Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 02-20-01CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2001 MINUTES The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel /Clay Plan Commission was called to order with the Pledge of Allegiance at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. Members present were: Marilyn Anderson, Kent Broach; David Cremeans; Leo Dierckman; Madeline Fitzgerald; Linda Flanders; Ron Houck; Nick Kestner; Dianna Knoll; Norma Meighen; Pat Rice; John Sharpe; Paul Spranger; and Wayne Wilson. Present on behalf of the Department of Community Services were Director Steve Engelking, Terry Jones and Laurence Lillig. John Molitor, Counsel, was also present. The minutes of the January meeting were approved as submitted. Counsel Report: John Molitor reported an Executive Session was conducted prior to this evening's meeting to discuss pending litigation, in particular the Leeper case and the Wagner case. No further reports at this time. Department Report: Steve Engelking reported the following changes in the Agenda: 3i. Docket No. 132 -00 Z, Dodd Rezone, Tabled to the April meeting; 4h. Docket No. 205 -00 Z, Ritter's Frozen Custard, North Rangeline Road, WITHDRAWN Due to the length of the Agenda, All New Business Items will be heard on Thursday, February 22, 2001 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers. Any other business items not concluded this evening will also be heard at that time. The Home Place Task Force meeting scheduled for later this month has been cancelled and will be rescheduled. Time to be announced. Tomorrow evening, Wednesday, February 21, the Rangeline Road Task Force will meet in the Caucus Rooms at 5:30 PM followed by the Old Towne Task Force at 7:00 PM, also in the Caucus Rooms. A Questionnaire /Survey was distributed to each member. These should be completed and returned to the Department by March 1 The surveys will be instrumental in planning an Orientation/Workshop and addressing questions and concerns of Commission members. The workshop is scheduled for Saturday, March 24, 2001. The session will be off -site, exact place to be determined. s:\P1anCommission \Minutes \pc200lfeb20 1 Steve Engelking announced that he has been asked to serve as Director of Administration for the City and will assume that role on March 5 Michael Hollibaugh has agreed to return to the Department of Community Services as Director, beginning March first. Dave Cremeans moved to re -order the Agenda to hear Docket No. 184 -00 Z, Town Centre West, as the first item of business, prior to Public Hearings, seconded by Ron Houck. APPROVED 14 -0. The petitioner for Town Centre West was not available at this time, and the meeting proceeded with Public Hearings. Pat Rice moved to re -order the Agenda to hear item Docket No. 13 -01 PP, Bonbar Place Subdivision, as soon as the petitioner was ready to present, seconded by Ron Houck. APPROVED 14 -0. H. Public Hearings: lh. Docket No. 186 -00 Z, DePauw Rezone Petitioner seeks favorable recommendation of a rezone from the S- 2/Residence district to the B-5/Business District on 1.87 acres. The site is located northwest of West 131s Street and North Meridian Street. The site is zoned S- 2/Residence within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay Zone. Filed by E. Davis Coots of Coots Henke Wheeler for CH Land LLC. 2h. Docket No. 187 -00 Z, DePauw Rezone Petitioner seeks favorable recommendation of a rezone from the S- 2/Residence District to the B-5/Business District on 9.42 acres. The site is located northwest of West 131s Street and North Meridian Street. The site is zoned S- 2/Residence within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay Zone. Filed by E. Davis Coots of Coots Henke Wheeler for CMC Properties, Inc. 3h. Docket No. 188 -00 Z, DePauw Rezone Petitioner seeks favorable recommendation of a rezone from the S- 2/Residence District to the B-5/Business District on 10.02 acres. The site is located northwest of West 131s Street and North Meridian Street. The site is zoned S- 2/Residence within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay Zone. Filed by E. Davis Coots of Coots Henke Wheeler for DePauw Univerity Earlham College. Dave Coots of Coots, Henke Wheeler, 255 East Carmel Drive, Carmel, appeared before the Plan Commission representing DePauw University. The applicant is seeking a favorable recommendation of a rezone of property located within the US 31 Overlay Zone, located northwest of West 131s Street and North Meridian Street. CH Land Company is a limited liability company formed by Craig Kaiser and Bob Lunsford. CMC Properties, Inc. is a limited liability company based in Cincinnati, Ohio, s:\P1anCommission \Minutes \pc200lfeb20 2 represented by Greg Land and Mary Gall. DePauw is represented this evening by its counsel, Bill Bramen. As indicated, the three parcels of ground are currently zoned S -2, however, one of the parcels is outside of the overlay zone. This is a holdover from the Estridge piece of property that resulted in Park Meadow and the location of Meridian Corners Boulevard that runs between this property and the residential development to the northwest. At the last meeting of the Plan Commission, it was requested that this matter return this month after the members had had an opportunity to receive and review informational materials. Although this is a rezone, property within the Overlay Zone is seldom zoned or used for residential purposes. CH Land seeks to build two office buildings, residential in appearance, on the 1.78 acre tract. This would provide for a good transition between the existing residential and what CMC Properties seeks to do on the larger tract within the US Overlay which is to construct three, 33,000 square foot office buildings. The office uses are small and entrepreneurial oriented in that they run from 500 to 1500 square feet. These buildings are designed for the in -home user who seeks to move into an office setting, share conference rooms, support staff, etc. The site plan showed the three office buildings oriented toward a center parking area. At this point, the plan is conceptual; upon rezone approval, the applicant would return to the full Commission with landscaping, lighting, specific design of the buildings, etc. A conceptual rendering provides for an entrance off Meridian Corners Boulevard through the Kaiser tract, and an office building on either side of the entry to the 1.78 acre tract. The property to the north is a part of the existing Thoroughfare Plan and the crossover of Pennsylvania contemplates a series of interchanges, round abouts, etc. The purpose at this point is not to rezone the property for any particular use but rather to do it in tandem with the existing property that can be developed outside the Thoroughfare Plan that CMC seeks to do. The petitioner may agree to simply table this matter until there is more information pending from the Thoroughfare Plan; however, the ground will certainly not be developed as S -2 Residential and the rezone will not, in any way, affect its value for purposes of public taking. Perhaps it would be best to table this component of the application at the Committee level. A Traffic Operations Analysis has been prepared and submitted. The report shows Meridian Corners Boulevard, 131s Street, and the intersection with US 31 as to the approximate 100,000 square feet that is contemplated being constructed on the CMC site, and the 10,000 square feet contemplated for construction on the CH Land site. The existing traffic structures handle the traffic in the area without any additional improvements as reported by Steve Fehribach. s:\P1anCommission \Minutes \pc200lfeb20 3 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: Jim Berry, president of the Park Meadows Home Owners Association appeared before the Commission representing the 218 homeowners in the surrounding area. There are some specific concerns regarding traffic and how his neighborhood will be affected. Currently, Meridian Corners Boulevard, which is going to be a part of the Illinois Street project, is a dead -end road. The proposed entrance is directly across the street from the entrance to Park Meadows. The Park Meadows entrance is used by all 218 homeowners to access the swimming pool and tennis courts. The concern is that people will use this entrance until Illinois Street is extended. Mr. Berry understood that there were no more curb cuts being granted off of 131s Street. The neighbors would like to see limited development on the 1.87 acre tract; to develop this tract would add another road, more buildings, and more traffic. Mr. Berry asked that all three Dockets pertaining to the DePauw Rezone be Tabled. Rebuttal: Dave Coots said he was cognizant of the traffic concerns and that is the reason for Steve Fehribach's Traffic Operations Analysis report. At the Committee level, the concerns can be addressed. The user for this type of office is not an 8 to 5 user; it is more generally an in and out at various hours of the day. Laurence Lillig reported the Department's recommendation; these three items should be forwarded to the March 6, 2001 Special Study Committee. Nick Kestner asked the petitioner to furnish the Committee with a clearer picture than the one mailed in the informational packets. The surrounding area should be looked at to see the potential impact. Docket Nos. 186 -00 Z, 187 -00 Z, and 188 -00 Z, DePauw Rezone, were forwarded to the March 6, 2001 Special Study Committee. 9h. 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 zoned 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 petitioner. Mark Monroe, land planner and law clerk, was also in attendance. The property is bounded on the north by College Meadows Subdivision and to the east by the Monon Trail, Sunrise Golf Course, and the Retreat, a multi family housing development. There are also unplatted, single family residential lots to the west; to the south is I -465 and the Korean Presbyterian Church. The Marwood Trails Subdivision is s:\P1anCommission \Minutes \pc200lfeb20 4 also on the west side of the proposed subdivision and is currrently zoned R- 1/Residential. According to Mr. Reis, this particular plan is in accordance with the residential Open Space Ordinance that was last amended by the City Council on October 2, 2000. There are no waivers or variances being sought. 21.23 acres of the site are being preserved as Open Space through the combination of preservation and enhancement of the existing pond, as well as another 9.47 acres of mature, young, and scrub woodlands. A trail connection to the Monon Trail will be constructed pursuant to specifications to be determined by the Parks Department. As required under the Open Space Ordinance, as the lots are developed, there will be reforestation to the extent that there is land clearing in the construction of the subdivision. Additionally, in conversation with the Department, a 20 foot landscape buffer has been added on the south end; these lots are immediately adjacent I -465. The landscape plan and the tree preservation plan have been filed with and approved by the Urban Forester. The plat specifies 75 lots, a density of 2.1 units per acre. The Residential Open Space Ordinance provides that the base density under the R -1 classification for this parcel is 2.9 units. The Open Space Ordinance requires open space of not less than 7.15 acres or 20% of the parcel; the proposed plat provides for 14.99 or 41.9 adjusted. Under the Open Space Ordinance, the size of the pond and the computation of the open space is computed on the percentage of the pond that is not adjacent to residential lots. 5.52 acres of the 11.76 acre lake were included in the open space calculation. As a part of the preparation of the revised plat, the environmental engineering firm of J.F.New Company was engaged to provide a wetlands delineation study of the parcel. The report identified two areas that constitute "other waters of the United States," a term of art within the Federal and State Environmental Statutes, which are the existing pond and an intermittent drain that currently is found in the northwest corner of the parcel. There is also identified in the wetlands report the pond itself. The proposed development will not reduce nor negatively impact the existing pond. In strict conformance with the Open Space Ordinance, the pond will be preserved in its entirety and the plat provides for a 50 foot perimeter buffer area to ensure the protection of the area. Only a notification form will be required to be filed with the Indiana Dept. of Environmental Management. The drain is exempt from the applicable mitigation and permit requirements of the federal and state environmental laws and regulations. The Wetlands Delineation Report has been filed with the Army Corps. of Engineers and approved by them. As required by the Subdivision Control Ordinance, there will be two points of ingress /egress for this Subdivision; the primary one at 101s Street, the second one at Marwood Drive. Marwood Drive was "stubbed in" during the development of Marwood Trails to provide future access to this site as required by the Subdivision Regulations. Due to the existing neighborhood and the configuration of the existing street, A &F Traffic Engineering was retained to study the potential impact of traffic on the surrounding residential areas as a result of the proposed development. A Traffic Operations Analysis was prepared and submitted to the Department, copies to the Commission members. s:\P1anCommission \Minutes \pc200lfeb20 5 This is a new traffic analysis; school was in session, and US 31 was no longer under construction. Specifically, three areas were asked to be addressed: How will the traffic enter and exit the proposed subdivision, how will the level of service change at key intersections in the surrounding area with the traffic to be generated during the peak AM and peak PM hours, and will the development of this parcel significantly, negatively impact the health, safety and welfare of the current residents in the adjacent neighborhood? Steve Fehribach, professional engineer, said the traffic study was re -done in January. There was a question as to whether or not schools were in session at the time of the first study, and the density changed significantly to 75 units. On those bases, the traffic was re- analyzed. The study intersections were maintained at 103r and College, 101s and College, 101s and Carrollton, and 101s and Guilford, and the access point. During the AM peak hour at 103r and College, there would be level of service "B" existing today under scenario two with the proposed development, level of service "D." For the PM peak hour, scenario one level of service "C," scenario two level of service also "C." Scenario one is existing traffic only; scenario two adds in the proposed development traffic. At 101s and College, during AM peak hours, scenario one and two are the same with acceptable levels of service, the lowest being "C." In the PM peak hours, in the west bound approach, the level of service is "C" under scenario one, and level of service "D" under scenario two. Mr. Fehribach further explained the level of service spelled out in the report. The difference of delay between scenario one and two is for the west bound approach, there is 20.5 seconds of average delay. Once the proposed development is implemented, there will be an average of 25.1 seconds of delay, a 4.6 second increase. 101s and Carrollton will have the same level of service "A." Also, Guilford level of service "A" is for both scenarios. The amount of delay, 4.6 seconds, is not enough to cause a safety problem. If there were 490 seconds of delay and 5 more seconds were added, the existing safety problem would already be there. However, we are very close to level of service "C." Therefore, the conclusion is that this development will not cause any intersection to be un- safely burdened and will not affect the health and welfare of the roadway system. Paul Reis said as a result of the traffic study and in consultation with the County Highway Department, the applicant is committed to widening 101s Street from the west boundary of the Subdivision to the west property line of the Korean Presbyterian Church where the road currently narrows. The right -of -way was confirmed today as being 50 feet presently. INDOT had acquired the road for access to the barrow pit when I -465 was built; upon completion of 465, the State abandoned the road and the right -of -way to the Hamilton County Commissioners. The State does not record their documents; the abandonment was done by letter only. The right -of -way should be sufficient to do the needed widening west of the site to the west property line of the Korean Presbyterian Church. A real estate appraiser was engaged by the applicant to review the proposed subdivision to determine the possible effect, if any, on the value of the existing homes in the neighborhood. Bob Gerdnick, certified general appraiser with Will Stump Associates, s:\P1anCommission \Minutes \pc200lfeb20 6 11495 North Pennsylvania Street, reported on his opinion. Mr. Gerdnick submitted a letter supporting his findings. Mr. Gerdnick also reviewed the Traffic Study and reviewed previous sales of properties in the neighborhood. Approximately 36 sales were reviewed in the three subdivisions to the west and north of the subject site. The sales averaged 1633 square feet of ground floor area, and ranged between $85,700 to $160,000 in selling price. The average sale price was $110,000. Looking at the plans for the 35 acres and reading the Ordinance, the development is within the confines of the requirements. This is an old barrow pit -where they hauled the dirt out to build the interstate. The Monon Trail is to the east of the lake, the interstate is to the south, and established subdivisions on the east and north. The development not only falls within the standards, but it is a very good and sensible use for a unique piece of real estate in that it not only provides the housing, it also preserves the natural attributes of the property. The traffic study basically says it will not have an impact. Based on all of the review, Mr. Gerdnick did not feel that the project would have an adverse effect on the neighborhood and certainly not on the existing property values. Mr. Reis said all of the issues have been resolved concerning the subdivisions that have been expressed by members of the Technical Advisory Committee, specifically the Hamilton County Highway Department concerning the layout and design of the street. Steve Broermann has had input regarding the right -of -way. The Fire Department has been advised and they have "signed off' concerning the access for emergency vehicles and access to the pond in the event of emergency. The petitioner has dealt with the Hamilton County Soil Water Conservation District and Hamilton County Surveyor's Office concerning the design and insulation of yard inlets for sub surface drainage as well as overall drainage on the site. The utilities providing service to the site have also signed off and based upon conversations with the Director of Community Services, there are no known issues outstanding regarding the plat and its compliance and conformance with the Residential Open Space Ordinance and the regulations of the Subdivision Control Ordinance. The material submitted this evening is requested to be a part of the public record. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the proposed development; no one appeared. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the proposed development; the following appeared: John Garvey, 10139 Marwood Trail East Drive, a member of the Coalition Committee representing College Hills, College Meadows, and Marwood Trails, appeared before the Commission to pick up where the previous Bonbar proposal left off September 19 The October 3r field trip to the site was productive and worth more than all of the graphics that might otherwise have been presented. The original plan was based on obtaining several variances; it also ignored the wetlands requirements. There should be some limit regarding how long the Commission must devote to one item, and this is particularly true when the proposal is as hap- hazard as the original one. Considerable time and effort has been spent by the Coalition Committee pointing out the short- comings of the project to s:\P1anCommission \Minutes \pc200lfeb20 7 the petitioner, and it would seem that the petitioner should have addressed these in the first place. Mr. Garvey said Mr. Kosene had attempted to intimidate the neighboring residents in the first meeting. Subsequent meetings were no better. When the residents declined to attend the last meeting, we became "unreasonable" and "uncooperative." If we had met 99 times and declined on the 100 this would still have been the claim. This petitioner has not addressed the real issues involved. The petitioner offered the residents a chance to have the proposal tabled for 30 days to consider greater details before it went to committee. When the residents declined, the petitioner requested a tabling anyway. The petitioner was totally unprepared and was trying to use the residents as their alibi for buying time to get prepared. This typifies the treatment the area residents have received while hoping that the petitioner was sincere in wanting to reach a compromise. Mr. Kosene's support staff has not treated the area residents in the same manner -they have been conspicuous in their lack of comment during his presence. Finally, the Coalition refused the representation by the petitioner that this new plan with the reduced number of lots was developed as an attempt to placate the neighbors. It is an insult to everyone's intelligence to put forth such a preposterous claim. The original proposal hardly deserves to be called a plan. It was a greedy attempt to grab every lot possible and hope that no one would notice or bother to object to it. It is difficult to believe that the Plan Commission would approve the development, even if the neighbors had not raised objection. Mr. Garvey said the petition submitted by the area residents was signed by more than 150 neighborhood residents who opposed the original plan. In summation, the residents remain united in their objection to the revised plan and ask that the Commission deny this petition. Jerry Wilson, 10129 North Guilford, addressed three areas: 1) the traffic and safety, 2) product comparison, and 3) the density and responsibility. The new traffic study has been done at the intersections of 101s and College and 103r and College. During the last study, the 101s Street intersection was going from service level to "D" to service level "F" during the AM peak hours, and from service level "D" to service level "E" during the PM peak hours. Now, the petitioner is saying that service level at that intersection during the AM peak hours is currently level "C" and will remain at level "C" after the development is completed. During the PM peak hours, the intersection has improved to service level "C" in the last six months and is now going to service level "D" after the development is complete. Who is kidding whom? The service level will not improve after additional homes in Bonbar have been constructed and to say that there will be no traffic impact is a ludicrous statement. Mr. Wilson suspected that the first traffic report was closer to the truth. The residents of Bonbar will probably not use Marwood to enter and exit the area. The residents will probably use 101s Street for that purpose, and when the residents cannot exit at 101s and College, they will go through the neighborhood on Carrollton and Guilford and this causes concern for safety. The area residents use the streets for exercise and health reasons. s:\P1anCommission \Minutes \pc200lfeb20 8 Mr. Wilson spoke about the product being proposed. The original covenants specified homes with 1600 square feet and no vinyl siding or aluminum siding was permitted. Brick fascia was required. That has all changed. The new covenants have a minimum square footage of 1300 square feet, vinyl and aluminum siding may be used, and there is no mention of brick fascia required on the homes. If this is not changed, there will be homes completely vinyl wrapped and no brick -this would be a blight on the neighboring community as well as Carmel. Almost all of the homes in the neighboring community are brick or stone wrapped. If the covenants are not changed to specify at least brick fascia on the homes in Bonbar, the development will not be compatible with the neighboring homes. The development as presented takes advantage of the Open Space Ordinance and the density is still far too high for the amount of available, buildable ground. Bonbar is unique in that it is landlocked -to gain access one must drive through the neighboring community. The developer has some responsibility to the area residents and that responsibility should include maintaining 101s Street during the construction period. Since 101s Street is a main point of access, it should be maintained all the way to College Avenue. Also, a traffic control device at 101s Street and College Avenue should be required of the petitioner to handle the increase in traffic generated by Bonbar. In summarizing, Mr. Wilson said that even though the developer has a legal plan, it is still far too dense and should be denied by the Plan Commission. Any approval should require a drastic reduction in density and a change in the covenants to provide for at least a brick facia. Mark Abbey, 1037 Birnam Woods Trail, College Hills /College Meadows neighborhood, addressed the Commission in regard to the Open Space Ordinance and the density of the proposed development. In regard to traffic, the intersection of 106 and College Avenue is the focus of an on -going study to alleviate traffic problems through the Home Place area from the US 31/Meridian corridor. It is general knowledge that 106 Street is scheduled for improvements and traffic problems continue to increase throughout Hamilton County. These are just a few of the areas adjacent to College Hills /College Meadows. Large tracts of land have been proposed for commercial development south of College Hills /College Meadows, and an apartment complex is expanding and currently under construction. These developments are also meeting resistance from adjacent property owners because they are also concerned about traffic problems. Mr. Abbey was unsure as to when the area was zoned, but the zoning is R -1 low density residential neighborhood. A land development decision is a traffic decision as well. The petitioner has given no thought as to what will happen beyond the intersection of 101s and Guilford, aside from the "mandatory" traffic study that has proven to be random at best. At one of the meetings, the petitioner stated, "That is the County's problem, not mine!" This statement was made in a most unprofessional way. The Plan Commission should consider the impact the various developments will have on the surrounding areas. Mr. Abbey went on to say that most persons on the Commission attended the field trip on October 3r through Marwood Trails and back to 103 Street. The streets in the area were designed on a curvilinear alignment for a reason other than aesthetics. The s:\P1anCommission \Minutes \pc200lfeb20 9 alignment was also intended to discourage traffic through the immediate neighborhood. It makes no sense to use Marwood as an access point. There are only 18 homes in Marwood, and the current proposal provides for 75 homes. The traffic flow through Marwood Trails creates a potential for hazard and sends the majority of traffic to 101s Street. The streets in Marwood are in pretty good condition, the homes are well kept, however, the traffic issue at present is not in good condition. The area residents certainly disagree with the current traffic study and find it unbelievable -they are not interested in having the numbers justified by a set of statistics. This property is unique because it is landlocked on three sides and there is no choice but to go through the adjacent neighborhood. There are a number of children in the neighborhood that consists of large lots. The petitioner has not provided yards for children. Mr. Abbey summarized by saying that the area residents do not have high- powered lawyers, traffic engineers, or appraisers, but they can see that this development just does not make sense in this location and they urged the Commission to deny this project. Mrs. Ron Meredith, 932 Marwood Trail, North Drive, spoke as a former real estate agent and said she knew the average property value in Marwood Trails and it is much greater than stated by the appraiser. A home on a cul -de -sac usually commands a higher price and is a key selling point; this will also adversely affect the Marwood Trails property values. Most importantly, Mrs. Meridith wanted to stress concern for the safety of the children and mentally and physically challenged persons in the neighborhood. The majority of the neighborhood does not have streetlights. Bonbar not only adversely affects the properties, but the lives of the neighbors. William Long, 10142 Carrollton, spoke of the traffic situation and the wait from 101s Street onto College Avenue at 5:00 PM as being six or seven minutes. No one has said specifically how big the proposed lots are. Also, Mr. Long had heard at one time that the roads in the development were not satisfactory to the Fire Dept. Has this now been corrected and acceptable? Sharon Clark, 11932 Pebblebrook Lane, County Commissioner, District One, said this particular request lies in the County's jurisdiction and is outside the City limits of Carmel. As a County Commissioner, it is necessary to bring information to the Plan Commission that is important in making a decision regarding the proposed project. The primary responsibility is public health, safety and welfare, and the County Highway Department has no intention whatsoever of improving 101s Street to handle the traffic the proposed development will bring. The narrow, urban street was not designed to handle this amount of traffic. In Commissioner Clark's opinion, the stub street proposed to serve as a second entry and exit would only add to the safety issue, dumping far more traffic into the community than the study proposes. Increased traffic on the convoluted routes puts at risk the safety of the adults and children in the neighborhood. In 1998, a fellow commissioner indicated to Carmel officials that there would be intersection improvements in west Clay to alleviate increased traffic congestion, however, only one intersection is under construction and will be completed this summer. A second intersection is started and there are 6 more under design, but no funds to proceed. s:\P1anCommission \Minutes \pc200lfeb20 10 Improving 101s Street is definitely not on the radar screen at all. Ms. Clark urged the Plan Commission to deny this petition for the safety of the existing community. Ms. Clark said she had attended a neighborhood meeting between the petitioner and the neighbors and was greatly disturbed by the way the neighbors were treated. Craig Ryan, 935 Marwood Trail, North Drive, said the environmental impact of the proposed development has not been covered. There is a lot of wildlife in the area, and a lot of green space is needed next to the highway. This has not been addressed. Lisa Ryan, 938 Marwood Trail, said she is concerned about the traffic, the safety of the children, and the impact the development will have on the school system. School buses cannot possibly access the area. Rebuttal: Mr. Reis said the Open Space Ordinance was carefully crafted with the thought of maintaining green space, and the petitioner has done everything possible to maintain as many trees as possible. The petitioner intends to reforest and the tree preservation plan has been submitted and approved by the Urban Forester. Secondly, the density of adjacent properties. The Retreat project on the opposite side of the Monon Trail will have greater than 4 units per acre; College Meadows has 2.2 units per acre; Marwood Trails has 2.3; College Hills, 1.98. The proposed development is at 2.1 and felt to be within the density. Mr. Reis asked Steve Fehribach to address the comments regarding the validity of the traffic analysis. Steve Fehribach responded that the main issue is the level of service. The original report was done at a time when US 31 was under major construction. The density has also decreased -from 115 to 75 units, and this decreases the amount of traffic generated and improves the level of service. Trip generation is a difficult issue. Peak hours usually occur between 6 and 9 AM and 4 and 6 in the afternoon. The peak hours for the different intersections are not the same hours. This means that the peaks do not occur at 103 and 101s or at Carrollton or Guilford all at the same time -they are slightly different. Traffic engineers look at the worst case scenario and the trip generation reflects the worst hour in the morning and the worst hour in the afternoon. Mr. Fehribach again explained how the data was collected for the trip generation analysis. A 6 or 7 minute delay is extremely long and this was not noted in any or all of the site visits. The public hearing was then closed. Laurence Lillig said the Department Report recommends this item be forwarded to the March 6, 2001 Subdivision Committee. Ron Houck asked the petitioner to address the following at the Committee level: Detail on the price of homes, types of material, square footage, lot size, minimum, maximum, and average, and examples of comparably priced homes elsewhere in the community that are representative of the proposed development. A letter from the School corporation s:\P1anCommission \Minutes \pc200lfeb20 11 spelling out how school buses will be handled in this neighborhood and dimensions of the cul -de -sac were also requested. Pat Rice questioned the traffic study and the traffic on Marwood Drive; 96 and College, and 106 and College. Also, an environmental impact study was requested -there is no doubt that the environment will be impacted and many species of birds will be lost. The petitioner is not required to do anything about that, but the area will be impacted. Gibralter did volunteer to have an impact study done -there were classifications made, how the wildlife would be re- located, etc. The entire area needs to be looked at and considered. This development will have a major impact on the wildlife in the area. Also, this is a lake, not a pond. Has the 50 foot buffer zone around the lake been met? Paul Spranger, the geometry of Marwood Trails -the number of 90- degree turns (4) needs to be looked at. Marwood Trails Drive has the potential for through traffic to move as quickly as possible, and this is a concern. The area is without sidewalks and this is troublesome. At 101s Street, if no improvements are to be made including sidewalks and street widening to College Avenue, and at the density of the Bonbar development, this is also a concern. The exhibit done by Stump Assoc. for property values was pretty well done and it illuminates the fact that College Hills is very stable with only two sales in the last two years. Marwood Trails is somewhat similar. The materials issue is a good one. Leo Dierckman commented that the real, useable acreage on this property is about 21 acres and applying two units to the acre would net 42 homes and would be more in line with what is going on in the balance of the community surrounding it. Secondly, a trail should be provided for all the residents to go through this development for access to the Monon Trail. This can be looked at during Subdivision Committee review. Nick Kestner asked the committee to look at the lots on the south side and how they will be utilized. Also, there should be perhaps fencing and some sort of amenity along the Monon Trail. The landscaping plan should be clearly defined. Ron Houck asked to know the existing right -of -way on College Avenue into the Bonbar development. Docket No. 13 -01, Bonbar Place Subdivision, was referred to the Subdivision Committee on March 6, 2001, at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. Items 5h, and 6h were heard together. NOTE: Kent Broach recused himself from all discussion on North Haven Subdiv. 5h. Docket No. 8 -01 PP, North Haven Subdivision Petitioner seeks approval to plat a six -lot subdivision on 42.937 acres. The site is located northwest of East 96 Street and Gray Road. the site is zoned R- 5/Residence. The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waivers: s:\P1anCommission \Minutes \pc200lfeb20 12 8 -Ola SW SCO 6.3.6 25' private right -of -way width 8 -01b SW SCO 6.3.6 less than 26' pavement width 8 -Olc SW SCO 6.3.7 >600' cul -de -sac 8 -Old SW SCO 6.3.20 private street 8 -Ole SW SCO 6.5.1 >50' minimum frontage 8 -01f SW SCO 7.7 (c) (3) >15' South bufferyard 8 -Olg SW SCO 7.7(D)(6) deforestation Note: This item is paired with Item 6h under Public Hearings. Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for C &J Company and CPM Family Trust. 6h. Docket No. 9 -01 DP, North Haven Subdivision Petitioner seeks Development Plan approval for a mixed -use development on 42.937 acres. The site is located northwest of East 96 Street and Gray Road. The site is zoned R- 5/Residence. Note: This Item is paired with Item 5h under Public Hearings. Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for C &J Company and CPM Family Trust. Charles D. Frankenberger, 4983 St. Charles Place, Carmel, Indiana of Nelson Frankenberger, appeared before the Commission representing CP Morgan and JCHart Company in connection with their request for primary plat approval, final development plan approval, and for certain subdivision waivers. The subject real estate is approximately 43 acres located in the northwest quadrant of 96 Street and Gray Road. The property is bordered on the east by Gray Road, and is surrounded by a variety of uses, including mining operations, 96 Street Auto Park currently under construction, HHGregg, Palmer Dodge, and Williamson Run Subdivision. Essentially, the petitioner is requesting primary plat approval and subdivision waivers to permit the division of the real estate into six lots. By way of general background, the petitioner received unanimous approval from the Plan Commission for the rezone from S- 1 to R -5 and a unanimous vote from City Council. The plat divides the real estate into a north section on which the apartment community will be constructed and a south section on which the office campus will be constructed. Block B is that part of the lake that corresponds to the apartments, Lot 1 is where the apartments will be constructed, Block C is that part of the lake the corresponds to the office campus, Lot 2 is the lot on which the CPMorgan corporate headquarters will be constructed. Block D will later be subdivided so that different parcels can be purchased by different owners. When that occurs, the petitioner will return to the Plan Commission for final development plan approval. The Subdivision Waivers pertain primarily to the private street that will be shared as an entrance or driveway by both the apartments and the office park. It will be maintained under the covenants by the association. s:\P1anCommission \Minutes \pc200lfeb20 13 Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; the following appeared: Dan Worba, 10545 Howard Drive, president of the Williamson Run Homeowners Association, commented that the homeowners of Williamson Run have worked with the developer since last summer on this project and the homeowners support the project and endorse favorable consideration by the Commission. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petition; no one appeared. Department Report: Laurence Lillig recommended that this item be forwarded to the March 6, 2001 Subdivision Committee. The public hearing was then closed. Docket Nos. 8 -01 PP and 9 -01 DP, North Haven Subdivision, were referred to the Subdivision Committee for further review on March 6, 2001 in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. 7h. Docket No. 10 -01 PP, Windsor Grove Subdivision Petitioner seeks approval to plat a 35 -lot subdivision on 37.339 acres. The site is located on the southwest corner of West 106 Street and Towne Road. The site is zoned S- 1/Residence. This is an Exempt Subdivision under ROSO III. The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waiver: 10 -01aSW SCO 6.3.7 >600' cul -de -sac Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for Windsor Grove, LLC. Charlie Frankenberger, 4983 St. Charles Place, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing Jim Caito, Dick Carriger, and Steve Wilson in connection with their request for primary plat approval to permit a 35 lot subdivision on 37 acres. The real estate is an "L" shaped parcel, displayed on an aerial photograph. The real estate is south of and adjacent to 106 Street, west of and adjacent to Towne Road. Kingsmill Subdivision is to the north of the subject real estate and to the south are the Pine Lake Estates and Camden Walk communities. The Windsor Grove Subdivision provides for 35 lots and common areas. There will be a brick fence surrounding the real estate on 106 Street and on Towne Road. Because the length of Londonderry Boulevard ends in a cul -de -sac greater than 600 feet, a subdivision waiver is being requested. The petitioner has conferred with the Fire Dept. and Police Department; the petitioner has agreed to establish easements connecting the cul -de -sacs between the common boundary lines of lots 19 and 20 and lots 23 and 24. In the area of these easements, the petitioner will install a mat on which emergency vehicles s:\P1anCommission \Minutes \pc200lfeb20 14 can travel but through which grass can grow. This satisfies the concerns of the Police and Fire Depts. Custom homes will be built within the Windsor Grove community similar to Kingsmill and Windemere. 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, no one appeared. Members of the public were invited to ask questions of the petitioner of a general nature; the following persons appeared: Eric Elliott, 2643 Fairwind Court, Pine Lake Estates, asked if the tree line currently between the two properties will be maintained and if there are plans for additional landscaping between the two communities and also whether or not there is a fence planned. Andy Wilson, 10545 Towne Road, questioned where the sewers would come into the subdivision and also if there is landscaping planned for the perimeter and what it would be. Pat Spauler, 2944 Towne Drive, adjacent to the proposed development, questioned the drainage that would flow south from the proposed subdivision. Currently there is somewhat of a drainage problem, and Ms. Spauler would like some assurance that the drainage will flow to the appropriate drainage ponds. Rebuttal: Charlie Frankenberger said the drainage plan has been studied and reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee. Any existing drainage problems will not be made worse by the proposed subdivision. The sewers will be extended south from the west side of Towne Road. It is the intention of the developer to retain the tree lines that separate the boundary lines between the two subdivisions. The public hearing was then closed. Department Report: Laurence Lillig said a letter was received this day from Hamilton County Soil Water requesting a wetlands study for this development. The Department is recommending that this project be forwarded to the March 6, 2001 Subdivision Committee. Questions from the Plan Commission members: Ron Houck asked about the trees lining the perimeter bordering the adjacent property in Pine Lake Estates. Ron also asked about the pad for emergency vehicles and whether or not the pad had been approved by the Police and Fire Depts. and if there were a letter on file to that effect. s:\P1anCommission \Minutes \pc200lfeb20 15 Charlie Frankenberger said the perimeter on the north (106h Street) and on the east will be surrounded by a brick wall with ornamental fencing in between brick pillars. Also, there will be plantings inside the wall. A formal letter from the Police and Fire Depts. will be brought to the Committee. John Sharpe said the trees lining the two properties will be given due consideration. Marilyn Anderson suggested that the tree preservation be put in a formal document. Also, it looks as if the entrance will go right through the woods rather than being shifted farther to the east so the woods would not be disturbed. This aspect should be explored at the committee level. Docket No. 10 -01 PP, Windsor Grove Subdivision, was sent to Subdivision Committee for further review on March 6, 2001 in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. 8h. Docket No. 11 -01 PP Amend, Woodhaven, Section 1, Lot 28 Petitioner seeks approval to amend the primary plat of Woodhaven Subdivision, Section 1, Block A. The site is located on the northeast corner of North Michigan Road and Woodhaven Drive. The site lies partially within Boone County. The site is zoned S- 1/Residence. Filed by Stanley A. Neal of Weihe engineering for CDC Corporation. Bob Edwards of CDC Corporation, 1101 Kessler Boulevard, Indianapolis 46228 appeared before the Commission representing the owner, Mr. Olenick, the original developer of Woodhaven, and the current owner. Mr. Olenick is seeking approval to amend the primary plat to include an additional lot, Lot 28. The property is on U.S. 421, Michigan Road. The plat of Woodhaven was shown, with lot 28 added. A part of lot 28, one -half acre, was originally a part of Woodhaven. Mr. Olenick acquired ownership of the additional ground several years after Woodhaven was developed. The property has an existing home on it that is very old and will be razed. Mr. Olenick intends to incorporate the ground into one lot, lot 28, bring it into the Subdivision of Woodhaven, and make it subject to the covenants; a home will then be built on lot 28. Lot 28 will be bordered by Woodhaven Drive on one side and US 421 on the other side. 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: Laurence Lillig. Twenty years ago when this subdivision was first platted, Boone County allowed Carmel jurisdiction. The Department is requesting the petitioner furnish authority from Boone County in a formal letter. The Department is recommending this item be referred to the Subdivision Committee on March 6, 2001 for further review s:\P1anCommission \Minutes \pc200lfeb20 16 John Sharpe would like to see what this property looks like at present -can review at Committee. Docket No. 11 -01 PP Amend, Woodhaven, Section 1, Lot 28, was referred to the Subdivision Committee on March 6, 2001, in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. I. Old Business: li. Docket No. 109 -99 DP /ADLS, Wingate Inn Currently Tabled due to Pending Litigation 2i. Docket No. 68 -00 PP Amend, John A. Phelps Addition, Lots 12 and 13 Petitioner seeks approval to replat Lots 12 and 13 of the John A. Phelps Addition on 0.573 acre. The site is located on the northeast corner of 5tn Street Southeast and 1s Avenue Southeast. The site is zoned R- 3 /residence. The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waiver: 68 -OOa SW SCO 6.3.6 to reduce the 25' half right -of -way on 1st Avenue Southeast to 20' in width Filed by Melissa Rhodes Garrard for Ross D. Moffitt Elsie Moffitt Mcllroy. Melissa Rhodes Garrard, attorney for the applicant, appeared before the Commission and explained the request for the replat. The plat is from 1898. The applicant acquired additional property outside of the plat but adjacent to the plat south of lot 13. This is a part of the replat request as part of lot 13. In addition, lots 12 and 13 were formerly owned under common ownership and there were encroachments onto lot 12 from lot 13. These lots are now under separate ownership and the property line is being moved to legitimize the encroachments. Elsie Mcllroy has transferred Lot 12 to her son, and the property line on lot 13 is being moved farther north in order to accommodate the encroachment. The most important reason for the replat is a strip of ground that was in "no man's land." A quiet title action was brought on the 16 foot piece of property on the north side of lot 12; a neighbor then filed suit. This litigation has now been completed and the Hamilton County Superior Court has issued a judgment in the applicant's favor. Ms. Mcllroy went before the Subdivision Committee to explain the issues and the review has been concluded. A copy of the judgment has been provided to the Department of Community Services. More recently, the neighbor has filed a Motion to Correct Errors with the Hamilton County Superior Court. These are not routinely granted, but this should not affect the Plan Commission's consideration of the current proposal. The applicant will file for Secondary Plat approval upon Primary Plat approval. s:\P1anCommission \Minutes \pc200lfeb20 17 Laurence Lillig said the Department recommends favorable consideration of this petition. John Molitor concurred with Ms. Garrard and said the case has been accurately stated. Ron Houck confirmed that this Docket was heard at the Committee level and the vote was unanimous for approval. There were no issues outstanding. Paul Spranger moved for the approval of Docket No. 68 -00 PP Amend, John A. Phelps Addition, Lots 12 13, seconded by Ron Houck. The vote was 13 in favor, none opposed. APPROVED 3i. Docket No. 132 -00 Z, Dodd Rezone TABLED 4i. Docket No. 189 -00 ADLS Amend, Pearson Ford Petitioner seeks ADLS Amendment approval for the sign package at Pearson Ford. The site is located at 10650 North Michigan Road. The site is zoned B-3/Business and is located within the US 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by E. Davis Coots of Coots Henke Wheeler for Pearson Ford. Dave Coots appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. The applicant has appeared before the Special Study Committee and has divided the process. One part is for sign approval in terms of architectural, ADLS approval. The second part of the approval request was for a blue band of light around the building. The blue band request was withdrawn at the strong suggestion of the Committee, replaced by a request for a metallic- appearing band, and that request was also withdrawn because it was not felt to be in keeping with the Overlay criteria. At this point, the applicant is asking that that portion of the ADLS application be Tabled and that the full Commission act on the signage application so that it can be installed. The building will be looked at by an architect at a later date to determine whether or not the building needs to be "broken up" with some sort of design on the 421 frontage. The applicant is requesting that the Commission approve the sign package the Committee has reviewed and approved. The sign package consists of 7 signs facing 421, one, wall mounted sign facing 106 Street, and one, ground monument sign that will be substituted in place of the pole sign on the corner of 421 and 106 Street. Paul Spranger reported for the Special Study Committee. The Committee unanimously approved the sign package. The ground sign is quite attractive and will replace the existing pole sign. The signage is in keeping with the overall design of the corridor. The 7 signs are small and basically direct customers to certain areas within the dealership. The banding, both illuminated and non illuminated, was looked at and the Committee was not in favor of the band. The Committee did vote in favor of the sign package before the Commission this evening. s:\P1anCommission \Minutes \pc200lfeb20 18 Department Report, Laurence Lillig reported the Department is recommending favorable consideration. Paul Spranger moved for the approval of the sign package only on Docket No. 189 -00 ADLS, Pearson Ford, seconded by Leo Dierckman. The vote was 13 in favor none opposed. APPROVED. 6i. Docket No. 207 -00 DP Amend /ADLS Amend; West Carmel Center, Block A Ritter's Frozen Custard Petitioner seeks approval to amend the Development Plan and architectural Design, Lighting Signage approvals granted as part of Docket No. 47 -99 DP /ADLS. The site is located at 10575 North Michigan Road. The site is zoned B-3/Business and is located within the US 421 Michigan Road Overlay Zone. Filed by Kevin D. McKasson of Glendale Partners. Sam Barrick, 13816 Driftwood Drive, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing Ritter's Frozen Custard. The project is part of the US 421 Overlay Zone, Block A of the West Carmel Center. The landscape plan has been approved for the overall area by the Urban Forester, and a walkway added and extended. There were suggestions that an entry way be added, and this has been done. The lighting plan was submitted to the Department on February first. This plan utilizes the same fixtures as have been approved on the balance of Block A -the foot candles are per the ordinance. The door on the south side of the building has been re- located to the north side to increase the appeal from the southern elevation and also to allow for the continuous foundation plantings. The door is now located on the same side as the Wendy's entry. Mr. Sharpe had requested that the applicant review the parking in terms of adequacy. Mr. Barrick reported the West Carmel location is slightly less than one acre and has 44 spaces, the Fishers location is over one and one -half acres and has 38 paved spaces; the Pendleton Pike location in Lawrence is a little greater than one acre and has 46 spaces. Noblesville is definitely a larger area, 3 acres, and has 90 parking spaces. In a desire to be a part of the Carmel community, the applicant made several changes to the building. Initially the building was red brick, limestone foundation, and included some dryvit. The roof was dark blue, standing seam roof. The roof is no longer blue and now complements the area. Additional architectural elements have been added; crown molding around the building, bronze, metal windows, and window dividers. Even the waste area is an upgrade. s:\P1anCommission \Minutes \pc200lfeb20 19 The applicant would like to open in the Spring and is requesting Plan Commission approval at this time. Leo Dierckman commended the applicant and said they had done a great job of improving the building from that which was first presented. Department Report, Laurence Lillig said the Department recommends favorable consideration at this time. Norma Meighen moved for approval of Docket No. 207 -00 DP Amend /ADLS Amend, West Carmel Center, Block A Ritter's Frozen Custard, seconded by Paul Spranger. The vote was 13 in favor, none opposed. APPROVED The meeting will reconvene Thursday, February 22n at 7:00 PM to hear item J., New Business. Ramona Hancock, Secretary Marilyn Anderson, President s:\P1anCommission \Minutes \pc200lfeb20 20 Bach, and Mike Speedy, iniially submitted Jan 6 Has met with subdivision committee in February 20, 2001 Prperty at 1100 Mich RFd. 20/20 Vision expressed this corridor in ordinance. Randal Arendt potential connection to Monitor Lane. Overlay require commercial develop of portion of proerty. neighbor to northis altum's. Altum's supports proposed development. by moving up, altum's not here at the moment. Tree coverage not generally requested. Intent is to create special sense of place. Changes, access to site, fire marshal approves of plan. Landscape and bufferf plan has changed. Writtencommitments Architecture renderings are correct and exacty reflect proposed bldgs. Mike Speedy, changes, landscape plan cvisual scrfeen, shadow box fence for privacy. Request for fay. Rec. Ron Houck, Subdivision committee, additional ublic input, buffering requirements, concern tonight materials received today and no opportunity for review. Would suggest referring back to committee. Dept Report, has looked at report rec'd today. Comitment incorporate changes in loanguage requested by comm. And dept. additional material appears to be same as before with except of landscape buffer, reviewed by Urban "Forestre and found to be acceptable. Spranger, Fitz, clarif Prosed devel plan, open space requirement covenants? At DP /ADLS level. Cremeans, delineation of open space how buffering is impacted, set back requirements met? Rice, asks committee to review comments from vp ofWeston HOA. Dierckman, moved to refer to Subdivision commigttee, second by Ron, 14 -0. 9h. Docket No. 13 -01 PP, Bonbar Place Ptitioner seeks approval to plat a 75 Paul Reis, Mark Monroe— Substantial changes in pan and refiled. Overview sitge is 35.77 undevel. N is college meadows on east is Monon Trail and the Retreat. West is Revised prelim. Plat is in conform witgh ROSO, Traffic analysis more accurate now. 3 imp issues: enter /ext from site, how And will develop of parcel significantly negatively impact health safety and welfare Steve Fehribach, Prof, traffic engineer, counts redone in Jan. densithy changed and re- analzed. 101 103, 106 Different peaks figures. BobGerdnick, appraiser. Assoc with Will Stukp Assoc. 1Letter distributerd to PC members of findings and review of site polan and traffic study Values of neighborhood 36 sales, 3 subdiv to west and north of subm 613 sq ft of ground ft. 80,to 160,000 initial sales price Public commengts favorable none Organized remonstrance John Garvey 10139 Marwood Drive, coalition, Marwood, Trails, etc. Orig. plan ignored wetlands and Shortcoming pointed out to petitioner, but disregarded. Kosene s:\P1anCommission \Minutes \pc200lfeb20 21 attemted to intimidate. Petitioner has not addressed real issues. Petitioner insincere about reaching a compromise with neighbors. New plan is an insult Remain united in 9oopposing revised plan, ask for denial Jerry Willis 10139 N. Guilford 3 items. Traffic, Service level of traffic has not improved. Residents of Bonbar would use 101s 1600 sq. ft. in org covenants, new coveantns 1300 sq ft., vinyl and alum. Siding, no brick faces Developer has met open space without variances density is sgtill tgoo high forf amount of ground available. Bonbar is landlocked. Have to drive through Marswoosd Trails constr. Traffic Traffic control device shou,d be required of ptetitioner Mark Abbey 1037 Birnam Woods Trail, College Meadows, density, Individuals, Meredith, 932 Marwood Trails, will advsersly affect prop;erty, life, and Wm.Long 10142 CRROLLton, traffic sgtudy, How big are the proosed lots? Roads now satis. To fire dep;t? SharonClark, 11932 Pebblebrook Lane, county juris. County Highway has no intention of improving 101 st street to handle incrfeased traffic. Personal opinion, stgub stgreetg would only addto safety issue. Incrfeased traffic puts at risk safety and health of area residents. Urge commission to deny request. Craig Ryan 935 Marwood Trails N Drive, environ impacgt not covered, greenspace needed next to highways, wildlife is an issue., Lisa Ryan, 938 Marwood, concerned with traffic, safety of children, schools impact. Rebuttal: Paul Reis, EIS ROSO crafted with thought of maintaining green space, pet preserving trees on site. Density of adj property, Retreat is gr. Than 4 units, Marwood has 2.3 Colleg Hills 1.98, proposed is 1. More homes into smaller area Stevew Fehribach, validit of traffic analysis. Main issue is level of service. Orig. report UJ.S 31 wqas under major constr. Density down from 115 to 75 units improves level of service. Tgrip generation is difficult issue. Peak hours between 6 -9 AM and 4 -6 pm. Peak hours for Jiff. Ingtersectgion Worst case scenario, no correaltion in trip generation. Hysically count subdivd. Neighbfr000ds etc. Public Hearing Closed. Dept recommends forwarding to March 6 Subdivision Committee. Ron Houck, question at committee more detail on price of homes, sq. fgs. Lot size min, max. materials, letter from school as to how buses will be handled, diam. Of cul.de -sac. Pat Rice, Trraffic Marwood Drive, connection, 96 College and 106 Colllege s/b included in nexgt gtraffic study, impacgt on existing communigty esecially on Marwood Drive andMarwoodTrails —not hearing impacgt in traffic study. EIS no doubt environ will be impacted and wildlife will be losgt. Gibralter did EIS entire area should be sgtudies for wildlife impact 50 buffers around lake met Paul Spranger, geometgry on Marwood Trails, of 90degree turns, two plus addition 2, 4 to exigt. Marwood Trails drive has potential for thru traffic. Area is without sidewalks. 101s street no improve include sidewalks and widening, at density of Bonbar, presents a problem. Exh by Stump Assoc for proper values, indicagtes Marwood andCollege Hills stable, few salesl. Materials issue is a good one. s:\P1anCommission \Minutes \pc200lfeb20 22 Dierckman, usable acreage 21 would be 42 homes and ore in loine with surrounding community. Also, trail s/b rprovided for all residents to access Monon Trail. Kestner, lots on south side, any fecing any amenities on onon. Landscaping s/b looked at. Houck, exisitgng row on College into Subdiv. KENT BROACH, RECUSED 8 -01 pp, North Haven Subdivision Docket No. 9 -01 DP/North Haven Subdivision Chas. Frfankbnergerf for C &J Company Repre. CPMorgan and JC Hart for final develop plan approval and subdiv waiver. 43 acres in nw quad of 9t6th and Gray Rd. surrounded by variety of uses. Gen. Comments public favorable Dan Worba 10545 Howard Drive,Wmson Run, pres. HOA, homewoenrs have worked with developer and are favorable to develop. Unfay. None Dept report, rec sforwarding to March subdivision committee. 10 -01 Windsor Grove Subdiv. Chas. Frankenberger, Also asking for subdiv. Waiver. Custo homs similar tgo Kingsmill and Gen Fay. Commengts Unfavor. Gen. Commentgs: EricElliott 2643 Fairway Court, Pine Lake Estates, tree line between proerties maintained, fence? Andy Wilson 10545 Towne Road, sewers Landscape along perimeter Pat Smaller 2044 TowneDrive, drainage south from property, currently a drainage problem, Chas Frank drainage p;lan has been studied and reviewed by Tac. Any existing drainage problems will not be made worse by roposed develop. Sewers? From the south from Towne Rd on west side. Developer intends to retgain tree line that separates boundary line between subdiv. Dept. Report, HCSW requests wetlands study on this develop. Det recommentds forwaridng gtoSubdiv commigttee Houck, trees on perimeter, on 10t6t and east surrounded by brick wall and pillars and landscaping Special pad for emerg. Police and fire. Sujbmigtted and legtter of acceptance in file Steve Wilson wikll address at Committee level. JohnSharpe, will give trees due consid., perhaps in form of written commigtment. Anderson, asked why entrance is at woods area rather than farther east. Subdiv Commigttgee on Marsh 6 Docket 11 =01 PP Amend, Woodhaven Section 1, Lot 28 s:\P1anCommission \Minutes \pc2001feb20 23 Bob Eddwards, CDC Corp. Olenick orig. developer of Woodhaven. Request amend plat to include one more lot. Gen public comments fav or unfav none Public hearing closedl Dept report, 20 yrs ago when first platted, Boone allowed Carmel juris. Would ask for autho from Boone Co. now. Fordard to Subdiv commmittee. No rep;ly from letter as yet. Sharpe wants to see wshat prop;er looks like now,. Melissa Garrard, Docket No. 68 -00 PP, Amend, John A. Phelps' Addition, Lots 12 13 Client has acquired additional property adj to lot 13 but outside plat. Encroachments Property line being moved to legitimize encroachments. Strip of ground in "no man's land." Involved quiet title action. Hamilton Co. issued judgment in favor of Moffitt. Neighbor has filed motion to correct errors with Hamilotn Co. superior court. Secondary plat approval will follow primary plat approval. Dept report, recommneds fay. Consid. Houck, unan. Fay. Spranger moved for approval of 68 -00 PP Amend, Approved 13 -0 Docket Nol. 189 -00 ADLS Amend, Pearson Ford. Dave Coots Blue band of lihting around bldg. Withdrawn at suggest of committtee repolced by metallic band, and withdrawn. Request commision acgt on lighting and sign package less 7 signs facing 421 one wll mouneted 126 one monument repolacing pole sign corner of Spranger, committee for special study, unan approval attractice gr. Sign replacing current pole sign, Band, illum and non illum. Not in favor. Lighting and signage oK =Dept commentsrecommends fay.consid. Spranger, motion to approve sign pck only for Peraron Ford,second LeoDierckman, 13 -0 Dockert No. 207 -00 DP/ Sam Barrick, foot candles per ordinance. Site plan —door moved changes made. Very complimentary and within 421 overlay guidelines. Dierckman, great job of imroving bldg. Dept recs fav consid. Norma Meighen, motion 207 -0 DP Amend /ADLS, second PaulSpranger, 13 -0 Adjourn 10:00 PM s:\P1anCommission \Minutes \pc200lfeb20 24