Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 01-16-01CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 2001 MINUTES The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel /Clay Plan Commission commenced at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall on January 16, 2001. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Members present: Marilyn Anderson; Kent Broach; Dave Cremeans; Madeline Fitzgerald; Wayne Haney; Ron Houck; Nick Kestner; Dianna Knoll; Norma Meighen; Pat Rice; John Sharpe; Paul Spranger; and Wayne Wilson. John Molitor reported an Executive Session was held with members of the City Council earlier this month to discuss pending litigation, in particular the Wingate Hotel/Leeper Electric. The Council took action on the Thoroughfare Plan Amendment that related to that ground and as a result, the Wingate matter would essentially violate the City's Thoroughfare Plan. This matter has been TABLED until it is decided how best to proceed with this matter. Dave Cremeans announced the following items as TABLED: li., Docket No. 141- 00 Z, Rezone for C.P. Morgan Communities; Docket No. 109 -99 DP /ADLS, Wingate Inn; 7j., Docket No. 189 -00 ADLS Amend, Pearson Ford. Swearing in of New Members, Elections, and Appointments. Dianna Knoll, Parks Board Appointment; Wayne Wilson City Council Appointment; and Paul Spranger, Board of Public Works Re- Appointment were administered the Oath Of Office by John Molitor, Counsel for the Plan Commission. Election of Officers: Marilyn Anderson was elected president by Unanimous Consent. Paul Spranger was elected vice president by Unanimous Consent. Pat Rice agreed to continue serving as the Plan Commission's representative to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ken Broach agreed to serve another term as the Carmel Plan Commission's appointment to the County Plan Commission. Madeline Fitzgerald was elected Member -at -Large by Unanimous Consent. Additional Announcements: s:\ P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000ljan 1 Steve Engelking said an add -on Item for this evening's Agenda had been hand delivered to each Commission member on Friday. The petitioner is the Carmel Redevelopment Commission and involves the establishment of an economic development plan and a Declaratory Resolution. The Commission would need to waive their Rules of Procedure if they intend to hear this item this evening. If the rules are waived, the Department recommends that this item be heard first this evening. Pat Rice asked if this item would be forwarded to a Committee; Steve Engelking said it is difficult to ascertain, but on previous economic development plans, the Commission has not forwarded them to a Committee but acted on them as the conclusion of the hearing. Ron Houck asked if it was possible to send this item to Committee; Steve Engelking responded in the affirmative. Paul Spranger moved for the suspension of the rules to hear the add -on item this evening. The motion passed 11 in favor, two opposed (Ron Houck and Dave Cremeans). Rick Roesch, 832 Spruce Drive, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing the Carmel Redevelopment Commission. Rick Roesch apologized for not getting the information out sooner, but the Commission had just approved it last Wednesday evening. On January 10, the Redevelopment Commission adopted the Declaratory Resolution and Economic Development Plan as submitted to the Plan Commission. This is the beginning of the process of creating the Parkwood Economic Development area. The statutory role of the Plan Commission is to determine whether the Declaratory Resolution and Economic Development Plan for the proposed area conform to the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Rick Roesch further explained that whether the specific area is for Parkwood or other future projects, the determination is whether office buildings, road, water, sewer, infrastructure in the area conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan Commission's role does not include the funding of these projects or whether they should be undertaken from a policy standpoint. The Declaratory Resolution adopted at the last Economic Redevelopment meeting was merely addressing the area. There are a number of things to be discussed before this reaches the stage of a Confirmatory Resolution, and those have not yet been determined concerning the Duke -Weeks project or anything in the Economic Development area, other than knowing that there is infrastructure needed. The Plan Commission is being asked to approve this order tonight so that the Redevelopment Commission can proceed with the process. The process allows us to capture the "TIF" for the Economic Development area and not to wait another year if the TIF is indeed needed to fund the infrastructure or some infrastructure in this particular economic development area. Comments and Questions by Commission Members: s:\ P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000ljan 2 Madeline Fitzgerald asked for further explanation of a Special Redevelopment area is and why we want to pursue this and the reason for asking for it. Rick Roesch said it is an area that needs an enhancement to be developed with infrastructure. There are special vehicles that are allowed by Statute that permit the types of things that were done with the Merchants Square Shopping Center, such as freeze the taxes, capture the increment, and use it for specific purposes. Otherwise, these things may not be economically feasible and may not be feasible because there is no infrastructure intact to handle the project. It is something that would not happen if there weren't some type of enhancement. It would not be feasible to all parties if there weren't certain things done. One of the things in the study is roads, sewers, that would have to be put it for the property to be developed and for the City to benefit in the future because of job creation, tax revenue, etc. Madeline Fitzgerald asked if it were normal or unusual to "retrofit" into buildings that are already in existence. This is a concern. Rick Roesch said it is allowed for the benefit of the community. In this case, if anything is done, it will be subject to other hurdles, including the City Council, then returning to the Redevelopment Commission for a final Declaratory Resolution and a public hearing at that time. There will probably be changes in what is proposed if it is approved. The Redevelopment Commission is not doing its duty if we do not proceed with this process to capture the "TIF" because then nothing could happen. Madeline Fitzgerald asked if this was the only point for the Plan Commission being in the process; Mr. Roesch responded in the affirmative. Ms. Fitzgerald asked if the request is only for the purpose of determining whether or not the Plan Commission feels this should be a special economic zone. Mr. Roesch said the Plan Commission is only approving that this does meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. Paul Spranger then restated that the Plan Commission is making the determination whether this conforms to the Comprehensive Plan and allows the Economic Redevelopment Commission to continue with the process. This is still subject to additional public hearings, both in the City Council and with the Redevelopment Commission, before this really becomes fact. Mr. Roesch concurred with Paul Spranger's comments. The Plan Commission's role is ministerial in terms of conformity to the Comprehensive Plan. The Declaratory Resolution adopted for the economic redevelopment area can be used for any project or projects that are in this area within the existing Comprehensive Plan. Pat Rice further questioned the role of the Plan Commission in this situation and whether or not they actually had input if this is a ministerial act. John Molitor said this is not necessarily characterized as a ministerial act. It is a role that the Plan Commission has under the Statute to make a determination whether or not this s:\ P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000ljan 3 plan conforms to the Comprehensive Plan for the community. One of the purposes of this requirement imposed by the legislature is to be sure that there is a neutral and objective body taking another look at this, particularly in cases where the establishment of these areas is a prerequisite for using power of eminent domain and essentially taking people's homes from them in order to do a redevelopment project. This is not being proposed in this particular case, but nevertheless, this is a role that the Plan Commission has under the Statute to take a look objectively and see whether or not the Comprehensive Plan is being followed or whether the Redevelopment body has stepped outside of its proper bounds. Pat Rice is not against the development, in and of itself; however, the Plan Commission has been asked to read and review this document and it is important to challenge certain assumptions that are faulty, as read by her. Perhaps this should be sent to Committee for review. Dave Cremeans said when the Plan Commission looked at the Duke project, they were under the impression that there were some things that were a misunderstanding on how it would be put together. For example, improving mounding on the west side of Meridian north of 96 Street to block Parkwood West from the neighbors' view who live on the south side of 96 Street in Marion County. The Plan Commission asked that this be done as part of the project. The Plan Commission also asked that some of the land be dedicated and donated for right -of -way on 96th Street. After it was voted to approve the project, we found that we misunderstood -that it was not donated land but rather dedicated land and the City of Carmel would buy the land from the developer at an estimated cost of one million dollars for the right -of -way. Dave Cremeans said that the Plan Commission has no fiscal responsibility. The Plan Commission suggested to the City Council (who does have fiscal responsibility) that they were uncomfortable with some of the landscaping requirements and right -of -way requirements that were part of a "wish list" from the Parkwood West infrastructure summary report. The Plan Commission asked that this be considered strongly in any approval of funds for the TIF District. Dave admitted he was somewhat confused by all of this, but was pleased at improving the roadways; however, he was not in favor of planting trees on the mounds. There are time constraints in regard to the taxes. Rick Roesch concurred; we would miss this tax year if this were held up. There are a lot of questions about the "wish list" from the Redevelopment Commissioners as well. The objective of the Redevelopment Commission is to make sure that the TIF is captured. It will be up to the final vote of the Redevelopment Commission and the City Council whether or not it will be this project and what is going to be done in this area. We are moving this along simply to capture the TIF at this point -it is not to endorse the project. There are 5 Redevelopment Commissioners who all have opinions about what should be in this area and what should be done. Dave Cremeans said this is similar to what was done at the Merchants Pointe location and the Plan Commission wholeheartedly endorsed that project because the land was both dedicated and donated so that the City of Carmel did not have to buy 116 Street. This s:\ P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000ljan 4 certainly helped the taxpayers in Clay Township. Dave Cremeans suggested that this be forwarded on to the City Council. Ron Houck was in favor of sending this to Committee for further review in order to provide clarity and understanding. The full Plan Commission could then take action. Rick Roesch said this could not go to the Council until it is approved by the Plan Commission and if it would go to Committee, full Plan Commission, Council, then public hearing for the Redevelopment Commission, it would be past March first and too late for the next tax year. Nick Kestner questioned whether the Development would go into the tax roles and not into TIF if this were not acted upon and the opportunity for improvement would be missed, even if the proposed development did not go through. Mr. Roesch said yes, that opportunity would be missed, even on existing buildings, to capture the TIF. Marilyn Anderson suggested an additional meeting of the full Plan Commission to address this specific issue. Wayne Wilson asked the Plan Commission to separate the Duke Weeks project from the Redevelopment Commission's request to declare a specific area an Economic Development area based on the Plan Commission's expertise on the Comprehensive Plan. Whether Duke -Weeks goes there or another project, it makes no difference; this is a process that needs to be continued in the hope that a project ends up on this site. Any delays in this aggressive timetable will result in missing the tax cut -off. Kevin Kirby, Carmel City Council President, spoke to the Commission saying that the City Council is the fiscal body that must pay for the roadway improvements. The roads must be improved, no matter what is developed on the property. The Council is asking the Redevelopment Commission and the Plan Commission for permission to put this plan in place. It does benefit the Township to have the roads improved, and the Council is simply asking for the tools to accomplish this. The charge to the Plan Commission is to determine whether or not the Economic Development Plan fits the Comprehensive Plan. Kevin Kirby asked the Plan Commission to vote on this item this evening and move it on in a timely fashion. Pat Rice was confused about what she should be voting on and still had questions. The report by Wabash Scientific incorporates everything about the Parkwood Development that is not supposed to be a part of the document. It looks as if the Plan Commission is being asked to approve this, and yet does not have the ability to make a decision on this. The Declaratory Resolution states that ".....the cost of infrastructure improvements needed to serve the area prevents the improvement from being accomplished by private enterprise." If the wording were "....accomplished solely by private enterprise," it would be OK. As it reads, they have no responsibility. s:\ P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000ljan 5 Rick Roesch said he did not know what the final proposal was going to be -the document recites a ballpark figure. The final proposal may not even be this particular Duke -Weeks plan. It may cost two million to do the roads, we have not yet made a determination -it may cost twelve million to do the roads. Lisa Lee of Ice, Miller, Donadio Ryan referred to Indiana Statute 36- 7 -14 -43 allows a Redevelopment Commission to create an economic development area if they can make certain findings. That particular language referred to by Ms. Rice is a specific finding in the statute and it says that you can do this if the plan for the Economic Development area cannot be achieved by regulatory processes or by the ordinary operation of private enterprise without resort to the powers allowed under the Redevelopment Statute because of the lack of local, public improvements or other certain conditions. In effect, it is saying here that there are no regulatory processes available anymore, (from the old Urban Renewal Statute in the 1980's) and this has not developed under private enterprise to this date. Part of the reason for the lack of development in this area is the cost of infrastructure, no road improvements out there that need to be done, the water and sewer infrastructure needs to be done, the Redevelopment Commission has been told by developers that this is very costly and this is a specific finding that must be made under the statute; that's why the language is worded the way it is. Dave Cremeans said Kevin Kirby's comments had answered a lot of his questions. There is now a clearer vision and he is willing to support the Declaratory Resolution at this point. Pat Rice had questions about the Factual Report attached to the Resolution. Lisa Lee said when a Declaratory Resolution is passed by the Economic Redevelopment Commission, the Statute requires that a Factual Report and Economic Development Plan be attached to the Resolution. The Report is a plan or "wish list" for the area things they want to do within an area to spur economic development. Therefore, a Factual Report is attached to the Declaratory Resolution and a separate document titled Economic Development Plan. According to the Statute, the Plan Commission may determine whether the Resolution and Redevelopment Plan conform to the Plan for Development for the City. The projects listed within the plan must conform to the overall Comprehensive Plan for the City and that is the role of the Plan Commission in this particular situation. The Economic Development Plan itself is a full stand -alone document for the Redevelopment Commission to make their findings required by Statute and to support those findings. Pat Rice said the entire report "blames the neighbors" for the need for this development and the TIF. Pat Rice said the developer's willingness to pay the price for the land certainly entered the equation. All the way through the document, it states it is the responsibility of the Plan Commission to reconcile these potential land use conflicts. The reconciliation process is both an important issue and extremely delicate. The opponents to new development routinely complain of developmental intensity and impact, requesting that the proposed development be reduced in intensity, and that impact mitigation facilities be included in the approved development. At the same time, these reductions in intensity also reduce the capacity of this development to pay for impact s:\ P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000ljan 6 mitigating amenities. The document goes on, and it is very confusing to understand how the Parkwood development has nothing to do with what is before us, and to blame everything on the community that lives there, when we know this whole intersection is a traffic problem, even without the Parkwood Development. The problem needs to be addressed, and why does the report say the reason we have to do that is because the neighbors are complaining about the traffic problem. Why does the Resolution pretty much lay out for Duke -Weeks everything it is they want to do? Rick Roesch said the whole plan has not been addressed by the Redevelopment Commission at this point. The factual findings in support have been addressed and we will be addressing all of the other issues. The Declaration does not support, in any way, the Report or the findings. There will be and are a lot of questions about the report. Lisa Lee said this is a classic economic development area and the commission has determined that it can make findings in the alternative, whether the Duke -Weeks project is approved or not by the commission. Yes, there is information in the report because if it is approved, we do not want to have to go back and amend the document. We want to be able to count on the findings that were made. What you will see on the factual report is the finding as stated in the Statute; the remaining sentences will be the support that the commission knew at the time to support those findings. Dave Cremeans commented even if this were approved this evening, and it were a seven million dollar TIF, that doesn't mean seven million dollars will be spent; it doesn't mean that one hundred dollars will be spent. It only means that this is a figure that could come into play if all of the infrastructure requirements are required and if everything goes as we know it today -even though it may change tomorrow. This is just something to identify this possible need somewhere in the future that has not yet been defined and negotiated. Lisa Lee agreed with Dave Cremeans' comments. The purpose of the wish list was to make sure that everyone is aware. It has caused information to be sent back and forth and has caused questions and answers. By no means is it a number that the Redevelopment Commission has agreed to spend on this project. Paul Spranger simplified the process -the Plan Commission is enabling the Economic Redevelopment Commission to do its work, to do the findings and research necessary and then make a recommendation to City Council, and City Council then has an opportunity to fund this or not. The alternative to this is that if we don't attract corporate development of this magnitude, all of us as residential taxpayers will have to pay for the eventual Redevelopment improvements on 96 Street and other places. It would appear that this is good economic sense. Paul Spranger moved for the approval of the Resolution, seconded by John Sharpe. There were additional comments from Ron Houck. Expressed in another fashion, the task of the Plan Commission's review is to determine whether or not the scope of the s:\ P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000ljan 7 three projects fit with the development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for this area. Lisa Lee agreed with Mr. Houck. For clarification, Paul Spranger then re- stated the motion. Paul Spranger moved for the approval of the City of Carmel Economic Redevelopment Commission's Declaratory Resolution No. 3 -2001, seconded by John Sharpe. APPROVED 10 in favor, 3 opposed (Madeline Fitzgerald, Ron Houck and Pat Rice.) 2i. Docket No. 184 -00 Z, Town Centre West Petitioner seeks favorable recommendation of a rezone from the S- 1/Residence District to the R- 5/Residence district on 34.825 acres. The site is located in the 11000 block of North Michigan Road. The site is zoned S- 1/Residence within the U.S. 421/Michigan Road Overlay Zone. Filed by Michael Speedy of American Village Properties. Bill Bach, attorney with Kroger, Gardis, and Regas, appeared before the Commission representing American Village Properties LLC. This is a fairly involved development and Randall Arandt has been brought in from Rhode Island to assist in the presentation. Mr. Bach asked for a longer period of time for presentation -45 minutes. The Commission was unwilling to extend the time period for presentation. Mr. Bach introduced the members of the development team for American Village Properties: Greg Schnelling of CSO Engineering; Paige Close, architect, of Looney, Ricks, Kiss; Randall Arandt, Land Planner; and Jim Klausmeier and Jennifer Pyrcz of Pflum, Klausmeier and Gehrum, traffic consultants. The area is within the 421 Overlay Zone. The site is bounded on the north side by Altum's Nursery and Landscaping and on the south side is the Villages of Weston Subdivison. The developers are requesting a zoning change to R- 5/Residence that will allow a combination of residential and commercial mixed use. The development will also include 6.8 acres of green space, tree preservation area, various water features, and a village green. Randall Arendt, nationally known land planner, addressed the Commission. Mr. Arendt referred to the requirements of the 421 Overlay Zone and said the Georgian or Greek Revival style of architecture and materials proposed are thoroughly consistent with the intent of the Michigan Road Corridor Overlay. Mr. Arendt displayed photographs of completed projects similar to the one being proposed with examples of architecture and landscaping. The project will have a "town- like" appearance with buildings close to the sidewalk, parallel parking, and mixed -use, multi -story buildings. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; no one appeared. Public, organized remonstrance was invited and the following appeared: s:\ P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000ljan 8 Maureen Pearson, 3705 Sumner Way, Weston neighborhood, Carmel, spoke as vice president of the Homeowners Association and as an individual homeowner. As a preliminary matter, Ms. Pearson said the Homeowners Association had filed a petition with the Department of Community Services to remove this item from this evening's Agenda. The Homeowners Association also filed an appeal with the Board of Zoning Appeals challenging the appropriateness of hearing this item tonight. The reasoning is that the zoning petition before the BZA was for a variance for a "PUD" and the variance was denied. The application was then amended to a request for a rezone and the 60 day filing period and payment of additional filing fees was circumvented. The Homeowners Association asked that the developer either file a new petition, or that the matter be tabled until the BZA can render a decision on the appeal. John Molitor responded that this is an attempt to appeal a Department decision interpreting the rules of the Plan Commission to the Board of Zoning Appeals. It is clear under State law that the Board of Zoning Appeals does not have jurisdiction to review a decision made under the Plan Commission's Rules of Procedure. Ms. Pearson had the following comments on the rezoning of the parcel. The quality of the product is not the question; the issue is does the petition to rezone comply with the Comprehensive Plan. The Weston Homeowners have four objections to the rezone. 1) The R -5 classification is strongly disfavored in Carmel and is tantamount to a PUD, already considered and denied by the BZA. 2) The R -5 zoning district is absolutely contrary to the Comprehensive Plan. 3) A rezone to R -5 would be "spot zoning" and not permitted in Indiana. 4) The property values of abutting homes will immediately decrease by 7.5% if the proposed development is allowed. Carmel has never approved a rezone to R -5 so that a mixture of separate commercial and separate residential uses could be developed in one parcel -this is essentially a "PUD," and such use has already been denied by the BZA. Ms. Pearson asked the Plan Commission to suspend their rules this evening and vote to deny the rezone. The Weston Subdivision is designated low- intensity, residential and is a stable, platted community with a density of approximately 2.05 units per acre in stark contrast to the 15 units per acre permitted in the R -5 zoning. High intensity residential developments are included in the Comprehensive Plan, but they are specifically earmarked for the Central Business District in downtown Carmel and along the edge of residential community areas only when the residential area is adjacent to a high or medium intensity commercial area. This proposed development is much better suited to the US 31 Corridor or downtown Carmel, but not west of Springmill Road and certainly not where it abuts low intensity residential and commercial area. The Weston Homeowners strongly urge the Plan Commission to deny the petitioner's request. If, however, this does proceed to Committee for review, Ms. Pearson asked that a representative of the HOA be permitted to participate. Rebuttal: Mr. Bach said the development complies with the Michigan Road Overlay and this type of development is encouraged. Retail and office buildings are "encouraged' to be two or more stories in height with office or residential uses on the second floor. The s:\ P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000ljan 9 Ordinance encourages this type of development and it is not barred by the Comprehensive Plan. Effective land use planning does not necessarily encourage the development of single family units throughout an area because it utilizes all of the greenspace. There are two reasons why single family development is inappropriate at this location. The access is not conducive to single family homes and single family residential cannot exist within the Overlay Zone. The proposed plan integrates high quality architecture and materials to transition the use from commercial to commercial and residential, and then to residential to the back. The Westons was developed under the Cluster Ordinance with a density of 5 to 6 units per acre. The proposed development is very effective, transitional land use /planning. The Comprehensive Plan described any area in which there are more than 5 developed units per acre to be high intensity residential. The plans provide for an enormous amount of improvement to the site in the form of buffering and greenspace for the benefit of the neighbors. The primary concern of the residents is a vehicular connection at Monitor Lane. There are two access points into the proposed development so that an access to Monitor Lane is not necessary. There are no shared amenities; an upscale quality development is a concern to the neighbors; the amenities are located away from the Westons; attached garages are provided along with nine -foot ceilings. A traffic study indicates that the proposed development can be fully accommodated by the roadway improvements on Michigan Road. Mr. Bach undertook to send a copy of the traffic study to each Commission member. Department Report: Laurence Lillig asked that a copy of the remonstrator's presentation be provided for the file. The Department recommends this item be forwarded to Committee for review on February 6, 2000 at 7:00 PM. Marilyn Anderson closed the public hearing. Dave Cremeans asked John Molitor about the remonstrator's request to suspend the rules and vote against the R -5 zoning. John Molitor explained what would happen if this item were voted on this evening. The Commission could make a favorable or unfavorable recommendation to the Council on whether or not to pass the rezone. There is also a third option of "No Recommendation." If the rules were suspended, and this item brought to a vote this evening, it would be forwarded on to the City Council for action. Ron Houck asked about two issues raised by the petitioner. One is the R -5 consistency with the Comp Plan; the other is the issue of "spot zoning" as applied to this process. Laurence Lillig said the Department does not believe this project is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but that determination is for the Plan Commission. There are other R -5 districts, one is the North Haven project on Gray Road. John Molitoir addressed the issue of spot zoning. Any zoning ordinance comes with the presumption of validity under Indiana law. If the Council duly considers the Plan Commission's recommendation and passes the zoning ordinance, it will come with the presumption of some amount of validity. The fact that the Department has stated that it s:\ P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000ljan 10 does or that it may conform to the Comprehensive Plan would seem to indicate that it probably would not be deemed to be spot zoning under Indiana law. Ron Houck asked about landscape buffer dimensions bordering the Westons. Mr. Bach said the dimensions range from 75 feet to 130 feet, a 7 foot berm topped by a continuous fence, the addition of a number of pine trees on the Westons side of the fence, per the residents request. There has also been a request for preservation of all of the trees on the fence row, and the petitioner intends to honor that request and preserve those trees. In terms of buffering, there was a request that water features be constructed so that they would further inhibit any movement across the boundary line, and the site has been re- configured to address this. In response to Dave Cremeans questions, Mr. Bach believes that this project meets the rules and standards of the Michigan Road Overlay Zone. Madeline Fitzgerald asked if there were any assurance of design changes from the original presentation Mr. Bach introduced Mike Speedy of American Village Properties who responded to her question. This land is essentially commercial ground and commercial property is being adapted with residential above. The presumption is that this project will succeed, given the fact that it is on the commercial corridor, and with this type of connection to a commercial area. We are willing to commit to the uses. Michael Speedy said that the location of this project is within an area that has viable commercial property. The multi family is felt to be very viable. Dave Cremeans said a rezone is a serious step for the Commission. A rezone changes the rules for the residents that abut the property. If this is rezoned to R -5, it could then be sold to another developer, etc. There are no guarantees that this will be developed as presented; it could go on for years being sold and never being developed. Pat Rice asked if the Commission can also require a Development Plan at the time of rezone. John Molitor said the Commission can ask for a variety of commitments to be made by the developer, including standards to which the development will conform. Those commitments would be binding upon the land, and any future owner of the land. Laurence Lillig commented that the R -5 district falls into a special category of zones called land districts, and Development Plan approval and ADLS approval is required by the Plan Commission. Regardless of what is developed on this property, the project will come back before the Plan Commission on the Development Plan. Also, this particular property is in the 421 Overlay which requires Development Plan and ADLS approval. Assuming that the City Council approves a rezone, the petitioner would be back before the Plan Commission with specific development plans that will have to conform, in all respects, to the US 421 Overlay as well as meeting all procedural requirements in the Overlay District and the Planned District, Chapter 24. Laurence Lillig went over the permitted uses in the R -5 Zone according to the Ordinance. s:\ P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000ljan 11 Paul Spranger noted that the project has a single entry and that this is considered to be a hazard -the entrance is blocked for emergency vehicle access. This aspect of the development needs to be addressed. Michael Speedy said easements are provided to the south and north commercial areas; there is access to other curb cuts onto Michigan Road. The residential area has two points of access and the highway department has allowed no connection to the Westons. This can be addressed further at Committee. Docket No. 184 -00 Z Town Centre West, was referred to the Subdivision Committee on February 6 at 7:00 PM for further review. Pending availability, the Subdivision Committee will be held in the Council Chambers. After a short recess, the Commission resumed. Marilyn Anderson said the Commission would assess their progress at 11:00 PM and determine whether or not an additional meeting night is warranted. 3i. Docket No. 186 -00 Z, DePauw Rezone 4i. Docket No. 187 -00 Z, DePauw Rezone 5i. 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 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 U.S. 31/Meridian Street Overlay Zone. Filed by E. Davis Coots of Coots Henke Wheeler for CH Land LLC Laurence Lillig reported informational materials had not been submitted by the petitioner on this rezone. The petitioner has been advised that the minimum request of the Department is that a traffic impact study be done based on the worst case scenario for B -5 zoning, and the traffic study would need to be distributed to the Committee members for review and consideration. Nick Kestner asked the petitioner to submit materials depicting the surrounding area of the property being requested for a rezone. Pat Rice moved to TABLE the DePauw Rezone (all three dockets) until Commission members receive information materials from the petitioner, seconded by Ron Houck. APPROVED 13 -0. Paul Spranger addressed the Commission with accolades for Jim O'Neal, Sr. who opted not to serve another term on the Plan Commission. Jim O'Neal has been a faithful member of the Commission, Task Forces, and Committees, and has added a great deal through his wisdom and knowledge. Jim O'Neal embodies the "Great Generation!" Many thanks to Jim O'Neal for his years of tireless, faithful service to the Community. s:\ P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000ljan 12 6i. Docket No. 205 -00 Z, Ritter's Frozen Custard Petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation of a rezone from the B-2/Business district within the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone to the B-2/Business district. The site is located northwest of 8 Street Northwest and North Range Line Road. The site is zoned B-2/Business district within the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone. Filed by Gordon Byers for Ritter's Frozen Custard. Note: No informational materials were received on this project and there has been nothing for the Commissioners to review. Gordon Byers said this is a noticed, public hearing and has been reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee. Mr. Byers would like the opportunity to present this project this evening. Nick Kestner moved to TABLE Docket No. 205 -00 Z, Ritter's Frozen Custard, to the February meeting. APPROVED 11 in favor, 2 opposed (Wayne Haney and Kent Broach) 7i. 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 for this outlot 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 U.S. 421/Michigan Road Overlay Zone. Filed by Kevin D. McKasson of Glendale Partners. Sam Gillespie addressed the Commission saying that he will be the franchisee for this particular Ritter's. Approval is requested for the amendment of the Development Plan to provide for the Ritter's Frozen Custard at the West Carmel Center developed by Glendale Partners. This particular Ritter's is on 106 and Michigan Road, and is within the U.S. 421 Michigan Road Overlay Zone. A site plan was presented along with the landscape plan. Bill Stambaugh gave some background information and history of the Ritter's Frozen Custard. The intent is to create a community look with character and tradition in excellence. The Federal style architecture and detail has been incorporated into this plan of development. There are limestone bands at the base of the building to give it a heavy, rusticated base -this is also a part of the Classic Revival look. At present, there is an issue before the Board of Zoning Appeals relating to the sign package. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of, or opposition to the petition; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. s:\ P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000ljan 13 The Department is recommending that this item be referred to Committee on February 6, 2001. John Sharpe questioned the parking ratio on the proposed Ritter's compared to the number of spaces at existing Ritter's stores. Pat Rice asked the petitioner to bring copies of the materials to be used and the color package, particularly the roof that may be considered to be a sign itself. Ron Houck asked whether or not the landscape plan was reviewed by the Department; this can be addressed at the Committee level. Ron is not totally convinced that the architecture of the building meets the spirit or intent of the 421 Overlay Zone. It would be useful to see the styles of building adjacent for comparison. Dave Cremeans thought the outlot buildings previously presented matched the strip center behind them and the outlots were to blend in with the center behind it. The current proposal looks as if the features differ somewhat. Paul Spranger asked if there were any alternative designs that might be more in character with the 421 Overlay and if so, to please bring those designs to the Committee meeting. Docket No. 207 -00 DP Amend /ADLS Amend; West Carmel Center, Block A- Ritter's Frozen Custard, was referred to the Special Study Committee for review on February 6, 2001 at 7:00 PM in City Hall. J. Old Business: lj. Docket No. 109 -99 DP /ADLS, Wingate Inn Currently Tabled 2j. Docket No. 146 -00 DP /ADLS; West Carmel Center, Block F Petitioner seeks approval of plans for a 125,000 square foot Home Depot home improvement store on 15.00 acres. The site is located at 4155 Retail Parkway. The site is zoned B-3/Business and is located within the US 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by Kevin D. McKasson of Glendale Partners. Kevin McKasson, 9864 Summer Lakes, said he had previously appeared before the Special Study Committee on two occasions and made certain changes to the elevations of the building pursuant to recommendations of the Committee. April Hensley of Leach, Hensley Architects explained the changes, point by point, as requested by the Committee. Some of those features are faux windows across the front of the building to break up the mass of the facade; coins were added to the corners of the buildings similar to the Target store; and adding a pediment feature at the archway. Faux windows were added to the southern portion of the building; the northern facade has s:\ P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000ljan 14 more faux windows and the coins were brought back to the eastern portion of the building. The facade to the rear looks very sparse, but because of landscaping between the road and the rear of the building, a decorative cornice was added across the top of the building to break up the monotony of the building. Paul Spranger reported that the Committee had asked for changes, essentially those highlighted by April Hensley. The building more closely conforms to the Overlay Zone. The windows and limestone coins add to the transition of the building. The committee voted for approval, 5 -0, subject to the highlighted changes and a commitment to the landscape plan meeting the US 421 Overlay to the letter. Kevin McKasson said the landscape plan that was submitted meets the Ordinance. There is an extensive use of mounding along 421, 4 to 6 feet in height, with plant material. The mounding extends across the front of the elevation. There is also landscaping on the south side of Retail Way Drive. To the rear of the building is extensive mounding along the back, also 4 to 6 foot mounds, with plantings. A fence has also been added along the south portion to further protect one residence close -by. There is also a brick wall at the rear to help screen the truck docks. In addition, Mr. McKasson said he had agreed to plant trees on an adjacent homeowners' property to add further screening. There is a property between the road and the drainage pond that is zoned for single family /office buildings and as that is developed, there will be additional landscaping to complete the buffer. Cart corrals will be constructed of brick, high enough to cover all carts. The commitment language used is similar to the Lowe's commitment on US 31 regarding cart corrals. A similar commitment is made for storage for the garden area -it will be completely enclosed with brick and no materials may be seen from outside the area. Pat Rice moved for the approval of Docket No. 146 -00 DP /ADLS, West Carmel Center, Block F, seconded by Ron Houck. APPROVED 12 -0. 3j. Docket No. 155 -00 PP, Five -Ten Subdivision Primary Plat application for Ruth Marie Bolt. The petitioner seeks approval to plat 4 lots on 1.95 acres. The site is located at 510 First Avenue Northwest. The site is zoned R- 1/Residence. Filed by Stan Neal of Weihe Engineering for Ruth Marie Bolt. Dave Barnes with Weihe Engineers, 10550 North College Avenue, appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Approval is being requested for a primary plat for 2 lots, and 2 blocks; this satisfies the neighbors in the area. Ron Houck reported the Committee's findings. The petitioner has worked with the Department and crafted language for deed restrictions. The committee voted unanimously in favor, with the deed restrictions in place. s:\ P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000ljan 15 Ron Houck moved for the approval of Docket No. 155 -00 PP, Five -Ten Subdivision, seconded by John Sharpe. APPROVED 12 -0. 4j. Docket No. 171 -00 ADLS Amend, West Carmel Center, Block A Petitioner seeks approval of the landscape plan for West Carmel Center, Block A. The site is located on he southeast corner of West 106 Street and 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. Kevin McKasson appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. The applicant is requesting an amendment in the previously approved landscape plan for the Walgreens, Wendy's, and Ritter's. Originally, when ADLS approval was sought, there was a general idea of what would go here, but that has changed requiring us to come back for amendments on each lot. At the suggestion of the Department, we decided to do an overall landscape revision, meeting the code. The landscape plan has been presented to the Department and the Urban Forester. The plan has been approved with two modifications. One is that the sidewalk between Walgreens and Wendy's be labeled; the other is that the sidewalk be tied into the sidewalk that goes along Michigan Road. Paul Spranger reported that the Committee approved the landscape plan due to the re- work on the Walgreens. The landscape plan has been enhanced, improved, and up- graded. The Committee voted 5 -0 for approval. Kevin McKasson further clarified the sidewalk. The sidewalks are required by Code; there is a sidewalk along 106 Street. Kevin McKasson agreed to install a sidewalk connecting the Walgreen store to the multi -use path. There are some problems to overcome crossing a drainage area, but Mr. McKasson said the multi -use path will be tied into Michigan Road and 106 Street. Laurence Lillig said the landscape plan requires some variances regarding the width of certain foundation planting areas. Scott Brewer's main concern was the sidewalk tie -in. Scott's suggestion is that the sidewalk be extended east along the drive at the south side of the Ritter's site; this can be discussed at Committee in conjunction with the Ritter's project. As far as the overall landscape plan is concerned, there are some minor variances that will have to be brought through, but overall, this scheme is approved. Paul Spranger moved for the approval of Docket No. 171 -00 ADLS Amend, West Carmel Center, Block A, seconded by Pat Rice. APPROVED 12 -0. 5j. Docket No. 172 -00 ADLS Amend; West Carmel Center, Block A Wendy's Petitioner seeks approval of the sign package for a Wendy's fast food restaurant and seeks approval to alter the architectural package approved for the structure as part of Docket No. 47 -99 DP /ADLS. The site is s:\ P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000ljan 16 located at 10585 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 for Wendy's. John Thaxton, real estate director for Trident Foods, Wendy's franchisee, addressed the Commission. The applicant appeared before the Special Study Committee and altered certain architectural features in an attempt to bring the development into closer conformity with the plan. Certain lighting packages were added to this site along with EFIS. A narrow band has been widened to conform to the Walgreens approved package and the package to the retail center. On the Michigan Road side, dormers have been added, front and back, and the roof line has been brought up for proportionality. The HVAC access is from the roof top. Paul Spranger delivered the committee report. The windows are now in character with the 421 Overlay and period architecture. The petitioner has cooperated greatly with the Committee to achieve the goals of the 421 corridor, and the Committee voted 5 -0 to recommend approval. Paul Spranger moved to approve Docket No. 172 -00 ADLS Amend; West Carmel Center, Block A Wendy's, seconded by Ron Houck. Laurence Lillig noted a change in the signage, and the petitioner wanted the Commission to view the change. The original submission included a 31 square foot ground sign. The alternative ground sign is roughly 3 and 1/2 square feet larger, excluding the base; both signs require BZA approval. The question is which sign does the Commission prefer to approve with the ADLS package, the originally submitted sign or the alternative sign. John Thaxton distributed a handout to the members. The sign will conform to the Overlay requirements. Paul Spranger asked if the petitioner could scale the sign down, proportionally, in all dimensions to come closer to the Ordinance. The brick base is good. John Thaxton was sure that a few rows of brick could be eliminated without damage to the sign and he was willing to commit to that. Paul Spranger then amended his motion for approval of Docket No. 172 -00 ADLS Amend, West Carmel Center, Block A Wendy's, to provide for the inclusion of the amended ground sign, WM- 25Monument Sign, drawing 97 -0598, with the caveat that it be scaled down to meet the Ordinance, seconded by Ron Houck. APPROVED as amended 12 -0. s:\ P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000ljan 17 6j. Docket No. 183 -00 ADLS, Hazel Dell Corner, Lot 6 Children's World Petitioner seeks ADLS approval in order to establish a Children's World day care center on 1.6 acres. The site is located at 13320 Hazel Dell Parkway. The site is zoned B-3/Business. Filed by Darren T. Pittman of Falcon Engineering for Aramark Educational Resources. Darren Pittman of Falcon Engineering, Fishers, Indiana, appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. The Children's World day care center will be located at 13320 Hazel Dell Parkway, lot 6 of Hazel Dell Corner. The building is 10,989 square feet with a residential theme. The approximate dimensions are 156 ft. by 92 feet deep. The building will have a maximum of 173 children and 19 staff members. There are 48 parking spaces required; 49 are provided. The plans have been reviewed by the Special Study Committee and revised plans show the dormers on the roof expanses. A brick dumpster has also been added. The building is centered on the lot, and the 30 foot green space requirement has been adhered to on the west and north sides of the lot in order to buffer the adjacent, residential neighborhood. There are two playgrounds on either side of the building with concrete walkways around the entire perimeter of the building. The monument sign will be located at the entrance and will match the brick exterior of the building. Two parking lot lights plus 9, small wallpack lights will illuminate the building for safety reasons. As a part of the landscaping, there are existing, mature trees along the north end and west end of the property. There is also an existing walking trail through the common area of Delaware Commons. The trees will be preserved and maintained; no trees will be removed adjacent to the common areas. Michael Morelock of Aramark Educational Resources, addressed the Commission and presented the following information: Aramark operates childcare facilities in over 20 states. The buildings are specifically designed to comply with regulations in the state which they intend to operate in -this building will be no exception. Aramark is a Colorado based company operating childcare centers in over 550 facilities in the United States. The company was founded in 1969; Aramark has owned the company since 1982. Aramark is committed to providing quality childcare and is accredited with the National Association for the Education of Young Children. There are approximately 88,000 child care centers in the United States and only 5% are NAEYC accredited. The facilities serve pre- school children from 12 months to kindergarten, and school age children from 6 to 12 years of age. There is also a before and after school program. Paul Spranger reported for the Committee. This particular project was changed to meet the requests of the Committee. The dormers were changed to doubles that are more in proportion with the rest of the building. The dumpster location is forced to be to the front of the building due to site layout. The Committee asked that the dumpster be in regular s:\ P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000ljan 18 building materials so that it ties in. There is an issue of wall packs on the building. Wall Packs are not looked upon favorably Mr. Morelock said wall packs is a misnomer. The lights will be under the soffits and will illuminate outward for security reasons (such as shopping center lighting). Other than the wall packs, the Committee voted 5 -0 to favorably recommend approval. The Department is satisfied with the end result. Ron Houck confirmed that there will be no wall packs on the building, only soffit lighting. Nick Kestner questioned the design area for dropping off and picking up children. Mr. Morelock said children must be escorted into the building and signed in -they are not allowed to be "dropped off." Ron Houck moved for the approval of Docket No. 183 -00 ADLS, Hazel Dell Corner, Lot 6 Children's World, seconded by Wayne Haney. APPROVED 12 -0. 7j. Docket No. 189 -00 ADLS Amend; Pearson Ford Tabled at Committee 8j. Docket No. 193 -00 DP /ADLS, Newark Addition, Lots 9 -11— Stewart Place Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing Thomson Thrift Development. The Subdivision Committee review netted two changes. The orientation of building number 2 was previously westward near the right -of -way of Range Line Road. Building No. 2 is now located eastward to align with building No. 1. The second change was in respect to the lighting. The original plan provided for three different styles of lighting fixture. It was the consensus of the Committee that one fixture should be chosen and it should be one that most closely matches the theme of the development. The applicant selected the "crook" style light fixture, displayed on the overhead. Six of the fixtures will be pole mounted on poles 15 feet tall; three will be wall mounted. The six pole mounted fixtures will be in front of the buildings between the front and Range Line Road. The three wall mounted, crook style fixtures will be located on the eastern facia of the two buildings. Scott Brewer, Urban Forester, submitted a final review of the landscape plan. Scott suggested changes that are procedural and substantive; procedural in that Scott Brewer asked for further clarification of two notes on the plans -a substitution of one plant material and the addition of three trees along Range Line Road. This is acceptable to the applicant and is consistent with other treatment along Range Line Road -a letter of agreement is provided. s:\ P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000ljan 19 Ron Houck asked for clarification regarding the Memo from Scott Brewer. Jim Nelson said the applicant agreed with all 7 points in Scott Brewer's memo and the screening of the trash dumpster. The Committee had voted 7 -0 in favor of the development. Laurence Lillig said it is the Department's understanding that a new light plan will be submitted with the intensities specific to the new plan and it will be reviewed administratively. John Sharpe moved to approve Docket No. 193 -00 DP /ADLS, Newark Addition, Lots 9 -11 Stewart Place, seconded by Ron Houck. APPROVED 12 -0. 9j. Docket No.196 -00 ADLS, First Indiana Bank Petitioner seeks Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping Signage approval for a bank. The site is located at 2168 East 116 Street. The site is zoned B-8/Business Filed by David B. Huffman of CSO Engineers for First Indiana Bank. John Smeltzer, attorney with Bose McKinney Evans, 600 East 96 Street, appeared before the Commission representing the First Indiana Bank located at AAA Way and Merchants Drive in the Merchants Square Drive. First Indiana is demolishing their existing reconstructing this particular facility. This development has been reviewed by the Special Study Committee and was recommended for approval. There has been no change in the plans since the initial filing date Paul Spranger reported for the Committee. There was a previous proposal for the First Indiana Bank that had a lowered roofline and was a simple but tasteful building situated on a site. Because of the necessary intersection alignment, it will squeeze the building back and the City Engineer has worked out the situation with the petitioner. The plan is appropriate for the site and the committee recommended approval. Laurence Lillig referred to the Department report; three signs are adequate for this site. Paul Spranger noted that previously the petitioner had parking spaces in front of the building that necessitated cars backing into AAA Way. One of the design concessions the City made was for the bank to give up parking east of the bank to make the drive -thru work. It was an accommodation for not the most ideal site, but this design is the most workable. There was no simple solution to the traffic problem. John Smeltzer said they had tried to reconfigure the flow of traffic. In aligning the intersection, the petitioner had to acquire property with the cooperation of the City. The site is not the ideal location for the bank, but the plan includes a larger site, a more attractive building, less parking, and some concessions have been given to accommodate interested parties. s:\ P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000ljan 20 Paul Spranger moved for the approval of Docket No. 196 -00 ADLS, First Indiana Bank, seconded by Ron Houck. APPROVED 12 -0. K. New Business: 1k. Docket No. 185 -00 ADLS, Town Centre West This Item Currently Tabled Pending Filing of the Development Plan 2k. Docket No. 204 -00 ADLS Amend, Carlson Office Warehouse Complex Petitioner seeks approval to amend the architectural design approved as part of Docket No. 30 -99 DP /ADLS for a structure located at 9830 North Michigan Road. The site is zoned I -1 /Industrial and is located within the U.S. 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by Reed Carlson. Reed Carlson of C &C Realty appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Jim Curtis, general contractor, was also in attendance. The Development Plan was approved in July, 1999, and current plans are to provide a fresh look to the buildings by adding storefront windows. There are currently five existing buildings; the front buildings were built in the early 1970's and have a cedar shake /brick look. The current look is dated, and the applicant is wanting to up -grade in keeping with the Michigan Road corridor. Rather than using all brick, Reed Carlson wanted to break up the facade and incorporate split face and brick columns, add accent stripes and more window space. A second canopy will be added to the rear and brings the facility together. Department comments: Laurence Lillig recommends this item be forwarded to the Committee on February 6th Ron Houck asked if the Department had worked with the petitioner regarding the Overlay Zone and architectural styles. Laurence Lillig said pre- existing buildings have a special consideration under the 421 Overlay in that the Plan Commission has the ability to work between the existing building design and the 421 minimum requirements for new structure. Since ADLS approval in 1999 with a design similar to the other buildings in this project, the Committee will need to consider this in its review. Reed Carlson said the buildings are existing, but they will be given an up -dated look. There will be a new building constructed, although the footprint of the building will not change. Whatever is decided for the new building will carry through to update the other buildings. s:\ P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000ljan 21 Laurence Lillig clarified for the Commission that previously, the design was approved that was consistent with the existing buildings on site rather than holding the new building to the 421 Overlay. Now, the petitioner has an approved ADLS that does not conform to the 421 Overlay, although it should have. The ADLS should not have been approved without also being accompanied by a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The previously approved ADLS essentially entitles the petitioner to build the building as initially approved in 1999. As a Committee and Commission, you will have to decide if you want to require this building to meet the 421 requirements or if you will look for a middle ground that blends the existing buildings with the new. Docket No. 204 -00 ADLS Amend, Carlson Office Warehouse Complex, was referred to the Special Study Committee on February 6, 2001. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:25 PM. Ramona Hancock, Secretary Marilyn Anderson, President s:\ P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000ljan 22