Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 10-16-01City of Carmel CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2001 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 October 16, 2001. Members present were: Marilyn Anderson; Kent Broach; Leo Dierckman; Madeline Fitzgerald; Linda Flanders; Wayne Haney; Ron Houck; Nick Kestner; Dianna Knoll; Norma Meighen; Pat Rice; Paul Spranger; Wayne Wilson (late arrival), thereby constituting a quorum. Department Staff in attendance: Director Michael Hollibaugh; Jon C. Dobosiewicz; Laurence Lillig; and Kelli Hahn. Jeff Kendall, Building Commissioner, was also present. The Minutes from the September meeting were approved as submitted. Legal Counsel Report, John Molitor reported on pending litigation discussed in Executive Committee this evening at 6:30 PM. Bonbar Subdivision, set for final hearing next Spring; Leeper Electric —the Court has ordered mediation seeking approval from Commission to designate Doug Haney, City Attorney, as Mediator. Doug Haney approved as mediator for the Commission by motion made by Paul Spranger, unanimous approval by Commission. Department Report, Jon Dobosiewicz. College Hills PUD, 106 -01 OA has been Withdrawn; Item 6i. Village of WestClay, has requested a re- ordering of the Agenda to follow item 2i. John Myers is in attendance this evening to offer clarification on Adoption of Illinois Street amendments. Information Packets have been distributed to Commission members this evening regarding the work of the Old Towne Task Force —this item will be appearing on the Agenda as a public hearing item in November. ALSO, as it stands now, there are over 11 public hearing items scheduled for November, and the Department is requesting an additional meeting date the following Tuesday, November 27. Therefore, items heard at the regular meeting on November 20, as well as those heard at the additional meeting on November 27, could be sent to Committee for review on December 4 This would also allow equal distribution of public hearing items between the two meetings. John Molitor referenced the additional meeting as a Special Meeting, scheduled for November 27 H. Public Hearings: S:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc200loct 1 lh. Docket No. 107 -01 CA (Commitment Amendment) Indiana Developmental Training Center Maintenance Building Petitioner seeks Commitment Amendment approval to modify a previously approved Development Plan and construct a Maintenance Building. The site is located at the southeast corner of East 111 Street and Pennsylvania Street. The site is zoned B- 5/Business. Filed by Roger Ward Engineering, Inc. for the Indiana Developmental Training Center. Note: This item paired with Item lj under New Business. This item heard with Item lj under New Business. Attorney Michael Crowley of The Reis Law Firm, 12358 Hancock Street, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing the petitioner. Eric Leistner of Roger Ward Engineering, and Denny Daggett of Wisconsin, vice president of public relations for Indiana Developmental Training Center's parent corporation, were also in attendance. As a matter of information, Indiana Developmental Training Center (IDTC) specializes in providing residential treatment for children, adolescents, and young adults who are diagnosed with various, developmental disabilities. IDTC provides educational training, vocational training, and has an overall goal to promote independent living skills. The main facility of IDTC is located at the southeast corner of East 111 and Pennsylvania Streets. The petitioner requests modification of commitments made in November 1991 and also for approval of an ADLS plan in order to allow for the construction of a small, two story maintenance building on this site. Because the petitioner is seeking to modify the existing site plan that was attached as an exhibit to those commitments, approval must be obtained from the Plan Commission. Pursuant to the requirements of the applicable zoning ordinance, the petitioner has provided a development plan together with an architectural design plan. No additional signage is being proposed or erected as a part of this project. The first story of the building will be primarily maintenance. The staff will repair furniture and equipment used at this site. The second floor will be utilized for storage: clothing, winter coats, toys, sporting goods and equipment, etc. The building will be approximately 23 feet high, 29'X41'. A materials board displayed the shingles, stucco paneling, light and dark brick. This project was reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee in August, and no issues were raised. In the Department's report, the DOCS has recommended suspension of the Rules of Procedure and favorable consideration of the Commitment amendment and the ADLS petition. The petitioner is requesting suspension of the rules and favorable vote at this time. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to the petitions; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. Department Report, Jon Dobosiewicz. The property is outside the US 31 corridor zoned B -5. If S:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes PCMinutes2001 \pc200loct 2 not for the initial commitments that ran attendant to the original zoning for the property, the petitioner would not be before the Plan Commission at this time. The ADLS and the site plan provided at the initial phase was a commitment made by the petitioner. The Department is recommending suspension of the Rules of Procedure and favorable consideration of both petitions. Wayne Haney asked if there were any question as to setback or location. Jon Dobosiewicz responded negatively. Leo Dierckman moved for the suspension of the Rules of Procedure, seconded by Pat Rice. APPROVED 12 -0. Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of Docket No. 107 -01 CA and 108 -01 ADLS, Indiana Developmental Training Center Maintenance Building, seconded by Pat Rice. APPROVED 12 -0. 2h. Docket No. 106 -01 OA; College Hills PUD Ordinance Amendment Petitioner seeks favorable recommendation of a text amendment 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 PUD. Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for Gershman Brown Associates. I. Old Business: Withdrawn by Petitioner 11. This Item Currently Tabled due to Pending Litigation: Docket No. 109 -99 DP /ADLS; Wingate Inn Development Plan and Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping Signage applications for Meridian Hotel Partners. The petitioner seeks approval to construct a 57,500- square -foot hotel on 4.066± acres. The site is located at 1460 West Main Street (northeast corner of East 131s Street and North Meridian Street). The site is zoned S -2 /residence within the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone. Filed by Philip A. Nicely of Bose McKinney Evans for Meridian Hotel Partners. 2i. Adoption of Illinois Street amendments by the City Council (Tentative Subject to action by Subdivision Committee on October 9 The Plan Commission Subdivision Committee will be reviewing language regarding project implementation. Ron Houck, Chairperson of the Subdivision Committee, reported approval of language at the Subdivision Meeting on September 25, 2001 by a vote of 5 -0. This information has been included in the Department Report, and approval by Plan Commission vote is being requested at this time. S:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc200loct 3 Department Report, Jon Dobosiewicz. The Department has made a second recommendation to the full Plan Commission in respect to this item as noted in the Department Report. Paul Spranger, Chairperson of the U.S. 31 Task Force, cited technical issues responsible for language drafted and recommended for approval. Paul Spranger deferred to John Myers, Engineering Consultant with Parsons, Brinckerhoff, for further clarification. John Myers, Consultant with Parsons, Brinckerhoff, 47 South Pennsylvania Street, Indianapolis, addressed the Commission for an overview of the situation. Mr. Myers spoke of dimensions between 106 and 111 Streets. The intersections at 106 and Illinois and 111 and Illinois Street are critical in the event the road is shifted farther east. Of particular importance is not the actual road, but where the right -of -way line is located. Illinois Street has 120 feet of right -of- way. The distance between property lines is also important. On the east side is a platted roadway (Liverpool Drive) that is 50 feet wide. There are 160 foot wide lots, with 120 feet of right -of- way centered, and another 50 feet on the east. The tightest spot in the corridor is between 106 and 111 Streets. At a point farther south where Liverpool swings slightly to the east, the lots are 180 feet wide, giving an additional 20 feet of right -of -way. At the very north end, Illinois Street is 210 feet wide from existing property line to edge of the platted road; on the south, it is 230 feet wide. Continuing farther south, Liverpool on the east disappears, and the 20 -foot buffer on the west is still carried to the "jog" in the road. There are some interchange and intersection issues especially on 106 Street. In this area, we are expecting the INDOT study and the City's plan to show an interchange at 106 Street. Part of the work of the US 31 Task Force was to look at not only what things would look like in Plan View but also how the elevations fit. It is important to shift Illinois Street far enough to allow the interchange to operate. This would take additional property on the east, but it could be done without disrupting parcels on the west side until you come to the narrow spot, 10 feet short. The location of the interchange on 111 Street is also important. It is not anticipated that there will be an interchange there, but there will be an overpass or underpass at that location so 111 Street can cross; this will create an elevation issue. Elevations and overpasses and underpasses become an engineering question. Paul Spranger said the issue of the interchanges at 106th and 111 because of grade separation, has to do with a grade in terms of a hill in the winter -time. In order to be sensitive to residential areas and fiscally responsible, there is a balance between the cost to purchase land for buffering. The road alignment is actually 20 feet off of the westerly right -of -way line from the property line. John Myers commented that Liverpool right -of -way that was platted could be moved east, 70 feet. It is hard to say whether or not moving the right -of -way 70 feet east would be absolutely critical, but it does seem to be feasible. The intersection at 111 Street is not nearly as critical as 106 Street. Ron Houck said the proposal is consistent with the language drafted at the Subdivision Committee. The intersection at 106 was not changed, it was only shifted next to the residential area. It sounds as if the difference is 10 feet and at this stage of the game, 10 feet is not going to make a terrible difference, either way. The buffering along the subdivision to the north has also been accommodated. The buffering would consist of a combination of deciduous and coniferous S:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc200loct 4 trees, and mounding to provide a year 'round, visual screen. Ron Houck requested moving this item to City Council with a positive recommendation from the Plan Commission. Department Comments, Jon Dobosiewicz. The City and the development community have made past efforts to mitigate or offset the impact of the construction of Illinois Street. As indicated in the Department Report, the concern is that the buffering that is done should be maintained within right -of -way as opposed to placing some additional burden on either the City or future developer in the area of the real estate to the east. If the City is in the position of having to condemn right of -way for the construction of Illinois Street in this location, the 100 feet that is left has a cost associated with acquisition and maintenance. There was no evidence presented at the Committee that led the Department to believe that 100 feet was the appropriate dimension for the buffer to be located within. The Department is recommending that the Plan Commission take action this evening and forward to the City Council with a favorable recommendation, with the further understanding that the Department may or may not be inclined to support the recommendation of the Plan Commission. The Department may make an alternate recommendation to the City Council when the item is considered. Ron Houck requested moving this item forward with a positive recommendation. Paul Spranger suggested the 10 foot buffering be included in the final design. Paul Spranger moved to approve the recommendation of the Subdivision Committee with the exception of 100 foot buffering changed to 90 feet (curb to lot line) to allow for technical issues, with the caveat that the interchanges will be feasible from an engineering standpoint when INDOT comes out with its final design recommendation. Wayne Haney asked for clarification. The roadway and pathway are on the east side of the 120 foot right -of -way and the buffer and the buffer retained entirely on the west side. The traffic engineer indicated that there is another 20 feet, that is 56 feet of buffer from the curb to the existing residential property line on the west. Are we adding 90 feet to that, or are we saying from the curb to the lot line shall be 90 feet? Paul Spranger clarified measurement as being from the curb to the lot line —not from the rear of an individual residence, just the lot line. Ron Houck then questioned how utilities would be accommodated and if there has been technical review of the plans. Jon Dobosiewicz responded that there has been no technical review because there are no construction drawings for Illinois Street today. Excepting the utility easements on the drawings was intentional. The purpose of providing the elevation was to illustrate the width of a buffer. Paul Spranger's motion was seconded by Leo Dierckman. The motion was DEFEATED 7 in favor, 5 opposed. (Flanders, Kestner, Houck, Meighen, Broach) S:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc200loct 5 Ron Houck moved for approval with language as approved by the Subdivision Committee, seconded by Norma Meighen. Motion DEFEATED 6 in favor 6 opposed. (Fitzgerald, Spranger, Dierckman, Rice, Broach, Knoll) Jon Molitor said 8 votes are required to forward a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the City Council for action. It must be first adopted by this body and then subject to approval by City Council by Resolution of the Council. Nick Kestner asked about returning this item to the Committee. Jon Dobosiewicz said this is an agreement to disagree between the Committee and the Department. Sending back to Committee would not advance either parties cause. Madeline Fitzgerald asked about the deadline for action on this item so that it can be sent back to City Council. Jon Dobosiewicz responded that the Commission would need to take action this evening to meet the deadline provided by City Council. Ron Houck commented that it would be in the best interest of the Commission to move this item forward. City Council would have to approve the recommendation of the Commission, and if they require fine- tuning, they have the latitude to do that. Paul Spranger then moved to add language, "wherever practicable, and consistent with good engineering practices," and the remainder of the language stays at 100 feet. (This motion died for lack of a second). Ron Houck said this road would probably not be engineered with "bad engineering practices," so probably that is not a damning statement. However, if it gets the commission off the dilemma, then so be it. Jon Dobosiewicz asked for clarification on the 90 feet. Is the 90 feet from curb to property line within the right -of -way? All of the buffer would be within the right -of -way and there would be no area outside of right -of -way between the property line and curb. Paul Spranger clarified that the motion is to include the language: "consistent with good engineering practices, from the rear property line of the homeowners to the curb would be 100 feet —not 90 feet. Ron Houck expressed some confusion, since Mr. Spranger's motion was to leave the language as written, with the addition of "consistent with good engineering practices." Ron Houck then moved for the approval of the Adoption of Illinois Street amendments by the City Council with language approved by the Subdivision Committee, specifically with the addition of "consistent with good engineering practices..." This motion was seconded by Norma Meighen and APPROVED 11 in favor, one opposed (Nick Kestner) S:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc200loct 6 Note: The following item was heard out of Agenda sequence. 6i. Docket No. 99 -01 OA; Village of West Clay Text Amendments Modification of Development Requirements (Tentative Subject to action by Subdivision Committee on October 9th.) The petitioner seeks approval to amend several provisions of their existing PUD Ordinance. The site is generally located at the southeast corner of West 131s Street and Towne Road. The site is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Jose Kreutz of Brenwick TND Communities, LLC George Sweet, 1100 West 131s Street, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing the applicant, Brenwick Communities. Jose Kreutz of Brenwick was also in attendance. Mr. Sweet deferred to the Department Report; no formal presentation at this time. Ron Houck, Chair of the Subdivision Committee, reported that initially there were concerns in the changes of language to accommodate corporate client. The Committee asked for changes in the ratio of retail and commercial, and the petitioner worked with the Department to make those changes in the language. The Subdivision Committee then unanimously approved the requested changes. Jon Dobosiewicz had no further comments. Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of Docket No. 99 -01 OA, Village of West Clay Text Amendments Modification of Development Requirements, seconded by Norma Meighen. This motion was APPROVED 12 in favor, none opposed. 3i. Docket No. 52 -01 PP; Hazel Dell Pond Petitioner seeks approval to plat a thirty- six -lot subdivision on 23.95± acres. The site is located northwest of East 116 Street and Hazel Dell Parkway. The site is zoned S- 2/Residence. The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waiver: 52 -01 SW SCO 6.3.7 >600' cul -de -sac Filed by William E. Wendling, Jr. for Mark Stout Development, Inc. Bill Wendling, Jr., attorney, Campbell, Kyle Proffitt, appeared before the Commission representing Mark Stout Development. The petitioner has appeared at initial public hearing and also before the Subdivision Committee on two occasions. At issue has been the border on the northern portion of the property with Brookfield Subdivision. The petitioner has worked with the Staff, the City Arborist, and the Subdivision Committee to try to arrive at a design for screening between Hazel Dell Pond and Brookfield. There were two plans presented, (A B) and this was left up to the neighbors as to which one was preferable. Primary Plat approval would be subject to maintaining plan B in perpetuity, and this would be set forth in the covenants and restrictions and enforceable by both the Homeowners Association and the Department of Community Services. Ron Houck, Chair of the Subdivision Committee, reported that plans A B had been submitted, S:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc200loct 7 and it was the feeling of the residents abutting this property that their interests would be best served by the continuous fence and buffer treatment. The developer concurred, and this plan was adopted. Jon Dobosiewicz —the Department Report contains the buffer option `B." It is believed that the adjoining residents are best served by the buffer option in plan B. In addition, there are two letters of correspondence with regard to the item, one dated October 5th from Donald Foley; and one dated October 10 from the petitioner's attorney. Pat Rice said she had reviewed the letter from Foley Pool, and requests that a brief summary of the "additional evidence" be heard. Ron Houck moved to hear Mr. Foley this evening for a brief summary of additional evidence to be brought before the Commission, seconded by Leo Dierckman. APPROVED 12 in favor, none opposed. Donald Foley, attorney with Foley Pool, LLP, 342 Massachusetts Avenue, Indianapolis 46204 appeared before the Commission representing 23 families in Lake Forest and Brookfield Subdivisions. Mr. Foley intends to bring evidence to the Commission that this development does not meet certain requirements such as traffic; safety; use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the waiver will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner; and that this development does not meet an ordinance now in effect, (6.5.3) Double Frontage Lot Ordinance. Mr. Foley requests 30 days to bring new information before the Commission. Ms. Anderson said this is an unusual request, and asked to hear from the petitioner's attorney at this time. Mr. Wendling said the Subdivision Waiver off Hazel Dell was requested by the City to allow for alignment —this resulted in a cul -de -sac in excess of 600 feet and necessitates the subdivision waiver. No evidence has been offered other than the Technical Review Committee and Board of Public Works, that this is a request made by the City. The double frontage lots issue has been before the Subdivision Committee on two different occasions, and there is no violation of the existing ordinance. The stub street to the north is an issue with the Brookfield residents to the north, but this is not a violation. Density is not different between the two subdivisions —it is the same. Ron Houck, chairperson of the Subdivision Committee, said they had discussed the variance requirement and buffering between the two subdivisions. The double frontage was a concern, but we were assured by the Department that dedication of a small linear strip separating the two subdivisions caused that not to be a factor. In the interest of fairness, it would only be reasonable to hear this matter. In fairness to the petitioner and the remonstrators, this could be heard at Committee, November 6 This would not be the requested 30 days, but would give an ample amount of time to prepare and this Docket could be back to the Commission for a vote within 30 days. Further comments, Pat Rice agreed with Ron Houck that additional information should be heard. S:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc200loct 8 Madeline Fitzgerald said she liked to be prepared and would like information, in writing, that will be presented to members of the Subdivision Committee on November 6 That same information should also be furnished to the petitioner. This case has dragged on for a long time, and we need to be fair to the petitioner and the remonstrators as well. Marilyn Anderson said it is disturbing that this many months have passed, and the neighbors have just now decided to use an attorney who is coming forward saying that there is additional information. Jon Dobosiewicz said if the Commission wants to send this back to Committee, a motion would need to be made to that effect. The Department is not in favor of this type of request —the Plan Commission has adopted Rules of Procedure in order to operate in a manner that is both respectful to the petitioner and the public. Ron Houck said he shared Jon's concerns. As a matter of process, we need to be respectful and mindful of everyone's time, the remonstrator, the petitioner, and the Commission. However, it is not a reasonable expectation on the part of the Commission that every remonstrator should be required to hire an attorney as they originally remonstrate. At some point, there may be a realization from the remonstrator that a legal issue is involved, and at such time, they have the freedom and right to retain an attorney. Ron Houck did not think sending this item back to Committee would damage the process. Pat Rice further commented that if there is a possibility of violation of an ordinance, she would rather see it go back to Committee than to Court. Dianna Knoll reported that at Committee, the question of waiver was raised. There is one waiver request and that has nothing to do with Canyon Road, only Hazel Dell Parkway. John Molitor said he had spent considerable time discussing this case with the Department. In a sense, it is an example of the difficulty presented when a subdivision is developed and there are pieces of property left over in between. Technically, this is not double frontage lots; there does not need to be a waiver in order to allow for double frontage lots. Wayne Haney was asked why he voted against this project at Committee. Mr. Haney explained he voted against the project because of damage to the adjacent neighborhood. Of main concern is the development of this land, filling in of the ponds, etc. Also, construction traffic would be routed through adjacent subdivisions. John Molitor commented that this is a difficult issue because it is a difficult piece of property and he has not seen any case law that gives a useful precedent on something of this nature. Madeline Fitzgerald opined that this is not a rezone —it is already zoned for this development, whether we like or don't like this particular development. This is not a rezone. Leo Dierckman moved to send this Docket back to Subdivision Committee, seconded by Pat Rice. The vote was 8 in favor, 2 opposed (Fitzgerald, Knoll) one no -vote (Anderson), one vote S:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc200loct 9 unaccounted for. Bill Wendling commented that the petitioner really wants the Commission's support. However, the letter to the Commission was sent ex -parte on October 5 If Mr. Foley and his clients were as interested in finding out what the issues are as indicated in his letter —Mr. Wendling never received a call from Mr. Foley, never had an opportunity to sit down with him and talk to him about it— yesterday afternoon at 5:00 PM is the first time Mr. Wendling was aware of Mr. Foley's involvement. This situation is difficult for his client who has been at Committee for three months and this represents a significant inconvenience for his client; however, Mr. Wendling and his client will be at the Committee meeting on November 6th Jon Dobosiewicz asked that any information to be presented at Committee also be submitted in advance to Commission members and the petitioner. The burden is on Mr. Foley to get information out. Mr. Foley said he would get information to the committee and the petitioner in summary form. Madeline Fitzgerald asked that if experts are lined up ahead of time, their names should also be submitted to the Committee, the petitioner, and the Department as well. Docket No. 52 -01 PP, Hazel Dell Pond, will be heard at Subdivision Committee on November 6th at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. After a five minute recess, the Commission continued with the business at hand. 4i. Docket N. 69 -01 PP; Hayden Run Subdivision The applicant seeks approval to plat a seventy lot residential subdivision on 49.98± acres. The site is located on the south side of West 131s Street approximately one half mile west of Towne Road. The site is zoned S- 1/Residence. Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Associates, Inc, for Centex Homes. Dave Warshauer, attorney with Barnes Thornburg, 11 South Meridian Street, Indianapolis, appeared before the Commission representing the petitioner. Also present were Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Associates; Tom Kutz of Centex Homes; and Steve Fehribach of A &F Engineering. Mr. Warshauer reported that the Subdivision Committee had voted 6 -0 in favor of recommending approval of this Docket, and the Department Report also recommends approval. Steve Fehribach, A &F Engineering, 8425 Keystone Crossing, touched briefly on the types of roads through subdivisions: local roads; collector roads; primary or major roads; and their function. Every roadway has a design speed and roads through subdivisions are designed so as not to promote through traffic. (Enter Wayne Wilson) S:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc200loct 10 Ron Houck said the Subdivision Committee had voted a favorable recommendation for this Docket. A better understanding of roadway segment came out of meetings, and it was a meaningful and very positive process. Jon Dobosiewicz, no formal comment, other than recommendation for approval as amended. Marilyn Anderson said the developer has agreed to incorporate into the covenants that this will be developed as a through street. Madeline Fitzgerald agreed with Marilyn Anderson. Madeline was initially not in favor of the curval -linear design. After seeing Steve Fehribach's presentation, this makes sense and she is now in favor of the design. Ron Houck moved for the approval of Docket No. 69 -01 PP, Hayden Run Subdivision, seconded by Dianna Knoll. APPROVED 13 -0. 5i. Docket No. 97 -01 DP /ADLS; Hilton Garden Inn Petitioner seeks Development Plan and Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping Signage approval for a Hilton Garden Inn full service hotel. The petitioner proposes to construct a 63,500- square -foot hotel on 5± acres. The site is located at the southeast corner of U.S. 31 and Main Street (131 Street). The site is zoned B-2/Business and is within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay Zone. Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson Frankenberger for Meridian Hotel Partners, LLC. Jim Nelson, 12481 Medalist Parkway, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing Meridian Hotel Partners. Also in attendance was Tim Dora of Dora Brothers. On October 2, 2001, the Dora Brothers presented to the Special Study Committee, the development plan application for the Hilton Garden Inn. The review process addressed all matters suggested by individual Plan Commission at the public hearing, and also addressed all of those matters identified in the initial Department Report. Briefly, the commitments have been finalized, executed, and provide for the reservation and dedication of right -of -way for proposed improvements to 131s Street as well as US 31. The plans were amended to include a percolating fountain in the lake between the Hotel and Meridian Street; the fountain will be lighted. Consistent with the suggestion of the Committee, accent lighting, ground mounted /up- lighting has been added to provide soft lighting on the west elevation (US 31 side) of the hotel. The landscaping plan was revised to provide for plant material taller in height adjacent to 131s Street. In addition to the 5 Red Oak trees, the plant material will range in height at maturity from 4 1 /2 to 6 1 /2 feet in height. The City Engineer's office confirmed that the 250 feet of separation between the entrance and the center line of what might be a proposed round about at 131 Street was, in fact, adequate. We also reviewed with the Committee the building materials consisting of EFIS, metal seam roof, and brick. The Committee favorably recommended approval of the Development Plan application as suggested by the Department Report. S:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc200loct 11 Leo Dierckman concurred with Jim Nelson's representation of the Committee Report. Jon Dobosiewicz clarified his understanding that the proposal is NOT to include a ground sign, and this issue has resolved itself. Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of Docket No. 97 -01 DP /ADLS, Hilton Garden Inn, seconded by Paul Spranger. APPROVED 13 in favor, none opposed. J. New Business: lj. Docket No. 108 -01 ADLS Indiana Developmental Training Center Maintenance Building Petitioner seeks Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping Signage approval for a Maintenance Building. The site is located at the southeast corner of East 111 Street and Pennsylvania Street. The site is zoned B-5/Business. Filed by Roger Ward Engineering, Inc. for the Indiana Developmental Training Center. Note: This item paired with Item lh under Public Hearings. 2j. Docket No. 113 -01 ADLS; CH Land Office Building Petitioner seeks Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping Signage for an Office Building. The site is located northwest of West 131s Street and North Meridian Street. The site is zoned B-5/Business. Filed by E. Davis Coots of Coots Henke Wheeler for CH Land LLC. Dave Coots of Coots, Henke Wheeler, 255 East Carmel Drive, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing the petitioner. Also present were Matt Owen of Schneider Engineering; Bob Lunsford and Craig Kaiser of CH Land LLC. This property was the subject of a rezone application approved by the City Council a few months ago. The tract is located along Meridian Corners Boulevard, north of 131s Street, north of the pre school on the corner, and north of the Church. The property to the west is the Park Meadows Subdivision, to the west is the DePauw property that has been negotiated with the City to reserve the tract for purposes of Pennsylvania crossing over US 31. To the east of this property is the CMC tract that was the tandem of the rezone application submitted to the Commission and ultimately the City Council that approved the rezone. Both tracts are now zoned B -5. This particular tract, zoned B -5, is not within the US 31 Overlay Zone. In light of the size of the building, 3320 square feet, and the proposed owners' particular circumstances, i.e. the lease has expired in his present dental building and he must vacate —the petitioner is requesting that the Rules be suspended and the application be approved this evening. The entry to the tract is located off Meridian Corners Boulevard. As a part of the CMC S:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc200loct 12 application, the City Engineer gave her approval to align the entryway to discourage traffic from going across Meridian Corners Boulevard through Park Meadows Subdivision. Access will be reviewed in addition to CMC property. All trash will be contained inside the building and brought out twice per week for pick -up. There will be no exterior trash on the grounds. The building will be off white, total brick structure. The accent is dryvit above the entryway, the shingle material is asphalt, dark shingle, residential in appearance. The signing will be above the door. The size of the sign is 7 1 /2 feet by 4 feet, or a total of 30 square feet and meets the Ordinance size. Lighting is as contained in the booklets. There are soffit down lights around the perimeter of the building, 16 in total, and on the site plan, there are two down -lights in the parking lot, 15 feet tall. The petitioner is requesting suspension of the rules this evening. Jon Dobosiewicz, the Department Report indicates this site, along with the adjoining real estate where CMC has proposed office use, will be discussed at tomorrow's TAC meeting. The Department is not opposed to a suspension of the rules and a vote this evening. Access will be reviewed in addition with the CMC property that will come before the Commission as a development plan and ADLS. This property does not fall into the 31 Overlay and does not require a development plan. The Commission is being asked to approve ADLS, landscaping, lighting, and building design. The Department is not opposed to a suspension of the rules and a vote this evening. Nick Kestner asked about a multi purpose path; Mr. Coots said the petitioner has agreed to install a 5 foot wide path along Meridian Corners Boulevard. Jon Dobosiewicz said the drive into the site where CMC will be developing is the driveway into the property, not a thoroughfare or street. Nick Kestner wanted to see pedestrian access from Illinois Street to the CMC site. Jon Dobosiewicz said this could be addressed at Technical Advisory Committee, and that will come back before the Plan Commission as a Development Plan —it would then be reviewed by Committee to make sure all issues are addressed. Nick Kestner said he would really like to see a 6 foot wide multi purpose path rather than a sidewalk. The small sidewalks do not get used, but the multi purpose paths do. According to Dave Coots, the petitioner has agreed, and has dedicated an additional 15 feet to the old Meridian Corners Boulevard right -of -way so that this is now a 60 foot one -half. Paul Spranger commented that this is just outside the 31 corridor, but in the 31 corridor, pedestrian access is encouraged. Ron Houck said there may be recreational walking during lunch time and as development occurs on US 31, this is a logical progression to have pedestrian access to Meridian Corners Boulevard through an established path to provide recreational walking. Also, caliper and species of trees is a S:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc200loct 13 concern as well as the 15 foot light standards in the parking area and possible light spillage to the adjacent residential area across Meridian Corners Boulevard. The species of trees should be tall enough to provide some buffering for light spillage in the parking area. Dave Coots responded that the photo- metrics meets the ordinance. Paul Spranger asked about the materials for the window frames. Bob Lunsford, owner and contractor, addressed the Commission and said the windows will be made of aluminum clad, white to match the brick. The glass will be clear, not tinted. Ron Houck expressed concern that the color of brick may not be in keeping with the residential neighboring properties. Norma Meighen said the roof is black, and the brick off -sets. Paul Spranger moved to suspend the Rules, seconded by Norma Meighen. Motion DENIED 5 in favor, 8 opposed. Docket No. 113 -01 ADLS, CH Land Office Building, will go to Special Study Committee at 7:00 PM on November 6, 2001. K. Adjournment (a 9:40 PM Ramona Hancock, Secretary Marilyn Anderson, President S:APlanCommission\ Minutes\ PlanCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes2001 \pc200loct 14