HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 04-17-01CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
April 17, 2001
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission met at 7:00 PM in the Council
Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana, on April 17, 2001. The meeting opened with the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Members present were: Marilyn Anderson; Kent Broach; Dave Cremeans; Leo Dierckman; Madeline
Fitzgerald; Linda Flanders; Wayne Haney; Ron Houck; Nick Kestner; Dianna Knoll; Norma Meighen;
Pat Rice; John Sharpe; Paul Spranger (late arrival) and Wayne Wilson.
Members of the Department of Community Services present were: Director Michael P. Hollibaugh;
Jon Dobosiewicz; and Laurence Lillig.
John Molitor, Counsel, reported on pending litigation for Leeper Electric, and two cases involving
Duke -Weeks Parkwood Crossing West PUD.
Department Report: Jon Dobosiewicz briefly explained the Report submitted to Commission members
this evening.
Announcements: Item li., Docket No. 109 -99 DP /ADLS, Wingate Inn, under Old Business remains
Tabled; Item 2i., Docket No. 132 -00 Z, Dodd Rezone, has been Withdrawn; Item ij., Docket No. 33-
01 ADLS, Merchants Square, Carrabba's Grill, under New Business, has been Tabled.
Marilyn Anderson requested, and the Commission granted, the re- ordering of the Agenda to hear Item
7i. Bonbar Place at the front of Old Business.
Marilyn Anderson went over the Conduct of Public Hearings for the benefit of the public.
11. Public Hearings:
lh. Docket No. 163 -00 PP Amend; Orin Jessup Land Co.'s 1 Addition to the
Town of Home Place, Lot 175
The petitioner seeks approval to replat a 2 -lot subdivision on 0.47± acre. The site
is located southwest of East 108 Street and McPherson Street. The site is zoned
R -3 /residence.
The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waivers:
163 -OOa SW SCO 8.8 curbs and gutters
163 -00b SW SCO 8.9.1 sidewalks
Filed by Jim Vires of Benchmark Surveying for James A. Shelley.
s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes\PC200lapr 1
Don Scotten with Benchmark Surveying appeared before the Commission filling in for Jim Vires.
The existing property is located at the intersection of McPherson Street and 108 Street in the
Old Town of Carmel. The property is currently a single lot, number 175, in the Orin Jessup
Subdivision, together with a portion of the old, abandoned, Traction Company right -of -way.
The proposal will subdivide the property into two lots, both of which meet the R -3 Zoning
requirements. The property is served by sanitary sewer, storm, gas, and water. The developer is
proposing two residences on the property that will consist of two doubles and any irregularities in
the overland flow of water will be taken care of with site drainage at the time of construction.
The petitioner is also seeking a variance from curbs and gutters, and sidewalks for this area; there
are currently no curbs and gutters presently on McPherson or 108 Street.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; no one appeared.
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petition; the following appeared:
Ann Inman, 860 East 107 Street, south of the subject site, appeared before the Commission, also
representing a neighbor to the south of her. Mr. Mrs. Inman and their neighbor are opposed to
two doubles. Two doubles would interfere with the flow of rain water; also, there is water in the
inter -urban tract of property year 'round and it breeds mosquitoes. Construction would also
disturb wildlife in the area.
If the doubles are two or more bedrooms, that will probably mean children, and there is no place
to play in the area. There is also a concern with potential pets; there are already too many dogs
that run freely in the area. Ms. Inman also stated concern with general upkeep of the proposed
doubles; currently, there are doubles in the area that are not mowed and cared for on a regular
basis. Ms. Inman asked if a fence would be provided to screen storage area and trash and to keep
the children and dogs confined. Mr. and Ms. Inman and their neighbor would support one
double, but not two.
Jack Edwards, 10475 Cornell Avenue, agreed with Ms. Inman. There are already a number of
doubles in the area and two more are definitely too many.
Marybelle Lesher, has lived at the corner of McPherson and 108 Street for 51 years, and stated
the vacant lot is across from her. There is a concern with parking on her premises, in front of her
yard, and /or obstructing her view of the road. There is not adequate space for two doubles. Ms.
Lesher agreed with Ms. Inman regarding the space for children to play, the number of dogs in the
area that run freely, and the level of maintenance of most doubles in the area.
Rebuttal: Don Scotten thanked the remonstrators and said he too is concerned about general
development and he was hopeful that the two residences proposed on this lot will improve the
property value and the existing conditions on site.
s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes\PC200lapr 2
Department Report, Jon Dobosiewicz. The Department is recommending that this item be
forwarded to the Subdivision Committee for review on May 1, 2001. The Subdivision Waivers
are to be covered in written commitments.
Ron Houck recommended sending this to Subdivision Committee scheduled for May 1, 2001 in
the Caucus Rooms at 7:00 PM.
Madeline Fitzgerald asked if the Department has any issues with drainage and standing water.
Jon Dobosiewicz responded that this item has been before the Technical Advisory Committee and
the drainage concerns expressed by the Surveyor's Office and County Highway Department have
been addressed.
Ron Houck asked that the TAC minutes be submitted to the Committee for review.
2h. Docket No. 32 -01 PP; Woods of Williams Creek Subdivision
The petitioner seeks approval to plat a 73 -lot subdivision on 74.78± acres. The
site is located on the northwest corner of West 136 Street and Spring Mill Road.
The site is zoned S -1 /residence.
The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waivers:
32 -Ola SW SCO 6.2.1 Suitability of Land
Filed by David Barnes of Weihe Engineering for Williams Creek Woods LLC.
Dave Barnes of Weihe Engineering appeared before the Commission. Also in attendance were
David Morton of Williams Creek Woods LLC, and Judson Scott of Vine and Branch.
This particular tract is zoned S- 1/Residence; the petitioner is proposing 73 lots on 74.78 acres.
The site is located at 136 Street and Springmill Road, with a northern boundary of 141s Street.
Williams Creek runs through the center of the tract, Buckhorn is to the west. The surrounding
Subdivisions are Spring Farms to the south, Springmill Crossing to the east, Ponds West to the
north, and Buckhorn to the west. The existing sanitary sewer is Clay Regional Waste; all storm
systems will flow to ponds; and the lots will back up to the Creek. There will be a buffer around
the perimeter road with mounds and landscaping on the north and south sides. There is also a
pipeline easement in Block E at the southeast corner of the tract and it will be used as open area.
The area to the west will be the firehouse location. There is an entrance off Springmill Road to
the east that will be landscaped, and a west access into the Buckhorn Subdivision. The homes
will be of high quality and will blend perfectly with the existing homes in the area.
David Morton addressed the Commission representing the developer, Ralph Eckard and Jerry
Huston, experienced custom builders. The proposed subdivision will have 73 sites; almost every
home will have some topographical benefits, whether it be tree lined, wooded, on a lake, retention
pond, or along the creek. The lot prices will range from $115,000 to $200,000; the average lot
price will be $140- 150,000. The homes will range from $600,000 to over one million dollars; the
size of the homes will be 5,000 to 8/9,000 square feet with large, luxury, estate homes. The lots
sizes will be up to 1.5 acres.
s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes\PC200lapr 3
The swimming pool will be located next to the firehouse. The two retention ponds will be
landscaped. The covenant requirements will provide for an additional 365 trees by the
homeowners, and the developer will be adding 2800 lineal feet of perimeter landscaping that will
encompass about 270 additional trees and large shrubs. This is expected to be a landmark
neighborhood. This is seen as an entry corridor into Carmel and will continue to uphold he
quality of the neighborhood and community. Larger homes add value, and the small density puts
a lesser burden on the infrastructure and school system.
Judson Scott, arborist, Vine and Branch on 141s Street, addressed the Commission and stated he
was hired by Woods of Williams Creek to draft and institute a tree preservation plan, part of
which will be pre construction root pruning, fertilization, and fencing, included with signage. Mr.
Scott said he will be on site at least once a week throughout the development project and will also
meet with each builder and homeowner to approve plans for tree preservation on each lot.
Members of Public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; the following appeared:
Todd Stein, 14438 Whisper Wind Drive, Ponds West, spoke in favor of the proposed
development saying that the low density will help the neighborhood and all of the community.
The neighbors are in favor of the upscale homes.
Organized Remonstrance:
Arthur Baxter, representing Buckhorn Homeowners Association, and James Stroud, also a
member of Buckhorn Homeowners Association asked that the following relief be implemented be
implemented by the Commission. Buckhorn Homeowners Association is requesting the entry
between Buckhorn Subdivision and the Woods at Williams Creek be closed and that it not be an
access for the Woods. Buckhorn Homeowners are proposing that the temporary entrance on
136 Street at the south end of the woods be made a permanent entrance. As proposed, there is
only one entry /exit on Springmill Road and the other that goes through Buckhorn; this creates a
problem for emergency vehicles at the fire station. The pool at the south end of Stone Drive is
dangerous because children play there. Traffic from Buckhorn Estates which does not have its
own entrance, is very heavy through this area and will only increase as residents of Buckhorn,
Cheswick, Kingsborough, and Ponds West feed into Stone Drive. It is not reasonable or
responsible for the developer to put the burden of half of the traffic from their development onto
Stone Drive when the surrounding neighborhoods already contribute to the traffic. The
Homeowners are asking that the Coldwater stubstreet be changed so that it will be a lot rather
than a stub street and that a permanent entrance be established at the base. For safety purposes, it
is essential that there be no entrance into Buckhorn but rather an entrance off 136 Street.
Examples of neighborhoods that bound each other but not actually attach are as follows: Spring
Farms; Windpointe; Park Place, etc. The homeowners are asking that the Commission
recommend to the Subdivision Committee the permanent entrance off 136 Street and that the
Coldwater entrance into Buckhorn be closed.
Georgia Ferraro, 1375 Windstone Drive, Buckhorn, said the residents are concerned with the
preservation and protection of the creeks, trees, wetlands and wildlife. Lots 46, 47, and 48 on the
proposed development plan are of special concern. These lots encroach too far into wooded
s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes\PC200lapr 4
areas and the location of each house would have to be built too close to Williams Creek. The
residents would like to see these three lots combined into one lot or two lots, leaving the woods,
creek, and natural habitat undisturbed and undamaged. Perhaps the developer should consider
installing a common ground, mulched walking path along a portion of the creek for all new
residents to enjoy. If necessary, the residents of Buckhorn will take further action to preserve and
protect the natural habitat through proper channels.
John Roberts, 13830 Wellsley Lane, resident of Buckhorn Estates, also a commercial and
industrial developer, spoke favorably of the quality of homes of this particular developer;
however, traffic is a major issue. Mr. Roberts implored the Commission to visit the area and
observe traffic, and weigh the merits of an additional entrance. The proposed homes are of good
quality and will increase surrounding property values. However, there absolutely should be
another entrance on 136 Street and the common road between the neighborhoods should be
eliminated.
Rebuttal: David Barnes said Stone Drive was stubbed to accept a situation such as the one being
planned. There should not be a lot of traffic from the proposed subdivision into Buckhorn, simply
because of the distance from the entrance to Stone Drive. However, the developer will review
and consider. The north half of the subdivision would never go through Stone Drive -its entrance
is off Springmill Road. There are covenants to cover especially lots 46, 47, 48 and Judson Scott
could address any questions. Construction entrances are planned at 141s and 136 Street with
signage.
David Morton said he appreciated input from the neighbors. The issues can be addressed at the
committee meeting.
The public hearing was then closed.
Department Report, Jon Dobosiewicz. With the employment of Judd Scott, the concerns
regarding flood plain issues and tree preservation will be adequately addressed.
Ron Houck commented that Subdivision Waivers could be addressed at the committee level. Mr.
Houck recommended that this proceed to the Subdivision Committee.
Docket No. 32 -01 PP, Woods of Williams Creek Subdivision, was referred to the Subdivision
Committee on May 1, 2001 at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall.
3h. Docket No. 35 -01 OA; C -1 /City Center District Amendment
The petitioner seeks to amend Chapter 20E: C -1 /City Center District.
Filed by the Department of Community Services.
Michael Hollibaugh, Director, Department of Community Services, presented to the Commission
proposed language modifications to the C -1 District Ordinance and answer any questions.
The majority of the proposed language changes are more or less project specific. The
Redevelopment Commission has been working with the developer who is interested in developing
some of the townhomes along City Center Drive. It was determined that the Ordinance did not
s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes\PC200lapr 5
really meet lot dimensions, minimum lot frontage for residential uses, and the minimum lot size for
all uses 2,000 square and 20,000 square feet for commercial and civic uses.
A map was displayed on the overhead depicting the area for the development of the townhomes.
The target area is along City Center Drive. The AMLI apartments are currently being
constructed; townhomes are being proposed. Also, the Nick Kestner building was approved
today and public hearing held pursuant to the C -1 Ordinance.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one
appeared and the public hearing was closed.
Department Report, Jon Dobosiewicz. The Department has no additional comments.
Ron Houck questioned the maximum height change from 85 feet to 55 feet when not adjacent to
single family -what area would that occur and what uses are adjacent.
Michael Hollibaugh responded that the Performing Arts Center is a pretty substantial building and
will approach the 85 -foot mark.
In response to questions from Dave Cremeans, Michael Hollibaugh said the townhomes would be
owner occupied.
Leo Dierckman moved to suspend the rules, seconded by Dave Cremeans. Approved 14 -0.
Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of Docket No. 35 -01 OA; C -1 /City Center District
Amendment, seconded by Pat Rice. APPROVED 14 -0.
I. Old Business:
7i. Docket No. 13 -01 PP; Bonbar Place Subdivision
Petitioner seeks approval to plat a 75 -lot subdivision on 35.77 acres. The site is
located at the northwest corner of I -465 and the Carmel/Clay Monon Greenway.
The site is zoend R- 1/Residence.
Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for Kosene Kosene.
Paul Reis of The Reis Law Firm, 12358 Hancock Street, Carmel, appeared before the
Commission representing the applicant. This item is being referred back to the full Commission
after review by the Subdivision Committee.
Department Report, Jon Dobosiewicz. The Department has concerns regarding three items that
are detailed in the Department Report. The Department Report does give the Commission a basis
for determination. The Department's recommendation is to deny the petition based on the
Department's findings.
Ron Houck, chairperson of the Subdivision Committee, reported that the Committee met twice to
review this petition. At the conclusion, the Committee determined that there are certain areas of
s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes\PC200lapr 6
the Ordinance where this plat did not comply. 1) There is a lack of appropriateness as far as
Marwood as the second point of entrance. 2) Traffic is a concern and how it would flow through
the College Meadows Subdivision. 3) The appropriateness of some of the lot sizes as currently
platted. 4) Concern for health, safety and welfare issues in terms of access to some of the lots
that created an unsafe situation. 5) Issues regarding the non disturbed area around the lake in
terms of how it was measured -in fact the impact of which could have been reduced lot sizes. 6)
The general feeling was that some of the lots were so small, they would not allow the footprint of
the home to adequately fit. For all those reasons, the motion for approval was denied 0 -4.
John Molitor commented that the Department Report does a good job of highlighting the
problem with regard to the access. Subparagraph 2. of the Department Report actually reprints
the 6.3.21 which requires subdivisions having 15 or more lots should have at least two points of
access. The standard in the Ordinance is that it should be from a through street; that means a
street that goes through the subdivision. The problem with this particular proposal is that neither
of the streets proposed for access is a through street. Marwood Trail and 101s Street are
essentially stubs from adjoining subdivisions. The Ordinance envisions no more than 14 lots
having access through either of those stub streets. The further difficulty is that neither Marwood
nor 101s Street meets County Standards for a subdivision street. Not only are they not through
streets, they are not even standard subdivision streets -they are substandard in both respects. It
was determined that it is over a mile to get to 106 Street via Marwood. 101s Street is the
primary point of access for the subdivision and it is 1,850 feet to connect to the nearest through
street, College Avenue. The other issue is Lots 1, 2, and 3 that do not have radial lines that
would normally be in a cul -de -sac. In regard to the access issue, in addition to the fact that they
are substandard streets, the County Highway has no plans to upgrade these streets and
Commission Sharon Clark so stated in a public appearance before the Plan Commission. There is
also testimony from the neighbors in regard to the Marwood access. Access would not be
beneficial to their neighborhood to have additional traffic going through because of the
"horseshoe nature -it stubs, curves around, and looks like the Colts logo, and winds around for
over a mile before it comes to another through street. Those are the concrete standards in State
and legal terminology that are felt to be a problem with this subdivision in meeting the Subdivision
Control Ordinance. The Plan Commission does have discretion in this regard, and must consider
all of the facts presented as well as the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the surrounding
neighborhood.
Ron Houck further commented that at the Committee level, after hearing the concerns expressed
about this plat, and given a choice of amending the plat or having the Committee vote, the
petitioner chose to have the Committee vote.
Pat Rice said there were other issues that needed to be brought up. Subdivision Regulation 5.1.7,
Approval of the Plat, #4 refers to distribution of population and traffic in a manner tending to
create conditions favorable to health, safety, convenience, and the harmonious development of the
City or County (or Township in this case), and this petition does not tend to do that. Also, there
is the issue of the wetland, and this has not been adequately addressed. The wetland is a "living
lake" as opposed to a dead retention pond. It could become contaminated with the kind of
drainage that has been proposed. The high water mark was not addressed, and there is no
connection to the Monon Trail for the benefit of the community. This petition does not meet the
s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes\PC200lapr 7
standards set forth in the Ordinances.
Ron Houck moved for the approval of Docket No. 13 -01 PP, Bonbar Place Subdivision,
seconded by John Sharpe. The vote was none in favor, 14 opposed. MOTION DENIED.
John Molitor will prepare formal Findings of Fact.
li. This Item Currently Tabled due to Pending Litigation:
Docket No. 109 -99 DP /ADLS; Wingate Inn
2i. Docket No. 132 -00 Z; Dodd Rezone
Petition Withdrawn.
Note: Items 3i., 4i., 5i., and 6i. were heard together.
3i. Docket No. 198 -00 ADLS; Merchants' Pointe Project Signage
Petitioner seeks Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping Signage approval
for the project signage. The site is located on the southwest corner of East 116
Street and Keystone Avenue. The site is zoned B -8 /business and is located
partially within the SR 431/Keystone Avenue Overlay Zone.
Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson Frankenberger for The Linder Group.
4i. Docket No. 199 -00 ADLS; Merchants' Pointe Lot 5 Border's Books
Petitioner seeks Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping Signage approval
for a retail building. The site is located southwest of East 116 Street and
Keystone Avenue. The site is zoned B -8 /business and is located partially within
the SR 431/Keystone Avenue Overlay Zone.
Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson Frankenberger for The Linder Group.
5i. Docket No. 200 -00 ADLS; Merchants' Pointe Lot 6 General Office
Petitioner seeks Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping Signage approval
for an office building. The site is located southwest of East 116 Street and
Keystone Avenue. The site is zoned B -8 /business.
Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson Frankenberger for The Linder Group.
6i. Docket No. 201 -00 ADLS; Merchants' Pointe Lot 7 Retail
Petitioner seeks Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping Signage approval
for a retail building. The site is located southwest of East 116 Street and
Keystone Avenue. The site is zoned B -8 /business.
Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson Frankenberger for The Linder Group.
Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing the
applicant. Mr. Nelson gave a brief update. The plans provided for the first three buildings to be
constructed in Merchants Pointe, specifically on lots 5, 6, and 7, Border's Bookstore, and the two
buildings that have been with us from the beginning, the two -story office building and the small,
retail service and office building. Following committee review, there was a suggested change in
s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes\PC200lapr 8
the identification signage for Border's to a dark blue, navy background for the sign consistent with
the color of the awning. This amendment has been made to the plans.
The Department Report has been reviewed and the petitioner concurs with its findings and
suggestions.
Leo Dierckman, chairperson of the Special Study Committee, reported that the petitioner had
modified the signage on Border's that faces 116 Street. Otherwise, the Committee had
recommended approved of all four items.
Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of Docket No. 199 -00 ADLS, Merchants' Pointe Lot 5,
Border's Books; Docket No. 200 -00 ADLS, Merchants' Pointe Lot 6, General Office;
Docket No. 201 -00 ADLS Merchants' Pointe Lot 7, Retail, seconded by Dave Cremeans.
Leo Dierckman then amended his motion to specify that the wall signs on the north and west facia
of Border's shall have white letters on a dark, navy blue background, (Docket No. 199 -00 ADLS)
and also amending Docket No. 200 -00 ADLS for the sign on the office building on lot 6. Dave
Cremeans amended his second. The motion, as amended, was APPROVED 14 -0.
8i. Docket No. 16 -01 ADLS Amend; The Retreat
Petitioner seeks Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping Signage
Amendment approval to alter the Landscape Plan approved with Docket No. 36-
99 Z. The site is located on the northwest corner of East 96 Street and Westfield
Boulevard. The site is zoned S -2 /residence.
Filed by Harry F. Todd of Gibraltar Properties.
Harry Todd, general counsel for Gibraltar Properties, developer of The Retreat, appeared before
the Commission requesting approval to alter the landscape plan. The apartment and condominium
project is located on the northwest corner of East 96 Street and Westfield Boulevard.
A revised landscape plan was submitted and reviewed by the Urban Forester. A new landscape
plan was then developed that is more substantial. The new landscape was submitted to the
Committee and approved 6 -0, conditioned upon an artist's rendering on what the landscaping
would look like in 3 to 5 years from Westfield Boulevard. An artist's rendering was submitted.
Leo Dierckman, chairperson of the Special Study Committee, confirmed that the committee had
recommended this item for approval.
Pat Rice asked for identification of species and height.
Jon Dobosiewicz requested a copy of the landscape plan for the file.
Leo moved to send this item back to committee for specifics.
Ron Houck did not see the necessity of referring this back to committee if it is simply a matter of
identifying species rather than doing more work.
s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes\PC200lapr 9
Leo Dierckman withdrew his motion.
Jon Dobosiewicz commented that the only outstanding issue coming out of Committee was the
rendering.
Ron Houck moved to reorder the Agenda to complete this item later in the evening, seconded by
Leo Dierckman. APPROVED 14 -0.
J. New Business:
lj. Docket No. 33 -01 ADLS; Merchants Square, Carrabba's Grill
Tabled to May meeting.
2j. Docket No. 37 -01 ADLS; Parkwood Crossing West, Buildings A, B C
Petitioner seeks Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping Signage approval for
an office complex. The site is located on the northeast corner of West 96 Street and
Spring Mill Road. The site is zoned PUD /planned unit development.
Filed by John K. Smeltzer of Bose McKinney Evans for Duke -Weeks Realty.
Blair Carmisino of Duke Weeks, 600 East 96 Street, Indianapolis, appeared before the Commission
representing the applicant. Also in attendance were Allan Tucker of CSO, design architect for the
project; Steve Granner, Bose McKinney and Evans; Jeff Stone with Duke Weeks Pre construction;
David Lash, Woolpert Consultants, civil engineer; and Brian Kercheval of Duke Weeks, Landscape
Architect.
The application is for 20.244 acres of office development only and does not include the two retail
outlets located on the eastern side of the site. ADLS approval is being sought for all three office
buildings in this development at this time; however, the construction sequence remains as stated in the
zoning petition.
The petitioner intends to build either Building B and Parking Plaza A on the western side of the site;
OR Building C and Parking Plaza A first- -not both at the same time, and not all three buildings at once.
The ADLS application differs slightly from the conceptual plan submitted with the PUD Ordinance for
this property.
The differences in the architectural plan and conceptual plan are largely related to the INDOT right -of-
way along 465 and 31 being finalized. A description has now been received from the State that
accurately describes the right -of -way necessary for the 465 and 31 interchange. The right -of -way
encroaches onto the site more than anticipated and the encroachment essentially shrinks the site in a
north/south direction. The encroachment caused the relocation of the detention system for this
development to an underground system in combination with a detention pond on the northeast corner
of the office portion of this development. The revised system will provide the appropriate controlled
release rates to meet the detention requirements for the site.
Another revision to the site is the inclusion of the extension of the service road that will surround the
s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes\PC200lapr 10
entire site. Inclusion of the road now allows for full access around all buildings on site. The change to
the building was the elimination of the connectors between the buildings originally planned to house the
fitness center and conference centers. This plan has pulled those two components into Building A and
allowed for a better continuation of the overall site design.
The main plaza feature has also been modified and extended to encompass the main entrance of the
park and extended through Building A to the north side of Building A. The reflecting pool in the plaza
area has been eliminated due to the revised approach to the architectural treatment of this area and the
physical limitations imposed by the relocation of the detention system. The last difference to note is the
northeast corner of Parking Plaza B has been clipped to accommodate the additional right -of -way
taking in that area.
The general, overall parking lot lighting will mimic he lighting used for the Parkwood Crossing
Development. A different lighting fixture that is more ornamental is being utilized in the plaza area.
Allen Tucker of SCO Architects appeared before the Commission. The goal was to unify the look of
the campus and to bring the parking plaza connectors in with the same architectural theme. The
buildings are set up with a three building scheme oriented around a center court. The center court has
been extended south so that it runs through and ties with the main crossroad. The parking decks were
moved to the outside in an effort to keep vehicle traffic away from the center courtyard feature.
The fitness center and conference center were relocated into Building A, and the service areas are
tucked under the building so they will be concealed. The service area and dumpster have been
effectively screened from public view. Covered connectors were used from Parking Plaza A directly
across to Parking Plaza B. Moving farther north, another covered connector is utilized to tie into a
small covered connector between Building A and Building B to get the people from the parking into
the buildings conveniently.
Architectural elements, as well as material and a color hierarchy were used to create a sense of entrance
on the buildings. The center towers will be taken up and tied into the penthouse so that the penthouse
becomes a uniform element as opposed to just being a screen wall penthouse on top of the building.
There is a "punched window" look at the center of the buildings; turning the corner is a more vertical
feature of a curtain wall. From a materials standpoint, architectural pre -cast is being used and samples
were displayed. The glass will be green.
Building B looks similar in elevation; however, the building has been offset in the middle to allow the
center tower to read more as an element, more of an A- symmetrical footprint than Building A.
Building C will be identical to Building B.
Parking Deck A -the horizontal pre -cast bandrels are being tied to the white top using the pre -cast mix.
The architecture and materials of the buildings have been tied into the two stair towers. At the bottom
it will be low at pedestrian height and over the road, it will be raised to allow truck traffic to circulate
through the site.
Brian Kercheval of Duke Weeks spoke about the landscape plan. The berm along 96 Street in an
east/west direction, and the continuation of the berm along Springmill Road in a north/south direction
s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes\PC200lapr 11
consists of a mixture of mainly conifer trees, 8 feet in height, interspersed with deciduous and
ornamental trees. The variety of plant material designed in these areas are consistent with the existing
Parkwood Crossing berm along 96 Street to the east. The main entry into the development is
designed with broadleaf and evergreen shrubs with perennials and ornamental grasses interspersed for
seasonal interest, backdropped by deciduous trees chosen for their texture and habit to emphasize the
main entry. The Plaza area is designed to reflect the heartscape and architecture. The oval shape of
the plaza is emphasized with deciduous trees, plantings, and the vertical banding of the mullion or
columns of the structure are emphasized with shrubs and perennials that run in the east/west direction.
The pockets of shrubs and perennials are used to enhance entry features of the plaza; that concept is
carried through to the north side of Building A and plays off the mullions or columns of the structure as
well. The parking lot islands have two large deciduous trees with sod and irrigation in each one. The
plant material selected for this design is consistent with the existing Parkwood Crossing.
Department Comments, Jon Dobosiewicz. The Department is recommending that this be sent to the
Special Committee for further review. There are a few outstanding issues regarding landscaping that
the applicant is working on.
Plan Commission Members Comments:
Ron Houck said the PUD restricts the light standards to 28 rather than 30 feet. The applicant
responded in the positive, and said the height is compliant with the PUD.
Leo Dierckman, the 3D design of the Plaza area should be updated and reviewed by the Committee.
Nick Kestner, requests a better view of the parking garages and how they relate to the building, a 3D
perspective.
Ron Houck said the garages appear to be rather monotone and they should blend better with the
buildings. The features of the garages could be somewhat enhanced to make them look less like a
parking garage and more consistent with the architecture of the building.
Marilyn Anderson requested a view of the garages from Springmill Road to see how much is
visible above the landscaping.
Madeline Fitzgerald requested more detail on the covered walkways.
Docket No. 37 -01 ADLS, Parkwood Crossing West, Buildings A, B C, was referred to the
Special Study Committee that will meet Tuesday, May 1, 2001 at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms.
Return to Item 8i. Docket No. 16 -01 ADLS Amend, The Retreat
Harry Todd apologized to the Commission for not having a landscape architect with him that
could readily answer questions. However, with Laurence Lillig's help, the shrubs have been
identified; they are taxis densi, installed 18 to 24 inches high, and numbering 80 along Westfield
Boulevard in groups of 20. It was determined that the taxis densi is a type of yew.
Pat Rice moved for the approval of Docket No. 16 -01 ADLS, Amend, The Retreat, as
s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes\PC200lapr 12
submitted, seconded by Norma Meighen. APPROVED 15 -0.
John Molitor went over the Findings of Fact for the Bonbar Place denial. 1) The plat does not
provide for coordination of subdivision streets with existing and planned streets or highways, and
that the plat proposes a subdivision having more than 14 lots with only two points of access to the
public highway system, and with both of those points of access to be provided through the
continuation of existing, substandard county streets, namely Marwood Trails and 101s Street, and
that such proposal fails to conform to the following standards: Section 6.3.21. The Commission
finds that neither point of access provided for in this plat is from a through street in violation of
the requirement of this section that all access for a proposed subdivision having more than 14 lots
should be from a through street, unless the Commission finds it appropriate to allow for access to
be from the continuation of existing, planned, or platted streets on adjacent tracts or from the
extension of proposed streets to the boundary of the subdivision.
The Commission further finds that it would not be appropriate to allow a 75 lot subdivision to
have access through either of the existing county streets for the reason that neither of such county
streets has been designed, constructed, or maintained in conformity with current standards of the
County Highway Department. The Commission further finds that neither the applicant nor the
County Highway Department has proposed to upgrade either of these existing county streets in
order to bring them into conformity with current standards.
Finding 2) Section 6.3.6 The Commission further finds that it would not be appropriate to allow
a 75 lot subdivision to have access through either of the existing county streets for the reason that
these existing county streets are, at best, 22 feet wide and thus both fail to conform to the
minimum right -of -way or pavement width prescribed by this section. The Commission further
finds that neither the applicant nor the County Highway Department has proposed to upgrade
either of these existing county streets in order to bring them into conformity with this section.
Madeline Fitzgerald had Accolades for the Department from the Commission Members regarding
the Department Report.
Finding 3) The plat does not provide for the establishment of minimum width, depth, and area of
lots within the proposed subdivision, and that lots numbered 1, 2, and 3 are very irregular lots and
therefore can fail to conform to the following standard: Section 6.5.2. The Commission finds that
lots 1, 2, and 3 are on a curved street and as such, their sidelines should be on radial lines unless a
variation from this rule is permitted by the Commission. The Commission further finds that no
variation from this rule should be permitted in this case, for the reason that these lots will need to
accommodate supplementary trees and shrubs and other landscaping in order to provide for
adequate buffering from the adjacent, interstate highway.
Finding 4) The plat does not provide for the distribution of population in traffic in a manner
intending to create conditions favorable to health, safety, convenience, and the harmonious
development of the city or county in that the plat proposes a subdivision having more than 14 lots
with only two points of access to the public highway system, and with both of those points of
access to be provided through the continuation of existing, substandard county streets, and that
such proposal fails to conform to the following standards, 6.3.21. (Similar as earlier except for
the second part of the finding) The Commission further finds that it would not be appropriate to
s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes\PC200lapr 13
allow a 75 lot subdivision to have access through Marwood Trail for the reason as said, Marwood
Trail is a curvilinear street that winds for 1.2 miles through well established, adjacent
neighborhoods and the use of such a street from one of the two required access points for the
proposed subdivision would foster a distribution of population and traffic in the area that would
be unfavorable to the health, safety, convenience, and continued harmonious development of
those adjacent neighborhoods.
Finding 5) Section 6.3.6 The Commission further finds that it would not be appropriate to allow
a 75 lot subdivision to have access, etc., etc., same as read before and the Commission further
finds that neither the County Highway Department nor the residents of the adjacent neighborhood
desire or believe that it is necessary at this time to upgrade either of these existing county streets
in order to provide for the health, safety, convenience, and continued harmonious development in
this part of the county.
Dave Cremeans commented that not only is it not desirous to have the streets widened,
Commissioner Clark made it painfully clear that it was never going to happen -it's not on the radar
screen, anywhere! It's just not going to happen.
Ron Houck moved to adopt the findings as read by John Molitor and have them prepared in
written form and submitted to the Commission for the president's signature.
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
9:10 PM.
Ramona Hancock, Secretary
Marilyn Anderson, President
Note: Paul Spranger was not present for any vote except Docket No. 16 -01, The Retreat.
s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes\PC200lapr 14