HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 06-21-88 y
•
CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 21 , 1988 229
The regular meeting of the Carmel Plan Commission was called to order
by Sue McMullen, Vice President, at 7: 15 F.M. , June 21 , 1988 at the Carmel
Junior High School . The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.
The roll was called and members present were as follows: Bob Boone,
Richard Albright, Sue McMullen , Sandra Long, Max Moore, Henrietta Lamb, Betty
Stevenson, Frank Fleming, Ted Johnson, Alan Potasnik, Ila Badger and Jim
O'Neal . Jeff Davis arrived at 7:25 P.M. and Richard Albright arrived at
10: 15 P.M.
Staff members present were Wes Bucher, Chuck Kiphart , David Cunningham,
Rick Brandau, Gordon Byers and Dorth.y Neisler.
Mrs. McMullen requested discussion of the minutes at the end of the
meeting.
There are two amendments to the existing Rules of Procedure (which is a
part of the official minutes and attached to the Master Copy) . Amendment #1
is in addition to having public notice in the Noblesville Ledger, we will
request public notice in the Carmel News Tribune. The second is that the
notice must state the date, time and place of the hearing, a legal and .a
geographical description.
Mr. Potasnik moved that the two amendments to the Existing Rules of
Procedure be approved as submitted.
Seconded.
Motion carried.
The Plan Commission attorney was directed to prepare an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan concerning Springmill Road area.
I . OLD BUSINESS
ii . Committee to consider Docket No. 43-88 P.P. , a Primary Plat
Application for Larkspur Phase I located South of 116th and East
of Shelbourne directly across from the Oaktree Subdivision. Site
is zoned S-1 and consists of 20 acres to be subdivided into 19
lots.
Filed by David Kelly.
Subdivision Committee report was read by Alan Potasnik (which is a part
of the official minutes and attached to the Master Copy) .
Mr. Potasnik so moved,
Dr. Long seconded.
Approved 11-0.
Motion carried.
2i . Committee to consider Docket No. 53-88 Z, a Rezone Application for
68. 6 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Spring Mill
Road and 116th St. , Clay Township, IN. Site is currently zoned
S-2 and proposed to be rezoned to B-5, B-6, B-7 and R-2.
Filed by Jim Nelson for John N. q< Eona Pittman.
Land Use Committee report was read by Mrs. Badger (which is a part of the
official minutes and attached to the Master Copy) .
Mrs. Badger so moved.
Mrs. McMullen seconded.
'41'CVRMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE :21 , 1988 Page 2
Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel , made presentation. � .
Mr. Nelson presented three changes in the covenants: 1) Limited the
height of office building in this parcel to the lessor of 4 stories or 60 ' in N,
height, commitment would not exceed 390,000 square feet in the aggregate in
the 3 parcels, 2) agreed to construct one leg of frontage road from 111th
Street to 116th• Street on or over a part of real estate prior to a
certificate of occupancy being granted to the first occupant of the office
building, 3) would rezone S-2 to R-2, but would not covenant that it would be
developed residential .
• Mrs. McMullen objected to the change of the height limited to 4 stories
at the last minute, that it was not addressed at the Land Use Committee, such
last minute changes are totaLl_y__unaccept-abl-e- and changes the whole complexion
of the rezone.
Mrs. Stevenson questioned the fact that all members of committee live 'in
City of Carmel . The next legislative body to vote on this is the City
Council and are all elected by residents of Carmel . There is no one outside
the City from Clay Township who has served on committee. The remonstrators
have no representation.
Mrs. Badger stated that in the 9 years she has been on the Plan
Commission there has never been any concerns of this division, and that all
members do reside in Clay Township.
Mr. Boone state his opposition to the project presented.
Mr. Nelson stated the only change that was made was the reduction of the
height of the building.
Mrs. Badger stated frontage road on West side is definitely needed now
and going to be needed even more with development in the overlay zone. If
this land were all developed residential , she could not perceive that a
frontage road of the magnitude that is needed to carry the commercial
traffic, would ever be built through this piece of land. This is one way of
getting that frontage road built and getting it operational to carry what is
going to be commercial traffic in an area zoned for development.
Mr. Johnson requested receiving the minutes of the committee meetings
prior to plan commission meeting.
Mr. Johnson stated that he is against this rezone for the purposes of the
use of the land and requested staff address their recommendations.
Mr. Kiphart addressed all of the recommendations by the staff as follows:
1) Petitioner has agreed; 2) in question; 3) in question; 4) Petitioner has
agreed to do at Preliminary Development plan stage; 5) in question; 6) in
question; 7) could be handled at Development Plan stage. (which is a part of
the official minutes and attached to the Master Copy) .
Mrs. Badger questioned why petitioner should be more restricted in
commercial building height when if building residential apartments they would
be allowed 45' in height.
Mr. Kiphart felt that staff would have recommended or supported 4 story
residential property.
Mr. Boone stated adjoining wooded area to Southeast is very wet and is
zoned B-5 or B-6, properly zoned for development. He does not feel the trees
should be made an issue on this project since adjoining area will eventually
be developed, why should petitioner be asked to preserve these trees. Mr.
Boone is opposing project.
Mr. Jim Nelson stated they did not agree with , or provided for all the
specific recommendation of staff , but felt the petitioner had met the spirit
CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 3 - ` 231
of their comments. In regard to suggested 250' permanent green belt,
southern part of property has reserved 35 acres for strictly residential
dqbvt,lopmont And Irat4 Fionti.al zoning classification from the south property
extends all way North on Springmill Road, to North property line. That area
will provide a 50' wide landscape area, and since building set back line
would be 200' from proposed right-of-way line of Springmill Road, that total
is 250' . Mr. Nelson described the transition to adjoining . property, South of
property is residential development , next to it is a residential development,
on West side is 80 acre parcel owned by school system, greenbelt area along
116th Street undeveloped real estate. Petitioner does not feel it necessary
to create 250' tapered greenbelt along North property line.
Mr. O'Neal had several comments, 1 ) Why do we have committee
meetings, 2) At Land Use Committee staff recommendations were read, 3) he
personally drove around the property and is aware of the lighting and its
effects. Mr. O'Neal stated he felt this project was a very good use for this
land and that the developer will enhance this property and build a first
class operation that will improve the neighborhood and improve the traffic.
Mrs. McMullen stated she is definitely opposed to this rezone, not
just because of height of office building, a main objection, but to propagate
the 6 story office building concept into this property does not make any
sense at all . Six story office building would mean no residential could be
developed or use could be developed, and that it was of importance to
preserve the residential integrity of Springmill Road. Mrs. McMullen state
she voted for rezone of the property at 103rd and Springmill Road only
because of the proximity to I465 and the security of the residential buffer
along Springmill Road. This petition does not offer any such security to
Springmill Road. If designed creatively it can be done very well , but she
shares concerns of remonstrators. No reason why school property could not be .
sold for a profit.
Mrs. Badger stated she feels it is a fallacy to think the only was you
can preserve residential character is through total residential use. Mrs.
Badger feels this plan could very successfully be used to preserve the
residential character along Springmill .
Paper ballots were passed out to commission members.
Aye votes were cast by Jeff Davis, Ila Badger, Frank Fleming, Jim
O'Neal , Sr. and Sandra Long.
Nay votes were cast by Max Moore, Bob Boone, Sue McMullen, Betty
Stevenson, Henrietta Lamb, Ted Johnson and Alan Potasnik.
Vote was 5 for and 7 against, one member absent.
Petition failed.
G. PUBLIC HEARING
1g. 7:30 P.M. , Public Hearing on Docket No. 61-88 DP/ADLS a
Development Plan/Architectural Design, Lighting and Signage Application for
the Two Meridian Plaza building, a four story 122,000 square foot office
building located on a 7.7 acre parcel located at 103 and Meridian and located
in the US 31 Corridor Overlay Zone and zoned B-5.
Filed by Rusty Richardson for Eaton-Lauth.
Public Hearing opened at 8: 17 P.M.
Rusty Richardson, 1535 Prestwick Lane made presentation.
Chris White, Paul I. Cripe, Inc. was present.
Two Meridian Plaza is the final and 3rd of Meridian Plaza office park
at 1041 N. Meridian Street, is bounded on North by 106th Street, South by
ARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 4
103rd St. , East by Pennsylvania and West by US 31.
Specifics presented for Two Meridian Plaza include: 124,000 square feet;
7.743 acres; access via Pennsylvania St. to 103rd or 106th; 416 parking
spaces on 3 sides; landscaped area on Meridian contains ponds, flag poles, {
water features, other landscaping as shown; sign plan submitted to- Department
of Community Development will be silver/green; lighting plan, exterior
elevation, exterior finish shown; buildings height 64' with penthouse and
screening of mechanical equipment.
There were no comments from the public.
Public hearing closed at 8:26 P.M.
Plan Commission members had no questions.
Referred to Land Use Committee, July 5, 1988 at 7: 30 P.M. at City Meeting
Hall .
2g. 7:30 P.M. , Public Hearing on Docket No. 62-88 DP/ADLS on
Developmental Plan/Architectural Design, Lighting and Signage
Application for a 12,000 square foot addition for the Ritz Charles
banquet facility. Site is located at 12156 N. Meridian on 7.9
acres of land. Site is in the US 31 Corridor Overlay Zone and
zoned B-6.
Filed by Jim Nelson for the Ritz Charles.
Public hearing opened at 8:29 P. M.
Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way made presentation.
Charles Lazzara, President and David Powers of Powers and Kappas were
present.
Project presented as follows: 5 acres purchased additional parking; new
14,000 square foot addition will continue the design of the existing
building; will contain a court yard highlighted by glass and stucco archway;
all building materials will be same as existing building, detail landscaping
plan and lighting plan is on file with DOCD; booklet presented to commission
members.
There were no comments from the public.
Public hearing closed at 8: 33 P.M.
Plan commission members had no questions.
Referred to Land Use Committee, July 5, 1988 at. 7:30 P.M. At City Meeting
Hall .
3g. 7:30 P.M. , Public Hearing on Docket No. 52-88 O.A. as amendment to
the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance adding a new section dealing with
the establishment of civil monetary fines or penalties for
violations of the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision
regulations, Sign Ordinance, Building Code and all amendments,
which may be enforced by the designated enforcement entity.
Filed by the Carmel Plan Commission.
Public hearing opened at 8:35 P.M.
Mr. Potasnik has not heard from anyone from plan commission regarding the
amendment.
Mr. Wes Bucher from Department of Community Development went over several----
additions and/or corrections of ordinances, it will not change the status of
what we have already published.
Mr. Byers stated the changes were technical corrections adding detail and
a
1
j F
. „ . CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 5 233 ' t
0,4 will not need to be republished. - ., ;;•
<' Mr. Potasnik questioned does a savings clause need to be added to this orW,
'; is it already included?
Mr. Byers stated the zoning ordinance has a savings clause that allows us.'y ,,
to severe things and it would be the intent of the zoning ordinance and the 44:
state law that if a part of it would be added, and or same portion held to be''
not in compliance, it would not invalidate the full ordinance. Our zoning ,� �•;;
i code, subdivision thoroughfare, Comprehensive plan all have a built in
severance provision in both the state law and our own specific statue. ”}
Mrs. Badger questioned Mr. Potasnik if he was comfortable with the 't4
changes proposed tonight.
Mr. Potasnik has no problem with changes proposed. ,u •;
Mrs. McMullen moved to suspend the rules and act on this tonight. ,y,{:
Mrs. Badger seconded.
Motion carried.
f,• •krr
Mrs. McMullen moved to approved Docket No. 52-88 O.A. as submitted with "
the amendments that were proposed this evening added.
Mrs. Lamb seconded.
There were no comments from the public on this amendment.
Public hearing closed at 8:48 P. M.
Plan Commission members had no questions.
Approved 12-0
Motion carried.
4g. 7:30 P.M. , Public Hearing on Docket No. 58-88 O.A. an amendment to
the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance adding a new section dealing with
the establishment of an S. R. 421 Michigan Road Overlay Zone for
the purpose of the consistent and coordinate development of the
S. R. 421 Michigan Road Corridor.
Filed by Carmel Plan Commission.
Public hearing opened at 8:49 P.M. 1
There were no comments from the public.
Mrs. Badger stated that this project was started about 8 years ago,, � �.
then restarted again about a year ago.
Mrs. Badger questioned if there was anyone present interested in this
t petition and if they had received a letter stating that this was going to
rezone property? She stated this plan does not rezone any property.
Mr. Byers wants public to know proposed ordinance impacts the use of
certain real estate, and in a sense, causing a zoning change by precludes
certain types of uses. When drafted , notice was given to all to place people, ,
on notice that it did impact their property with this impact of regulating
uses. It precludes and regulates certain types of fuses that fall within the
zone and imposes developmental standards to those uses. Purpose of notice
was to advise them to attend the meeting and that complete copy was on file.
This gives public the opportunity to inspect ordinance, attend public
hearings and ask questions.
Mrs. Badger stated proposal was an amendment to the zoning map, not a
rezone.
Mr. E. Davis Coots, 255 E. Carmel Drive, stated in addition to the issue
on whether this is a rezone, there are several real estates properties that
will be implementing the ordinance or using it along 421. On page 5, in
!if
234
CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 6
reference to the terms of percentage of the screening required for a parking
area, that is the only area in the ordinance where we say parking area
screened along 75% of the lot frontage per plan commission approval . In
other segments of the ordinance we do leave to the landscape plan to the
discretion of the plan commission and the innovativeness of the developer.
The enforcement of a 757% factor and the fact that it is the only one in the
ordinance that gets that specific could be replaced with words "that parking
areas should be properly screened and approved by Plan Commission".
Other concerns address by Mr. Coots were
1 ) . Sub Paragraph C, Page 5, requirement in poured in place concrete
curbs.
2) . Page 5 lighting requirements too restrictive.
3) . Page 6 loading berths, overhead doors, screening difficult 'due to
road angle.
4) . Questioned interpretation of screening, of outside storage, its
approval and interpretation.
5) . Page 7, questioned review and approval for legal conforming use
when ownership changes.
6) . Number 5, one year vacancy sever constraint on property area.
Tim Rave, 3740 W. 98th Street questioned kind of restrictions attempting
to be imposed within this area, the whole purpose of doing this, why are we
putting in an overlay zone, why is residential are on 96th and Michigan Road
are included in this overlay zone rather than just a corridor down Michigan
Road?
Mr. Cunningham stated establishment of this zone was to follow what is
existing along Keystone and Meridian. It was to give some control to the
development that will eventually happen out there. The Plan Commission
currently has title control along 421 . A large portion of that area being , -
zoned I2 which would allow for diverse, unattractive development. Overlay
zone would give control in architectural design, lighting and signage which
would hopefully enhance future development.
The North Augusta Subdivision out there currently is platted. Therefore
would not come under these restrictions, as long as it remains in the use of
the underlying zoning.
Mr. Byers further explained this to the public.
Mrs. Badger stated during last 5 years there has been an occasion that
homeowners from the new Augusta Subdivision have come into DOCD asking for
help to guarantee that if any commercial development were to go in that area
that it be controlled.
Mr. Kiphart confirmed Mrs. Badgers statement. The plan commission does
have control of what goes in. It does offer residents additional protection
and will up grade the 421 corridor area.
Don Bryant, 4685 W. 116th street , questioned if there were restrictions
on the number of stories the structure is allowed to have within this
corridor?
Mr. Cunningham stated the height restrictions go to the underlaying zone,
as example, B-1 zoning is 45 ' , I1 zoning is 60 ' in industrial zone.
Mr. Bryant questioned would it require a transition from adjoining
residential areas to six story building be built there now next to
residential area.
Mr. Cunningham stated that what is existing now° it would require a
transition and developmental plan would have to be submitted to Plan
j J
I, y �, '? 1 l
7� }
� CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 7,': �q, ��,
�e y�I�, t
k ; Commission and Plan Commission would review. q,,.
Mr. Bryant questioned whether proposal would require the use of City '� r ' '�;,
lyIj', Utilities or would they be permitted to use individual septii c systems? litxi j 1`;'f
'!i .:r, Mr. Cunningham stated they could be individual septic. , ! 0
. '1 !;
tt,'' ' Mr Mr. Br Bryant stated he was opposed osed to individual septic tic s stems. is "' 'I {'
,'`fir!' Randy Schultz , 3796 Shelbourne Court , Brandywine Subdivision eb b
'N, d; questioned how this corridor was established, how far off 4'21 does this I
{ "
cover? 400 ' _ f,, , t ;
! 7{.1 Mr. Cunningham stated 400 ' off the right-of-way, and in addition, the t �
' ! ,; North Augusta area. . 1;� !
1 J..3,if A6 t 1
■ ft 1 n mr4 k 1'
:'I s, Mr. Schultz questioned whether people would be able to , extend this 'p;. . ,
04�i' ;_ zone that is being suggested all the way back to the residential? Will 11,#1'� 1!,,',
1,014 this back up to our property? ;r ,`,J;fr;
ter' tE Mr. Cunningham stated if 50% of their property lies i n the overlay ?'
i �. zone, the entire parcel will be included in the overlay zone. It would {1i`
.:. ,4 :
,, ' back up to Schultz 's property. t. i,
'C.�rcf
t Mr. Schultz questioned if there is anything in this zone that would i,1'a�r',.
,,'I allow existing properties to stand change like a wooded area, could they {`t ''�'� '�i
rj, , be consumed and be developed, is there any guidelines for setbacks, or Siy ''�;'
{ screened areas along Spr i ngmi l l Road. r;, ';
";, I;) Mr. Cunningham stated there is a substantial green belt area imposed ?`,f E,. 1
' ; 1 on this, front yard setbacks, and landscaping. ': '{ '
''�41 f14'1'
1j! Mr. Davis stated in general we are putting more restrictions on the 1+ . !,.
,I�, area of the corridor and not making anything less restrictive, trying to AL
1' get a little bit of control of this corridor on both sideslof 421. Are ; .l .," q
1 ; not extending anything into the residential area, just to give the plan ii.01� ' '_,
�" t6 Commission a little more review and control . We are restricting some,.:I,�il ; ��i
rh rights to property owners in that area, in that it ,might be viewed as a x,111
1, :P rezone because we are changing some of their property rights and some of °{ i
i, ii�4�1 the uses they can put it to. ';� f`
11801 Mr. Byers stated the reason the public did not receive information on kE `,4'1
� k' overlay zone that the state law imposes upon a city or a town certain
11'.' requirements when you make a change in the zoning code, zone maps. One • r ,' I,
',I� J to publish in newspaper at a minimum of 10 days, (Carmel extended that to ' ts, -
` 30 days) . We are also required send to people who, adjoin, residents are lt .r `"
, art adjacent or abut the area so many feet deep and o to the auditor of -'Ir ' ,
,,1PI Hamilton, Boone and Marion County and are required to send you notices. 1Et ;
', 1 State law allows us to give a brief narrative description of the text. {� 'i , ;
,. i1 r1',
f1, Being impossible to mail complete text due to the cost and the size of it, .rr ' ,a'i
F the state legislature saw fit to require us as a Plan Commission to print l' ;0,'a summary or a brief narrative and make a complete copy is available for 1„. i;,: t
li'.,a
,Ili: your viewing during city office hours. r 1f�„„"� r
.0," There was a. sign up sheet made available for residents to sign• up for ,ti �!r'-,�
.,1qt, �' ��
i.,:i a copy which will be mailed ed to them. ';� !Id .1 1i
'!*1.11 Mr. Byers stated, regarding the precluding of development of single ;IV1:�t j
��'�' family residence, if the property has not been platted and developed, i '14
04q1!: residential not be allowed under this proposal (amendment that has to go ;�. ''' `�
1•,1 � I
, 4 f!' to City Council ) to build a single family dwelling house. II?;, ,H.
11i Public hearing closed at 9:24 P.M. "I� ''II, r�' '
ti;, Referred to Land Use Committee, July 5, 988 at 7:30 P.M. at City 1 ;' ;{•
`}(
Meeting Hal 1 1t'1' 1q 1
1114 iii j
aw 49, L,
,
236 3 r
ARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 8 '
H. NEW BUSINESS 1,"
lh. Commission to consider Docket No. 63-88 ADLS an Architectural
Design, Lighting and Signage Application for addition to an
existing building for the First National Bank. The site is ;
zoned B-8 and located at 140 East Carmel Drive, (existing "
building is currently the Gallery Building) . .''
Filed by Tom Lyons for First National Bank.
Kent Richards, Engineer made presentation.
Tom Lyons, Executive Vice President of First National Bank was '
present. I " ' 'Plans submitted as follows: vault added to the existing building,
drive up windows in the back , a new entrance area, other entries remaining
the same, materials will match existing, new signage, no change to the q'' .'.Ir
existing lighting and drainage.
Petitioner has agreed to put sidewalks in along East Carmel Drive.
There were no questions from the public.
Petitioner stated he will not come back at any time for the addition .,$ ,.;;
of awnings.
There will not be any additional parking as it meets the requirements.
Mrs. McMullen moved to suspend the rules and act on this tonight. r
Dr. Long seconded. ,
Approved 12-0.
Motion carried. 1''
Mr. Boone moved that Docket No. 63-88 ADLS be approved as submitted.
Dr. Long seconded. '
Approved 12-0,
Motion carried. _.
2h. Commission to consider Docket No. 69-88 ADLS, an Architectural ,o'
Design, Lighting and Signage Application for Med Check located
at 313 E. Carmel Drive. Petitioner wishes to install a new
ground sign and relocated an existing wall sign. "dk`' • '?
Filed by Jim Evans.
Anthony Rogers, representing Med Chek which is owned by Community
Hospital made presentation.
Mr. Mark Richards and Dr. Norman Glandsman, property owners were '
present.
Presentation as follows: 4' x 8 ' ground sign height of 5' , 40 square
feet of landscaping around the sign, corporate colors of Med Check , blue
background with orange and yellow and white lettering, placed in front of
building in parking lot taking two parking spaces, (40 spaces are required
77 existing) , existing wall sign of Carmel Medical Building, maybe `
relocated to the East elevation in some configuration., Med Check will
occupy approximately 32% of building.
Mr. Kiphart stated it is up to owner of property to determine whether
they use the one sign allowance for one tenant or whether they want to '
identify the building, in this instance, called the Med Chek Building.
Landscape Plan shown and described include low profile shrubbery of 2'
in diameter, 4 larger shrubs will be around perimeter And a collage of
smaller plants.
Staff recommends approval of this project. •. -
Mr. Boone moved rules be suspended and act on this tonight. •
Mrs. Lamb seconded.
Approved 12-0.
i i 1 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 9 237 }p
II 1
r rq '
Motion carried. ;�� : i'
iMr. Boone was concerned about presentation. 3i (7� Mrs. Lamb moved that Docket No. 69-88 ADLS be approved as presented. 4'„'� I'E Seconded. ;i,L, I I;
au Mr. Kiphart stated there is nothing in the ordinance that requires .i4 !'
110 signs to be similar. ''A l
w- E •
,� Vote was 5 for and 7 against.. �:
o � Project was denied. 1f I I.
• r
I Referred to Industrial and Commercial Committee on July •5, 198B at fx•ia ,q -..
1 ., 7:30 P.M. at City Meeting Hall . V.if . :,'
df 3g. Commission to consider Docket No. 70-88 ADLS, an Architectural a'( '�e'• j
Design, Lighting and Si na e Application for True Value 1s '��`, 1
r , 9 9 g 9 PP ; uS
Hardware. Site is zoned B-8 and located at 1122 Keystone Way. �, `
li
Petitioner wishes to construct a permanent outside sales and A ' � �storage facility to be used as a garden center. . ` -I.
Filed by Clark Haggerman. .11-:��;r'„
;; asl
r:'t Haggerman, 2149 E. 106th Street made presentation.resena on included: facility
s �,
,Ptti ildd filit will be located on North side of
E Fi.r.
" parking lot consisting of an 8' fence entire length of North side of lot , , !�
' ,It providing screening from Carmel Drive side, along We st side to screen } '
ri from building behind True Value. Fence will also extend 20',- out on east .. ,
'' I�; side screening Keystone Way, garden center will be open type, arbor fqi .�4
' 'f' structure, 10 ' from fence, cedar siding materials to match fence, reddish
li br own shingle and cedar siding. Fence will be 4' lap siding on bottom and y!`4
4 ' lattice work on to 116 arkin s aces available 70 re uired for a;•-.' ' �'. top. parking P � q �. '
existing businesses, structure approximately 4,000 square feet, requiring ;$ ; { ,�
Li :', additional 9 parking spaces, 37 more spaces than required. ' 1,..h
ill
Sign will be one 4' X 3' enclosed metal frame internally lit sign ,
4i g
plastic face, brown background with cream letters which would say Garden '�a°-j `:ry:'
Y t "° Center and will be located in the middle of the paraput. 14'1
`ru Mr. Potasnik questioned whether this structure will encroach upon II.:
4 1 existing parking spaces on North side of lot. 11, ,i
Mr. Haggerman stated it will take up 18 parking spaces, ' and will E& { ,,
include a sales area for flowers, shrubs, landscape material , etc. , taking i} �f;°:`�pj,
the place of a tent.. It will not be permanently enclosed, top is open
lattice work 2 X 6 set on 1� centers with the si n above roof line on ' � !
parapet. (y. ,
hh Mr. Davis uestiohed if there would be a cash register and a tenant in f (' ,
°qq��7pp '1 outside area. : '=�i, ,
Mr. Haggerman stated there will be some items to be paid for inside fi
)1i; `tali({,..;
! and some outside of building. 3
},6 Mrs. Badger questioned if part of this will be leased to an outside 1! , i�'
individual :
:Nil !.
,'J Mr. Haggerman stated if it would be leased it would be separate from 1
i i True Value and cash receipts would have to be kept separate. li'l-t l'll,
t^a it
6'I: �I Mrs. Badger questioned staff if this was looked at as an extension of .�� , r�
Iij hardware store? ,f ''k'k '
Mr. Kiphart stated staff considers it an extension of True Value f ', s '
I Hardware, with things stored there until they are sold, and Mr. Klappers 1' ,
(;• business would be run out of this area for part of the year: i��
� S E there will be no '
f � Mrs. Badger requested petitioner put in writing th r ,�� ��,�,�
''�' outside storage whatsoever. ,,°,f :.
� Ek Mr. Haggerman will have a rendering of this project by July 5. + ,i ;
WEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 1 .
C)
Referred to Industrial and Commercial Committee on July 5, 1988 at
7: 30 P.M. at City Meeting Hall .
4g. Commission to consider Docket No. 71-8B ADLS, an Architectural
Design, Lighting and Signage Application for a new 5 story _•..,
office building located in the Meridian technology Center. Site
is located at 101 Congressional and zoned B-6.
Filed by Kevin Miller for Browning Investments.
Rick Rembusch of Browning Investments at 11511 North Meridian made
presentation.
Todd Burger from architectural Firm of Everett I . Brown was present.
Presentation included 12 acres in site, approximately 2 1/2 acres
consists of landscape buffer , two access points from Congressional
Boulevard, 620 parking spaces required, 644 are provided, trash will be
stored inside building.
Building materials include: silver surface or a dark brown reflective
glass, exterior material of granite aggregate on precast concrete,
landscaping plan and lighting plan were shown (on file with DOCD) .
Signage package includes a building identification sign at entrance as
approved with signage package for Meridian Technology Center.
Project will go to Technical Advisory Committee.
There were no questions by commission members.
Referred to Industrial and Commercial Committee.
i
I. OLD BUSINESS
3i . Committee to consider Docket No. 54-88 DP/ADLS, a B-7 Zone
Development Plan/Architectural Design, Lighting and Signage
Application for a .62 acre parcel of land located at 941 S.
Range Line Rd. Carmel IN. This
9 Rd. , , . parcel of land is currently
zoned B-7 with a business operating illegally out of the
existing structure (Violation has been cited) .
Filed by Phillip L. Stewart, Owner.
Mr. Moore read the Industrial and Commercial Committee report (which
is a part of the official minutes and attached to the Master Copy) .
Mr. Moore so moved.
Mr. Johnson seconded.
Staff recommendations have been met.
Mr. Kiphart stated Public Works had approved one road for entrance and
one for exit , we request that Mr. Stewart mark on pavement entrance and
exit signs only. He requested that though bonding is currently in use,
all permits for this project, and state approvals be acquired within 30
days after tonights approval , and would like commission approval to be
conditioned to those two things.
Mrs. McMullen questioned what paying all fees and fines mean in the
staff recommendations?
Mr. Kiphart stated since there was a starting of a business without
proper approvals by our office or by the state, and with the plan
commission approvals per the last amendment, we do have fines that can be
imposed. Mr. Stewart has been made aware of that in the past.
Mr. Potasnik stated that after payment of all fines and penalties, _ Mr.
Stewart would be in conformance with regards to the violations that he'had
M 111:
CAkMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 11 229 ' ,
been sited. ?� �` 11.
i y. Mr, 1�•.i�ihArt gtAt �1 that. was correct. +
4,4 t ' '4;ii t .
Mrs. Badger questioned the kind of control we have over, the fact that !
he is going to do these thi ngs1 unl ess you refuse to issue him a ,:k1 z�.,
4,,li,, certificate until he has come into compliance with the violations. ,t t
n Mr. Ki Kiphart stated it could be handled that way if that ' s the request D '�") d,'
' ry of the board. rt'r'f�,r�''i
1T 14 Mr. Davis said with no objections from the Commission that is the way 4, ' '.
(fit the project would be handled. u ;�ri-
,l I li Approved 13-0 T4 x
y,° ',;, Motion carried.
' ,; 1 4i . Committee to consider Docket No. 55-88 D.P. /ADLS a' B-7 Zone :
ill Eli, Development Plan/Architectural Design, Lighting and Signage ,et' ;,
., i�; Application ication for Ace Hardware I`�� ??x
, pp proposed for a 1 .6 acre parcel of �' �.
i, '' land located at 731 S. Range Line Road, Carmel , IN. This parcel 0*
of land is currently zoned B-7 with an existing single family �.
`+ residence located on part of the parcel of land.
.' i Filed by David Freiberger and Stephan White. ;� A,,a',t, �
„,,I,
.1, , ,
" , Mr. Moore read the Industrial and Commercial Committee �' ' '
k , . ittee report (which
�.
! is a part of the official minutes and attached to the Master-Copy) . i � .,
if? Mr. Moore moved that Docket No. 55-88 D.P. /ADLS be approved as 1, `
{ submitted. 'f
P"
ir Mrs. Stevens seconded. `l±
� i Approved 13-0. .,,.,,. r .}.
Motion carried. ? � , "5, '
' 441e.:.416111''
lay'+`tr
, ?'?'fr, Si . Committee to consider Docket No. 56-88 D.P. , a Primary ° ! 4;
Development Plan for Timber Creek , 192 Condominium '
P , project with IfAt
Club House, for Block 15, Carmel Science and Technology Park, a kQ
20.68 acre parcel of land in Carmel , IN. Site is zoned M-3. 'lM ; ( ''
40 Filed by Carter Jackson for Hills Development Co. • 1' ,
;F
1�' Mr. Davis stated a letter had been received from a remonstrator. ''??
,,.v Mr. Kiphart stated that he was aware of the letter, regarding what was •y j. 3
W discussed in 1981 , 1982 and 1983 concerning Science and Technology Park !? ;
+• L and this particular development as it relates to the condominium project, tt::?':t. what is allowed, how you interpret the density, and what the Plan. Commission considers equal to four pl ex units.kl
Mr. Davis questioned what initial commitments were made to receive : -,..;
.: approval of this project, and whether commitments were made that have not
�: ;!'' :;,',
' '' been adhered to, or are we within that range. `
Mr. Kiphart stated this is not a four plex or anything near to it, but ° �'' b
�! ! a 16 unit, multiple stories high, condo 's do meet the overall gross I•'g<' 1
▪ ' . density requirement but do not meet the requirement that there be no more { '41.x!,,, than 6 units per each actual acre within the 150' setback from the ,
, ,,' ': Subdivision to the North. In the cluster housing ordinance, we have the ;l j``� i same requirement, you could put all the units on part of acreage and you Z .4 :
P ' could preserve the other part of acreage for existing open space, and 'i s .' f'!l
based on total units on gross acreage. The development plan :f or this `d +1 4
,� � � property does not meet the requirements at all for one story, 4 plexes, if NH. ,
� �' those commitments were made on those 3 occasions during development of M3. ,t: <' �1 '
4 I! 9 P
! (� Mrs. McMullen questioned if other staff recommendations have been
i addressed (which is a part of the official minutes and attached to the
Master Copy) .
°�; , Mr. Kiphart stated, 1 ) no, 2) yes, 3) no, 4) no, 5) not sure if in -: i?l
C
d 'ill.r
ltg
%ILL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 12
covenants, Mr. Nicely can answer that. During the process a change was
made and that the M-3 requires a two step process, first the approval of a 4A9 9
Primary Development Plan and the second
y p process of final development
plan/ADLS. Between time of submission and the time went to committee, the , 1 :14
petitioner requested to the commission they look at this as both the '!° :j 0i
preliminary and ADLS. The committee agreed to do and that is what they '""' :
voted on, and what is before you tonight. We would ask the petitioner to ' .�;'
present tonight the details of their sign package, some which will require
a variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The commission would have to
have presentation on details of sign package if commission is going to 111;1!'
' A
take action on Preliminary Plan, Final Development Plan and ADLS. Thisy
will be last opportunity to review this project.
Mr. Brandau indicated that drainage plan as proposed for the project "t
was acceptable to City Engineer and we have letter stating such, however,
it does not meet the requirements the DOCD asked for.
Mr. Boone requested to see exterior materials.
Exterior materials were shown.
Mr. Nicely stated it is his opinion that all trees have been saved
that can feasibly be saved. Also, units will be sold to owners, we do not .1.`
rent or lease the units, owner can lease. Sign package shown included a ,�!
brick entrance wall with wording Timber Creek, redwood construction, sand
blasted, pale gray background with dark gray or black trim letters.
Petitioner will agree to come back with a sign package.
Mr. Brandau stated his concerns: 1 ) does not feel the exterior meets ^'s '
standards Carmel would like to see in our community, 2) condominium owner
coming in and one person purchasing enti.re building, 3) location of
clubhouse, not preferable for this type of unit and it 's target market , 4)
driveway location in relation to clubhouse, should be more centrally
located, 5) a condominium project should and would be better suited with
individual entrances, 6) this type of development going in City of
Carmel .
He expressed these concerns at the committee level .
Mr. Brandau stated that this is a M-3 zone not a residential zone.
M-3 goes through Preliminary Plat and secondary plat process. Since this
property is a residence and condominium project does not legally subdivide T;;'
into parcels of land, project brought through as development plan/ADLS. "•i,
Mr. Kiphart explained what actions are to be taken. There was further
discussion. jt
Mr. Byers stated we do not need to deal with suspension of rules, Mr.
Nicely is asking and submitting Preliminary and Secondary Plans and ADLS I'
for your review. An applicant can ask that you consider both of them.
Simply ask for you to review and vote it , tonight, that it does not
require a suspension of the rules.
Mr. Boone moved that Docket No. 56-88 D.P. be approved as both Primary
and Final Development Plan/ADL.
Seconded.
Approved 9-4.
Motion carried.
6i . Committee to consider Docket No. 57-88 Z , a Rezone Application
for 1 . 08 acres of land located at 107 W. 106th St. , Clay
Township, IN Site is currently zoned S-1 and proposed to be
rezoned to B--5.
Filed by Stephen W. Perkins. ji'
Mrs. Badger read Land Use Committee report (which is a part of the
official minutes and attached to the Master Copy) .
, ,./| _ ~ _
° '
*��� tf
' . ^�,��
CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 13 '0,
` ^
/, .
M��� �� �#� moved." ~ .
���~ WtINO1AffM seconded.
Approved 13-0. it
Motion carried.
v . If
7i . Committee to consider Docket No. 64-88 ADLS a cha�ge in location ' `
for Pickett Suite Inn sign , located at 11355 N. Meridian St' , .
� Carmel , IN. Site is zoned B-6 and located within the US 31
Corridor Overlay Zone. Sign has already been relOcated.
` '
Filed by Dennis Greene.
i 1 .
[his project was approved by the Industrial and Commercial Committee Ilk
' on June 7, 1988 and there "o action by full Plan Commission is needed.
April minutes will be discussed by the secretary and We Buch—r Over
. the next month. 4011
" .
As there was not any further business brought before the board the
meeting was adjourned at 11: 2o P.M.
At
1
President Secretary
.
/ `
. otp.
/ .
% , �
lit j
.
1r
'
. IS
.
°
'
.
.
' fifli
'
P , WI
^
'
• .
. .
.
.
VI
t:
1 ii
.
. /
. ^
^
tip
, ���
y��