HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 01-21-97 i t
1
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION CCRMEUCLAY
JANUARY 21, 1997 PL 1.1 COMMISSION/BZA
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission was called to order by the
President at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, One Civic Square, Carmel, Indiana on
January 21, 1997.
Members present were as follows: James Bolander; Richard J. Klar; Alan Klineman; Barry
Krauss; Bob Modisett; Salim Najjar; James T. O'Neal, Sr.; Pat Rice; Rick Sharp; Luci Snyder;
Paul Spranger; Tom Thompson; and Chris White.
Also present representing the Department of Community Services were: Michael Hollibaugh;
Terry Jones; Mark Monroe; Director Steve Engelking; and John R. Molitor, Counsel.
New members were administered the Oath of Office by John Hensel, Township Trustee, and John
Molitor, Counsel.
NOTE: Commissioner Salim Najjar will officially continue to serve until January 31, 1997.
Newly appointed Commissioner Chris White was administered the Oath of Office; his term of
service will commence February 1, 1997.
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as submitted.
F. Communications, Bills, Expenditures, and Legal Counsel Report
John Molitor reported to the Commission regarding the Leeper Electric Litigation.
G. Reports, Announcements, and Department Concerns
a) Item li. Public Hearing was TABLED BY THE PETITIONER.
b) Item 1j. Old Business was TABLED BY THE PETITIONER
c) A training session for Plan Commission members has been scheduled for Saturday,
February 22nd, probably 8:00 AM.
c) The Keltner Office Complex which was approved by the Plan Commission in
December, conditioned upon Board of Public Works approval, has been withdrawn from
the Board of Public Works Agenda by the petitioner. The Department is continuing to
work with the owner of Cannel Science& Technology Park regarding appropriate access
points along Cannel Drive.
c:\minutes\pc\1997.j an
2
d) Mike Hollibaugh reported on a proposal from LandFocus, Ltd. recommended by
the U.S. 31 corridor Task Force, to provide the Task Force with enhanced computer
photography. The Plan Commission voted to approve a contract to LandFocus, Ltd., the
dollar amount not to exceed $11,050. (Rick Sharp opposed)
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
H. K. "Tom" Thompson was elected President by UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Richard J. Klar was elected Vice President by UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Richard J. Klar accepted the appointment to the Board of Zoning Appeals as the Carmel/Clay
Plan Commission's representative.
Paul Spranger accepted the appointment to the Hamilton County Plan Commission as the
Cannel/Clay Plan Commission's representative.
I. PUBLIC HEARING:
li. Docket No. 89-96 PP, a Primary Plat application for Cheswick Development
TABLED BY PETITIONER
2i. Commission to consider Docket No. 95-96 Z, a Rezone application for Hills
Development. Petitioner seeks approval to rezone 8.44 acres from R-3/Residential to R-
4/Residential. The site is located on the south side of 126th Street,just west of U.S. 31.
The site is zoned R-3/Residential.
Filed by Glenn Brehm of Hills Development.
Philip Nicely, attorney at law, 8888 Keystone Crossing, Indianapolis, appeared before the
Commission representing the Duke Realty Limited Partnership as owner of the property, and Hills
Community, Inc., proposed purchaser/developer of the property.
The applicant is seeking a rezone of the property from its current R-3/Residential classification to
R-4/Residential to permit the development of 72 condominium units by Hills Development. The
subject site was highlighted on the overhead and the surrounding properties were identified by
zoning classifications.
The petitioner feels that the property is appropriate to provide a transitional use from existing
single family residence to the west to the various commercial developments located to the north
and east of the subject property. There is a lake in existence which acts as a buffer between the
single family residential to the west and the commercial development.
c:\minutes\pc\1997 jan
ti
• 3
The applicant has met with the neighbors in the Westpark area; those neighbors are in support of
the proposed project...
Glenn Brehm, director of land development for Hills Communities, 7420 Montgomery Road,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45236 stated that the proposed project contains 76 condominium units; the area
is fully serviced with utilities, including an existing sewer line to the property. The plans include
such amenities as attached garages; swimming pool and bathhouse facility; and detached garages
which are fully enclosed--there will be no car ports. There will be additional landscaping on
mounding which will run the entire periphery with trees 10 to 12 feet high on a four foot earthen
berm, staggered rows, ten feet on center. The residents of Westpark Development requested an
extension of a split rail fence; this will be extended to the edge of the sanitary sewer area. The
petitioner is prepared to record commitments to the proposed plan in the event the property is
approved for rezone.
The proposed plan containing 76 units is a combination of two bedroom, and two bedroom/den
units with parking at a ratio of 2 1/2 to 1 which exceeds the required parking under the zoning
code. There will be 36 attached garages and 24 detached garages. The selling price of the units
will start in the low $90's.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the proposed project.
Celia Booher, president of Westpark HOA, 13009 Fleetwood Drive North, Cannel, stated that
the residents concerns have been addressed and they are now comfortable with the proposed plans
and in support of them.
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the proposed project, none
appeared.
Mark Monroe reported for the Department that the proposed rezone does not meet the
recommendations of the 20/20 Vision Plan. The City's thoroughfare plan does call for a frontage
road to be placed along the Meridian Street corridor on the west side and the current proposal
does not accommodate a frontage road. In addition, the State's plan also calls for a frontage road
along Meridian Street and the current proposal does not provide same. Considering the density
level and the lack of consideration for the City and State's thoroughfare plan, the Department is
recommending denial.
It was Mr. Nicely's opinion that the proposed development plan meets the policies and procedures
of the Comprehensive Plan and the following items have been taken into consideration: 1) The
use should occur along the edge of residential communities in areas adjacent to high or medium
intensity commercial uses; 2) The use should be encouraged to occur where there is regional
access available; 3) The proposed use is in an area where traffic does not have to pass through
residential areas; 4) The use is encouraged where there is water, sewer and drainage; and 5) The
c:\minutes\pc\1997.jan
4
development should be in areas that are adequately buffered from single family residential areas.
Mark Monroe also reported that the commercial area included in the US. 31 corridor is
considered part of the Special Study area within the plan. There were further comments by Mr.
Nicely ; Commissioner Najjar suggested that the petitioner attend the U.S. 31 Task Force
meetings because of the issue of the frontage road issue which is currently being looked at. The
Task Force has been working with the State Highway Department and found them to be very
cooperative.
Bob Modisett asked if a commitment could be made to extend 126th Street north to 131st Street
in order to alleviate traffic in the area. Mr. Modisett recommended that the intersection at Dorset
and 126th Street be looked at.
Pat Rice was interested in knowing the density of the Westpark Development.
Rick Sharp commented that as the Comprehensive Plan redefines density, the subject real estate
would need to be rezoned, actually downzoned; this point confirmed by legal counsel.
Tom Thompson pointed out that the Task Force has determined that the extension of an access
road up to at least 126th Street is essential to the viability of the Meridian Corridor.
Formal motion for approval by Jim Bolander died for lack of a second.
Docket No. 95-96 Z, a Rezone application for Hills Development was referred to the Special
Study Committee which will meet February 4 at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms at City Hall.
3i. Commission to consider Docket No. 1-97 PP/SP, a Replat application for Executive
Commons, Inc. Petitioner seeks approval to replat 2 lots into 1 lot. The site is located
on the north side of Executive Drive, two lots east of the existing Walgreens. The site is
zoned B-8/Business.
Filed by Richard Henderson of Schneider Engineering.
Richard Henderson of Schneider Engineering, 3020 North Post Road, Indianapolis appeared
before the Commission representing Executive Commons, Inc. by Mick Scheetz, its president,
also present. A replat is being requested to consolidate two lots into one lot in order to eliminate
the side yard requirement between the two lots for a proposed office complex.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed project; none
appeared and the public hearing was closed.
Mark Monroe reported that the Department is recommending approval of the replat.
c:\minutes\pc\1997 jan
5
Upon motion made by Jim O'Neal and duly seconded, the Rules of Procedure were waived to
allow a vote on Docket No. 1-97 PP/SP.
Upon motion made by Jim O'Neal and duly seconded, Docket No. 1-97 PP/SP, a Replat for
Executive Commons,Inc. was unanimously APPROVED.
4i. Commission to consider Docket No. 2-97 PP/SP, a Replat application for C.P. Morgan
Co. Petitioner seeks to reduce the required passing blister at the entrance to the
Subdivision from 400 feet to 235 feet. This request also requires a variance of Section
6.3.22 of the Carmel/Clay Subdivision Regulations. The site is located on the southeast
corner of 116th Street and Gray Road. The site is zoned S-1/Residential.
Filed by Mark Boyce of C.P. Morgan Co.
Mark Boyce, 3366 Beech Drive, Carmel appeared before the Commission representing the
applicant. A replat of Sycamore Farm Subdivision is being requested to allow the length of the
passing blister to be reduced to 235 feet. Mr. Boyce stated that there is practical difficulty
relating to the existence of a power/utility pole at the south end of the passing blister which would
require an expenditure of$70,000. to move.
Mr. Boyce referred to a summary letter from Carmel Engineer, Kate Boyle relative to the
situation. The petitioner met on-site with Dave Klingensmith, Carmel Street Department, and
Kate Boyle after the installation of the passing blister. Mark Boyce reported that both Kate Boyle
and Dave Klingensmith are in support of the petitioner's position. An appropriate guard rail has
now been installed and the signage has been delivered to the Street Department to be put into
place.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed replat; none
appeared and the public hearing was closed.
Mark Monroe reported that the Department is recommending approval with the following
conditions: 1) proper signage, guard rails, etc. be installed for safety purposes; and 2) once the
property on the west side of Gray Road develops, the entrance to that subdivision or development
be aligned with the entrance to the Sycamore Farm Subdivision, and at that time, either the
passing blister is to be removed or the Utility Pole is to be moved to accommodate the extension
of the passing blister.
In response to comments and questions from Tom Thompson, Mark Monroe reported that the
eventual cost of moving the Utility Pole would probably be borne by the developer of the property
on the west side of Gray Road.
Mark Boyce stated that C.P. Morgan is not developing the west side of the road, and there are no
c:\minutes\pc\1997 jan
//( ,//
6
impending plans for the development of the west side of Gray Road. The utility pole is unique in
that it connects two utilities to a sub-station. As a part of the development of the Sycamore Farm
Subdivision, the petitioner has made no written commitment to move the utility pole in question.
Salim Najjar moved for the approval of Docket No. 2-97 PP/SP CONDITIONED UPON 1)
installation of proper signage and guard rails for safety purposes; and 2) at such time as the
property on the west side of Gray Road is developed, the entrance will be aligned with Sycamore
Farm's entrance or at that time, the Utility Pole is to be moved to accommodate the extension of
the passing blister; seconded by Rick Sharp.
Dick Klar moved for the amendment of Mr. Najjar's motion to provide that if the property on the
west side is not developed or the road is not widened within 5 years, the utility pole IS TO BE
MOVED AND THE PASSING BLISTER LENGTHENED, seconded by Alan Klineman;
AMENDMENT APPROVED 8 in favor, Luci Snyder, Bob Modisett, Salim Najjar, and Pat Rice
opposed.
Salim Najjar's motion for approval of Docket No. 2-97 PP/SP was APPROVED with
CONDITIONS, AS AMENDED.
5i. Commission to consider Docket No. 3-97 ADLS, an Architectural Design, Lighting,
Landscaping and Signage application for Dauby, O'Connor, and Zaleski, LLC. Petitioner
seeks approval to construct a 20,000 square feet general and medical office complex on
2.6 acres. The site is located within the Pro Med Office Complex, southeast of the
existing Tri-County Building. The site is zoned B-6/Business.
Filed by Steve Dauby of DOZ.
Gordon Byers, 36 South Ninth Street, Noblesville appeared before the Commission representing
the petitioner. Also in attendance were Mr. Huffman, engineer; Mr. Rotman, architect; Mr.
O'Connor; Ms. Cox, landscape architect; and Kahl, builder.
ADLS approval is being sought in two phases for this site. Upon completion, there will be two,
two story buildings; one building will contain 12,000 square feet, the other 8,000 square feet.
The entry to the project is from a cul-de-sac. Building#1 will be the primary office of Dauby,
O'Connor, Accounting Firm. Building#2 will be constructed at a later date and will house
general or medical office space. In general terms, the petitioner will not be removing any existing
trees or foliage that is in place. If there is a tree preservation requirement on this site and some
trees have been removed, the petitioner will look into the issue.
Mr. Byers commented that there were commitments made in 1990 at the time of rezone from R-2
to B-6 and again in 1994 when Tri-County came into the area. The commitments involved ADLS
review, limitation on height of structures, and some off-site issues regarding traffic. Mr. Byers
stated that the traffic commitment to make improvements to the intersection remains in place; the
c:\minutes\pc\1997 jan
7
owners of the subject real estate, Tri-County, and real estate in the area are obligated to make
improvements to U.S. 31 if the Indiana Dept. of Transportation does not by the end of December,
1997. The petitioner feels it is complying with on-site commitments; there are also some issues
that certain types of uses could not be developed.
The petitioner will not exceed one-tenth foot candle light spillage at the property line; the light
fixtures are down-shielded, black, polyester cover, 20 foot poles. The petitioner intends to
landscape building #1 as a part of Phase I together with the parking lot and ingress site. Phase II
picks up the balance of the parking lot with the balance of the additional plantings.
The elevation for building one was shown to be Georgian style with a fiberglass roof which gives
the appearance of slate; the brick is red with white brick for stone effect. Building two is
comparable to building one; the soffitt and gutter will be aluminum but have the color and give the
appearance of stone.
A traffic review was completed; 20,000 square feet does not trigger a traffic report. The AM
peak was 49 cars in, 10 out; PM peak 10 cars in, 47 out.
Gordon Byers reported that the petitioner is open to comments and suggestions in regard to the
landscaping as well as lighting. The homeowners of Woodacre West indicated by letter that they
had met with the petitioner, reviewed the plans, and have no objection as long as the ADLS
conforms to the ordinance. The applicant has also met with Kensington Homeowners and talked
with the president.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the proposed project; none appeared.
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the proposed project; the following
appeared:
Terri Davenport, 10 Wildwood Drive, Cannel 46032 appeared on behalf of Wildwood Estates
Homeowners and reported that the neighborhood had met to go over the current proposal. The
petitioner is being asked to honor the original commitments made in 1990 at the time of rezone
and in 1994 when Tri-County first developed its parcel: 1) to protect the existing native forest
area vegetation and wildlife, 2) to use rich and diverse plantings that are consistent with the area,
and 3) to maintain the existing trees. Ms. Davenport reported that the subject area is home to the
pileated woodpecker and as such, should be protected.
The Wildwood Estates Homeowners are requesting the following commitments from the
applicant: 1) Landscape to include rich and diversified plantings consistent with the adjacent
natural areas and supportive of the resident wildlife. 2) All existing trees will be maintained. New
trees will be added to this buffer area. 3)No parking should be hidden from view--it should all be
located on the street side of the buildings. 4) Add tree islands and add canopy trees to shade the
c:\minutes\pc\1997.jan
8
parking lots. 5) Have all lighting directed away from the residential areas and none on the back
side of the building. 6) Make no changes in elevation. 7)Keep in contact with Wildwood Estates
Homeowners as the applicant's plans progress.
Scott Treadway, attorney with Logray, Steel and Darkow, Indianapolis representing some of the
Wildwood Homeowners, expressed concerned as to how the subject site may be developed.
Principal reason for appearance is to ask that the Plan Commission delay voting on the proposed
project until information can be thoroughly reviewed by area residents. Mr. Treadway asked that
the applicant furnish him with copies of any Environmental or Engineering studies which have
been performed on the property.
Sue Dillon, 507 Cornwall Court, Cannel commented that the subject area is one of the fine, really
natural areas that remains in the community. Ms. Dillon felt that the landscape plan was very
unimaginative; Ms. Dillon was also concerned with the effect of the lights on birds and wildlife on
site.
Greg Byers responded to the Commission and members of the public that the applicant is
appearing for Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping and Signage, and that there have been
no environmental studies, in fact none is required at this stage. However, Mr. Byers did offer to
supply a copy of an engineering report to Mr. Treadway. The issues of drainage will go through
technical review; the petitioner feels he conforms to light spillage. Mr. Byers felt that the
petitioner could meet all points and concerns raised except for the parking which is sheltered from
the front of the road. All existing trees which:are in place and scrub grasses around the creek will
not be touched. Point: The Cannel Parks&Recreation Department is using the bank of the
Creek and sewer easement as a trail.
Mark Monroe reported that the Department is recommending this Docket for Special Study
Committee review.
Luci Snyder asked that the prior commitments made on the Pro-Med property be made available
to the Commission members prior to the Committee meeting.
In response to questions from Rick Sharp, Mark Monroe reported that this Docket has been
reviewed by the Technical Advisory members at least twice. The present instance is the third site
plan proposed.
Tom Thompson asked that the Department ascertain what environmental issues there may be on
this particular parcel. Mark Monroe responded that report was made 3/4 years ago with the Tri-
County project which addressed some of the wetlands issues along the Creek bed and in that area
copies will be provided to the Commission members.
Docket No. 3-97 ADLS, was referred to the Special Study Committee which will meet February
c:\minutes\pc\1997 jan
9
4, 1997 in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall, One Civic Square, Carmel..
Upon motion made by Dick Klar and duly seconded, the Agenda was reordered so that New
Business could be heard next, then Old Business.
K. New Business:
lk. Commission to consider Docket No. 93-96 ADLS, an Architectural Design, Lighting,
Landscaping, and Signage application for CarmeUClay School Corporation(Cannel High
School.) The petitioner seeks approval to construct 10 tennis courts on 1.4 acres. The site
is located approximately at the northwest corner of Keystone Avenue and 136th Street.
The site is zoned R-1/Residential and is located within the Keystone Overlay Zone.
Filed by Gary Murray of Paul I. Cripe.
Gary Murray of Paul I. Cripe and Ned Melchi of Carmel School Corp. appeared before the
Commission seeking approval to re-locate tennis courts which were approved approximately one
year ago. The original site on the south side of 136th Street contained bad soils that were not
apparent from the initial, subsurface investigation. The present plan for 10 courts encroaches
slightly into the 431 Overlay Zone. There will be.no lighting or signage on the site. There is
thought to be adequate parking available, even if a football game is in progress while the courts
are being used.
Mark Monroe reported that the Department is recommending approval as submitted.
Upon motion made by Paul Spranger and duly seconded, Docket No. 93-96 ADLS, for
Carmel/Clay School Corporation was unanimously APPROVED.
J. OLD BUSINESS:
lj. Commission to consider Docket No. 69-96 DP/ADLS, a Development Plan and
Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping, and Signage application for Currise and
Carlson. TABLED BY PETITIONER—TO BE HEARD AT
THE FEBRUARY MEETING.
2j. Commission to consider Docket No. 898-96 OA, a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to
require that lots abutting or fronting on main thoroughfares be required to gain access
from that main thoroughfare by means of an alley or frontage place.
Filed by the Department of Community Services.
The public hearing is still open on this Docket.
c:\minutes\pc\1997.j an
10
Paul Spranger reported for the Subdivision Committee that some minor modifications were
requested; Terry Jones reported that the Department had requested an additional amendment
regarding lots within 200 ft. of the perimeter street complying with the frontage place sections of
the proposed ordinance. There was much discussion and examples cited regarding frontage place
and access roads.
Mike Hollibaugh displayed examples of some platted designs and explained the potential for
putting the frontage place design into practice.
Members of the public were invited to speak; the following appeared:
Bruce Sklare, Bay Development Corp., 10415 North College Avenue expressed concern with the
design criteria because it would be used in rural and urban areas, large and small sites. It was Mr.
Sklare's position that with the application of the frontage place requirements, smaller sites (under
20 acres) in the urban areas would be undevelopable; it would be impossible to comply with the
requirements, given the existing street patterns, and have a desirable neighborhood that people
would want to live in.
Jan Hope, Builders Association of Greater Indianapolis, 1011 Martin Luther King Drive,
Indianapolis, spoke representing over 800 builders/developers and related industry firms. Ms.
Hope read a letter from Corby Thompson, president of K.E. Thompson, in opposition to the
proposed ordinance and stated that it was generally not economically feasible.
Ms. Hope commented that the proposed Ordinance was based on the views and recommendations
• of Randall Arendt, and that the density credit to the developer recommended by Mr. Arendt is
missing from the proposed Ordinance. The builders/developers have collectively said that
developing and design principles are site specific and the flexibility is needed to work on each
individual site. The builders ask that the proposal be a policy only and that the ordinance be
eliminated as a consideration.
Steve Pittman, 10469 Spring Highland Drive, (The Reserve at Springmill) expressed concern with
the proposed ordinance because each piece of property is different in size, configuration and
topography. Mr. Pittman cited examples in support of his position. Mr. Pittman did agree with
the general premise of the Ordinance; however, Mr. Pittman thought each project should be
looked at on its own merit.
Ann Parker of Brenwick Development Company, 12722 Hamilton Crossing Boulevard, Cannel,
spoke about Prairie View (Chapman's Claim) in which an access road was installed because it was
felt to be more aesthetically pleasing, however, those lots on the access road are the lowest priced
lots within the subdivision. There were no lots fronting River Road because it was not felt to be
appropriate. Ms. Parker agreed with the prior concerns and stressed the need for flexibility by
the developers in order to accomplish the best product for a particular piece of land. The frontage
c:\minutes\pc\1997.jan
11
road and alleys also take up a lot of unnecessary land.
Terry Jones again commented on behalf of the Department. On small parcels, there could be
problems and there are other avenues to pursue. One of the main reasons why houses back up to
major thoroughfares is that from a safety issue and planning standpoint, prior Plan Commissions
decided that it was not desirable to have numerous driveway cuts along a major thoroughfare, and
this was amended into the subdivision control ordinance; they must face an internal street. The
subject also came up during the 20/20 Vision Process. Also, the problem with policy is that it is
not followed--ordinances are enforceable.
Luci Snyder commented that she was concerned that the proposal did not fit every circumstance
in the Community. Ms. Snyder felt that the proposed Ordinance should go back to Subdivision
Committee to see if there was a way to accomplish the desired effect without locking in so much
ground and not allowing flexibility.
Rick Sharp also agreed that the proposed Ordinance should return to committee.
Docket No. 88-96 OA, a Zoning Ordinance Amendment, was referred to Subdivision Committee
which will meet Tuesday, February 4th in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall.
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
11:00 PM.
H. K. Thompson, President
Ramona Hancock, Secretary
c:\minutes\pc\1997.jan