Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 03-20-01CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION March 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, on March 20, 2001. Members present were: Marilyn Anderson; Kent Broach; Dave Cremeans; Leo Dierckman; Madeline Fitzgerald; Linda Flanders; Wayne Haney; Ron Houck; Nick Kestner; Diana Knoll; Norma Meighen; Pat Rice; John Sharpe; Paul Spranger; and Wayne Wilson, thus constituting a quorum. The minutes of the February meeting were approved as submitted. F. Legal Counsel Report Mr. Molitor reported an additional lawsuit has been filed by the Heartland Coalition, relative to the Parkwood West Planned Unit Development. This one was filed against the City Council and the City per se, and not the Plan Commission. Mr. Molitor also noted that House Bill 1307 is pending in the state legislature. This Bill addresses liability for board members, City Council members, etc. and provides additional protection or statutory immunity against individuals being pursued in their individual capacity under state law. G. Rick Roesch, 832 Spruce Drive, President of the Carmel Redevelopment Commission, reported the Redevelopment Commission approved the establishment of an economic development area for the Merchants Pointe project at its meeting last Wednesday. This is a Linder Company project to create a mixed -use development to be known as Merchants Pointe, on a 14 acre parcel at the southwest corner of East 116 Street and Keystone Avenue. There will be a blend of offices, retail, service uses, restaurants, and financial institutions with a maximum of 95,000 square feet dispersed among seven separate buildings. The real estate is zoned B -8 /business, pursuant to Ordinance Z -341, adopted 6/19/2000. Mr. Roesch presented the Declaratory Resolution, seeking to receive the Plan Commission's blessing that the project meets criteria of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan Commission approved the zoning, so the project met the criteria at the time of that approval. The only change since then is in infrastructure development, changes that are beneficial to the development and to the City of Carmel. Mr. Spranger made a motion to approve the Declaratory Resolution. Following a second by Norma Meighen, the Resolution was approved 15 -0. H. Public Hearings lh. Docket No. 14 -01 Z; USTA PUD s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc2001mar 1 Petitioner seeks favorable recommendation of a rezone from the R -1 /residence district to a PUD /planned unit development district on 1.920 acres. The site is located on the northwest corner of East 96 Street and the Carmel/Clay Monon Greenway. The site is zoned R -1 /residence. Filed by John K. Smeltzer of Bose McKinney Evans for the Midwest Youth Tennis Foundation. John Smeltzer, attorney, 600 East 96 Street, made the presentation for the Midwest Youth Tennis Foundation and the United States Tennis Association, Midwest Section. Mark Saunders, Executive Director of the USTA; Jay Hacker, Board member of both organizations; Steve Robinson, project architect from Browning Day Mullins Dierdorf; and Steve Granner from Bose McKinney and Evans, were also in attendance. The project site is located on a 1.9 acre tract at 1300 East 96 Street, east of the Five Seasons Sports Country Club and west of the Monon Trail, on the north side of 96 Street. Visuals depicted the area from various directions. A two -story 24,000 square foot building is proposed, with 83 parking spaces, both shown on a site plan that included proposed landscaping as well. Between the proposed site and the Monon Trail is dedicated right of way by Hamilton County. The building is on the northwest portion of the site and is set back as far as possible from 96 street, but does provide visibility from the interstate. The USTA feels this is good location to help promote tennis and recreation in the area. Approximately 4,100 square feet on the first floor will house the United States Tennis Association Hall of Fame. If access can be worked out with Hamilton County, they will provide a walkway from the Monon Trail to this site, for use by trail users desirous of visiting the Hall of Fame. Brick samples are available this evening. The building will be all brick, with metal accent bands and insulating glass. Visuals of the northwest and southeast elevations, and the first floor building layout were shown. The USTA plans to occupy 5,100 square feet of the first floor, and to lease 3,800 square feet to other not for -profit tennis associations. The remainder of the first floor will house the USTA Hall of Fame. The ultimate plan is to expand the USTA to the second floor, but for the short term, they will lease that space to tennis- related offices. That area is 9,300 square feet in size. The USTA is a not for -profit corporation, serving 600,000 members, and sponsors the Davis Cup, the US Open, and Olympic teams, among others. The Midwest section is one of 17 regional offices, and serves a five -state area. The Midwest Youth Tennis Foundations is a not for -profit 501C3 entity whose objective is to provide opportunities and support for youth tennis through educational and charitable activities. Both organizations would like to build their headquarters on this site. The USTA has a staff of 20 members, 14 based here, and the Midwest Youth Foundation has no employees. Current offices are located in the Castleton area, and the lease expires in April, 2002. These organizations would like to own their own buildings, to enjoy the I -465 exposure, to be a part of the City of Carmel, and to be a part of the growing reputation of the "amateur sports capital of the world." s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc2001mar 2 Conclusion of the traffic analysis is that the proposed development would not adversely affect the surrounding street system, including 96 Street, Real Road, or Westfield Blvd. The access point is a private drive owned by 5 Seasons and the access road will easily accommodate the added traffic volume. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the proposal. None appeared. Organized remonstrators were invited to speak. The following appeared. Gerald Wagner, 211 West 96 Street, President of Heartland Coalition, highlighted his concerns. The issues are similar to those directed toward other projects. Without question, the proposed development only contributes to an ever burgeoning problem of traffic impact in this general vicinity and will only worsen the issue. Another issue is the understanding at the time of the Five Seasons approval that this tract would not be developed commercially and would be used for aesthetic purposes. The Heartland Coalition does oppose this project. Mr. Wagner stated for the record that he and his organization do not appreciate derogatory comments made by some elected and appointed officials about some individuals. The Heartland's intent in coming before this board is to give information to help the commission make its decisions. Barbara Ring, President of Sherwood Forest Civic Association, 9162 Compton Street, stated her organization is opposed to this project for several reasons. When the Five Seasons was approved for a Special Use, it was agreed that this property would be maintained as a park -like setting to complement the neighborhood, and possibly for auxiliary parking. This proposal is a violation of the original agreement. If Five Seasons is pursuing the sale of this land for financial reasons, it would only prove the concerns of her organization prior to Five Seasons' approval have come true. Even so, the neighborhood should not bear the burden of that situation. Promises should be honored. Secondly, greater than 50% of the space in this proposed building would be leased to unknown organizations or businesses, and the high profile design and signage suggests it is a commercial building rather than one of a "fitness" nature. Therefore, it does not fit within the recreational nature of Five Seasons. Finally, 96 Street access to the site is from Real Street, through Westfield Boulevard, or through the Sherwood Forest neighborhood. Development would only increase that traffic. She hopes the integrity of this governmental body will encourage the right decision of not approving this commercial building on this site. George Haerle, 502 Braeside Drive North, Land Use Chairman of the Nora Northside Community Council, explained that in 1994 his council took a reluctant position of "no objection" toward the approval of Five Seasons Special Use. The reluctance arose from the anticipation of negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The buildings are of greater scale and less attractive than originally presented, the lighting is intense, and the increase in traffic through their neighborhood has been very noticeable. The "dealmaker" in Nora Council withdrawing opposition in 1994 was the agreement by the developer that s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc2001mar 3 the land in question tonight would be kept in a park -like setting for the benefit of the Monon Trail, and more importantly, in consideration of the neighbors to the south. At the most, they were assured this land might be used for overflow parking for special events. Under no circumstance can the Special Use request this evening be considered a "special use It has no relation to the Five Seasons, and violates the park -like setting promised to the community. It violates the Comprehensive Plan and the 96 Street Corridor Study. On March 1, 2001 the Nora Northside Community Council voted to oppose this petition. The Nora Northside Council requests that the Plan Commission sustain promises and representations made to the community by 5 Seasons and in the Commission's plan by denying this petition. Rebuttal: John Smeltzer said the minutes have been researched and reviewed for any commitments on this property. Staff also reviewed available data. A title search was also done and no commitments were identified, and no promises were made. Department Report, Laurence Lillig. The Department recommends this project be sent to committee on April 10, 2001. Comments and Questions from Commission Members: Nick Kestner asked why the Hamilton County Commissioners have the property to the east of this site. Mr. Smeltzer responded that it is dedicated right of way for an underpass that the County obtained in 1994. The underpass will not be built because of the development of the Monon Trail. Ron Houck asked if this property was a subdivision of the original parcel. Laurence Lillig indicated that this piece was part of the original parcel considered for the Special Use in 1994, and that future use of the parcel was not specified. Pat Rice stated that there was one commitment that had to do with Hamilton County for the right -of -way. The minutes from the Board of Zoning Appeals reflect a lot of comments. Ms. Rice referred to the affidavit in the informational packets that state the USTA is owner of 50% or more of the property— clarification is needed. Mr. Smeltzer said the petitioner has entered into a purchase agreement with 5 Seasons, contingent upon any number of conditions. Special Use requirements state an expansion of an approved Special Use not exceeding 10% is allowable without returning for review. Ms. Rice said the expansion does not seem to fit that requirement and this would seem to be a BZA issue before the Commission begins considering a PUD. Mr. Molitor said adoption of the PUD Ordinance would override or supplant the previous BZA action with respect to this property. The difficulty here is the BZA did not exact any commitments that can be determined with respect to further development of that particular s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc2001mar 4 part of the property. Even if they had, a rezone of the property would still have the effect of overriding any prior commitments. Ms. Rice read from the minutes of a previous meeting, regarding the 5 Seasons, at the time the Special Use was considered, including Mr. Haerle's comments. Ms. Rice referred to the Comprehensive Plan and the 96 Street Corridor study adopted by this Board. The language recommends preserving existing neighborhoods by allowing and providing for non residential development only within designated areas as existing commercial nodes, and further recommends that commercial development should be limited to areas already planned and currently zoned for this use. Decisions regarding development proposals for vacant parcels in residential areas should be based on the character of surrounding property and other community -based issues, including site specific traffic impacts. Ms. Rice reiterated the need for cooperation in land use and zoning approvals on both sides of 96 Street as important for both counties and planning processes. She feels rezoning and /or selling off part of this property for any reason in very inappropriate. Leo Dierckman also asked for clarification of ownership. Mr. Dierckman also seemed to recall at least a verbal commitment to not develop this property. Mr. Smeltzer said Five Seasons Sports Country Club, Inc. is the present owner, and there is no duplication of Board membership with the USTA. Ron Houck asked the reasoning for a PUD as opposed to some other form. Mr. Smeltzer said a PUD project would allow more flexibility than a rezone, by setting standards within the PUD; a PUD would benefit the petitioner and the city. Mr. Spranger asked for a characterization of the Hall of Fame. John Smeltzer said it would be open to the public, although they don't anticipate that it will generate a lot of traffic. The memorabilia of the association will be displayed. It is anticipated that anyone will be able to use the parking area, including users of the Monon Trail, particularly on weekends. The restroom facilities will be available; however, we understand that a trailhead will be on the other side of the Monon Trail with restroom facilities; they might also want to see the Hall of Fame. Users of the Monon would be encouraged to use the facility, particularly to see the Hall of Fame. Mr. Smeltzer said the petitioner will file an ADLS application at a later date. Mr. Dierckman stated that in his opinion, this project is an office building, and the common area will be leased space. Ms. Rice referred to the petitioner's statement of compliance in materials provided on this project as fitting in with the Comprehensive Plan. She disagrees. Further comments reflect their intent to fit in with the current businesses /corporations along the 96 Street/ Meridian Corridor. The way it is coming through is inappropriate, and it does not fill well with the residential area. s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc2001mar 5 Ron Houck suggested that the petitioner and Department address the following issues before this docket is reviewed by the Subdivision Committee: Clarification of ownership; minutes from the BZA and Plan Commission regarding Five Seasons' original petition; a review of the audio tapes, if possible, and the relevant section and map from the 96 Street Corridor Study as to how it relates to this area. Madeline Fitzgerald asked that the minutes from the previous proposal on this site, Jasneek Health Care, also be included. Docket No. 14 -01 Z, USTA PUD, will be reviewed by the Subdivision Committee on April 10, 2001 at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. 2h. Docket No. 25 -01 Z; College Hills PUD Petitioner seeks favorable recommendation of a rezone from the R -1 /residence district to a PUD /planned unit development district on 20.5 acres. The site is located northwest of East 96 Street and North College Avenue. The site is zoned R-1/residence. Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for Gershman Brown Associates. Charlie Frankenberger, 4983 St. Charles Place, Carmel, spoke on behalf of the petitioner and 38 College Hills homeowners. The area is just south of the I -465 expressway in the vicinity of 96 Street and College Avenue. Tom Crawley, an owner of Gershman Brown is also present, along with representatives of American Consulting Engineers; Ernie Reno, Community Relations consultant, and a representative of Duke -Weeks Realty Corporation which is a partner in this venture. The reason for this petition is to redevelop this property for office use. Fundamental changes have occurred over the last 40 years that show the need for redevelopment of this pocket of homes, currently in an area not suited for residential use. The real estate is a 20 acre parcel, essentially an island of older homes now surrounded by many uses, including the I -465 expressway to the north, Five Seasons to the east, a mix of commercial development of varying character and quality to the east and west, large apartment complexes to the south and southwest in Marion County, and residential and commercial uses on the south side of 96 Street between College and Meridian. The Lauth headquarters on College Avenue north of 96 Street and Shorty's Golf facility on the south side of 96 Street are the most recent additions to the uses referred to above. We are requesting a change in zoning to permit office use within many pre- established design parameters specified in the PUD ordinance. These include a building height not to exceed 100 feet, and gross floor area not to exceed 420,000 square feet. Exhibits showed three buildings and are only an example of how the property might be developed. The petitioner would return to the Plan Commission for Development Plan approval of the site plan and ADLS approval of the buildings. s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc2001mar 6 Mr. Frankenberger illustrated why the proposed use would fit in with the Comprehensive Plan as transitional use. Traffic was addressed as it relates to Sherwood Forest and College Commons on a typical day. Trips and timing of routes were videotaped in both morning and afternoon hours. This is offered as one way to help consider this petition. The traffic impact study by A F indicates that with full build -out and occupancy of this project within 10 years, development of all other vacant land, and infrastructure improvements in place, the average traffic delay would be 34.1 seconds per vehicle in the AM peak hour, and 44.7 seconds average delay at the PM peak hour. At 96 and Real Street, the average peak hour delay is 19.3 seconds per vehicle in the AM peak hour, and 27.3 seconds per vehicle in the PM peak hour. The petitioner has proposed some infrastructure improvements to help alleviate the marginal impact this project would have on traffic. All development affects traffic, not just one project. 96 Street would be widened by two lanes from College Avenue to the Five Seasons; Real Street, at the intersection with Westfield Boulevard would be widened to include a right -turn and a left -turn lane. If warranted, a traffic light would be placed at the main entrance to the office park on 96 Street; the intersection of 96 Street and College would be improved. It is anticipated that a portion of these off -site road and utility improvements may be included in a request for Tax Increment Financing. It is important to recognize that traffic delays will occur without their development, but they are offering improvement, and the delays are at morning and evening peak hours during the week, rather than on a continuous basis. Aside from traffic considerations, this project aims to redevelop the area by increasing the tax base and offering jobs. Doing nothing will likely result in a continuing decline of this area. The significant land use changes since 1960 have isolated this neighborhood from other residential areas. The development fits, and is aesthetically pleasing. The petitioner made efforts to work with affected parties prior to this hearing. They have met with the Nora Northside Community Council, and an open house was held in which 2800 people were invited -50 persons attended. Members of the public were invited to speak in support of the petition.. Rosemary Morgan, 9620 North Guilford, is one of the 38 families supporting efforts to redevelop this property into College Hills Office Park. The neighborhood has changed greatly since her family moved to the area 40 years ago. The construction of the interstate severed connection with the neighbors to the north. There is noise from the interstate and conversation is impossible with a neighbor unless you are within two feet of them. The south side of 96 Street, Marion County, contains more than 1500 apartments and more are being built at this time. The residents were not informed of these plans and had no input in the decision making process, and yet, the apartments have impacted the value of homes and quality of life. Five Seasons Country Club was built to the east of our neighborhood, and this has all worked to make our neighborhood an island. As is seen s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc2001mar 7 now, the neighborhood has shifted from owner occupied residence to rentals. Ms. Morgan doubts anyone here tonight would want to purchase one of these homes for their family with the current situation. Paul Viverito, 9607 Guilford spoke as a resident who moved in after construction of I- 465. Their isolated location and the possibility of 96 Street being widened will continue to affect their property values. This is their best opportunity to start anew. Traffic problems will be easier addressed with the possibility of TIF financing. Dr. Jane Crogan has lived at 9601 Carrolton for 6 years, and commutes to West Lafayette for her work. The proposal for residents with this project is favorable to residents, and the proposed project is one she favors. Organized remonstrance was invited at this time. Gerald Wagner of 211 West 96 Street, President of the Heartland Coalition, said his organization does not oppose people getting the best value. His organization opposes all commercial development along 96 Street and believes it will diminish the quality of living for residents in the southern part of the community. Brad Yarger, an engineer with offices at 1401 Alamingo Drive, Indianapolis, spoke on behalf of Heartland. His findings show a morning system -wide delay (with the addition of this project) would double. He noted deficiencies in the traffic study that has been presented. Patty Horrigan, 9126 North Delaware Street, spoke as a member of the Nora Northside Community Council Advisory Board, Vice President of the College Commons Neighborhood Association, and as a member of the Board of Directors of the Heartland Coalition. She has also been a residential real estate broker for 21 years. She asks that the commission revisit the 96 Street Corridor Study that was accepted by Carmel, Hamilton County, and Marion County after an extensive two -year period of discussions. The Study document was accepted by the Plan Commission on 3/21/2000 and approved by resolution by the Carmel City Council on 4/10/2000, less than a year ago. The current petition does not comply with this study's recommendation for commercial development along 96 Street. Approving this petition would be the beginning of the end for the entire 96 Street Corridor plan. This corridor would ultimately become another 86 Street, but worse. She requests denial of this ill- advised proposal. Susan Zelby, 1503 Pitwood Drive, Sherwood Forest, Indianapolis, spoke as a member of the Sherwood Forest Neighborhood Association Board of Directors. Ms. Zelby referred to the 2020 Vision Plan and stated that there are very definite edge marks separating this parcel from any commercial use. Approval of this petition would literally extend the US 31 Corridor east to Westfield Boulevard. The use plan designates the area in question to be low density, residential use. To set a precedent of demolishing a viable neighborhood of homes for commercial use would result in negative development patterns along major s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc2001mar 8 corridors. Starting with 96 Street —it would become a sea of office buildings, shopping centers, multi family, and a few isolated outposts of individual homes trying to maintain some sort of residential vitality. The interests of the community at large must over -ride the special interests of a developer, especially when the special interest is in clear violation of the Comprehensive Plan. This petition must be denied. George Harley, 502 Braeside Drive North, Land Use Chairman of the Nora Northside Community Council, said this is an alarming first, with consideration to destroy a residential neighborhood to create a commercial development. If approved, anyone purchasing a home nearby could anticipate losing value in the future. Resale of homes near transportation corridors could not be protected. Long term implications are staggering and unprecedented. The Nora Community Council respectfully requests denial of this petition. Individuals wishing to speak against the proposal were invited to speak. Debbie Alexander, 1427 Pitwood Drive in Sherwood Forest. There seems to be two separate interests here. One is the 38 residents having the right to sell their homes, and the other is the right of College Hills to commercially develop. She does not begrudge the right of the 38 residents in College Hills to sell their homes, but is concerned there would be further squeezing out of neighborhoods. Squeezing out the residential area would require widening 96 Street. Regarding traffic, Sherwood Forest is often used as a shortcut at high speeds. The proposal is in violation of the 96 Street Corridor Study, and since traffic studies seem to conflict, she would suggest using page 49 of the 96 Street Corridor Study as the most reliable. Rebecca Ellis, 1821 Marion Drive, Sherwood Forest, wonders, in addition to other concerns expressed this evening, if a study has been done to determine a need for additional office buildings. Rebuttal by petitioner: Mr. Frankenberger will reserve these comments for committee. The Department recommends this item proceed to committee for review on April 10. After discussion, it was determined that the petition will be on the Subdivision Committee agenda, in part due to the commonality of this item with the preceding agenda item. Mr. Houck would like the petitioner to address the level of service to reach our standard (level C) for Real Street, College Avenue, and 96 Street. Mr. Cremeans expressed concern about our being asked to stop development on the north side of 96 yet development continues on the south side of 96 Street. He wonders if the same emphasis is being placed on the planning bodies in Marion County. The Chairman noted that the Shell Station at 96 has its own traffic cop to accommodate traffic at that location. In addition, traffic studies have not taken into s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc2001mar 9 consideration motorists between Delaware Street and Meridian trying to turn across traffic. Ms. Rice feels we need to come together with Marion County and Hamilton County (Carolyn Coleman is Director of DMV there), perhaps send an official letter out, and begin to look at this whole area with a Corridor Design Study. Mr. Kestner questioned sound on I -465 from distances even a mile away. Ms. Fitzgerald requests an adjunct membership on Subdivision Committee when the 96 Street issues are discussed. Mr. Wilson has observed that traffic situation comes up consistently. It might be helpful if remonstrators indicate an "acceptable" level of traffic. In addition, he will obtain copies for each commission member of City Council Councilor John Koven's study of traffic. Mr. Wilson also commented there has been absolutely no help from persons south of 96 Street in the 29 years he has lived in Carmel. After a five minutes recess, the Commission continued with Old Business. I. Old Business: li. Docket No. 109 -99 DP /ADLS; Wingate Inn This item currently tabled due to pending litigation. 2i. Docket No. 132 -00 Z; Dodd Rezone This item tabled to the April 17, 2001 meeting at Petitioner's Request 3i. Docket No. 181 -00 ADLS; Hazel Dell Corner, Lot 1 (Osco Drug) Petitioner seeks Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping Signage approval for a pharmacy. The site is located at 5790 East 131s Street. The site is zoned B- 3 /business. Filed by J. Murray Clark of Clark Quinn Moses Clark for Osco Drug. Murray Clark appeared before the Commission representing Osco Drug. Mr. Clark reviewed the commitments previously made regarding the building. The building will be very specialized, residential in design to fit in with and serve the adjacent, residential area. The building will be a traditional, all-brick exterior. The elevations will include dormers, full window treatment, full landscaping, etc. The petitioner has also committed to the deletion of any ground sign, and a draft of the commitments has been distributed to each Commission member. This is probably not the final set of commitments, but will be used as a reference this evening. The Special Study Committee reviewed this development and requests conventional brick to replace brick inlay. The rooftop HVAC and any rooftop units will not be visible by any s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc2001mar 10 customary line of sight from any residential structures. The petitioner has committed the store hours of operation no earlier than 7 AM and no later than 11 PM. Exterior lights and sign illumination will be dimmed when the store is closed, and only lighting necessary for security will be used at those times. There will be no illumination of the cupola, and no outdoor storage. Only two issues remain. Off -site landscaping to screen loading areas from the west is not possible because placement would have to be on property that is under someone else's ownership. Conversations with the property owner to the north for help in this area have not been received warmly. However, the petitioner has bolstered landscaping with Douglas firs, and there is some natural protection with existing treelines. They have tried to buffer the loading area as much as possible. The other issue discussed at committee was sign illumination. Commitment #7 provides a sign illumination on -site which is 1/3 less than their usual standard, and can be seen at the Osco store at 116 Line Road. Further, the planning staff has been granted discretion to enforce this commitment. Lastly, there is an issue of the dedication of five (5) additional feet along 131s Street. The petitioner was using a 45 foot one -half right -of- way measurement pursuant to the preliminary plat that was approved last year. The Thoroughfare Plan calls for 50 feet, and the petitioner shows that on their site plan. The petitioner is willing to commit to the additional five feet; the only concern is that there is a development standards variance pending regarding a setback along 131 Street that could affect dedication. (Mr. Molitor suggested that this could be discussed at the BZA hearing scheduled next week.) Landscaping has been adjusted to accommodate the request for additional right of way. Leo Dierckman asked about the exit onto 131s Street, if it would be left and right turns or left only. Also, there was a question regarding the dumpster location and gate opening. Mr. Clark responded that the dumpster has been pivoted 90 degrees to screen the opening and the commitments will be amended accordingly. Regarding the proposals for left or right turns, there is a passing lane on 131 Street to accommodate left turns into the site, and perhaps out of the site. The petitioner would like to keep that in the proposal. Leo Dierckman then reported that the Special Study Committee approved this development by a vote of 6 0. The petitioner made an effort to enhance the access drive with landscaping, unfortunately with no accommodation from the current landowner. The language pertaining to the Sign is well written and gives flexibility. Mr. Spranger was complimentary of Mr. Clark and his efforts in working with the petitioner and the Committee. Mr. Spranger commented that when this project goes in and there is signage on the round -about at 131s Street and Hazeldell, there will be a lot of surprised citizens if there is strip mall type signage at night in a residential area. Mr. Spranger prefers a softening look for the backlighting of the wall sign, often done in upscale areas by taking 10% of standard illumination through the translucent plastic lens back to the dryvit, thus giving it a "halo" effect behind the logo. Actually, signage for this s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc2001mar 11 Osco would give much the same effect as for signage at other Osco locations farther from the road than this site. It would be an outlining effect. Mr. Clark felt this might be difficult for Osco to do, since it would create a "hybrid" sign approach —red on red —that would be difficult. Mr. Spranger responded that what he is proposing would be a backlit of the individual letter can and an outline effect along with the reduced lighting through the lens. It would definitely be a slightly different look than Osco currently has, but the issue is raised for the benefit of the citizens so they will know what is coming. In terms of its location, it is a perfect situation for backlighting. Everyone will still find Osco —it will be incredibly convenient for persons in the area. Ms. Rice concurred with Mr. Spranger's comments and opinion. The look will be different for Osco, but they are also in a different location. Leo Dierckman said he is comfortable with all the concessions the petitioner has made and feels the "dimmer switch" commitment is sufficient. Dave Cremeans and Nick Kestner concurred. Mr. Spranger agrees, but wants everyone in the community to be aware of the coming signage and the effect the lighting may have on the area. Mr. Clark said he would amend the commitments and will commit to 1/3 less lighting than presented in the ADLS. There must be some arbitrariness, some discretion, by the planning staff. Ms. Fitzgerald pointed out the distance from the street. A 1/3 less criteria would be hard to measure, but the effect of illumination at the street as opposed to illumination at 10 feet from the sign is much different. Mr. Clark said his intent was illumination at or near the sign itself and not from the street. Mr. Lillig pointed out that the current location and the location at 116 and Rangeline are very different. There are other considerations such as streetlights and other Centre signs, all of which contribute to the overall intensity. The Department always makes it readings from the property line or right -of -way lines, pursuant to ordinance guidelines. The Osco in a residential location at 131 will be a very different situation. There will not be the same level of street lighting, the distances will be different, and the size of the signs will be different. The language proposed will be very difficult for the Department to control or work with. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Clark said the petitioner is in a position to agree to a backlit sign producing the halo effect that Mr. Spranger suggested. The petitioner would want that to conclude the issue and dismiss the "dimmer switch" issue. Mr. Lillig asked for clarification that this will be solely a reverse channel sign, and will not have internal illumination. Mr. Clark concurred. s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc2001mar 12 Mr. Spranger made a motion to approve Docket 181 -00 ADLS, seconded by Ron Houck, and APPROVED with a vote of 14 in favor, 1 opposed (Wilson). 4i. Docket No. 184 -00 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 US 421/Michigan Road Overlay Zone. Filed by Michael Speedy of American Village Properties. Bill Bock, attorney with Kroger Gardis and Regas, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Bock introduced the development team: Michael Speedy, managing member of American Village Properties; Greg Snelling of CSO Architects; and Jennifer Pearz of PKG Traffic Consultants; and Paige Close of Looney, Ricks, Kiss, Architects (unable to attend.) Randall Arendt has done land planning for the petitioner. The proposal to rezone was first presented to the Commission on January 16 following which were several meetings with the Subdivision Committee. Members have received the updated commitments, reducing the square footage of commercial space from 170,000 square feet to 125,000 square feet. Members should also be in possession of a letter from the Urban Forester, Scott Brewer, acknowledging the buffer yard requirements have been exceeded. Recently, at the request of a commission member, the petitioner agreed to extend the buffer yard to the southeast corner of the property, and this will be incorporated into the commitments. The petitioner has also committed to all brick on the elevations facing the Weston subdivision for a portion of the southern border, and additional aeration of the water feature, the ponding. The trash compactor will be covered, surrounded by brick. Concerns from the public were addressed at committee. The Chairman and others requested more detail on these issues. Legal commitments would ensure approved plans are adhered to. The site is appropriate for this development because it is unique in its depth from Michigan Road. The property is zoned S -1, but the Michigan Overlay Zone pre -empts this and renders it inappropriate for residential use. The petitioner showed a high quality of architecture, meeting all ordinance requirements. Any other use of the property would likely introduce an entrance to Monitor Lane. The site is fully integrated, with mixed -use, and it has access to State Highway. The plan includes preservation of 6 1 /2 acres of greenspace, an unlikely situation in other land use plans for this site. Density was an issue. Infrastructure is present to support the development. The proposed use fits in with the Comprehensive Plan as a transition from commercial to residential. The buffer yard has been enhanced to include several hundred trees, 110 evergreens, with a berm 8 feet in height and the building height determines the depth of the setback requirement. Mr. Speedy said there are two ordinances involved: Michigan Road Overlay s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc2001mar 13 Zone, and the R- 5/Residential zone. The setbacks start at 75 feet and range between 110 feet to 140 feet. Laurence Lillig said each building setback is gauged by its height, not the entire project being dictated by any given building within the project. Ms. Fitzgerald mentioned a dispute at committee over the basis for a 2 versus 3 -story building being used as a base, and felt the commission should be aware of this. Mr. Bock said the interpretation of the ordinance is that there not be a structure overshadowing the adjacent property. Because of the substantial setback before you get to the 3 -story part of the building, the 75 foot setback would be OK. Cremeans assured members that the intent of the Committee was not to use the shortest part of the building for the setback but the highest point. Mr. Bock showed a computer generated picture of what the view from the existing homes might be in a few years, both winter and summer scenarios. Schools and taxes were other issues. Ron Farrand of Carmel Clay Schools reviewed the plans for Town Centre West and the only issues raised were sidewalks and turning radii were mentioned. An increase in tax revenue should be a positive benefit, thus helping the schools. A resident profile suggests an age range from 25 to 65 years of age. The project will be marketed toward a highly educated individual, with a median household income of $75,000 to $100,000, based on information from an upscale development near Township Line Road and 96 Street. There is a market for this type of development. Based on Riley Burrell's findings, an appraiser sometimes hired by the City of Carmel, property values should not be impacted adversely. Town Centre West fits the property, and is a landmark development. Mr. Houck gave the Committee Report, and indicated they tried to balance the concerns of residents and petitioners. After extensive review, the committee voted unanimously in favor of the project. This parcel is unusual due to its depth, and it must go through as one development plan since it existed as a single parcel at the time the Overlay ordinance was set up. The petitioner has been very willing to work with the committee, and after looking at the architecture and uses involved, it seems a good mixed -use for the parcel and is compatible with the surrounding area. Mr. Cremeans complimented the subdivision committee on its efforts. He does question whether we need an R -5 classification on this property. The only egress is from Michigan Road. Why move from the least dense to the most dense classification? Dave Cremeans believes Carmel will be overbuilt with apartments in Clay Township, having recently approved five other complexes. The proposed development does not meet the requirements on setback and density. Mr. Cremeans has found no one to support this project in West Clay, and approval would send a message that we want to rezone Michigan Road to encourage dense, multi family commercial development. As to what s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc2001mar 14 other use may be desirable for the property, that is up to the developers and landowners. His experience has shown that following defeat of a proposal on a parcel, the next proposal typically has been a better one. Any rezone request must be taken very seriously. The Michigan Road Corridor is one of the hottest areas today. Wayne Wilson thanked the petitioner and the commission members for their hard work on this project, and commented that the strength of Carmel is based on owner occupied properties. Madeline Fitzgerald served on the subcommittee considering this project. The project does have some good qualities in it, including land preservation. However, the single entrance and closing of the stubstreet is unsafe. The unresolved issues will lead her to vote negatively on this project. Marilyn Anderson reminded members that the comprehensive plan suggests medium density from low density, rather than to the most dense. Mr. Bock asked if the project might be sent back to Subdivision Committee, so they might look at "unoccupied housing." Mr. Houck asked for legal counsel opinion. Mr. Molitor said the commission has the discretion. A substantial change would require a new petition be presented. The petitioner could withdraw this petition and come back with a new one. If a plan is defeated, the same project cannot come back for 12 months. The Director typically would decide if another petition is a new one or not. There was no consensus to table the petition. Mr. Bock understands the message of a desirability of owner occupied dwellings. They want to make a good development for Carmel, and would prefer to be sent back to committee. If that is not possible, they would like to withdraw the petition. The petitioner therefore requests permission to officially withdraw, and hopes to come back with a new proposal. Mr. Cremeans suggested getting a proposal the neighbors would support. Ms. Rice suggested that the homeowners work with the petitioner and vice versa. Town Centre West officially Withdrew its petition. Due to the lateness of the hour and length of the Agenda, Marilyn Anderson suggested continuing the New Business items to Thursday. Kent Broach commented that since none of the New Business was a public hearing item, perhaps all of these items could be sent directly to Committee rather than setting aside another meeting night on Thursday. The Commission members as well as the petitioners were in favor of sending items 2j through 8j to the Special Study Committee on April 10 at 7:00 PM for review. s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc2001mar 15 After a five- minute recess, the Commission continued with the business at hand. 5i. Docket No. 7 -01 ADLS; Hazel Dell Corner, Lot 5 Petitioner seeks Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping Signage approval for an office building on 1.832 acres. The site is located at 13250 Hazel Dell Parkway. The site is zoned B -3 /business. Filed by Michael B. Jett of American Consulting Engineers for Hazel Dell Office Development, LLC. Jim Nelson appeared before the Commission representing Cornerstone Companies. The Special Study Committee reviewed the ADLS application at its meeting on March 5, 2001. The site is located approximately two lots north of the Osco store. The review process by the Committee resulted in a much improved development. All of the changes and suggestions from the Committee have been incorporated into the plans. Two changes were made to the site plan. Pursuant to Nick Kestner's request, a walkway has been provided from Hazel Dell Parkway to the parking area. The single light pole nearest Hazel Dell Parkway has been eliminated and replaced with a double lamp fixture. Other changes pertain to the office building to make it more architecturally appealing and interesting, as depicted on the drawings. The east elevation is the front of the building and faces Hazel Dell Parkway. The entry area is recessed three feet; where there previously were two dormers on the front, there now are four (each 5 ft. by 8 ft.); on the west elevation there are three dormers, where previously there was none. Mutton bars will be in all windows, and on the end gables; rather than brick, there is now vinyl siding. In front of the entire building, except for the entry, there is now a planting area five feet in width that will be heavily landscaped. At the request of the Committee, there will be up- lighting to accent the plant material and parts of the building. The shadow -box privacy fence adjacent to the south property line, sitting above the retaining wall, will have six brick pillars evenly spaced throughout its sixty feet length. Leo Dierckman reported that the Committee approved the project with a vote of 6 to 0. Department Comments, Laurence Lillig. The Department is recommending favorable consideration. Ms. Fitzgerald wondered if the dumpster could be rotated so that someone approaching would see a brick side instead of dumpster. Mr. Nelson said having the gate face outward seems best. He agreed to ask Gary Duncan of American Consulting Engineers if it is possible, and if it would work, they will change it. Mr. Spranger noted some simulated limestone keys have also been added to the facade. s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc2001mar 16 Ms. Rice made a motion to approve Docket #7 -01 ADLS, Hazel Dell Corner, Lot 5. Following a second by Mr. Spranger, the vote was unanimous for APPROVAL with a vote of 15 in favor, 0 opposed. Note: Items 6i. and 7i. were heard together. 6i. 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: 8 -Ola SW SCO 6.3.6 25' private right -of -way width 8 -01b SW SCO 6.3.6 26' pavement width 8 -Olc SW SCO 6.3.7 >600' cul -de -sac S -Old SW SCO 6.3.20 private street S -Ole SW SCO 6.5.1 50' minimum frontage S -Olf SW SCO 7.7(c)(3) 15' S bufferyard S -Olg SW SCO 7.7 (D)(6) deforestation Note: This item is paired with Item 7i under Public Hearings 7i. 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. Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for C J Company and CPM Family Trust. Kent Broach recused himself from all discussion and vote. Mr. Charlie Frankenberger explained that these requests had been previously presented during the rezone phase and again, at the primary plat /development plan approval phase. These items were reviewed by the Subdivision Committee earlier this month. The petitioner is now returning to the full Commission with a unanimous, favorable recommendation. Ron Houck confirmed the unanimous vote for recommending approval from the Committee. Laurence Lillig stated that the Department is also recommending approval. Mr. Houck made a motion to approve 8- 01aSW. Following a second by Norma Meighen, the motion was APPROVED 14 in favor, none opposed, Kent Broach recused. Ron Houck moved for the approval of 8- 01bSW. Following a second by Pat Rice, the motion was APPROVED 14 in favor, none opposed, Kent Broach recused. s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc2001mar 17 Ron Houck moved for the approval of 8- 01cSW. Following a second by Norma Meighen, the motion was APPROVED 14 in favor, none opposed, Kent Broach recused. Ron Houck moved for the approval of 8- 01dSW. Following a second by Norma Meighen, the motion was APPROVED 14 in favor, none opposed, Kent Broach recused. Ron Houck moved for the approval of 8- 01eSW. Following a second by Pat Rice, the motion was APPROVED 14 in favor, none opposed, Kent Broach recused. Ron Houck moved for the approval of 8- 01fSW. Following a second by Pat Rice, the motion was APPROVED 14 in favor, none opposed, Kent Broach recused. Ron Houck moved for the approval of 8- 01gSW. Following a second by Pat Rice, the motion was APPROVED 14 in favor, none opposed, Kent Broach recused. Mr. Houck made a motion to approve 8 -01 PP, North Haven Subdivision. Ms. Rice seconded, and APPROVAL was by a vote of 14 in favor, none opposed, Kent Broach recused. Mr. Houck made a motion to approve 9 -01 DP, North Haven Subdivision. Following a second by Norma Meighen, APPROVAL was by a vote of 14 in favor, 0 opposed, Kent Broach recused. Note: Mr. Dierckman exited the meeting at this time and did not return. 8i. 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 -Ola SW SCO 6.3.7 >600' cul -de -sac Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for Windsor Grove, LLC. Charlie Frankenberger explained this request was referred to committee following the original hearing. Mr. Houck reported one outstanding issue in committee; that of right -of —way acquisition for a passing blister. Mr. Frankenberger said the Subdivision Control Ordinance requires a passing blister opposite the subdivision entrance, if right -of -way can be obtained. This request is in process. The llama farm is the owner, and as yet the petitioner has not received a response. Mr. Houck made a motion to approve Docket No. 10 -01 PP, Windsor Grove Subdivision. This motion died for a lack of a second. s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc2001mar 18 Marilyn Anderson asked about the entrance through a wooded section that was requested to be re- located. Charlie Frankenberger said the entrance, as now designed, is not in an area that is totally wooded; it is in an area that previously occupied by a demolished residence. Laurence Lillig referred to a memo issued today from the Urban Forester. In that memo, Scott Brewer states the wetlands on this site are a valuable preservation area for Carmel and Clay Township, and that from his site visits and the evidence of the wetlands report, he believes the area is not well suited for building and should be preserved as an area large enough to ensure the survival of large, historically significant trees. Even though the subdivision does not come under ROSO, due to its low density development, the Urban Forester thinks it is important that the natural areas should be protected from construction. Ron Houck stated that the Committee did not have benefit of the wetlands report when they met. Madeline Fitzgerald reminded the Commission that she had asked for a tree survey, and the developer had said it was not required, and they chose not to do the survey. Now, especially in light of the report from the Urban Forester, it is important to look at some of the specific trees that have been pointed out. Again, it is not required, but because of the nature of the wetlands, the tree survey should be done. Ron Houck moved to send Docket No. 10 -01 PP, Windsor Grove Subdivision, back to the Subdivision Committee for further discussion and possible re- design, taking into account the wetlands on the property. This motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Frankenberger stated that Ron Dixon, certified wetlands delineater, determined a wetland area of .354 acres on this site. Mr. Dixon is going to communicate with the Army Corps of Engineers to have this declared as an isolated wetland area, therefore not subject to their (Corps of Engineers) jurisdiction. The proposal before us involves less than 1 /10 of an acre. He also feels the Urban Forester only intended to state his preference that trees be preserved. This development does not impact sufficiently to require regulation at the state or federal level, a fact confirmed by Mr. Lillig. Mr. Lillig feels Mr. Brewer's concern is for lots 2 and 3, which contain much of this wetland area, but that clearing for a home should not impact this area substantially. Steve Wilson, one of the partners in this enterprise, stressed that this subdivision will be top- notch, and that as many trees as possible will be preserved in placing new homes. Richard Carriger explained the south boundary is a fence -line row, and their intention there is to groom it, remove the underbrush, and preserve as many trees as possible to everyone's advantage. The drainage easement is very shallow. s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc2001mar 19 Mr. Cremeans noted these developers are experienced with a good track record, and he feels comfortable they will preserve as many trees as possible. Mr. Houck made a motion to approve 10 -Ola SW, Windsor Grove Subdivision, for the cul -de -sac waiver. Following a second by Norma Meighen, the waiver was APPROVED unanimously with a vote of 14 in favor, 0 opposed. Mr. Houck made a motion to approve 10 -01 PP, Windsor Grove Subdivision, with a commitment to preserve the trees, seconded by Norma Meighen. APPROVAL ensued with a vote of 14 in favor, none opposed. 9i. 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 reported that the Subdivision Committee approved the proposed amendment of the primary plat of Woodhaven Subdivision. The Department recommends favorable consideration. Ron Houck made a motion to approve Docket No. 11 -01 PP Amend, Woodhaven, Section 1, Lot 28, seconded by Norma Meighen. APPROVED by a vote of 14 -0. 10i. Docket No. 16 -01 ADLS Amend; The Retreat Tabled. l li. Docket No. 21 -01 ADLS Amend; Fidelity Keystone Office Park Petitioner seeks Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping Signage Amendment approval to establish a Sign Plan for the project approved as Docket No. 36 -00 ADLS. The site is located at 580, 600, and 650 East Carmel Drive. The site is zoned B -8 /business. Filed by Gordon D. Byers for FKOP LLC. Gordon Byers reported that this item was reviewed by the Committee, and all the sign issues have been resolved at committee. There are some outstanding, construction sign issues. The current proposal is for a sign package only; the buildings were approved for ADLS approximately one year ago. Mr. Spranger said the Special Study Committee voted for approval with a vote of 6 0, with the following conditions. A "For Lease" sign on Carmel Drive that extends into the right -of -way is to be removed within 7 days of the Committee meeting. Laurence Lillig s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc2001mar 20 commented that a site inspection revealed two signs improperly placed, and these have been removed. The Department now recommends favorable consideration of the petition. Mr. Spranger made a motion to approve Docket No. 21 -01 ADLS Amend, Fidelity Keystone Office Park, subject to Department approval of non compliance issues to the department's satisfaction. Following a second by Ron Houck, this Docket was APPROVED unanimously with a vote of 14 in favor, 0 opposed. There being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 11:53 PM. Ramona Hancock, Secretary Marilyn Anderson, President s:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc2001mar 21