage. What the hotel would look like, it’s a new chain for business travelers. The rates are somewhere in the $110-$120 to $135-$140 at the high level. It’s designed for a younger traveler as you can see from the interior, its millennial friendly, I guess is a way you could say it, given the ages of Dr. Kendra’s daughters who will be involved in it. As you can see it’s sort of a “hip” concept is a word that I’ve heard used.

Mr. Brandgard: As a comment there, this reminds me very much of a hotel I stayed in in Copenhagen.

Mr. Tuohy: That’s the era they're shooting for. I mean, it’s got fitness centers, it’s got internet connectivity.

Mr. Brandgard: it’s designed for the boomers.

Mr. Tuohy: Yeah, the young business traveler. So, there’s not one of these in Indianapolis yet. There's a few in Georgia and a few in Oklahoma and it’s been well received in those locations. So, we would propose, again we would have to come back to see you all, but we propose to rezone it and the purpose of that would be for a four-story hotel for business travelers. It’s part of the Holiday Inn group of hotels. It’s an $8.5-$9 Million capital investment. We sent out a fair amount of notice, I've had no calls, no remonstrance from anyone. It would allow this site to be developed. The Manns have advised me that they’ve had it for sale for almost 5 years and have not received any other serious offers, was the way they phrased it. We respectfully suggest that this use is compatible with the surrounding uses and kind of fits in between some heavy industrial uses and commercial uses to our south and our east. With that, we’ll certainly try to answer any of your questions. Thanks again for your time.

Mr. Bahr: Thank you. At this time, I would like to open the public meeting. First, those opposed to the project, if any, please approach and give us your comments. Seeing none, those in favor of the project, please approach and give your comments. Seeing none, I would like to close the public meeting and open it up to the Commissioners for comment.

Mr. McPhail: Well, I tried to do my homework and Mr. Tuohy threw me off a little bit when he said maybe there were two or three in Georgia. I could only find one in Oklahoma. So, it’s a pretty new brand.


Mr. Bahr: Would anyone entertain a motion?

Mr. Brandgard: Mr. Chairman, I would move that the Plan Commission certify the zone map amendment request RZ-18-004 as filed by Brian J. Tuohy for ATM Hospitality requesting rezoning of approximately 5.2 acres on Hartford Avenue north of Perry Road from the CI: Commercial Industrial District to the GC: General Commercial District with a favorable recommendation.

Mr. Kirchoff: Second


Mr. McPhail- yes

Mr. Brandgard- yes

Mr. Kirchoff- yes

Mr. Bahr- yes


Mr. Bahr: Thank you.

Mr. Tuohy: Thank you very much.

Mr. Bahr: Good luck. At this point, I’d like to move on to RZ-18-005 – Integrity Behavioral Solutions

Mr. Berg: Okay, RZ-18-005 is a rezone from R2: Low Density Residential to Office District. Rich, I don’t know if you were on the BZA when this came forward as a Special Exception?

Mr. Phillip: I don’t remember it.

Mr. Berg: Okay. Well, there was a church here and what they’ve done is, it’s tutoring for children on the Autistic Spectrum. That’s what they do, and they apparently do it well because it sounds like they're ready to expand at some point in the near future. So, instead of going through the Special Exception process, staff encouraged the applicant to go through rezoning because the Office District, that would be a use that would be permitted by right instead of by Special Exception. The other thing that this would do is it would kind of solidify that Office District corner. We have been getting inquiries from folks who would like to turn that into a gas station.

Mr. McPhail: Won't happen.

Mr. Berg: That was kind of staff’s thought on that is to try and solidify that to give it kind of an anchor. And it was also a district that would fit the use. It’s at 1599 East Township Line Road. You’re probably pretty familiar, Dan Jones and Township. The church is along here. One of the things that we did find out, they are working on an agreement, should extra parking be necessary, to partner with the church at the south as the uses would not have competing parking. Also, contrary to a Commercial use, this will also have hours that do not conflict with


the Residential uses. So, that was BZA-16-006 that was the special exception. Here’s the site plan and the current site in case there was any interest in that. I shall turn it over to the applicant, if there are no questions.

Mr. Kingen: Thank you very much. President Bahr, members of the Commission, my name is David Kingen. I’m an urban planner in Indianapolis. My office is at 618 East Market Street. I do want to introduce, also with me this evening is the owner of the property Alicia Boyll. Her husband who is the business manager and director of the school, Kyle Boyll. And then Justin Kingen assisted in the preparations of this petition. We will also be very brief, we do want to appreciate staff in directing the applicant, property owner even prior to our involvement in the petition to seek a rezoning to the OD classification. We do think this is an appropriate deviation from the comprehensive plan. As the staff pointed out, there is church zoning to the north and to the south and the Office District to the east of this site. I think hearing tonight about the gas station, I think I can speak for my clients and say that they would also sign a petition to oppose such a use at this intersection and would be willing to do that in the future. We are working on a plan of operation on a new site plan that shows the expansion of the school. Essentially the addition to the facility is going to be to the south towards the church. They’ve relocated the playground slightly to the southeast. We are having discussions with the church to the south about additional parking. Although quite honestly, the existing use only uses about half of the existing parking and we think even with this expansion, we have adequate parking on the site to accommodate the use as proposed. Again, we’d be glad to answer any questions you might have, and we are seeking approval of our request.

Mr. Bahr: Thank you very much. At this point, I’d like to open the public meeting. Anyone opposed to the project, if they would present their comments. Seeing none, anyone in favor of the project, please present your comments. Seeing none, at this point the public meeting has closed and opened up to the Commissioners for discussion. Questions?

Mr. Kirchoff: I think I’m good with this site. I’m confused with the one on the corner. So, my question is, is the parking lot asphalt?

Mr. Kingen: It is.

Mr. Kirchoff: Okay, because it’s the one on the corner that’s stone.

Mr. Kingen: Correct


Mr. Phillip: Mr. President, I move that the Plan Commission certify the zone map amendment

RZ-18-005 as filed by David Kingen & Justin Kingen for Integrity Behavioral Solutions requesting

rezoning of 0.631 acres at 1599 East Township Line Road from R2 (Low Density Residential) to

OD (Office District) with a favorable recommendation.

Mr. Brandgard: Second


Mr. McPhail- yes


Mr. Brandgard- yes

Mr. Kirchoff- yes

Mr. Bahr- yes


Mr. Bahr: Good luck. At this point, I’d like to move on to PUD-18-002

Mr. Berg: They’re looking to rezone 34.8 acres from Commercial Industrial to a Planned Unit

Development that is largely based upon the CI District. Located here on the east side of Ronald

Reagan, here’s Stout Heritage. Perry Crossing is roughly over there. They’d come to you in the

future, should you approve this, with a final detail plan for any developments on these parcels.

This area down here, eventually you will here that, that is the Strategic Capital Partners project

there, it’s been continued several times. This is in compliance with the comp plan. Again, as a

PUD they have put in some extra landscaping and also extra architectural elements. They’ve

done some of this in order to, trying to find the right word, in order to perhaps make it more

palatable, more upscale. One thing I pointed out in the staff report is that this area here with

the intersection of Stout and Reagan, that’s kind of an intersection that this could help frame

and really act as a focal point for those two streets. We brought that up to the applicant and he

said that they’d put together some architectural looks that they think will help to enhance that

area. They are here and as I am continuing my trend to try and get shorter and shorter here as

the night goes on, I’ll turn this over to Brian Tuohy, he’s here to discuss the project.

Mr. Bahr: Thank you

Mr. Tuohy: Good evening, members of the Plan Commission. Again, thank you for your time in

hearing our cases this evening. Here with me tonight is Grant Goldman from Ambrose, also my

partner John Moore is here and some folks; Bryan Sheward from Kimley-Horn are also in

attendance. Thanks for hearing our case. As Eric said, this is a site that is… So, here’s Ronald

Reagan right here, here’s the edge of the airport right here. Plan Commission of course will

remember, this was where the old Indy Park Ride and Fly was, and then that was changed over

to Knight Transportation, which I believe is a facility for training truck drivers and things like

that. So, the sites are in between Plainfield Road, which the cul-de-sac’s here, and then heads

north and then east around, I think these are called GreenParke buildings. These sites are

between Ronald Reagan and Plainfield Road. There’s one here that’s about almost 13 acres and

the other one here is about 21 acres. The Plan Commission might remember that this site, this

part was originally part of the war time park drive and fly site and at one time, I believe there

was going to be a doctor’s office on this corner right here. I believe that physician has now

moved on to another location. Across the street we have distribution warehouses on the north

and south of Stout Heritage Parkway, we have Metro Air down here, we have the Green Park

development up here. What we would propose to do is rezone these sites from CI to a PUD. I’ll


explain why a PUD. The idea was that these sites aren’t big enough and they’re right on top of

Ronald Reagan, so they’re not big enough to handle a mega warehouse, a 600,000 or 700,000

square feet warehouse. As Eric said, after talking to staff, they wanted more architectural

commitment, more architectural detail which we think we’ve provided in this site and they also

said there had been some concern from the Plan Commission of having truck dock doors facing

Ronald Reagan, rather close to Ronald Reagan by virtue of the geography of these sites or the

size of them, we wouldn’t have that. So, we’ve made some commitments in our PUD to address

those concerns. This is a photograph, so to the east of us is a fairly large distribution

warehouse. It has docks on the west side, that is facing Ronald Reagan. So, our parcel, the

bigger of the two parcels is this one right here. Then the next site at the south, where the

physician’s office was going to go, that’s the smaller one. So, there's Knight Transportation at

the back. The airport runways are right back here, that’s the airport’s property back at that

area. The zoning around us other than, I think it’s still Mr. Stout’s property, is still zoned all I-2

with some PUD, and I believe this is the site that’s coming before you next. It may have been on

the agenda tonight. The history of this land and the reason these boxes are in here is these

were platted lots at one time and then the airport sold that land to the Indy Park Ride and Fly

folks, and then they sold it to the Knight Transportation folks, then the physician, and now this

is owned by, I believe, Mr. Vaughn Wamsley now. But these are our two sites just on this side of

Plainfield Road, that we are requesting rezoning for. How we would fit that in there… this, I

know it’s awkward because the exhibit is turned on its side, but I wanted to the Plan

Commission to see, again for illustrative purposes. We have to come back for detailed plan

review, how we would have a smaller sized warehouse off this flex space kind of a user, the

south end where there’s about 12-13 acres. And we would have a bigger user up at the north

end. The issue was, and you might ask, “why couldn’t you just do this under a CI zoning?” The

issue was, is CI has a limitation in it that limits a single user to only 50,000 square feet and

multi-tenant buildings only 150,000 square feet. So, our two buildings, we would propose to be

larger than that. The one on the south would be about 190,000 square feet and the one on the

north would be about 340,000 square feet. Again, significantly smaller than our neighbor’s

buildings, but bigger than your CI Ordinance allows and so that’s why, well it’s one of the

reasons. I’ll show you why we went to the PUD option. So, this would be how conceptually you

could have buildings sitting, now this is Ronald Reagan going north. The one commitment we’ve

made that seemed important is, there would be no truck docks on the west side of the building

on either of these buildings, nor would there be any truck docks on the south sides of the

building or the north sides of the building. All of our truck parking and loading would occur on

the west sides of the building along Plainfield Road. So, we would have our loading on the side

of the building that would face the Green Park building or be across the way from the Knight

building.

Mr. Kirchoff: Brian, that happens to be the east side.

Mr. Tuohy: I’m sorry, the east side


Mr. Kirchoff: You were on a roll.

Mr. Brandgard: We knew what you meant.

Mr. Tuohy: It’s the third case, I can't remember east from west right now, but you’re exactly

right Mr. Kirchoff, it would be our east side of the building, we would keep trucks on the east

side of our building. The comprehensive plan shows this site to be slated for this kind of use, so

we meet the comprehensive plan. What we did was, we took the CI uses and cut out many of

them, maybe 50 of them, and came up with a use of what we thought, a list of uses that were

possible to go in there, and we limited that, and we submitted that with our petition. So, there

are things like engineering laboratories, warehouses, medical laboratories, mail order

distribution, government offices, post offices, things like that. So, we’ve come up with that list

and that’s part of this PUD Ordinance. And then we have some office uses. We don’t think that

it’s likely that a physician could go in there, but it seems to me that you could have a medical

clinic of some kind in that area, and we’d like to have that flexibility. Pharmaceutical packaging

distribution, medical packaging, like the assembly of medical products. So, we cut that down,

we took the range of uses and shrunk this down because as I read through your PUD Ordinance,

it seemed to me that this was a three-step process. If I could have made sure about it, I had a

meeting with Mel and went over it to make sure that you didn’t think that we were coming

forward with a final PUD plan. We’re not, there's another step in this process and that is the

detailed development plan that would show in detail landscaping and architectural renderings

and site plans and things like that. Your PUD Ordinance talks about a preliminary approval

where you would list the types of uses. You’d list things like the maximum square feet and

you’d list things like not having dock doors on the west side of the building. So, we’ve done that

in our PUD Ordinance and we tried to put more detail in our PUD Ordinance than perhaps had

been presented to the Plan Commission before. You can't see this very well, but this is your CI

classification and we’ve drawn red lines through all of the uses that we’ve excluded. And that

list right before that, that is this list, is the list of uses that it would be allowed under our PUD.

So, our PUD serves to eliminate things like machine shops, welding shops. Not that there's

anything wrong with that, it’s just in meeting with staff they directed us to, hey those are the

kind of uses that might not be appropriate at that corner. So, the difference is, between just a

CI zoning and our proposed PUD is, you have a maximum of 340,000 square feet on the north

parcel, 190,000 square feet on the south parcel. No building would have any loading docks

facing Ronald Reagan, all loading docks and semi-truck trailers would be located only on the

east side of the building, and those loading docks and loading spaces would only be located

between Plainfield Road and the building. We would have a minimum of a 3-foot landscaping

berm along Ronald Reagan Parkway and equal to a level 4 landscaping plan facing Ronald

Reagan. The same kind of berm on Plainfield Road, but a level 3 landscaping where we would

be facing Knight Transportation and distribution neighbors, Green Park to the east. Then we

would have a commitment and send the PUD plan, that the west facades of the building again,

facing Ronald Reagan, would have architectural elements similar to those shown, and I’ll show

you those in a second, and that the buildings would have multiple entrance features to


underscore the possibility of office and warehouse and flex space use. So, then we went out

and found some buildings that we thought maybe had a heightened architectural look to them.

Again, not that there’s anything wrong with just warehouses, I’ll show you some in a minute,

but this was a case that was done up in Zionsville. It’s a distribution warehouse for NK Hurst.

Inside it’s what you’d expect. It’s tall ceilings, UPS kind of conveyor belts are moving beans and

sugar. But on the exterior, they’ve added some details, some relief, some doors and some

windows and that was very favorably received by the Zionsville Plan Commission. Another

exhibit of building that are similar, well the Banning building is on Ronald Reagan to the south.

But these have more architectural features than say, a building like that, which is one of our

neighbors to the south. Again, nothing wrong with those buildings, but in meeting with staff,

the idea for the PUD was to create some parameters around what we would build on there, so

that it that corner, the building more closely resembles that or that to that type of building. And

also eliminate those kind of dock doors facing Ronald Reagan. These are our neighbors to the

west, looking directly across, that’s our land where those flowers are. This is looking to the east

from our north parcel, that’s the Green Park building, our neighbor to the east. So, in

summary… First off thank you for hearing our cases this evening. There's industrial zoning

adjacent to this site on the north and east and part of the west sides. We believe this type of

zoning and this PUD would meet, given the proposed use, meet the comprehensive plan. The

architectural standards and the restrictions on the use provide more colors or guidelines about

what could go on those two corners. And that there would be no loading docks or truck parking

facing Ronald Reagan, all of those would be on the east side of the building. With that, we’d of

course try to answer any questions you might have and thank you for your time this evening.

Mr. Bahr: Thank you very much. Any questions? I’d like to open the public meeting. Anyone

that is in attendance that has a favorable or concerning comments, I’d ask that they present

them now. Seeing none, I’d like to close the public meeting and open it up to the

Commissioners. Are there any comments or questions? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion.

Mr. Brandgard: Mr. Chairman, I would move that the Plan Commission certify the zone map

amendment request PUD-18-002 as filed by Brian J. Tuohy for Ambrose Plainfield, Industrial IV,

LLC rezoning of 34.8 acres West of the intersection of Ronald Reagan Parkway and Stout

Heritage Parkway from CI (Commercial Industrial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) with a

favorable recommendation.

Mr. Phillip: Second


Mr. McPhail- yes

Mr. Brandgard- yes

Mr. Kirchoff- yes

Mr. Bahr- yes


PUD-18-002 is approved.

Mr. Bahr: Thank you, good luck.

OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Berg: I just have one brief item here. API Plaza. Apparently, the porkchop that was included,

INDOT has said that they don’t want… is that what they said?

Mr. Singleton: They don’t require it.

Mr. Kirchoff: Where is this?

Mr. Berg: I’m sorry, Vestal and US 40.

Mr. Singleton: The McDonald’s in the corner, Speedway

Mr. Jones: So, Vestal Road, northwest quadrant there at that intersection. We did have some

concerns around the original approval of this process because they had some restaurants on

the south side, talking about a sub shop/sandwich shop kind of thing of people you know, using

that and potentially taking left outs rather than go to the light. So, the developer was on board

with this, but the Larkin Property did not like the restriction and those two, we found, hadn’t

been communicating through the process very well. So, shaking out the platting and all of that

topic with it, this came back to get INDOT’s approval. And INDOT is okay, eliminate the pork

chop it doesn’t really, it’s not a major concern for the current development, it’s more of a long-

term issue. INDOT indicated that when the south side of US 40 develops, there’s likely to be a

solid median through there where it will become a restricted, kind of a right in/right out type

option, as opposed to the left in/right out that that this was intending to accomplish. We just

kind of wanted to keep you guys abreast of that change, but we’re not really going through any

kind of public forum to make that change.

Mr. Kirchoff: Are they going to build this place?

Mr. Singleton: They are now

Mr. Berg: We have actually a Primary Plat and an Improvement Location Permit in front of us. I

think this project started almost, when I started here three years ago. And the Plat does have

both Larkin and Dr. Rathod, so we’ve rendered several avian creatures terminally

inconvenienced with one geological missile. I’ve given you the rough idea of what we might

have next month for the Plan Commission. I’m not going to go through that because it’s getting

late.

Mr. Kirchoff: I have one quick question.

Mr. Berg: Yes, Sir.


Mr. Kirchoff: and I guess I’m looking at Terry and maybe Ty, because I’m sure you’re up on

everything already Ty… Do we have an ordinance that restricts the duration that a motor home

can park on the street?

Mr. Jones: No, not specifically. I understand that it’s legally parked on the street, a licensed

vehicle legally parked, meaning in an area that’s not “no parking” or next to a hydrant, that

type of thing, then it can be placed there. We do have an ordinance that states that if you have

it on private property, it must be on a paved surface. So, if it’s on private property, it must be

on your driveway or within the buildable area of a lot, meaning it can't be across the set back

lines. So, you can have it even in the grass if it’s within that buildable area. If it’s in the front of

your house, it’s supposed to be on a paved surface of your driveway. We have sent letters to

folks asking them to remove them from the right-of-ways, from the streets. I’ve talked with the

Police Department, but the way that the ordinances are structured there would be nothing that

would prohibit it. The other thing are the trailers, just a trailer that sits with nothing on it. We

have several of those, if they're licensed, there's nothing that prohibits them from being there.

Mr. Kirchoff: At our ordinance committee we may have another topic to address. Seriously, my

neighbors are coming to me because we have a person that parks her very large motor home…

Mr. Jones: I know exactly where that is, right by Steve…

Mr. Kirchoff: She lives on this street and then it “T’s” into a court, she parks it over in this court,

so she’s parking next to a neighbor. And so, they’ve asked me to look into this and I said we had

a meeting tonight so I would ask if we had an ordinance.

Mr. Jones: There may be some things in the covenant out there.

Mr. Kirchoff: Well, I looked up our covenants today because that’s the first place I should start.

The covenant only says that you cannot store it and they define storage as putting a tarp on it

and putting it away for the winter. And it’s been there almost…

Mr. Jones: Sometimes a letter gets it removed, but I’ve had a couple of instances where they’ve

put my feet to the fire and I was not able to get it moved. Not this particular one, I haven’t done

anything on it.

Mr. McPhail: That’s one for our ordinance committee to look at.

Mr. Kirchoff: I said today to my neighbor, we’ve learned that you can't legislate common sense

and decency.

Mr. McPhail: No, but that’s just inconsiderate of everything.

Mr. Phillip: That’s right.

Mr. McPhail: And I’m sick of these trailers. I think they’re dangerous.


Mr. Daniel: Because most of them are wider than cars, they stick out farther when they’re

parked along the curb than the car does.

Mr. Brandgard: And they’re painted black, and at night you can’t see them.

Mr. Phillip: Reflectors are sparse.

Mr. Kirchoff: If you’re comfortable, we will take that to the ordinance committee and have a

look at that.

Mr. Jones: I’ve got a draft

Mr. Phillip: Mr. President, I move we adjourn.

Mr. Bahr: All in favor?

(All ayes)

plainfield plan commission july 2, 2018 7:00 p.m. call to ... · plainfield plan commission...

Documents