HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 12-18-01City of Carmel
CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
DECEMBER 18, 2001
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission opened at 7:15 PM in the
Council Chambers of City Hall with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Members in attendance were: Marilyn Anderson; Dave Cremeans; Leo Dierckman; Madeline
Fitzgerald; Wayne Haney; Ron Houck; Nick Kestner; Dianna Knoll; Norma Meighen; Pat Rice; Paul
Spranger; and Wayne Wilson, thereby establishing a quorum.
Department of Community Services staff in attendance: Jon Dobosiewicz; Kelli Hahn; Laurence Lillig;
and Adrienne Keeling. John Molitor, legal counsel, was also present.
Department Announcements, Jon Dobosiewicz reported Item 6h is Continued to the January meeting;
Item 11h is removed from the Agenda due to lack of proper notice; and Additional Information will be
offered to the Commission in regard to Item 5h at the time of presentation.
Also, Docket No. 128 -01 Z, North Gray Road and 146 Street PUD was tabled in November and will
be placed on the Agenda for the January 15 2002 public hearing.
Marilyn Anderson went over the change in the Rules of Procedure for this evening's meeting. Due to
the length of the Agenda, the petitioners will be allotted 10 minutes for presentation, 10 minutes total
for public comments, and the public hearings will be left open so that additional public input will be
allowed at the Committee level.
11. Public Hearings:
lh. Docket No. 135 -01 Z, 136 -01 CPA;
Home Place District Overlay Zone Comprehensive Plan Policies
Petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation for the establishment of the Home
Place District Overlay Zone Comprehensive Plan Policies. The area affected is
generally known as Home Place.
Filed by the Department of Community Services for the Home Place Task Force.
Kelli Hahn of the DOCS Staff presented the overall goals and objectives of the proposed Overlay
Zone for the Home Place District. The proposals were developed by the Home Place Task Force
made up of members of the Subdivision Committee of the Plan Commission. There was a slight
error in the public notice describing the boundaries of the Home Place area. However, everyone
who should have received notice did, according to the County Auditor's records. Another notice
was sent correcting the boundaries of the area.
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\P1anCommissionMinutes \2001 dec 18 1
The Home Place area was identified as a unique area within the Township. There was a lot of
pressure to convert residences to business; people were applying for use variances and rezones.
With the upgrade of Pennsylvania Street and U.S. 31; a potential interchange at 106 Street; the
County's proposed roadway improvements at the intersection of 106 Street and College Avenue;
and the fact that Clay Township is nearing build -out in the foreseeable future, the Home Place
area will be a prime area for re- development or reinvestment within the Township.
The Task Force set out to develop some policies that would put a plan into place so that if the
improvements and upgrades did happen, there would be some guidance as to how it could
happen. This would best be accomplished through Comprehensive Plan policies that would be the
framework for developing an Overlay Zone. An Overlay Zone was chosen because there was no
need to change the zoning of properties as they are today residential properties would stay
residential, commercial would stay commercial. At some future date, if zoning did change, the
standards would be in place to make sure development would be of high quality. The process
started by generating the Comprehensive Plan policies and the goals can be summed up in one
sentence. "These policies are meant to continue and improve the quality of life the community
enjoys by providing guidelines for new development and redevelopment while protecting the
existing neighborhood stability."
The policies set up residential guidelines that mention buffering, pedestrian connectivity, transition
to commercial areas, landscaping, and tree preservation. There are also policies directed at
commercial areas and the Task Force identified two, main commercial areas. One is the Home
Place Business District that centers around 106 Street and College Avenue. The other is the
West Home Place Commercial Corridor —the east -side of Pennsylvania Street.
With the Comprehensive Plan policies in place, the Overlay Zone is divided into three main
sections of development standards: the normal sections that refer to process and administration of
the Overlay, and three sections of Developmental Standards. The first is general provisions that
would apply to commercial development within the greater area of the entire Home Place District.
The second set of standards would apply to the Home Place Business District, the area centered
around 106 and College. This would provide design requirements that orient buildings towards
the street and are pedestrian in scale, site development regulations such as setbacks and building
orientation, and some architectural design requirements. These requirements apply to new
construction, new additions, and new expansions. No change will be required to existing
buildings as long as it was allowed by the Ordinance at the time it was in place. The third set of
Developmental Standards is the West Home Place Commercial corridor and would apply to those
properties along the east -side of Pennsylvania Street.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; the following appeared:
Jack Edwards, 10475 Cornell, Home Place, asked that the Commission approve the Overlay
Zone for the Home Place Area. The proposed Overlay seems to fit the area. Jack was
complimentary of the Task Force, Ron Houck, Kelli Hahn, Norma Meighen, for their work.
Judy Hagan, Clay Township Trustee, thanked Commission Members Dave Cremeans and Ron
Houck for their hard work. Ms. Hagan is supportive of the proposed Overlay.
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\P1anCommissionMinutes \2001 dec 18 2
David Devilbiss, 10301 Central Avenue, said he had attended several of the Home Place Task
Force meetings and was pleased with the DOCS Staff and Subdivision Committee members who
worked closely with the community to develop the Overlay Zone for the Home Place area. Mr.
Devilbiss did caution the Commission on future provisions for landscaping or signage that would
apply to the entire area, Township and City, that some regulations might over -ride considerations
made in the plans for the Overlay Zone.
Opposed:
Ron Hyink, 10648 Penn Drive, is not sure whether he is for or against the Overlay Zone and
does not really understand it. Mr. Hyink questions why standards for landscaping and lighting
need to be instituted in an area that has been in being since the 1960's. Mr. Hyink suspects an
ulterior motive for the Overlay Zone.
Rebuttal:
Kelli Hahn stated there is no ulterior motive; the plan is being developed taking into consideration
development pressure within the area. The Task Force tried to identify reasonable areas where
development may occur. There are office buildings along Pennsylvania Street south of 106
Street, and realizing those are in existence, standards, limits and guidelines are being established
for commercial development.
Ron Houck commented that Pennsylvania Street did change the western character of Home Place.
The goal of the Task Force is to protect residential character of Home Place and maintain and
encourage development in Home Place —the only way to do that is to establish standards and
guidelines.
Dave Cremeans stated that initially, there was a lot of concern from Home Place area residents
About the Task Force and what the goal was. Accolades to Ron Houck and the Task Force
Committee, and Kelli Hahn for all of their hard work.
Ron Houck expressed kudos to Kelli Hahn for bringing a lot of zeal, planning vision, a great sense
of organization and cooperation in working with the Task Force.
Docket No. 135 -01 Z and 136 -01 CPA, Home Place District Overlay Zone Comprehensive
Plan Policies was referred to the Special Study Committee for further review on January 8, 2002,
at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall.
2h. Docket No. 127 -01 Z; U.S. Highway 31 146 Street PUD (Rezone)
Petitioner seeks favorable recommendation of a rezone from the B -3 (Business)
and R -1 (Residence) districts to a PUD /planned unit development district on 56.79
acres. The site is located at the southwest corner of US Highway 31 and East
146 Street.
Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for the Lauth Property Group.
S: A PlanCommission \Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes \200 ldec 18 3
Paul Reis, attorney with The Reis Law Firm, 12358 Hancock Street, Carmel, appeared before the
Commission representing the petitioner. Also in attendance: Joe Downs of Lauth Property
Group; Fred Simmons, architect with Simmons Assoc.; Jeff Clayton of American Consulting
Engineers; Steve Fehriback of A &F Engineering; and Mark Monroe, of The Reis Law Firm.
The property is approximately 56 acres of land located at the southwest corner of 146 Street and
US Highway 31. The current zoning on the tract is R -1 and B -3; the petitioner is proposing to
rezone to a Planned Unit Development District. The property lies within the Tax Incremental
Financing district adopted by Hamilton County and approved by the Carmel City Council.
Primarily, this was approved and established to defray the cost of certain roadway improvements
to fully implement the 146 Street bridge and road project made by Hamilton County. Following
the establishment of the TIF district, the Carmel City Council did remove this parcel as well as
some other real estate from the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone so that it does not lie within the Overlay
Zone. This was done, in part, to promote development that is appropriate to meet the substantial
financing needs necessary to construct the roadway improvement.
Lauth Property Group has over 20 years experience in developing and managing real estate
projects around Indiana and across the country. For this project, the petitioner is proposing a life-
style retail center unique to Carmel and central Indiana. The goal is to attract and retain
restaurants as well as up -scale retail and fashion oriented tenants that are typically found in
enclosed malls.
The petition is a request for a Rezone. Unlike some other projects that have been presented to
the Commission, this particular project does not have any established tenants or agreements in
place. After the Rezone approval, the petitioner will return to the Commission for specific
architectural design, lighting, landscaping, and signage or individual parts of the development.
The petitioner is providing the Commission with a conceptual plan that will show how the real
estate could be developed pursuant to the proposed PUD Ordinance. A definitive site plan will be
presented as the project is developed and plans are finalized.
The proposed PUD Ordinance is designed to provide a framework and guidelines upon which the
petitioner can develop this property, attract tenants, and form the standards by which the Plan
Commission will be able to review the ADLS plans as they are submitted. The site plan envisions
the extension of Range Line Road from Western Way to US 31. The conceptual plan is for a
multi- tenant building, constructed on the west side of the site, as well as a series of stand -alone
buildings that could be restaurants or retail on the east side of the site. As provided in the
Ordinance, a single tenant building would be located to the east of Range Line Road.
Certain features on the proposed plan will be required under the Ordinance and not subject to
variance. Those include a 30 foot greenbelt along the existing US 31 right -of -way; reservation of
the space for possible roadway improvements to US 31 that have been requested by the County;
and landscaping along the Range Line Road extension and along 146 Street. To the extent that
there would be a single user tenant greater than 80,000 feet, the building would have to be located
to the east of Range Line Road under the Ordinance. Important to the site plan is the 50 foot
landscape and tree preservation buffer area, the intent of which is to provide tree preservation to
the residential areas as well as to include new plantings in the areas not as densely forested. This
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\P1anCommissionMinutes \2001 dec 18 4
will also include an eight -foot screening fence along the area. This TIF District was established in
order for the County to build this road. The County and its Engineers are coordinating with and
will submit to INDOT the approval for the plans of the connection of this road with US 31. The
County has represented to the petitioner that it will meet with and work with the City of Carmel
to discuss the proposed roadway improvements, and when the TIF Bond is paid, this street will
become a street within the City of Carmel. The petitioner has filed a Traffic Impact Analysis, and
DOCS has retained John Myers to review the analysis. Steve Fehribach of A F Engineering has
met with John Myers and the petitioner has responded to preliminary questions and comments.
The proposed project will have upscale retail and fashion oriented tenants along with restaurants
that are typically found in enclosed malls. However, this is open -air shopping and restaurant
environment and as a result, certain building concerns and designs are important. Unique facades
with storefronts and signage are important to attract the customers. Unique building design
combined with the landscaping and the architectural and decorative lighting throughout the
development is intended to create a village feel rather than a strip- center appearance or a larger
shopping center appearance and feel. This similar style and design are found in the Village Zone
section of the Old Meridian District. Unique tenant facade and signage design is critical to avoid
having the tenant lost in a common, single design and style for the entire development.
As the buildings are developed, there will be specific ADLS plans submitted for review by the
Plan Commission to approve the exact design, lighting, landscaping and signage for this
development.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed development;
the following appeared:
Guy Breman, 307 John Street, Carmel, "Do we really need anymore
Erica Mehle, 1423 Rosemill Drive, asked if there were traffic lights planned for the area to the
north and if this area would be landscaped. Also, will the design be a big box on 146 Street or
will the building be setback from view?
Rebuttal:
Paul Reis responded the County is in control of the 146 Street project and the Range Line Road
extension will tie into the existing stoplight at Western Way. Whether the County has additional
stoplights planned for the neighborhood to the north is not known. At this time, it is not known
exactly where the building will be situated —what is shown is a conceptual plan. The Ordinance
does provide that the building would not be to the west of Range Line Road but rather to the east
of Range Line.
Department Comments, Jon Dobosiewicz said written comments have been provided to the
Commission members, including comments regarding the traffic study. Additional information
has been received and will be discussed with the petitioner and John Myers between now and the
January 8th Committee meeting as well as notes made on the 80,000 square foot, free- standing
building. The fact that the PUD Ordinance does require future development plan and ADLS
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\P1anCommissionMinutes \2001 dec 18 5
approval leads the Department to recommend this item be forwarded to the Subdivision
Committee for refining.
Docket No. 127 -01 Z, U.S. Highway 31 and 146 Street PUD (Rezone) was forwarded to the
Subdivision Committee for further review on January 8, 2002 at 7:00 PM.
3h. Docket No. 138 -01 PP; The Lakes at Hayden Run (Primary Plat)
The applicant seeks approval to plat a 111 -lot residential subdivision on 80.742±
acres. The site is located on the north side of West 131s Street approximately
one quarter mile west of Towne Road. The site is zoned S- 1/Residential.
Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Associates, Inc. for Centex Homes
and Trinity Homes.
Dave Warshauer, attorney with Barnes Thornburg, 11 South Meridian Street, Indianapolis,
appeared before the Commission representing the applicant, Centex Homes. Centex Homes is
actually seeking approval for two plats, both residential open space subdivisions. The first is The
Lakes at Hayden Run consisting of 111 lots on 80 acres; the second is The Ridge at Hayden Run
and consists of 105 lots on 74 acres.
Also in attendance were Tom Kutz, Centex Land Development, and Dennis Olmstead of
Stoeppelwerth Engineers.
In October, approval was granted to Centex for a plat of Hayden Run, 70 lots, located on the
south side of 131s Street. The Lakes at Hayden Run and The Ridge at Hayden Run are located in
the same vicinity of the original plat on the north side of 131s Street between Towne and
Shelborne Roads.
While much of the substance is the same, The Lakes and The Ridge are being presented to the
Plan Commission as separate cases. The Lakes at Hayden Run is located in the S -1 District and is
being platted as an Open Space Subdivision. The project's open space comprises 32.31 acres or
40% of the site. Based on the formula contained in ROSO, the plat shows 111 lots on almost 81
acres. The density is 1.37 units per acre. Lots in The Lakes are between 12,287 and 18,821
square feet with an average of 14,122 square feet or 94% of the 15,000 square feet required in the
standard S -1 without the open space requirement. The property adjoining to the north is
proposed to be built by Ray Roehling as The Hamptons, and will be on the Agenda for the
January Plan Commission meeting. To the east are several large properties with a few homes, all
several hundred feet from the site, having access to Towne Road. To the west are two tracts,
each with a single family home. To the south are single family homes and a portion of the
property platted as The Village of WestClay.
Centex has prepared and submitted an open space schedule; except for the wooded area in the
northwest corner of the site, the plan has been used for agricultural purposes. The wooded area
which includes a small wetlands is the only priority conservation area on the site and will be left in
its natural condition and protected by construction fencing from construction activities. Overall,
22.52 acres are planned for open space. The remaining 9.77 acres of open space consist of
squares, parks, greens, paths, and ponds. A pedestrian path system runs throughout most of the
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\P1anCommissionMinutes \2001 dec 18 6
subdivision. A pool and bathhouse will be constructed in one of the common areas. The open
space plan for The Lakes at Hayden Run meets the general standards for open space as set forth
in section 7.4 of the Subdivision Control Ordinance.
The Lakes at Hayden Run is one of several developments in the area, including Centex's Hayden
Run and The Ridge at Hayden Run proposed. Several developments are proposed between
Towne and Shelborne Roads and 131s Street and 141s Street: Hayden Run; Claybourne; The
Lakes at Hayden Run; The Hamptons; The Ridge at Hayden Run; and Shelbourne Park. The
Department has worked with the developers to come up with a common, inter connected scheme
of the connector roads.
Under the Subdivision Control Ordinance, each developer is responsible for improvements of any
thoroughfare that adjoins the Subdivision. Traditionally, the Hamilton County Highway Dept. has
simply required that the developer add three feet of pavement and a stone shoulder to any part of
a County road that abuts a proposed subdivision. However, after reviewing the Subdivision
Control Ordinance, the Department is taking the position of calling for more extensive
improvements along the frontage of a proposed subdivision, essentially an additional 12 foot wide
lane of pavement with curb and gutter in the case of 131 Street and 141s Street on those
portions of Lakes at Hayden Run and The Ridge at Hayden Run that abut those streets. With the
encouragement of DOCS, the developers have joined together to engage Steve Fehribach of A
F Engineering to do a traffic impact analysis of all proposed developments in the area.
DOCS and the County Highway have encouraged the developers to agree to either widen the
streets along the Subdivision frontage by adding another lane and curb and gutter, or to make a
contribution to a fund to be maintained by DOCS for improvements that may have a higher
priority or more desirable based on the Traffic Impact Analysis. This type of arrangement was
approved in connection with Claybourne earlier this evening. Centex will be proposing similar
commitments in which they will agree to either improve 131s Street along The Lakes at Hayden
Run with an additional 12 feet of pavement and curb and gutter, OR with the standard three foot
pavement and three foot shoulder. The difference between the costs would be paid into a fund to
be maintained by DOCS for other road improvements. The commitments will be drafted and
available to the Committee members prior to the meeting on January 8th
Street lighting within the Lakes at Hayden Run will be shielded in the same manner as the lighting
for Hayden Run. Secondly, the covenants will include language providing that homeowners will
not remonstrate against annexation.
The petitioner believes there are no outstanding issues except the landscape plan. A letter was
received from Scott Brewer, Urban Forester that raised certain questions regarding perimeter
landscaping and landscaping the median; these questions will be addressed at the Subdivision
Committee.
Jon Dobosiewicz said the language in the Department Report is extensive, and the applicant has
covered all of the issues in sufficient detail and the Department is recommending this Docket be
sent to the Subdivision Committee.
S: A PlanCommission \Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes \200 ldec 18 7
Dave Cremeans asked about street lights within the subdivision; Tom Kutz, Centex Homes,
responded the street lights will be maintained by the Homeowners Association. The contract is
between Cinergy, PSI, and the homeowners association on a per light per month contract. The
fixtures /facility will be owned by PSI and maintained by them under contract with the HOA.
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:
Andy Crook, 2288 West 136 Street, asked the Commission to look at development occurring in
the area in totality rather than one isolated subdivision. Mr. Crook requested further investigation
of the Comprehensive Plan. Drainage is also a question.
Dr. John A. Smith, 2885 West 131s Street, requested more information on lighting and road
usage /traffic patterns.
Bob Boone, 3121 West 141s Street, said the drawings displayed cannot be seen by the public.
(Note: The DOCS files are open to the public for inspection during the hours of 8:00 AM and
5:00 PM)
Madeline Fitzgerald commented that the Plan Commission has become aware of the fact that a lot
of issues such as infrastructure, drainage, etc. need to be addressed.
Marilyn Anderson asked that the landscape plan be submitted to the Commission members prior
to the Committee meeting.
Docket No. 138 -01 PP, The Lakes at Hayden Run (Primary Plat) was referred to the Subdivision
Committee for further review on January 8, 2002 at 7:00 PM, public hearing to remain open
4h. Docket No. 139 -01 PP; The Ridge at Hayden Run (Primary Plat)
The applicant seeks approval to plat a 105 -lot residential subdivision on 74.347±
acres. The site is located on the south side of West 141s Street approximately one
half mile west of Towne Road. The site is zoned S- 1/Residential.
Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Associates, Inc. for Centex Homes.
Dave Warshauer, attorney with Barnes Thornburg, 11 South Meridian Street, Indianapolis,
appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Also in attendance were Tom Kutz
of Centex Homes and Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Assoc.
This property is within the S -1 District and platted under the Residential Open Space Ordinance.
The open space consists of 31.63 acres or 42% of the overall site. Based on the open space
formula, the density is computed to be 1.41 units per acre. Lots in The Lakes range from 12,000
and 18, 739 square feet and average 13,754 square feet. An open space plan has been submitted
38.33 acres as natural open space. There is internal connectivity within the subdivision. The
ROSO requirements are believed to be satisfied. The Ridge is located to the northwest of The
Lakes at Hayden Run. The overall plan is to have the connector road run through The Lakes at
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\P1anCommissionMinutes \2001 dec 18 8
Hayden Run and then The Hamptons rather than a north/south collector running through The
Ridge at Hayden Run. There are three separate sections but are covered in one subdivision
waiver request. The construction of the east /west portion of the connector street would
essentially permit an extension of 136 Street from Towne Road to Shelbourne Road as these
areas develop. Dave Warshauer invited members of the public with questions or requests for
additional information to see him after the meeting.
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.
Michael Clayter, 13881 Shelborne Road, and wife Deborah Winchester, whose residence backs
up to the proposed development, stated concern with the effect the proposed development will
have on wildlife in the area. Mr. Mrs. Clayter planted 300 trees and wildflowers when they
purchased their property. The wildlife area has not been designated as such by the DNR, but it
certainly is one. Lighting is a consideration as well as the density of the development.
Helen Stanley, 3361 West 141s Street, stated deep concern about the size of the homes. Ms.
Stanley has 5 acres and moved to this location to be in the country. Ms. Stanley has horses, a
miniature donkey that brays, and her family is very upset at losing their privacy. Ms. Stanley
thought this was "Country" and zoned for that. Also a concern is the increased traffic in the area.
There have been numerous traffic accidents at 141s and Towne and 141s and Shelbourne. With
the closing of College Wood Elementary, another grammar school is to be built at 126 and
Shelbourne and another junior high will have to be built. The high school is already "maxed out"
and there are issues that need to be addressed before the area is bombarded with more kids that
we cannot take care of now —the schools are overflowing!
David Warshauer responded that the property is zoned S -1, not "Country." The proposal is a
permitted use in S -1 District and the density is permitted under the Residential Open Space
Zoning Ordinance. The specific intent of the Residential Open Space Ordinance was to cause
subdivisions to be built with large areas of common open space. The Ordinance resulted in
smaller lots —it was felt that common open space with paths would create the spaciousness and
would be more conducive to the rural feel. The petitioner has complied with the Ordinance.
Department Report, Jon Dobosiewicz said comments in the Department Report were addressed
during the public hearing. However, members of the public that have questions are encouraged to
contact the DOCS office and those questions can be addressed at the Subdivision Committee.
Questions and Concerns from Commission members:
Ron Houck, requested more information on the overall plan for inter connectivity in terms of
trails.
Marilyn Anderson asked for details on the landscape plan.
Additional comments and public input will be allowed at the Subdivision Committee meeting on
January 8, 2002, in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall at 7:00 PM.
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\P1anCommissionMinutes \2001 dec 18 9
5h. Docket No. 140 -01 PP; Shelborne Park (Primary Plat)
The applicant seeks approval to plat a 54 -lot subdivision on 39.91± acres. The site
is located on the north side of West 131s Street approximately one quarter mile
east of Shelborne Road. The site is zoned S- 1/Residential.
Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Associates, Inc. for Roger L.
Kessler.
Roger L. Kessler, attorney representing Logan Limited, 10200 Lantern Road, Fishers, appeared
before the Commission requesting Primary Plat approval for Shelborne Park. The property is
located on the north side of 131s Street, east of Shelborne Road. The property abuts the Hayden
Subdivision to the south; to the west is vacant land; to the east is property that has one single
family residence on 131 Street, and another larger home to the rear. The property consists of
39.93 acres and has not been annexed to the City of Carmel, however, there is a non opposition
clause to annexation in the covenants. The property is currently zoned S- 1/Residentian and no
zone classification change is being requested for this property.
The Subdivision will consist of 53 lots —a density of 1.33 units per acre. There are 5 acres of
woodlands located on the northern portion of the property and designated as open space priority
conservation area. The woodlands will be left in their natural state, undisturbed, and protected
from construction activity with a snow fence. There will be a walking path through the area for
the residents. There are two areas of designated wetlands on the property, approximately one -half
acre each, for a total wetland area of .91 acres. The wetlands are in the wooded area and will not
be disturbed.
The remaining common areas are located on the southern portion of the property, graded,
landscaped with mounding, and contain two ponds. The common areas will be owned by the
Homeowners Association and maintained by a professional management company. The property
has 14.828 acres of open space or 37.1% of the site. 5.61 acres of open space are located at the
northern portion of the property; 8.38 acres of the open space are located on the southern portion
of the property which has green area and the pond.
The petitioner has appeared before the Technical Advisory Committee and has made changes
recommended by the Department Staff. The initial plan contained 43 lots; the revised plan
contains 53 lots.
The developers in the area are participating in the traffic study and the petitioner will participate in
the widening of the road and curb and gutters, or participate in other improvements under the
Subdivision Control Ordinance. The petitioner is also participating in the Brindle Drain Study.
Comments have been received regarding the landscaping, and these will be addressed at the
Subdivision Committee.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one
appeared.
Department Comments, Jon Dobosiewicz said the Landscaping Review and Comments by Scott
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\P1anCommissionMinutes \2001 dec 18 10
Brewer, Urban Forester, have only recently been received.
Ron Houck asked that information be brought to the Committee —it appears as though the vast
majority of the open space is not accessible to the majority of the homeowners. This should be
addressed at the Committee. Also, the rationale for connectivity should be discussed.
Madeline Fitzgerald asked that the petitioner look at play areas for children. Some effort should
be made to come up with amenities for children, ball park, etc.
Dave Cremeans suggested that the common area be planned in conjunction with the other
developments, since one developer is involved in two Subdivisions. The goal is to have large
areas of open space and to keep the trees. Ideally, the developers could get together to develop a
large, park -like area; this is unusual, but this is the time to seize this type of concept.
Jon Dobosiewicz responded that the concept sounds easy, but it is difficult to get the developers
to work together on this —the Ordinance is not set up that way. The petitioners have worked
together on drainage and traffic. The Department has looked at connectivity and will ask the
developer to prepare an Exhibit that shows pathways and connectivity of roadways and how the
open space areas might be inter connected to provide more useful open space. Madeline also
touched on a big issue the Department is trying to promote —large areas for ball fields and active
recreation —not just passive recreation.
Paul Spranger asked that the open space along 131 Street be created in the form of a street
scape to give a feeling of spaciousness in order to preserve the rural feel and character of the area.
Nick Kestner requested more clarity on the landscape plan as far as dimensions. The current plan
is hard to read.
Docket No. 140 -01 PP, Shelborne Park (Primary Plat) was referred to the Subdivision
Committee for further review on January 8, 2002 at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall.
6h. Docket No. 141 -01 PP; The Hamptons (Primary Plat)
The applicant seeks approval to plat a 192 -lot residential subdivision on 154.806±
acres. The site is located on the southwest corner of West 141s Street and Towne
Road. The site is zoned S- 1/Residential.
Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson and Frankenberger for Raymond
Roehling.
TABLED to January
7h. Docket No. 142 -01 DP Amend; North Haven Office Building
Petitioner seeks Amended Development Plan approval to modify a previously
approved office and multi family development. The site is zoned R -5. The site is
located at 9800 North Gray Road.
Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for C. P. Morgan
Co.
S: A PlanCommission \Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes \200 ldec 18 11
Charlie Frankenberger, 4983 St Charles Place, Carmel, attorney, appeared before the Commission
representing the applicant, C. P. Morgan. The petitioner is requesting amendments to an
approved Primary Plat and an approved, Final Development Plan. The North Haven Office
Building will serve as the new corporate headquarters for C. P. Morgan.
Mark Boyce of C. P. Morgan was in attendance as well as Blair Carmisino of Duke Realty Co.,
builder. Present on behalf of the Williamson Run Community was Dan Borba.
The real estate is a 43 acre parcel located south of 106 Street, north of 96 Street, and west of
Gray Road; it is bordered on the south by Bottamiller Enterprises, on the north by Martin
Marietta Lake and on the west by the Williamson Run Community.
Approval was granted to develop this property as a multi family /commercial office community
and the internal roadway has been installed. Primary Plat approval and Development Plan
approval was obtained March 20, 2001. C.P. Morgan has since decided to modify the Primary
Plat and Development Plan as they pertain to the commercial development only on the southern
portion of the real estate.
Lot 2 is being enlarged and Block D is being decreased. In addition, the parking in the southern
area has been eliminated and replaced by greenspace. The commercial office building to be
located on Lot 2 will also change. The front of the building faces Gray Road; the side of the
building facing the lake and the Williamson Run Community; the exterior will be identical with the
exception of the beige canopy and columns absent from the opposite side. The building will be
masonry, 2 stories rather than 3, and parking in the front of the building will be reduced and
replaced by greenspace.
The revisions to the buildings have been reviewed with the Williamson Run HOA and J.C. Hart,
developer of the southern two thirds for multi family. They have approved the changes and
support this request as evidenced by letters of support.
At this time, the petitioner is requesting suspension of the Rules of Procedure and a vote this
evening.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; the following appeared:
Dan Borba, 10545 Power Drive, resident of Williamson Run and member of the HOA Board,
appeared in support of the proposed project. The HOA has been continually up -dated by the
petitioner, and they are in favor of the changes proposed.
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petition; no one appeared and
the public hearing was closed.
Department Report, Jon Dobosiewicz reiterated the applicant's request to suspend the Rules of
Procedure; the Department is recommending approval.
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\P1anCommissionMinutes \2001 dec 18 12
Pat Rice asked for more details on the screen wall.
Alan Tucker with CSO Architects responded the screen wall is approximately 5 feet in height,
constructed of EFIS with revels painted to match the canopy.
Leo Dierckman moved to suspend the Rules of Procedure. The motion was seconded by Dave
Cremeans and approved 12 -0.
Leo Dierckman moved to approve Docket No. 142 -01 DP Amend, North Haven Office
Building. The motion was seconded by Wayne Haney and APPROVED 12 -0.
After a short recess, the Commission continued with the business at hand.
8h. Docket No. 148 -01 CA (Commitment Amendment) Hazel Dell Corner
Petitioner seeks Commitment Amendment approval to revise the list of special
uses permitted on Lots 2, 3, and 4 within the Hazel Dell Corner Subdivision. The
site is located at the northwest corner of East 131s Street and Hazel Dell Parkway.
The site is zoned B-3/Business.
Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for Plum Creek Partners, LLC.
Paul Reis, attorney with The Reis Law Firm, 12358 Hancock Street, Carmel, appeared before the
Commission representing the Plum Creek Partners, LLC. The petitioner is requesting an
amendment to commitments previously made to a commercial subdivision. Also in attendance
was Brian Chandler of Plum Creek Partners, and Mark Monroe with The Reis Law Firm.
The proposed development is a commercial, neighborhood center consisting of 6 lots at the
northwest corner of Hazel Dell Parkway and 131 Street. Previously, there has been approved on
Lots 1, 5, and 6, the Osco Drug Store, a medical office building, and a day care facility. Most
recently, on Lot 4, a portion has been approved by the BZA for neighborhood retail and office
building. No specific development plans have been submitted yet on lots 2 and 3 of this
subdivision. The B -3 zoning requires the BZA to approve Special Uses on the property.
At the time this property was rezoned in 1995, there were certain special uses that were
delineated for consideration by the BZA. The petitioner is requesting approval of a restaurant as
an additional special use on Lots 2, 3, and 4 of this subdivision. In addition, the petitioner is
requesting that the Commission delete certain special uses that were previously approved when
the property was rezoned. Those uses include: an automobile service station; a church, temple or
place of worship; a cold storage locker; college or university; indoor theatre; meeting /party hall;
water management use facilities; tennis /racquet ball facility; skating rink; wholesale establishment;
or research laboratory.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the Commitment Amendment; no one
appeared.
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the Commitment Amendment; no
one appeared.
S: A PlanCommission \Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes \200 ldec 18 13
Department Report, Jon Dobosiewicz said the Department is not opposed to adding restaurant as
a permitted use within the development, but some restriction is necessary to maintain the
character of what the Department believes was the intent in initially excluding restaurants. This
location is not appropriate for a free- standing or drive through type restaurant.
Docket No. 148 -01 CA (Commitment Amendment) Hazel Dell Corner, was referred to the
Special Study Committee for further review on January 8, 2002 at 7:00 PM.
9h. Docket No. 144 -01 Z; Gray Road and 96 Street (Rezone)
The site is located at the northeast corner of Gray Road and 96 Street. The petitioner
is requesting a rezone a 4.53 acre site from S -1 (Residential) to B -8 (Business).
Filed by E. Davis Coots of Coots Henke Wheeler for Glendale Partners /Gray
Road LLC.
Dave Coots of Coots Henke Wheeler, 255 East Carmel Drive, appeared before the
Commission representing the applicant, Glendale Partners /Gray Road LLC. The rezone
application was initially filed as a 4 -plus acre tract and after meeting with the Department, the
petitioner was encouraged to increase the size to a 5 -acre parcel. Therefore, it is not necessary to
subdivide the entire Martin- Marietta property.
The proposed tract for conveyance to Glendale Partners is an irregular shaped parcel, located at
96 Street and Gray Road, bounded on the east by Martin- Marietta mining facility and several
other uses that are the subject of litigation.
In the opinion of the remonstrance to Martin Marietta's operations, this parcel should not go
forward until Martin- Marietta cleans up its zoning violations on the balance of the tract to the east
and to the north. The property is under contract by separate legal description and the petitioner
is seeking to rezone to a B -8 parcel that would be consistent with the 96 Street corridor. To the
west is the B -3 zoned property. The O'Brien dealership is under construction just to the west.
To the south of this property, in Marion County, is a large strip center in the process of being
leased.
The petitioner has submitted drawings for a commercial center, but to date, no leases have been
signed and the center is market driven. The center will be single story, similar in style to the type
of building shown in the drawings.
Comments have been received from the County Highway regarding dedication of roadway on
Gray Road and 96 Street. There will be right it -right out only at 96 Street and no median cut at
96 Street. The County also seeks the alignment of the entrance on Gray Road to match the
entrance on the commercial parcel to the west.
The drawings include a gas station —a permitted use within the B -8 district —and nothing the
petitioner seeks to exclude.
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:
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\P1anCommissionMinutes \2001 dec 18 14
Tom Yedlick, 5053 St.Charles Place, Kingswood Subdivision, suggested the review of the
project be expanded. Everything on the property is currently a hodge -podge of nonconforming
uses. There is metal extraction, (open -pit mining) an asphalt plant, cement plant, pre -cast
concrete operation; truck maintenance facility; and a truck hauling facility. The Kingswood HOA
contention is that if the non conforming uses were modified, it would void the non conforming
uses and they would have to come into compliance. The annexation of the property is essentially
a rezone. The property is exempt from planning and zoning jurisdiction under a State law that
exempts mining outside an urban area. The annexation of this property converts it to an urban
area. All of a sudden, something that has never been regulated is subject to Special Use
regulation. Therefore, by requesting a modification of their non conforming use, all of the
existing uses come into play and should be reviewed.
The standard treatment for a nonconforming use is to allow it to continue but not to be expanded
or modified. The mining reputation on this property is a nuisance and has existed all of these
years because it has been exempt from any regulation. It is now subject to regulation and we have
the opportunity to do something about it. There is currently a proposal for a PUD in this area.
Rather than piecemeal, this area should be reviewed as an entire project to take care of
nonconforming uses.
Currently, Kingswood HOA is involved in litigation with Martin- Marietta. The litigation could be
dismissed if the Plan Commission picks it up and deals with it as a part of the rezone request. Mr.
Yedlick asked that this Docket be Tabled while the case is pending in Hamilton County Superior
Court.
Dave Coots responded the current proposal for the 5 -acre tract is for a rezone to B-8/Business.
The land is not presently being used for asphalt, concrete, truck storage, etc., and is not a part of
current nonconforming uses referred to by Mr. Yedlick. Mr Coots asked the Commission to
move forward on this request.
Department comments, Mike Hollibaugh, Director said there is speculation that Martin- Marietta
will come forth with a PUD proposal. The Department will try to look at the entire Martin
Marietta parcel with the help of a consultant, Spectra Environmental Group, Inc. from Latham,
New York. Spectra has a breadth of experience, including state governments, and they have done
a lot of similar plans that we are asking them to do. Altough we are not asking or a table at this
time, it is certainly something to be considered.
Dave Cremeans asked for legal advice from John Molitor and whether or not there was anything
the Commission should be doing at this point.
John Molitor said he has agreed with almost everything all persons have said thus far. Mr. Coots
is correct in that this is a rezone request and entitled to be treated as a separate request; at the
same time, it could make a lot of sense for this to be considered as part of Martin- Marietta's
grand plan involving a Planned Unit Development Ordinance. If this comes together, it could
result in the settlement of the litigation that involves not only the BZA, but the Director of the
Department. Mr. Molitor is not recommending that this case be treated any differently than any
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\P1anCommissionMinutes \2001 dec 18 15
other petition at this time. There will be continuing discussions.
Ron Houck asked if there were a tentative time frame for the Martin- Marietta PUD.
John Molitor said as land owner, Martin- Marietta is entitled to bring forward the PUD petition at
any time. To Mr. Molitor's knowledge there was no specific timetable at this time and they are
trying to work with the Department as well as the Kingswood HOA.
Jon Dobosiewicz commented from the standpoint of examining the petition on the merits of the
request for rezone, there are four pieces of information that should be submitted to the
Department; one is an ordinance that clearly defines the exhibit provided by the applicant. While
the exhibit does portray a potential for what the site might look like, it should be narrowed down
in detail as to how it might be developed. In addition, there was some discussion about the
County's requirement regarding access to this site. There should be as definite understanding
before any commitment to rezone the property as to where and how access will be to this site.
The Department does have some reservation as to use of a gas station specifically in regard to
Keystone and 96 Street where there are multiple points of ingress and egress for the Shell
Station and the Marathon Station/McDonald's on the south side of 96 Street. A Traffic
Operations Analysis will clear this up and this should be submitted. The Department has provided
evidence that we are moving forward on the larger picture of Martin- Marietta. As a Plan
Commission, we can evalutate this petition on a stand -alone basis if it is the determination that it
is an appropriate land use at this corner —that is the issue the Plan Commission is to concentrate
on. A recommendation will then be forwarded to the City Council for the ultimate decision on the
rezone.
Docket No. 144 -01 Z, Gray Road and 96 Street (Rezone) was forwarded to the Special
Study Committee for further review February 5, 2002 at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City
Hall.
10h. Docket No. 147 -01 DP /ADLS CMC Carmel Office Center
Petitioner seeks Development Plan and Architectural Design, Lighting,
Landscaping Signage approval for a Hilton Garden Inn. The petitioner proposes
to construct an office park on 9.42± acres. The site is located at the northwest
corner of U.S. 31 and Main Street (131s Street). The site is zoned B-5/Business
within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay Zone.
Filed by E. Davis Coots of Coots Henke Wheeler for CMC Properties, Inc.
Dave Coots, attorney, Coots Henke Wheeler, 255 East Carmel Drive, Carmel appeared before
the Commission representing CMC Properties, Inc. Greg Land was also present representing
CMC Properties.
As a condition of the Rezone of this property to the B-5/Business District, the petitioner agreed
to return to the Plan Commission for ADLS review and Development Plan approval for the CMC
Carmel Office Center. Item 11h will be noticed for the January meeting and the primary plat will
be heard at that time.
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\P1anCommissionMinutes \2001 dec 18 16
Greg Land seeks to develop a corporate campus on this property as shown in materials previously
submitted. The corporate campus is a proposed, three building development. One building fronts
on U.S. 31; the east elevation and west elevation will be shown on material boards at the Special
Study Committee meeting. The Department has asked that design issues be addressed.
Note of clarification: The Hilton Garden Inn is not a part of this application, although the Agenda
does refer to signage approval for the Hilton Garden Inn.
The west elevation shows the location of the proposed signage. The east elevation also shows the
proposed sign, and there is no drive on the site plan for this side of the building. The lighting plan
and landscape plan was submitted in the booklets.
Greg Land of CMC Properties addressed the Commission and explained the use of the property.
The offices are split in phases of 300,000 square feet. This development is an "incubator" start -up
business development. There are special amenities for smaller businesses such as common
conference area and common telecommunications area. Regarding the aesthetics of the building, a
special committee is anticipated to bring in materials for review. Mr. Land is drafting a statement
regarding the "golden section."
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 recommends forwarding this item to the February 5, 2002
committee.
Ron Houck expressed concern regarding architectural style of the building and potentially the
signage.
Marilyn Anderson asked that the landscape plan be given to all committee members.
Docket No. 147 -01 DP /ADLS CMC Carmel Office Center, was referred to the Special
Study Committee for further review on February 5, 2002 at 7:00 in the Caucus Rooms of City
Hall.
llh. Docket No. 145 -01 PP; CMC Properties Subdivision (Primary Plat)
The applicant seeks approval to plat a 3 -lot commercial subdivision on 11.29±
acres. The site is located at the northwest corner of West 131 Street and North
Meridian Street. The site is zoned B5/Business and a portion is within the US 31
Overlay Zone.
Filed by E. Davis Coots of Coots Henke Wheeler for CH Land LLC and CMC.
TABLED due to insufficient notice
12h. Docket No. 150 -01 DP Amend ADLS Amend Stewart Stewart Office
Building
Petitioner seeks to amend their Development Plan and Architectural Design, Lighting,
Landscaping Signage approval for a building addition. The site is located at 931
S: A PlanCommission \Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes \200 ldec 18 17
South Range Line Road. The site is zoned B -7.
Filed by Phillip Stewart.
Note: Ron Houck recused himself from all discussion and voting.
Dave Stewart, 931 South Rangeline Road, Carmel, and Phillip Stewart appeared before the Plan
Commission representing the applicant, Stewart Stewart.
The petitioner is seeking an amendment to the Development Plan for property located at 931
South Rangeline Road that was struck by lightening in July. The building burned substantially;
there was also smoke and water damage. The Department has requested some modifications to
the site plan, i.e. additional trees in the parking area and around the perimeter of the parking area.
Shrubbery has also been added to the northern boundary of the sidewalk at the front entry to the
building.
The building will be a two story, brick structure, and samples of the red brick material were
displayed to the Commission.
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:
Joyce Axelson, 22 Lakeshore Court, co -owner of property at 940 Paunee that backs up to the
Stewart property, said she did not receive any notice of the hearing. Ms. Axelson purchased the
property in June and the former owner was notified, not Ms. Axelson. Ms. Axelson said she also
owns the property at 840 Paunee that adjoins the Sherman Office Park Building. Ms. Axelson
expressed concern regarding fencing, the height of the building and lights intruding onto adjacent
properties at night, and overall, how the proposal will affect the existing residential properties.
Jeff Diehl, 726 Paunee, president of Newark Village Neighborhood Assoc., agreed with Ms.
Axelson's comments. Mr. Diehl was further concerned regarding trash pick -up hours, light
spillage, (lights need to be hooded and aimed properly) and wooden fencing and greenery are
definitely needed to be used as a buffer between residential and commercial property. Also,
loitering by the employees of current businesses is a big issue conversation can be heard clearly.
Traffic is also an issue. Motorists use Winona, Paunee Road and all other side streets as a "quick
way" to get to Ace Hardware.
Jane Hall, 920 Paunee, was concerned with a two -story structure "in her back yard." Two stories
are beyond the character of the area. Also, there are a lot of trees in the easement that buffer
noise from Rangeline Road and would like to preserve the trees.
Tammy Prino, 930 Paunee, was also concerned with a two -story structure that would block
natural light from entering their home. Ms. Prino was also concerned with light spillage at night.
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\P1anCommissionMinutes \2001 dec 18 18
Linda Clark, 908 Paunee, vice president of newly formed neighborhood association. Ms. Clark
was also concerned about two stories and asked that the building be more strung out rather than
built up. Ms. Clark was hopeful of very little intrusion into the neighborhood.
Rebuttal:
David Stewart responded that the trash pick up is on Thursdays between 10:00 AM and Noon,
and Stewart Stewart does not have the trash volume the retail side of ACE Hardware would
have. Mr. Stewart is also anticipating re- locating the dumpster away from the residences. The
lights are box lights, down lighting. The trees to the rear of the property have been maintained by
Stewart Stewart for a long time; they intend to add more trees along the backside, south edge,
and trees and shrubbery along the north (front) of the property.
Because of the limited area, there is no way a one -story building could be constructed and still
comply with the parking requirements as set out by the City Ordinance. The only option was a
two -story structure. Mr. Stewart asked for a suspension of the rules and a vote this evening.
Department Report, Jon Dobosiewicz said the Dept. had worked with the petitioner in coming up
with a parking plan so as to preserve the greatest number of trees plus provide the parking at the
rear of the site to improve and enhance the aesthetics from Range Line Road. Regarding the
landscaping, the petitioner has gone above and beyond that required by the Ordinance. The
second -story height cannot be addressed. The height restriction of the Ordinance far exceeds the
height of the proposed building. Regarding fences, the petitioner would prefer more vegetation
and screening as opposed to fences.
Dave Cremeans wanted to see the petitioner explore a variance for landbanking parking area.
Docket No. 150 -01 DP Amend /ADLS Amend, Stewart Stewart Office Building, was
forwarded to the Special Study Committee for further review on January 8, 2002 at 7:00 PM.
13h. Docket No. 151 -01 PP Amend; Spring Run Estates, Section 1
The applicant seeks approval to amend Spring Run Estates, Section 1 Subdivision
to exclude Block A as identified on the plat. The site is generally located at the
northeast corner of West 106 Street and Crooked Stick Lane. The site is zoned
S- 1/Residence.
Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Associates for Glenn E. Christian.
Zess Weiss, attorney, 3400 One American Square, appeared before the Plan Commission on
behalf of the petitioner, Manchester Properties, LLC. Glenn E. Christian was also present. As a
point of clarification, Mr. Weiss stated the property consists of 28 acres in an S- 1/Residence
District. This case is currently pending before the Subdivision Committee in respect to the site
plan.
The current issue is that part of the property was originally part of the plat of Spring Run Estates.
The petitioner is requesting removal of that property from Spring Run Estates so that it can
become a part of the plat of Crooked Stick Sanctuary. A part of the discussion at Subdivision
Committee is whether or not access is appropriately obtained for this site off of Crooked Stick
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\P1anCommissionMinutes \2001 dec 18 19
Lane or whether it should be somewhere else.
Mr. Weiss's opinion is that this is really just one issue whether the access is appropriately
located on the plat for this property. The petitioner is requesting removal of the property from
Spring Run Estates Subdivision so that it can become a part of Crooked Stick Sanctuary.
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:
Dave Coots, attorney, 225 East Carmel Drive, appeared before the Commission
representing Spring Run Estates Homeowners Association, a platted subdivision of 27 lots
recorded August 31, 1965. Mr. Coots also represented Crooked Stick Golf Club and Crooked
Stick Homeowners Association, 109 lots, platted May 30, 1975. Block A was platted as a part of
Spring Run Estates as Block B under the original plat. At some point in time, the ownership of
that block was conveyed to Mr. Rothbaum. Mr. Coots said the amendment of the plat has to be
commenced by the ownership of the platted subdivision that benefitted from the entire ownership
at the time the original plat was approved. This is important because there are certain covenants
and restrictions that encumber Spring Run Estates Subdivision that may have a bearing on the
ability to connect this tract to the Crooked Stick Lane. Mr. Coots opposed the amending of this
plat by the ownership of a tract that is unrelated to the platted subdivision recorded in 1965
because it does not comply with the Subdivision Control Ordinance that requires the owner to
prepare a preliminary and eventually a final plat.
Mr. Weiss said no covenants would run with the land regardless of what was done with the plat.
There are no covenants on this property —it is only a small part of the plat. Whether or not it is
removed from the plat is solely within the Plan Commission's purview, not the other homeowners.
The difference is plats are controlled through the Subdivision Control Ordinance. Private
covenants and declaration are a private contract among all of the different lot owners in a
subdivision, and those covenants cannot be modified. As to the plat itself, the Commission is the
arbiter of whether a plat is platted or whether or not something can be removed from a plat.
There is no connection between one lot owner and another unless by private contract. This
particular plat has no such restrictions, and the Commission has the authority, not the other
homeowners. The ultimate issue is what is the appropriate access to the new
development /subdivision. We will address this at Subdivision Committee. The access onto
Crooked Stick Lane has become a danger, given the proximity to Ditch Road and 106 Street.
For the safety of the people in the 23 lot subdivision, it is better to get traffic onto 106 Street off
of Crooked Stick Lane where there is more opportunity to address traffic coming to and from the
corner. Most of the traffic will head south to Marion County rather than north to 116 Street.
Department Report, Jon Dobosiewicz recommends this item be forwarded to the Subdivision
Committee on January 8 Discussions have been had with the County Highway Department
regarding access to the site. The County Highway has indicated that replacement of the structure
on 116 Street near the entrance to Crooked Stick is on their program for the upcoming season as
far as bridge replacement. They have indicated a willingness to work with the developer to
accommodate passing blister as well as accel/decel into the existing Crooked Stick Lane that will
be a benefit to public access and safety. With that said, if the opposition has questions as to
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\P1anCommissionMinutes \2001 dec 18 20
whether or not the person proposing to replat is not in compliance with the law regarding the
covenants, that issue should be decided in Court.
Nick Kestner had comments regarding the multi purpose path and asked that it continue to the
entrance at 106 Street.
Ron Houck asked that the original plat of Spring Run Estates be explained; Mr. Houck had
difficulty understanding how Block A even came to exist with the undevelopable, narrow strip of
land as a lot. This can be discussed in detail at Committee.
Docket No. 151 -01 PP Amend, Spring Run Estates, Section 1, was referred to Subdivision
Committee for further review on January 8, 2002, at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall.
I. Old Business:
(See December 18, 2001 Carmel/Clay Plan Commission Special Meeting Minutes for 5:00
PM).
J. New Business
No New Business
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
10:35 PM.
Ramona Hancock, Secretary
Marilyn Anderson, President
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\P1anCommissionMinutes \2001 dec 18 21