Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Sub 04-10-01 .. )' I I I CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION SUBDMSION COMMITTEE APRIL 10, 2001 Committee members present, Kent Broach; Madeline Fitzgerald; Wayne Haney; Ron Houck; Dianna Knoll; Norma Meighen; and John Sharpe. Also in attendance: Marilyn Anderson, ex-officio; and Pat Rice, Special Study Committee member. Members of the Department of Community Services in attendance: Michael Hollibaugh, Director, and Laurence Lillig. Jon Dobosiewicz joined the meeting in progress. 1. Docket No. 13-01 PP; Bonbar Place Subdivision Petitioner seeks approval to plat a 75-10t subdivision on 35.77:r. acres. The site is located at the northwest corner of 1-465 and the Carmel/Clay Monon Greenway. The site is zoned R-l/residence. Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for Kosene & Kosene. Paul Reis distributed a copy of a letter he wrote to Michael Howard, attorney for the City of Noblesville, concerning the grant of right-of-way in favor of the Indiana State Highway Commission (INDOT) as well as the abandonment of that right-of-way to the Hamilton County Commissioners. Apparently, documentation shows an additional 30 feet of right-of-way was added to the north right-of-way line of 101 8t Street east\vard from the v/est property line of the Korean Presbyterian Church to the west property line of the Bonbar Place proposed subdivision. The grant of right-of-way has not yet been confirmed in writing. Mr. Reis also distributed a letter he had received from Steve Broermann of the Hamilton County Highway regarding roadway improvements west of the Korean Presbyterian Church. There is concern regarding potential damage to the roadway west of the Church, and the petitioner has agreed to be responsible for any damage that may occur during construction. Gary Hoyt of the Carmel Fire Dept. approved the development in a letter. Mr. Reis said all other T AC issues have been resolved. The setback requirements and building issues will be resolved. At this time, the petitioner shows that the plat establishes the minimum height, width, etc. and is in conformance with Carmel's Ordinance. According to Mr. Reis, there is a significant amount of common area behind the lots, but it will not be able to be disturbed. Steve Fehribach, Traffic Engineer, stated his opinion that 90% of traffic will enter from 91 st and 101 st Streets. Mr. Reis talked about the stormwater that will discharge into the existing pond. Catch basins will be used; in addition, filtering pipes within the catch basins will be utilized before discharging into the pond. The pond will need some remedial work along the bank, due to natural erosion and trespassers, i.e. ATV's. The vegetation has been disturbed. The buffer required by the Ordinance will be in place after construction of the pond and erosion control measures. subdiv200 1 apr 1 Regarding discharge into the pond, Mr. Reis referred to a letter from J.F.New, engineer, saying the petitioner may discharge stormwater into the pond. Regarding wildlife and determination of wildlife inhabitants, J.F.New will make a determination if there is wildlife in existence, what numbers and how best to relocate. I Department Comments, Laurence Lillg. The Department has confirmed that the plat conforms to the Residential Open Space Ordinance. Outstanding issues: There is a question of right-of-way on 101st Street and a letter request from Mike Howard, attorney for the County. The Department has no outstanding issues with the plat. There is a question as to appropriateness of access to the proposed development, and it is up to the Subdivision Committee to determine. Committee discussion: Kent Broach confirmed that traffic exiting onto 101 8t Street is only a two-lane road. If traffic is turning left, it would hold up the entire lane of traffic. The street width is 20 feet, County Standards. Pat Rice has issues with the lake/pond and storm water management. Paul Reis says there is no legal definition for a pond or a lake. The water was already in existence and not under construction. A storm water management pond could become a wetland over time. The pond to be used for stormwater is a detention pond. Pat Rice asked if any study or research was done in terms of chemicals from blacktop or pesticides from surrounding homesite lawns that would run into the lake? It is unknown as to I what percentage ultimately kills a lake, and this is a major issue and well as how to mitigate. Drainage will not filter out chemicals, only sediment. Pat asked if the Army Corps. of Engineers have jurisdiction over this wetland? Paul Reis responded in the negative. Ron Houck said the issue is chemical runoff: not .storm water drainage. Paul Reis will check into this situation and report. Ron Houck pointed out that the lots are closer than the 50 foot buffer. Mr. Reis said J.F.New pinpointed the edge of the water and the petitioner has relied on the englneers. Madeline Fitzgerald asked the depth of the pond and how quickly it deepens from the 3 to 4 to 5 feet against the edge of the lots. Mr. Reis says this has not yet been studied and the depth of the lake is not known. Madeline is concerned because there is no fence around the pond and this is a genuine safety concern. How shallow is it on the south end, grade of the slope, depth of the middle? Mr. Reis said the lake is 12 acres, the storm water will have a slight effect on the level of the lake. There is a spillway/discharge on the east side as a part of the county drain system. Norma Meighen asked if there were a natural spring that fed the wetland. Mr. Reis responded in the negative and further stated that covenants provide for no water activities on the lake. Marilyn Anderson asked if that included no fishing; Mr. Reis responded in the affirmative. Ron Houck had questions about the traffic study, and the trip assignment national standards. I Steve Fehribach, traffic engineer, said the report models existing use. Assignment distribution came from existing homeowners in the area. 90% of the existing residents turn south. Ron subdiv200 1 apr 2 I I I Houck asked if demographics were an issue. Steve Fehriback said traffic was measured using standard practices, demographics are not typically an issue, and the traffic counts are done at AM and PM peak hours. There were a number of questions regarding how the homes will be situated on the lots and the size of the back yards; two-story as opposed to single story. The drawings most in question depict lots 62, 3, and 4, which may be a 10 to 12 foot reduction in the back yard. The worst case scenario is 8 foot back yards. The lot sizes are as follows: a minimum of 3,491 square feet; maximum of8,719 square feet; an average of4,286 square feet. The smallest lot is lot 63 at 3,999 square feet, dimension 50X80 square feet. Paul Reis said the developer will develop the land and then enter into an agreement for builderlbuilders for construction of homes and eventual sale of the homes. Ron Houck said the drawings do not match the covenants. The restrictions do not allow for 2 story homes. Mr. Reis said if it is not covered in the covenants and restrictions, it reverts to the R-l district guidelines. The average lot size is 57 feet wide, 100 feet long or deep. There is a tree preservation area. Ron Houck commented that environmental impact is a major concern. The Technical Advisory Committee referred to waters of the US and wetlands. The petitioner said there is limited jurisdiction over wetland delineation; the petitioner is not able to provide the highest watermark. The Covenants do not make provision for aeration or algae. Mr. Reis said approval is required prior to treatment and the Ordinance requires a trip to IDEM and the Commission. The Covenants require irrigation--sprirJder system designed to accommodate all sprinklers on all lots? Paul Reis responded that covenants can be changed; certain covenants are required by Ordinance. Ron Houck asked about the percentage of passive and active open space requirement under the Residential Open Space Ordinance. Laurence Lillig responded that this project can be 100% passive open space--not so under the new ROSO. Ron Houck was concerned with the configuration of certain lots closest to 1-465 and how the driveways relate--both drives run parallel to lot 3 and is a dangerous design. Ron Houck is not in favor of the design--the view from one window would be asphalt driveways. Lot 3 is an unsafe situation. Mark Abbey, 1037 Birnam Woods Trail, spoke as representative of the adjacent neighborhood. Mr. Abbey said the size of the homes is an issue, size of the lots is an issue, the high water mark delineation is an issue and should be resolved. There are 5 inlets on the property, 30X50. Mitigation is also an issue. The wetland is still a wetland, even if it is low quality--but that does not mean that you can dump anything into it. Access is an issue. As designed and proposed, the subdivision is not a good development. Paul Reis said J.F.New has been involved with the project from the outset--if there is wetlands, there will be mitigation. If there is mitigation, it will follow the laws and Ordinances of Carmel. The elevation and design was based upon information received from J.F.New. The covenants, as drafted, talk about 1300 square foot, single family homes--most likely, this would be developed as a two story, and there has been no attempt to mislead. The petitioner has attempted to follow the Ordinance as closely as possible. In regard to the right-of-way on 101st Street, a legal document subdiv200 1 apr 3 Ordinance as closely as possible. In regard to the right-of-way on 101 st Street, a legal document I is forthcoming and the petitioner has worked with information given. A tree survey has been done, and the area is being preserved. Ron Houck reiterated his issues with lots 1, 2, 3 and the driveways. At the current configuration, he would not recommend favorable consideration. The second issue to be considered is practical lot size. The lots should have some controllable area that would serve a resident. The price point would appeal to starter homes or empty nesters. From a traffic standpoint, there will be an impact on the existing neighborhood. The design is not very well laid out from a health, safety, and welfare standpoint. John Sharpe said he too has issues regarding wetlands, lot sizes, and size of garages--some as small as 18 feet in order to maximize the number of lots. The safety and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood are not met by this development. Madeline Fitzgerald concurred with John Sharpe and Ron Houck; and suggested forwarding this item to the full Plan Commission with a negative recommendation. Ron Houck asked if there were an opportunity for the petitioner to re-design and possibly re- notice. Paul Reis asked for a vote this evening. John Sharpe moved for the approval of Bonbar Place Subdivision, Docket No. 13-01PP., seconded by Kent Broach. TIle vote was 0 in favor, 7 opposed. MOTION DENIED. This item will be forwarded to the full Plan Commission with a negative recommendation. I 2. Docket No. 14-01 Z; USTA pun Petitioner seeks favorable recommendation of a rezone from the R-I/residence district to a PUD/planned unit development district on 1.920:1:: acres. The site is located on the northwest corner of East 96th Street and the CarmeVClay Monon Greenway. The site is zoned R- l/residence. Piled by John K. Smeltzer of Bose McKinney & Evans for the Midwest Youth Tennis Foundation. John Smelzer of Bose McKinney & Evans presenting for Midwest Youth Tennis Foundation. Also in attendance, Mark Saunders of Executive USTA, Steve Fehribach of A&F Engineering. The petitioner is requesting a rezone of property currently leased to Five Seasons Sports Club. The site plan allows for 83 parking spaces plus landscaping. The building is on the northwest portion of the site. The property is in close proximity to the Monon Trail and the Five Seasons Sports Club. The Corridor Space on the first floor will be used as a Tennis Hall of Fame and would house exhibits. I Brick samples were displayed and elevations of the building were shown. The architect with subdiv200 1 apr 4 ,.. .. r I I I of Fame will occupy the first floor. The second floor will be office space. The Midwest Youth Foundation will own the building; donations would be 100% charitable contribution. The petitioner is purchasing the property from 5 Seasons and a letter so states. The Midwest Youth Foundation is the fund raising arm of the USTA. The USTA Midwest section is one of several midwest facilities. There was a question regarding previous commitments made by the 5 Seasons. John Smeltzer said there is a commitment from 5 Seasons granting right-of-way to Hamilton County; there are no other commitment of record. There was open discussion regarding the development of the property as a Planned Unit Development as opposed to a rezone. A PUD would allow greater flexibility. Department comments: Laurence Lillig said the details of the PUD Ordinance would allow resolution of any issues. The biggest issue from the Department is the 96th Street corridor and whether or not the corridor is ready to accept this type of proposed development (Community and standards.) Question of whether or not it complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Director Michael Hollibaugh commented that from the Comprehensive Plan standpoint, the 96th Street corridor study does not encompass the current proposal. Additional development was not contemplated at the 5 Feasons location. Infrastructure - from the land use and intensity standpoint, 96th Street is sub-standard. The consensus of the Department is there is a huge need for improvements along 96th Street. The area needs to change from land uses not contemplated by studies done thus far. The proposed use could be appropriate, but from looking at maps as a planning tool, this project was not contemplated. Appropriateness of use, traffic, land use, and close proximity to residential are all issues to be dealt with. John Sharpe said traffic is definitely an issue in this particular area. Ron Houck said there will be an impact on the 96th Street corridor. There needs to be a better understanding of subdivision of the parcel, how the proposed use meshes with infrastructure, what is appropriate on this parcel, and what is already in place. Barbara Rang, Sherwood Forest Civic Assoc. 96th Street, said the infrastructure between Westfield and College is not set up for the development being proposed. Currently, the traffic does not move smootWy in this area. Ms. Rang requested another review of the 96th & Westfield location. Regarding 96th Street, Jon Dobosiewicz said we are at a point to recommend to the Metropolitan Planning Organization a proposal for improvement of infrastructure, regardless of the current proposal for development. The question is whether or not the proposed development is an appropriate use of this parcel and whether or not infrastructure is in place to support the proposed use. The petitioner will return to the Committee with prepared questions regarding the PUD Ordinance. The Committee has the following issues: Appropriateness of use and traffic. Will subdiv200 1 apr 5 there be mitigation to alleviate the traffic flow? John Smeltzer will furnish a red-lined ordinance to the Committee for review. The petitioner will return to the May 1, 2001 Committee meeting at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms. 3. Docket No. 22-01 ADLS; Mayflower Park Subdivision Petitioner seeks approval to establish a Subdivision sign. The site is zoned I-1/industrial within the U.S. 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by James W. Browning of Browning Investments. Note: This item was heard 2nd and out of Agenda sequence. Jamie Browning of Browning Investments, 251 North lllinois, Indianapolis, was in attendance. A subdivision sign is being requested within the Mayflower Park Subdivision. The sign is 5.6 high X 14.6 feet; the dimensions meet the subdivision requirements. The sign is an enamel material, brushed, stainless steel, fronts on 421 and falls under the 421 Overlay Zone. Madeline Fitzgerald stated no problem with the overall flavor of the sign; however, she had no information on the sign to review and no sample of materials, and needed some frame of reference. Dianna Knoll said the sign must fit with the architecture that currently exists in the area. Jamie Browning expressed a willingness to return to the next Subdivision Committee in May and brin drawings and samples of materials. John Sharpe moved to TABLE Docket No. 22-01, Mayflower Park Subdivision, to the May 1, 2001 Committee meeting. Approved 7-0 4. Docket No. 25-01 Z; College Hills pun Petitioner seeks favorable recommendation of a rezone from the R-l/residence district to a PUD/planned unit development district on 20.5:r. acres. The site is located northwest of East 96th Street and North College Avenue. The site is zoned R-I/residence. Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger for Gershman Brown & Associates. Charlie Frankenberger presented on behalf of Gershman Brown and 38 individual homeowners in College Hills. A change in zoning classification is being sought to permit the redevelopment of the real estate for office use. An aerial view of the 20 acre parcel was displayed. College Hills is essentially an island of older homes enveloped on all fronts by different uses. Surrounding uses include 1-465 to the north; 5 Seasons Sports Club to the east; a diverse mix of commercial development to the west of varying character and quality; large apartment complexes to the south and southwest, more than 1500 apartment units; and residential and commercial uses on the south side of 96th Street between College and Meridian. Over the past four decades, there have been changes that significantly diminished the quality of life of this residential neighborhood; it is the homeowners' belief that the continued residential use subdiv200 1 apr ::; I I I 6 ., 1 I I I of this isolated pocket is no longer viable. Development without increased traffic cannot occur. Under layers of assumptions and worst case scenarios, including the full build out of this project plus build out and development of all vacant land as zoned, plus population growth to the year 2011, traffic engineers estimate the range of delay is from 19.3 seconds to 44. 7 seconds at the intersections of 96th Street and Real, and 96th Street and College. Meaningful infrastructure improvements are being imposed to mitigate the marginal impact of this project. There are many considerations to be weighed and balanced, one of which is traffic. It is believed that the benefits of this development far outweigh any disadvantages. Among the benefits are redevelopment that positively responds to fundamentally change circumstances. The many changes that have occurred since the early 1960's underscore the appropriateness of this request. The changes leave this area stranded from other residential areas as previously stated. Doing nothing will not maintain the status quo for this isolated pocket. The petitioner believes that the 96th Street Corridor study is only a study. The proposed development, even when combined with what has actually been approved and the 1-465 interchange, is actually less developed than assumed by the 96th Street corridor, and results in less traffic than projected by the 96th Street Corridor study. Department Report, Laurence Lillig said the Department's comments essentially mirror those on USTA in terms of the infrastructure. The petitioner confirmed that they are willing to annex. The City has annexed the right-of-way for the interstate 465. From the center line of College west is what is annexed. The petitioner is scheduled for annexation hearing before City Council on April 16, 2001. The 96th Street Corridor Study was discussed as being merely a study, not carved in stone~ the study does make recommendations. Pat Rice referred to pages 46 through 53 of the study that refer to land use and quality oflife. Charlie Frankenberger said that by its terms, the 96th Street corridor study assumed more development than will exist with the proposed project in place, and projected significantly more traffic than will exist with this project. Marilyn Anderson was concerned with traffic that would be exiting the Kroger Center and turning left onto 96th Street. With the eventual construction ofParkwood West, there will be additional traffic exiting onto 96th Street, but a lot of it will probably head north on Meridian Street. There currently is a traffic facilitator at the Shell Station on the southeast corner of 96th and Meridian. The additional traffic is a major issue. John Sharpe asked about traffic from the proposed office building as opposed to traffic from the existing residential subdivision. Clint Sparks, American Consulting, Inc. 7265 Hollingsworth Drive, Indianapolis, 46268, responded to the traffic question. Normally, a dwelling unit will create 4 to 5 traffic trips per day. A subdivision of38 homes would produce 132 trips per day. The office park, as proposed, would have approximately 650 to 750 AM and PM peak hours. There are more trips generated from a commercial development than a residential subdivision. Ron Houck asked about alignment of the eastern-most drive with the drive across the street (Carlyle Court Apartments). These drives are not directly aligned. In order to handle the peak subdiv200 1 apr 7