Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Sub 03-06-01 Mr. Speedy identified the changes in the buffery~d plan. Bufferyard C is a requirement of certain material to be placed in a certain area to coincide---this fulfills the requirements. Current bufferyard: evergreens, ornamental, and shade trees, etc. I Madeline Fitzgerald questioned the growth of the trees for screening-Michael Speedy says the trees are on an 8 foot berm; there is also a 6 foot fence. Mr. Bach says the bufferyard issues were significant for this committee and this has been resolved. Other issues raised at last meeting: Once approval is granted under R-S Zoning, how can the Commission be sure the plans won't change. Permitted use under R-S is strip mine or barrow pit. Commitments submitted are legal, binding documents and will run with the land, and the Plan Commission could take legal action if not developed accordingly. . John Molitor, Counsel for the Commission, has reviewed the commitments and they will be binding; the commitments are tied to the development. Why is this development most appropriate for use of this site? This quality of development is essentially not seen in other multi-family developments. The architects of this development are nationally known; the land planner is Randall Arendt. This is a landmark development and in terms of buffering, sets a new standard. The requirements of the bufferyard ordinance have been execeeded and set a new standard for the Michign Road corridor. It is also an innovative plan - residential over retail- and is appropriate to have commercial on Michigan and transition from retail to residential. Standard not currently seen anywhere in Carmel; petitioner is preserving 6 acres of trees. Trees will be added and will be a significant benefit to entire area and add character to the site. I The Comprehensive Plan articulates that the site plan is first within the Overlay Zone and is in compliance with and supported by the Comprehensive Plan. Density is not a term used in the Comprehensive Plan-rather intensity of use-and matters in terms of infrastructure (page 4-4 of Comprehensive Plan.) There is no other project on a State Highway in Clay Township whereby if there were a connection, would be a concern. Another plan submitted by a developer might connect-however, because there is no connection, Weston exits off Shelborne and 106th and not directly onto Michigan Road. The infrastructure is appropriate for this parcel of land. Transition from commercial to residential is contemplated within the mixed-use area. Intensity of this use is not as intense in terms of residential area as other projects approved by the Plan Commission, i.e. City Center, Providence at Old Meridian, and AMLI. Weston is medium to medium high intensity residential use. Design is more important than density in terms of property values and good land planning. The design of this development is more important than how dense it is. This plan contains substantial use of brick and has a residential feel. More extensive bufferyard than ever before is offered with this type of development in Carmel. Schools and taxes? Letter from Ron Farrand of Carmel Clay Schools stating plans I submitted to the School system for 298 units, presently reduced to 290, and issues of S:\PlanCommission \Minute s\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\SubdivisionCommittee\2 00 1 mar 2 I sidewalks and turning radii within the development have been addressed. In addition, a former member of State Board of Tax Commissioners will submit a written report indicating that there is no impact in terms of increased taxes-there will be $4 million in increased revenue generated from this development to the County and Township. It is unlikely that this development would produce more than 26 students for Carmel Clay Schools. Demographics: Mike Speedy says detailed market research was done through job growth and employment. This property is geared toward attracting upper income employees from the area. The "Springs" and AMLI at Conner Farm are similar in rents, same design team, etc. Interviews with residential managers and appraisers show income related to age group and employment areas. Property values? Unique design features of development will hold its property value. Proposed bufferyard will enhance development. The addition of homes to the market place will be a positive in terms of property values. I Proposed site better than another? Single family use is excluded by Michigan Road Overlay. Other owner occupied uses in area. The property is 2200 feet deep and extending commercial use that deep or far from Michigan Road would not be good planning or appropriate. The proposed use is a better use than others because of the use of trees, and buffer in response to concerns from adjacent land owners. The proposed development represents the best possible use for this site. Comments from Laurence Lillig. The Department has no new comments; the school district has not yet submitted a response to the Department. Ron Houck commented that the issue with this particular parcel is its depth-it extends beyond 421-- and whether or not this is comparable with depth of other developments. Laurence Lillig commented on the site plan and other developments within the Michigan Road Overlay as comparisons. I Maureen Pearson, attorney for Thomson Electronics and a representative of the Weston Homeowners' Association, said this development does not comply with current zoning and will add to the school. Dana Altum indicated that American Village Properties mis- spoke in saying that Altum's was in favor of this project. Mr. Altum made that representation-not Dana Altum. American Village Properties does not have a track record. Commitments run with the land-A VP's emphasis is on demographics and rents-rents will not run with the land. There are a number of complexes south on Michigan Road that are unoccupied. Regarding medium intensity-Michigan Road property abutting the Westons should be low intensity. R-5 zoning is mixed use- commercial and residential, primarily for commercial. The proposed commercial exceeds 15% of the total tract. The "sense of place" can be accomplished without these 290 additional units. S: \PlanCommission\Minutes\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\SubdivisionCommittee\200 1 mar 3 Rebuttal, Mr. Bach. The commitments are legal, binding commitments and the developer will adhere to those commitments. Michael Speedy has an extensive background with Buckingham and other developments. If an R-5 area exceeds 30 acres, 50% of the total tract can be commercial. I Michael Speedy commented that 11 acres in this development are residential-based on land area, not floor area. Ron Houck remarked that the only issue not discussed to any great extent thus far is traffic. Jennifer Pyrcz, registered professional engineer with Pflum, Klausmeier, and Gehrum, said she studied different scenarios regarding the traffic. The intersection of 106th and Michigan Road currently operates at acceptable levels of service D or better during peak hours. With the proposed development, this intersection functions at level of service E. A traffic signal is recommended at this development site; however, a traffic signal cannot be requested until the property is rezoned. INDOT is willing to consider a traffic signal, however Altum's is not a desirable site because the drive does not align across the street. John Sharpe thought most questions had been addressed except for the height of the building and the impact of the development on the schools. Ron Houck commented that if this parcel were developed as single family, it would generate more school children, specifically .2 children per dwelling or approximately 58 children; 22 acres developed as single family would generate 2.66 people per household, and more children coming from single family development. In regard to the building height, the petitioner's position is that 100 feet of building is two-story, setback could change to 84 feet if they were to move the building 9 feet. A development plan would be filed if this is forwarded to city council. I John Sharpe moved to recommend approval of Docket No. 184-00 Z, Town Centre West, seconded by Kent Broach. The motion to recommend was APPROVED 7-0. Note.' Items 2 and 3 were heard together and voted on separately. Item 2. 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 96th Street and Gray Road. The site is zoned R- 5/Residence. The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waivers: 8-01a SW 8-01 b SW 8-01c SW 8-01d SW 8-01e SW 8-01f SW SCO 6.3.6 SCO 6.3.6 SCO 6.3.7 SCO 6.3.20 SCO 6.5.1 SCO 7.7(C)(3) 25' private right-of-way width >26' pavement width >600' cul-de-sac private street >50' minimum frontage >15/ S bufferyard I S: \PlanCornmission \Minutes \SubdivisionCornmitteeMinutes\SubdivisionCornmittee \2001 mar 4 I 8-01g SW sea 7.7 (0)(6) deforestation Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger for C&J Company and CPM Family Trust. Charlie Frankenberger was in attendance for the petitioner. Approval is requested to plat a six-lot subdivision with Subdivision Waivers as noted. Surrounding uses include mining operations on the east side of Gray Road and to the north; Palmer Dodge and H.R.Greg to the south; and Williamson Run Subdivision to the west. The real estate was rezoned to R-5 by City Council. The petitioner appeared before the full Plan Commission on February 20, 2001 seeking Primary Plat approval along with various Subdivision Waivers. The petitioner also appeared before the Board of Zoning Appeals for two developmental standards variances and a Special Use to permit office use within the R-5 classification. The BZA did approve these requests, and the setbacks were discussed. Laurence Lillig commented that the BZA granted variances for. setback on the north, greenbelt buffer on the south, and various frontage issues relating to the lots not having access on a public right-of-way. Otherwise, the site plan or development plan is substantially the same as was approved during the rezone process. The Department has no outstanding issues. I John Sharpe moved to recommend approval of8-01a SW through and including 8-01g SW, seconded by Dianna Knoll. APPROVED 7-0 John Sharpe moved to recommend approval of Docket No. 8-01 PP, North Haven Subdivision, seconded by Dianna Knoll. APPROVED 7-0. Item 3. 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 96th 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. John Sharpe moved to recommend approval of Docket No. 9-01 DP, North Haven Subdivision, seconded by Norma Meighen. APPROVED 7-0 I Item 4. 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 comer of West 106th Street and Towne Road. The site is zoned S-l/Residence. This is an Exempt Subdivision under ROSa III. The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waiver: la-ala SW sea 6.3.7 >600' foot cul-de-sac Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger for Windsor Grove, LLC. S: \PlanCommission \Minutes\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\SubdivisionCommittee\200 1 mar 5 Charles Frankenberger, attorney with Nelson & Frankenberger, was in attendance representing Jim Caito, Dick Carriger, and Steve Wilson in connection with their request for Primary Plat approval. I The real estate is 37 acres on the southwest comer of 106th Street and Towne Road. The real estate is bounded by Pine Lake Estates to the south; Kingsmill community to the north. The petitioner is requesting 35 lots on 37 acres. Londenderry Boulevard ends in a long cul-de-sac that exceeds 600 feet and necessitates a subdivision waiver. The petitioner has agreed to install pavers to create emergency access between lots 23/24 and 19/20 and this is acceptable. There is a small wetland area in the common area in the northwest comer onto lot 3, and was brought up by John South of Hamilton County Soil and Water Conservation. The Army Corps of Engineers no longer regulates wetland areas. This particular wetland is determined to be an isolated wetland and a letter will be furnished to that effect. To accommodate that possibility, lots 1, 2, and 3 were slightly re-configured to place the wetlands on lot 3 only. This was done to make it easier to be certain that only 1/10th of an acre is impacted. Under the most recent amendment to ROSO, this community is an exempt subdivision under ROSa because of a density of less than one unit per acre. It is still the developers desire to preserve trees and trees are preserved in the northwest corner of the community. Because this is an exempt subdivision, tree preservation is not a requirement, however, in designing the subdivision, the entryway was placed in a responsible manner in order to preserve the trees. Laurence Lillig asked whether or not right-of-way had been obtained for the passing blister. Charlie Frankenberger said the right-of-way indicated on the north side for the passing blister on the north side of 106th Street-there is no existing right-of-way. The petitioner will continue to try to obtain right-of-way. I Laurence Lillig said the only outstanding T AC concern was the wetlands. Laurence Lillig asked that the Department be copied on correspondence concerning the wetlands. The petitioner reported sidewalks externally, and on both sides internally. The roads are under County jurisdiction and the HOA will be responsible for maintaining the "eyebrow" treated as common area. According to Laurence Lillig, Scott Brewer, Urban Forester, had asked for a tree preservation plan for the preservation areas--the petitioner will comply. Along the east and south property lines, where the property proj ects south, there is an existing fence-row that the developer intends to preserve. The trees are also within a 10 foot drainage easement and these are "at odds" with one another. The petitioner responded that the easement will be cleared of all scrub brush and clean the easement and preserve as many trees as possible. John Sharpe moved for the approval of 10-01a SW, for a greater than 600 foot cul-de- I sac, seconded by Kent Broach. APPROVED 7-0. S :\PlanCommission \Minutes\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\SubdivisionCommittee\200 1 mar 6 I Norma Meighen moved to recommend approval of Docket No. 10-01 PP, Windsor Grove Subdivision, seconded by John Sharpe. APPROVED 7-0. The committee resumed the business at hand following a 5-minute recess. Item 6. Docket No. 13-01 PP, Bonbar Place Subdivision Petitioner seeks approval to plat a 75-lot subdivision on 35.77 acres. The site is located at the northwest corner of 1-465 and the Cannel/Clay Monon Greenway. The site is zoned R-l/Residence. Piled by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for Kosene & Kosene. Present for petitioner: Paul Reis, attorney, The Reis Law Firm, for Kosene & Kosene. The site is 35.77 acres with a large, existing pond that is 11.76 acres and previously a barrow pit used in the construction of 1-465. The subdivision is propo~ed to include 21.23 acres of open space consisting of 9.47 acres of mature, young and scrub woodlands, as well as the existing pond. There are 75 single family residential lots platted that equate to 2.1 units per acre; 2.9 units per acre is the base density for the R-1 classification under the current ROSO. . I The open space requirement is for 7.15 acres-the petitioner has provided 14.99 acres utilizing the modified formula which reduces the amount of the pond that is counted toward open space by the area that is bounded by lots (46.9%). As required by the Ordinance, there is a 50 foot wide perimeter buffer around the pond to preserve the wetland area. There is an intermittent drain on the property, however, it is considered "Other Waters of the United States," less than one-tenth of an acre, and is exempt from all mitigation requirements. Notification is required with IDEM. The lot sizes vary from 3,491 square feet to 8,719 square feet with an average size of 4286 square feet. Minimum square footage of the homes is 1300 square feet; the R-l district requires a minimum of 1100 square feet for one story, 900 square feet ground floor on a two-story structure. Since the Plan Commission meeting, the petitioner is committing and putting in its covenants that brick will be required on the first floor front fayade of all the homes. The site has access at two locations, with the primary point of ingress/egress being 101 st Street going out to College Avenue, the second point is Marwood Drive that was actually stubbed in when the Marwood Hills Subdivision was developed. The right-of-way on 101st Street is 50 feet, 10 feet south of the center line-40 feet to the north of the center line. The petitioner has made a commitment to widen 101 st Street to 24 feet of pavement from the west property line of Bonbar to the west line of the Korean Presbyterian Church, where 101 st Street currently narrows. Additionally, the petitioner commits to repair any damage that may occur to 101st Street during the construction period. I In a recent telephone conversation with Ron Farrand of the Carmel School System concerning school bus access to the site, the buses will not be entering the cul-de-sac, but s: \PlanCommission \Minutes\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\SubdivisionCommittee\200 1 mar 7 rather will come off 101 st Street and proceed to the north and back to the west. To the extent that a special needs student would be required to be picked up in front of their residence, the school system can utilize smaller buses that can accommodate the 76 foot cul-de-sac. Primarily, the buses will not be going down the cul-de-sac-the children will be walking to the comer to pick up the bus. I The landscape plan has been approved by the Urban Forester and distributed to the entire Plan Commission. The petitioner is contemplating a connection to the Monon Trail. This would be a private connection; however, the public use could occur based upon the vote of the Homeowners' Association, since that would be going across common area owned by the HOA. There were a number of issues raised concerning traffic and the impact of this project on the adjacent area. At this point, Mr. Reis introduced Steve Fehribach, traffic engineer with A&F Engineering. Steve Fehribach, A&F Engineering, addressed the committee to cover four points brought up by both Plan Commission members and remonstrators. 1) Marwood Drive access point-1 0% would make use of this access point-most traffic goes south on College Avenue. 2) Guilford and/or Carrollton Avenue cut-through traffic-people that would make use of the south access point and try to go north on Guilford or Carrollton and then travel west and then south on College. There is 25.1 seconds of delay at 101 st Street and College. In order for a car to go north, west, and south, it would have to travel approximately 3600 feet to get back to the intersection of 101 st and College. This would exceed the 25.1 seconds of delay at the intersection, and people would not typically take a longer route to get to the same location. 3) 101 st and College Avenue improvements--- None necessary at this intersection based on the fact of a level of service in the future of 25.1 seconds of delay. While it is in level of service "D," it is one-tenth of one second into level of service "D." 4) Regarding the intersection of 96th and College, and 106th and College, the AM peak hour would carry 6 vehicles; in the PM peak hour, there would be 7 additional vehicles at this intersection-a minimal to non-impact. At 96th Street, where most of the traffic is headed south, the existing traffic volumes and projected traffic volumes were looked at and it was determined that the increase in traffic would be 2.6% in the AM peak hour and 3% in the PM peak hour-again, a minimal increase and therefore minimal impact on these intersections as a result of the Marwood Development. I Laurence Lillig said the Department had received a letter February 7th from the Highway Department regarding the status of the 101 st Street right-of-way. Apparently, County Highway has forwarded the documents regarding the State's granting of a 30 foot one- halfright-of-way along the northern one-half of 101 st Street from the State to the County, Attorney Mike Howard, County Attorney, for his determination. This is an outstanding Issue. Mr. Reis responded that he had called Mike Howard three times, and Mr. Howard is on vacation. Mr. Lillig further comented that on the western portion of the Bonbar property, they are I showing a 50 foot right-of-way that extends south, on the Bonbar property, on the east S :\PlanCommission \Minutes\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\SubdivisionCommittee\200 1 mar 8 I side of the "A" parcel survey on the south side of lOlst Street. This is a 50 foot right-of- way that extends into the Bonbar property-is there a similar grant of that right-of-way back to the property line? Mr. Reis wanted to clarify the situation. This is an abandonment situation. When the State was constructing 1-465, the State acquired right-of-way across what is now 101 st Street to get in and take the gravel out. The State was granted an easement by the owner of the Bonbar property. When the State was finished, they basically abandoned the right- of-way. No documents granting the right-of-way were ever recorded by the State. The State abandoned the right-of-way to the Hamilton County Commissioners. When you come to the western part of the Korean Presbyterian Church, there is a platted subdivision, and that is 50 feet. The area really in question is from the western border of the Korean Presbyterian Church to Bonbar's western boundary. On the Bonbar property is right-of-way that they are proposing to give to the Hamilton County Highway Department as shown on the proposed plat. I Laurence Lillig disagreed with Mr. Reis. There is a 50 foot right-of-way that the State granted to the County. If you follow that into the Bonbar property, it then proceeds immediately south 50 feet, although it is difficult from the documents to determine exactly how far south, but it is labeled as a 50 foot right-of-way on the Bonbar property. If the right-of-way were not similarly disposed of by the State by returning it to the property owner, Laurence asked Mr. Reis to pursue with the owner some grant or statement returning the right-of-way or something to clarify the situation and abandonment. Mr. Reis felt that this probably could be done, however, once the subdivision is platted and the right-of-way is set, the other right-of-way is going to be a moot point. Mr. Reis said the Indianapolis Water Company installed their line within the right-of-way and the petitioner has spent months researching the right-of-way. The Water Co. was able to produce the instrument that created the easement. Laurence Lillig suspected the Water Co. probably provided a similar document to the property owner returning the right-of-way to them rather than to the County. Laurence said most of the Technical Advisory issues have been resolved at this time. The subdivision is in technical compliance with the subdivision regulations. With respect to the question of access raised at the Plan Commission meeting on the 20th of March, Laurence distributed copies of the relevant language for the Committee's review. Ron Houck asked about review letters from the government agencies involved. Laurence responded that there are review letters from Technical Advisory Committee members, and discussion with the fire department raised the question of ability to access the subdivision through Marwood Trail; however, they did not include that in their review letter. I s: \PlanCommission \Minutes\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\SubdivisionCommittee\200 1 mar 9