HomeMy WebLinkAboutTAC Minutes TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
November 24, 1993
Members present were: Rick Brandau, Dave Cunningham, Mike Hollibaugh and Terry Jones of
Department of Community Development; Jose Kreutz, Hamilton County Highway, LuAnna
Stephens, Communications; Jim Rebuck, Indiana Gas; Charlie Eldridge, Indianapolis Power &
Light; Brad Reynolds, PSI Energy; John South, Hamilton County Soil & Water Conservation;
Steve Cash, Hamilton County Surveyor's Office; Randy Powell, City Engineer's Office; Stan
Puckett, Carmel Fire Department; and Morris A. Hensley, Carmel Water.
CORRECTION: Regarding THE PARKS AT SPRINGMILL PRIMARY PLAT, The TAC
minutes of October 27, 1993, incorrectly stated that the County Highway intended to widen
Springmill Road. THE COUNTY HIGHWAY DOES NOT INTEND TO WIDEN SPRINGMILL
ROAD.
THE RESERVE AT SPRINGMILL
The petitioner seeks approval (Primary Plat) to plat 78 lots on 33.9 acres of land located on the
east side of Springmill Road, just south of 106th Street. Filed by Pittman Partners.
Present for the petitioner were: Doug Floyd, attorney; Steve Pittman; and Paul Clair of Schneider
Engineering.
COMMENTS:
- County Highway, Jose Kreutz referred to standard comments in Highway Dept.'s letter:
item No. 7 regarding guardrails; item 6 regarding cul-de-sac--would like to see a
temporary cul-de-sac until stub is connected to adjacent development to the north; item
4 concern regarding drainage easement which parallels right-of-way--pipe will have to
be located in the 45 foot easement right-of-way.
- IPL, Charlie Eldridge says IPL will service this project; will need 15 feet of easement
adjacent to and behind right-of-way. Street crossings--IPL will provide conduit,petitioner
to install; crossing over any pipelines to be done at petitioner's expense in accordance
with pipeline requirements; IPL needs entrance detail showing existing utility poles (may
have to be relocated, at petitioner's expense); any passing blister needs to be delineated
on plans.
- Soil & Water Conservation, John South expressed concern with stability of two ravines
at stormwater discharge points, needs to be clarified on plans. Petitioner stated he will
most likely provide one dry detention in each ravine; John South would like to see on
paper before petitioner's next appearance at TAC. Petitioner agreed to do general soil
borings, not borings on each lot; petitioner will also do soil testing during development
with regard to compaction and moisture content. Petitioner will connect storm drainage
west of lot 37 at entryway. Jose Kreutz wants to see more detail as to how the detention
1
area functions--concern regarding storm water emptying into right-of-way.
- Communications, LuAnna Stephens, no comment.
- Carmel Fire Department, Stan Puckett requests hydrant between lots 58 & 59.
- County Surveyor's Office, Steve Cash asked that petitioner refer to his letter of
comments dated Nov. 23rd, most items already been discussed; need copies of off-site
agreements petitioner needs to show common areas as drainage easement (label plans).
- Indiana Gas, Jim Rebuck stated project is in Jeff Autry's area of jurisdiction; petitioner
should contact him directly.
- DOCD, Dave Cunningham, petitioner intends to schedule for public hearing in January;
will be back to TAC in December. Dave requested notice information from auditor's
office; covenants have not been received; need non-opposition statement in regard to
annexation. Petitioner is installing accel/decel lane on Springmill,no other improvements.
Petitioner submitted finalized landscape plan today per Mike Hollibaugh's request,
elevation plan also submitted today, petitioner to provide one additional. Three variance
requests: street width (County wants 28 feet), passing blister, cul-de-sac length.
PLUM CREEK PRIMARY PLAT
Petitioner seeks approval (Primary Plat - cluster) to plat 639 lots on 519 acres of land located
approximately one-half mile east of Gray Road, running from 122nd Street to 131st Street
(Lynnwood Farms). The site is zoned S-i residential. Filed by Lynnwood Residential
Association.
Present for the petitioner: Jim Nelson, attorney; Rick Rembusch of Browning Investments; Ken
Thompson; Cort Crosby; and Dan Isaacs. This item was presented to the Carmel Plan
Commission in November; no persons appeared in opposition--members of public appeared in
favor of project.
COMMENTS:
- Carmel Fire Department, Stan Puckett, no comment.
- IPL, Charlie Eldridge, no comment.
- PSI, Brad Reynolds stated some lines on 126th Street will have to be relocated,
otherwise, no problems.
- County Highway, Jose Kreutz referred to October 19 letter in regard to River Road--
petitioner agreed to dedicate appropriate right-of-way to improve turning radius of River
Road in southeast corner, but did not agree to do actual work involved; petitioner agreed
to re-work entrance at 122nd Street (under jurisdiction of City of Carmel) petitioner does
not own property to grant additional right-of-way--if made available by County, petitioner
would review with County. Petitioner will improve angle of entrance on 122nd Street;
Petitioner DOES NOT agree to resurface River Road. Petitioner DOES AGREE to make
improvements to 126th Street and 131st Street in the form of curbs and gutters being
brought to Carmel standards. Jose Kreutz would still like to see developer
resurface River Road.
2
- City Engineer's Office, Randy Powell requests 30 foot back-to-back curb and gutter or
30 foot chip and seal shoulder.
- Communications, LuAnna Stephens requested status of street names in Plum Creek, at
present the names are OK--petitioner agrees to clear any change in street names with
LuAnna.
- Soil & Water Conservation, John South referred to his letter of 11-16 and requests
written response. Petitioner received copy of John South's letter of 11-16 to Dave
Cunningham and will respond..
- City Engineer's Office, Randy Powell stated his office has no problems with Primary
Plat; has a number of unresolved concerns, but no reason to hold up development.
(concerns include location; sanitary sewer service; water service; and street cross section.)
- County Surveyor, Steve Cash met with Thompson, Corby provided information but Cash
has not yet gone over, Surveyor's office has no objections to Primary Plat. Most items of
concern to County Surveyor deal with Mitchner Drain itself--can be worked out.
- City Engineer, Randy Powell advised petitioner of ordinance passed and now in effect
revising availability charge for water--now $1,010. per acre rather than $900. Fees on this
particular project will be affected.
- Indiana Gas, Jim Rebuck questioned reduction of curb radius on 122nd and River Road-
-may affect gas main in regard to Right-of-Way; petitioner says old right-of-way would
still be in effect and sees no problem. Rebuck states otherwise, concerns have been
addressed.
- DOCD, Rick Brandau questioned how to address covenants and golf course and driving
range--needs to be firmed up. Jim Nelson offered to file a special use application for golf
course with understanding that clubhouse location would be identified at a later date.
- DOCD, Dave Cunningham stated that tunnel under 126th Street needs to be explained
to City Engineer. Regarding improvements to Hazeldell, Petitioner needs to confirm in
writing and have available by Subdivision Committee; dedication of east 60 foot half
right-of-way to be done now.
CARMEL VILLAGE CENTER PRIMARY PLAT
Petitioner seeks approval (Primary Plat- commercial) to plat 7 lots on 12.82 acres of land located
approximately one-eighth mile north of Carmel Drive on the east side of Rangeline Road. The
site is zoned B-8 Business. Filed by Mick Scheetz.
Representing the petitioner were: Rich Henderson of Schneider Engineering; Mick Scheetz of
Executive Commons; and Wayne Timberman, Timberman Real Estate. Also in attendance were
Anita Adkins, Denita Raymont, and Nancy Mutchmore of the Shoshone Neighborhood
Association.
COMMENTS:
- Carmel Fire Department, Stan Puckett all OK
- PSI, Brad Reynolds stated everything looks fine, no problem with service, would like
3
15 to 20 foot easement.
- County Highway, Jose Kreutz no comment
- Communications, LuAnna Stephens, name of Executive Drive OK; name of Shopping
Center NOT OK -- petitioner will review, Jim Nelson to get in touch with LuAnna at
Communications.
- Soil & Water Conservation, John South referred petitioner to letter of comments;
concern regarding drainage summary, detention ponds sufficient for total site or other lots
involved? Need swales and storm pipes to handle drainage from lots to the north. Need
statement from petitioner, more detail on plans. Street and sewer plans submitted
separately or part of construction plans?
- City Engineer, Randy Powell expressed concern on overall drainage on lots--not enough
detail at this time if this is the only review; if project is to come back as secondary, it
would be more detail. Jim Nelson stated project is to return for secondary plat approval
of 7 lots, then on a lot per lot basis for ADLS. Randy Powell advised petitioner of
revised charges for water availability, was $900. per acre, now $1010. per acre. Due to
confined space requirement by OSHA, casting requirements for sanitary sewer revised
from 23 5/8" diam. to 26 diam. opening. With respect to Sanitary Sewer, lateral serving
all lots needs to be at a manhole for monitoring purposes, otherwise, no problems.
- DOCD, Mike Hollibaugh met with Mick Scheetz and adjoining property owners
regarding landscaping, mounding and 30 foot buffer, no plan agreed upon so far; however,
existing vegetation is to be protected. Jim Nelson says agreement should be reached prior
to public hearing on December 21st.
- Indiana Gas, Jim Rebuck stated gas is in easement; pond would encroach on easement
if it is reconfigured and would be a concern. Also, concern regarding roadway, would
like two feet of soil between roadbed and pipe.
- DOCD, Dave Cunningham stated need for signage plan from petitioner. Concern was
expressed on lot 3 regarding easement which dissects the lot, apparently a combination
of Indiana Bell and Indiana Gas. Jim Rebuck stated Gas Co. only has underground rights
and paving can be done over easement but no building.
- DOCD, Terry Jones asked if drainage line on lot 5 crossed an easement; looks like
drainage easement running to the retention pond and stopping. Henderson responded that
it is not part of their plat. Jim Nelson says language explaining the easement has been
recorded. Terry Jones asked for Instrument Number prior to approval. Any concern from
lake or pond expressed from neighbors?
- Neighbor, Denita Raymont expressed concern regarding landscaping mound and trees
to protect sound; drainage is a problem on some neighborhood properties, also project site
is a concern for neighboring children.
- DOCD, Terry Jones stated that the landscaping is still being worked out; developer
needs to work with neighbors regarding their concerns, and the concern of an "attractive
nuisance."
MOFFITT FARM PRIMARY PLAT
Petitioner seeks approval (Primary Plat - cluster) to plat 583 lots on 243 acres of land located
4
approximately three-fourths mile east of Gray Road, north of 131st Street. The site is zoned S-1
residential. Filed by Centex Development.
Present for the petitioner were: Stan Neal of Weihe Engineers; Dennis Olmstead and Curt Huff
of Stoeppelwerth & Assoc.; and Glenn Christian of Centex Homes.
- COMMENTS:
- Carmel Fire Dept., Stan Puckett says all OK
- PSI, Brad Reynolds says PSI needs 15 foot easement bordering road right-of-way.
- County Highways, Jose Kreutz needs response to letter requesting adjacent right-of-way
improvements. Co. Highway assumes all will be annexed by Carmel (the full width of
River Road). Co. Highway requests: resurfacing of River Road from 131st Street to
146th Street; widening of River Road along property frontage; and replacement of
structure that crosses River Road, the Warner Ditch. Glenn Christian will respond. -
Communications, LuAnna Stephens stated no new street names received so far--petitioner
says he is working on it and will fax to Communications Dept.
- Soil & Water Conservation, John South sent letter to petitioner last week listing
concerns regarding flood plain/flood way of Vestel drain. Flood plain should be avoided,
could be utilized for evening out development. Petitioner is working with Kent Ward on
drainage. John South recommended that details of discussion with Kent Ward be put in
writing before primary plat is approved, petitioner agreed. Dennis Olmstead said HEC
II study not yet completed, will include in writing.
- Carmel Water, Morris Hensley was in attendance because of potential City wells on the
site.
- Soil & Water Conservation, John South recommends petitioner more closely define the
drainage concept before primary plat approval. Topography is flat and makes drainage
difficult; high water table; bearing strength of soils reduced; street design needs to be
addressed. Easement widths should vary depending on depth of utility. Wetland
information report to be forthcoming from petitioner on six areas. Flow arrows missing
on development for streets. Warner tile drain not shown on primary; needs to be shown
where it comes onto the property. Site areas with basements should be certified before
construction due to bearing strength and water removal. Wooded tracts developed
heavily, need drainage in area concern expressed for outlet of common area 13
- City Engineer, Randy Powell stated City Council revised water availability charge to
$1010. per acre from $900. Space requirement manhole castings revised to 26" diameter
rather than 23 5/8". Concern re Quail Run Street which is in flood plain. All streets
must be above 100 year flood elevation. River Road, where developer has control of
property on both sides, must bring both sides of street up to City standards; choices are
30' street back-to-back curb and gutter with appropriate storm drainage or a 30' pavement
with 3' chip and seal shoulder with appropriate roadside drainage. Developer will be
required to bring half of 131st Street up to City standards (15' of pavement) with either
curb and gutter appropriate drainage or 3' chip and seal shoulder; Engineer's office asking
that developer surface entire width. Bridges are maintained by County and will be
5
reviewed and approved by them. Detention/retention deferred to County. There are
significant concerns that need to be addressed and resolved with respect to water,
placement of wells, sanitary sewer design, and streets; also soils may not be adequate to
support typical cross section of street. Request petitioner review soils with respect to
standard cross section.
- DOCD, Mike Hollibaugh stated that Comp. Plan issue needs to be addressed in regard
to wooded areas, natural features, tree preservation. Floodway/floodplain dictates pulling
lots back; would like some consideration given to greenway. Petitioner asked for
specifics of what department would like in the form of open space/greenway--needs input
from DOCD. Glenn Christian stated only minimum number of trees on the Waterwood
site have been removed from property as dictated by utilities.
- Indiana Gas, Jim Rebuck stated gas main stops at River Road; will have to be extended
west to service project.
- County Surveyor, Steve Cash commented he needed to sit down with petitioner
regarding construction permit requirement and finalize Vestal Drain, put proposal in
writing for primary. Show current location of regulated drainage easement on Vestal
Drain.
- DOCD, Dave Cunningham asked status of annexation? Petitioner says should be
initiated very quickly. Covenants and restrictions Petitioner pet says should be initiated
very quickly. Covenants & restrictions needed, traffic operations analysis needed.
Petitioner will comply, no extension on traffic study.
-DOCD, Mike Hollibaugh regarding Comprehensive Plan's primary goals and objectives--
would like certain items in Comp. Plan to be specifically addressed; petitioner to put in
letter form all specifics to be addressed.
- DOCD, David Cunningham commented Sign Ordinance requires overall signage to be
approved by Plan Commission; signage can proceed now or come back under ADLS,
petitioner's choice. Street names should go through Communications; Entrance islands
should go through Randy Powell, City Engineer. Petitioner to install passing blister, no
variance needed. Sidewalks on River Road need to extend farther south; sidewalks also
to be installed on bridge. Wetlands to be done within 2/3 weeks. Stub street needs to
be moved to the west; form alignment with lots 103 and 187 making a 4-way. Need
statement in regard to annexation, covenants, etc. Special use approval required for
amenity area. Petitioner should be prepared to dedicate 5 acres along west property line
to school.
- DOCD, Rick Brandau stated that the recreational areas, golf course, etc. will require
Special Use approval; common areas to be incorporated.
- County Highway, Jose Kreutz needs petitioner's response in regard to structure(bridge?).
AVIAN WOODS PRIMARY PLAT (formerly "The Trees at Avian"
Petitioner seeks approval (Primary Plat) to plat 96 lots on 58.296 acres of land located on the
west side of Hazeldell Road, approximately one quarter mile south of 146th Street. Filed by
Davis Development Company.
6
Present for the petitioner were: Stu Huckelberry; Jay B. Gilson; and Christopher White.
The developer is reworking the site to include the original plat arrangement for the areas within
the woods, but there would be changes to the areas north of the school; these would entail
eliminating cul-de-sacs and retaining an easier access road.
GREENS PRIMARY PLAT
Petitioner seeks approval (Primary Plat) cluster to plat 343 lots on 140.7 acres of land located
on the east side of Shelbourne Road, approximately one quarter mile north of 96th Street. The
site is zoned S-1 and R-1 residential. Filed by Davis Development Company.
Present for the petitioner were: Stu Huckleberry; Jay Gilsen; and Christopher White.
Preliminary plans were filed in October. This particular project surrounds the existing Twinlakes
Golf Course. Petitioner intends to have public hearing on this project in January. As a result
of today's presentation , developer would like feedback and potential changes that would help the
project; will come back to TAC meeting in December. Have met with surrounding homeowners
groups and as a result, have considered changes to plans. Requesting to plat as per cluster
option.
The petitioner has worked closely with Twinlakes Golfcourse as relates to some land parcels and
drainage matters. The Golfcourse is under separate ownership on existing land. Present driving
range is located on a portion of Davis Development Site. Davis Development has worked with
the Golfcourse to trade property so that they will have adequate area to maintain a driving range,
and Davis Development will acquire additional land areas to enable them to work land plan more
efficiently. The driving range will be retained by the Golf Club, and Davis Development will
be acquiring additional land for the common area, and will be working with the golfcourse to
construct additional tees and drainage ponds on the golfcourse and common areas between the
two sites to improve existing drainage. There is a written agreement and easement rights with
the golfcourse.
The layout utilizes three different neighborhoods and price ranges with Davis Homes being the
sole developer. Three entrances to project. Street stubs provided line up with Huntersfield, and
Annally Downs. Project to be served by Clay West district. Off-site sewer will be constructed.
Eventual service will be provided to Greentree Subdivision.
Open space has been provided and a minimum 20 foot buffer around lots and golfcourse entry.
COMMENTS:
- IPL, Charlie Eldridge says IPL will service and provide conduit, petitioner to install and
do whatever is necessary for pipeline requirement. IPL wants 15 feet of easement; need
detail on entrances. and addresses.
7
- Carmel Fire Dept., Stan Puckett sated need for water main/fire hydrant plan; wants 18
feet on either side of entrance island.
- Communications, LuAnna stated Subdivision name and some street names need to be
changed, i.e. Augusta Court and August Lane should be changed; Towne Drive
questionable; Mill Creek should be changed, also Harbor Ridge, Sycamore Court.
- PSI, Brad Reynolds, no comment.
- County Highway, Jose Kreutz has two requests: commitment from petitioner to
resurface from north property line to 96th Street; drainage and Sanitary Sewer. County
will resurface all roads in Greentree in exchange for commitment.
- Soil & Water Conservation, John South echoes Jose's comments regarding Greentree.
See South's letter; petitioner working with Huntersfield re drainage. John South requests
detail in re to drainage of mounds behind lots 61 and 65. Culvert at Southeast corner--
would like info regarding outlet conditions, drainage calculations.
- County Surveyor, Steve Cash says developer should petition for regulated drain, (tile
drain) 15 feet per half; requests line up of entrances; variance for street stubs. Wants to
see improvement plan for 96th Street and Shelborne Road; petitioner to provide outlet for
Huntersfield.
- DOCD, Rick Brandau questioned open space area, Chris White says open space areas
around site include buffer area around perimeter and equals 24%. Will be reconfigured
into one common area and will probably be more than 24%. Proposed perimeter lots to
be same size as lots on peripheral. Special Use permit required for recreational facilities
and Signage.
- Soil & Water Conservation, John South echoes Jose's comments regard Greentree. See
John South's letter.. should petition for regulated drain. 15 feet per half for drain.
- Indiana Gas, Jim Rebuck stated project was Jeff Autry's area, petitioner should plan
sewers etc, in relation to depth of pipe
- DOCD, Mike Hollibaugh, questioned green space islands in golf course; suggested
common area locations within each neighborhood which could become a focal point;
petitioner is to look into alternatives to mounding.
- DOCD, Dave Cunningham will meet with Stu Huckleberry second week of December;
petitioner needs to look at alternative for mounding.
ASHMORE TRACE PRIMARY PLAT -- TABLED
PARK MEADOWS PRIMARY PLAT to be known as DANBURY ESTATES
Petitioner seeks approval (Primary Plat) to plat 102 lots on 35.7 acres of land located on the
south side of 146th Street, approximately one quarter mile east of Keystone Avenue. The site
is zoned R-4 residential. Filed by Langston Development Company.
Stan Neal of Weihe Engineers and Bob Langston appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Entrance
to project will be at 146th Street one lot west of 5 acre exception with street stub to the south
for access to ground to the south; 30 foot streets; 1.8 acre retention lake.
COMMENTS:
8
- Carmel Fire Dept., Stan Puckett needs plans for water; yellow hydrants will be in an
easement or right of way
- Communications, LuAnna stated name of Danbury Estates OK; would prefer not to have
Danbury Roundabout as a name; streets that turn more than 90 degrees must have a
different name; Edinbrook Drive needs to be changed.
- PSI, Brad Reynolds said PSI easements OK, may have to ask for additional at later date,
otherwise OK
- County Highways, Jose Kreutz asked petitioner if he had approached INDOT in re to
alignment of Greyhound Pass and 146th Street and right turn lane off 431; Jose deferred
all comments until consultant on 146th Street relocation completes his report.
- Soil & Water Conservation, John South says developer pushing flood plain/way more
than South would like; recommend preserving more of flood fringe than required.
Wetlands? Drainage? Stan Neal will look at again and get back to South. 146th
drainage needs to be looked at, no pipe stub. Boundary of plat extends into floodway;
Langston retaining ownership? boundaries of plat need to be more clearly defined.
- City Engineer, Randy Powell advised petitioner of ordinance which modifies water
availability charges from $900. per acre to $1,010. per acre; also manhole castings to be
26" opening (NR1370 or J1048).
- County Surveyor, Steve Cash needs verification of Cool Creek regulated drain? (South
says no.)
- Indiana Gas, Jim Rebuck stated gas available in area.
- DOCD, Dave Cunningham referred to his letter to Stan, will have some additional
comments due to interior lot changes.
LENOX TRACE SU/SIGN VARIANCE
Petitioner seeks approval (SU/Sign Variance) to construct Phase Two of the Lenox Trace
Condominium. Project is located on Guilford Avenue approximately one-quarter mile north of
116th Street. The site is zoned R-4 residential. Filed by Hills Building and Construction
Servic:;s.
Present for the petitioner were Glenn F. Brehm and Louis Guttman.
Rick Brandau stated that this project went before the Board of Zoning Appeals Monday night and
was approved contingent upon TAC requirements being met. Written approval and/or any
unresolved matters will need to be furnished to Hills in writing to be submitted with the permit.
COMMENTS:
- Carmel Fire Dept., Stan Puckett talked with Bill Hunt in regard to moving a Fire
Hydrant.
- PSI, Brad Reynolds expressed concern with landscaping and poles, trees in right of way
along Guilford; Glenn Brehm will meet with PSI, electric, cable, telephone and gas
regarding service lines installation; will also meet with County Highway. Water and Clay
Waste OK
9
- Soil & Water Conservation, John South concerned about erosion control during
construction, also regrading of roadside ditch not addressed; petitioner to address.
Regrading on PSI property likely to change outlet condition.
- County Highway, Jose Kreutz asks for inverts at 100 ft maximum, swale on Guilford
(comment 5 on letter); will not issue permit for entrance until letter rec'd on other
entrance; 40 foot half road dedicated as yet? Petitioner says there is a commitment to
dedicate. Request 30ft radius on curb at entrance; would like inlet for drainage to south;
, relocate utility poles/move sidewalk? wheelchair curb cuts required, chairback curb;
comment 11, 12 foot base and 95% compaction on decel lane. Tapers were approved by
County Surveyor and Highway prior to Jose's knowledge or employment, tapers are
shorter than required, probably will be grandfathered. Petitioner advised regarding
information sign on regulatory post.
- DOCD, Rick Brandau reiterated that sign off from each TAC agency needed and
submitted to DOCD before permits are issued
- DOCD, Mike Hollibaugh suggested let utilities do what they needed; landscaping could
be done after the fact; needs full set of revised plans.
- County Surveyor, Steve Cash stated indirect outlet request needs to be submitted to
Surveyor's Office; needs set of drainage calculations; spot grades to be provided.
Question of off-site drainage, petitioner will provide spot grades.
10
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
December 22, 1993
Members present were: Rick Brandau, Dave Cumnningham, and Mark Monroe of Department
of Community Development; Jose Kreutz, Hamilton County Highway; Jerry Liston, Hamilton
County Surveyor's Office; Dan Davenport,IPL; Randy Powell, City Engineer's Office; Jeff Autry,
Indiana Gas; John South, Hamilton County Soil & Water Conservation Department; LuAnna
Stephens, Carmel-Clay 9-1-1 Communications; and John Duffy, Carmel Utilities.
THE RESERVE AT SPRINGMILL
Petitioner seeks approval (Primary Plat) to plat 78 lots on 33.9 acres of land located on the east
side of Springmill Road, just south of 106th Street. Filed by Pittman Partners.
Paul Claire of Schneider Engineering, and Steve Pittman appeared before the Committee on behalf
of the Petitioner and gave a brief overview of the project. The petitioners have addressed the
concerns of adjoining neighbors and negotiated off-site easements. The major change in the plat
is that a stub street is no longer planned on Millridge Drive; it will be a cul-de-sac. Most all
comments of the County Surveyor and County Highway have been addressed.
COMMENTS
- County Highway, Jose Kreutz stated that the revised plan addresses all concerns but one
which is landscaping and mounding adjacent to right-of-way--County Highway wants
exclusive easement parallel to public right-of-way; letter given to petitioner this morning
by Jose. Paul Claire responded that petitioner has moved storm sewer out of right-of-way,
drainage will be handled in right-of-way for the right-of-way; drainage opposite the
mounding is not a concern. Petitioner agrees to provide 10 foot area with no plantings for
utilities. Jose would like statement in covenants regarding 10 foot area to be clear of
plantings; would like to see 10 overlap of 20 foot landscape easement rather than blanket
common area; storm connection to the east is not acceptable.
- City Utilities, Randy Powell expressed concern with combined drainage/utility easement
in greenbelt buffer.
- Hamilton County Surveyor, Jerry Liston referred petitioner to letter from Steve Cash;
wants to see lateral stamped in curb for identification in future--to be included in detail.
- County Soil & Water, John South expressed concern re storm sewer in right-of-way--not
acceptable--subdivision should not drain into roadside ditch. Petitioner will address in
secondary. Rear of lots 34 thru 37 drainage inadequate; additional erosion control needed.
- Indpls. Power & Light, Dan Davenport stated need for entrance detail off Springmill;
may need additional easement;may need poles moved--petitioner to be responsible for pipe
line easement.
- Indiana Gas, Jeff Autry needs updated plans.
- City Utilities, John Duffy no comment.
- DOCD, Dave Cunningham, no comment.
1
BAYHILL & BROOKFIELD AT WATERSTONE PRIMARY PLAT
Petitioner seeks approval (Primary Plat) to plat 154 lots on 81.72 acres of land located on the
south side of 126th Street, approximately one-half mile east of Gray Road. The site is zoned S-1.
Filed by Waterstone Lane Company.
Jim Nelson, attorney, Ursell Cox of Brenwick Development, and Dave Sexton of Schneider
Engineering appeared before the Committee on behalf of the petitioner.
- COMMENTS:
- City Engineer, Randy Powell wants easement for storm drainage,no problem proceeding
with primary plat--will reserve comments on infrastructure until receipt of complete
development plans at secondary stage.
- Communications, LuAnna Stephens stated streets OK
- County Surveyor, Jerry Liston no comment.
- IPL, Dan Davenport, no comment.
- City Utilities, John Duffy re sanitary sewer, will work with City Engineer regarding
access to lift station.
- County Soil & Water, John South expressed concern regarding off-site drainage.
- DOCD,Dave Cunningham reiterated Mike Hollibaugh's landscape comments; petitioner
stated Salsbury Bros. working on landscape.
- Communications, LuAnna stated Springbrook Run name needs to be changed with street
direction--petitioner to get new street names and numbers will be assigned ASAP.
- County Surveyor, Jerry Liston no comment.
- IPL, Dan Davenport no comment.
STONEWICK SECTION 2 SECONDARY PLAT
Petitioner seeks approval (Secondary Plat) to plat 47 lots on 17.27 acres of land located
approximately one-quarter mile east of Gray Road,just north of 116th Street. The site is zoned
R-2 residential. Filed by Waterstone Land Company.
- COMMENTS:
- DOCD, Dave Cunningham stated water main hydrant location needs to be approved.
- IPL, Dan Davenport stated easement between lots 112 and 113 need to be changed.
- City Engineer,Randy Powell concurs with timing problem re various phases--some plans
do not show sanitary sewer; each plan should stand on its own. Does not see any reason
for plat to be held up. Advised petitioner of casting requirement for sanitary sewer revised
from 23 5/8" diam. to 26 diam.
- Communication, LuAnna states street names OK.
City Engineer, Jerry Liston no comment.
- County Soil & Water, John South stated easement on lots 25 and 26 not shown on plat;
erosion control plan needed; storm sewers currently not installed, need seeding and
2
mulching; need erosion control protection for two sets of inlets into Cool Creek during
construction period, suggest sandbag type, larger stone, etc.
- IPL, Dan Davenport stated easement needs to be larger.
- City Utilities, John Duffy agreed with City Engineer regarding timing factor on various
phases.
BAYHILL SECTION 3b SECONDARY PLAT
Petitioner seeks approval (Secondary Plat) to plat 30 lots on 35.96 acres of land located
aopproximately one-quarter mile east of Gra Road,just south of 126th Street. The site is zoned
S-2 residential. Filed by Waterstone Land Company.
- COMMENTS:
- Communications, LuAnna Stephens no comment
- County Soil & Water, John South expressed concern re grading and adequate
identification of lots for compaction and footers; plans should show temporary seeding
designation shown on other plans.
- IPL, Dan Davenport, no comment
- City Engineer, Randy Powell, see comments on Stonewick Section 2.
BAYHILL SECTION 5 SECONDARY PLAT
Petitioner seeks approval (Secondary Plat) to plat 26 lots on 42.58 acres of land located
approximately one-quarter mile east of Gray Road,just south of 126th Street. The site is zoned
S-2 residential. Filed by Waterstone Land Company.
- COMMENTS:
- County Soil & Water,John South concern regarding drainage on Gray Rd, would suggest
another inlet--petitioner says ther is mounding at present, no improvements to be made in
right-of-way at Gray Road. South would prefer more substantial plan of action, says plan
shows deficiency. Petitioner states no drainage problem at present, South says cannot
substantiate; wants Right-of-Way seeded behind lots 144 thru 146.
- City Engineer, Randy Powell advised petitioner to make sure existing homes have access
to sanitary sewer; outlets that abut Gray Road need access to sanitary sewer.
- DOCD, Dave Cunningham, no comment
WINDPOINTE SECTION 4 SECONDARY PLAT
Petitoner seeks approval (Secondary Plat) to plat 24 lots on 16.66 acres of land located just off
of Gray Road, approximately one-quarter mile north of 116th Street. The site is zoned S-1
residential. Filed by Waterstone Land Company.
- COMMENTS:
3
- DOCD, Dave Cunningham reiterated request for name change of cul-de-sac from
Woodsbay Court to Woodsbay Place (Dec. 1992).
- City Engineer, Randy Powell, see prior comments on previous section.
- County Soil & Water, John South states low area behind lot 80, petitioner to show
drainage structure; grading and erosion control need to be done; lot 86 question on
drainage, petitioner says swale runs to the back of 86, 87, 88, also beehive, and 89. Lake
needs to be identified with high water elevation on both sets of plans.
- IPL, Dan Davenport, no comment.
HUNTERSFIELD SECONDARY PLAT
Petitioner seeks approval (Secondary Plat) to plat 58 lots on 41.5 acres of land located on the
southeast corner of 106th Street and Shelbourne Road. The site is zoned S-i residential. Filed
by Balamor Land Company.
Present for the petitioner were Peter P. Hawryluk of Balamor Land Company; Brian Waltz and
Jerry Carter of Fink, Roberts and Petrie, Engineers. The petitioner has submitted plans to all
governmental agencies and has received comments from the County Highway, Surveyor, and Fire
Department. Petitioner is providing storm detention on site (2.3 acre pond) which will outlet to
south through "The Greens" project by Davis Development. Water will be provided by
Indianapolis Water Co.; sanitary sewer service through Clay Regional Waste.
- COMMENTS:
- Communications, LuAnna Stephens says streets are fine.
- County Highway, Jose Kreutz referred to his letter of 12-20 to petitioner; secondary plat
not submitted with construction plans; primary plat has been reviewed. Drainage and
utility easement parallel to Right-of-Way along Shelbourne and 106th Streets must be an
exclusive easement, free of mounding and landscaping. Highway requests that petitioner
widen Shelbourne Road along section that fronts Huntersfield to a full 12 foot shoulder,
(developer of"The Greens" has been asked to do the same); Highway asks that petitioner
construct outlet to "The Greens" prior to approval; Mr. Hawryluk will review. Jose states
matter must be resolved prior to approval.
- County Surveyor, Jerry Liston referred to Steve Cash's letter of 12-20; Liston has not
reviewed plans. Jerry Liston, re Steve Cash letter of 12-20 Liston has not reviewed plans,
will get back with Brian Waltz. Storm sewer request to be regulated drain, petitioner to
comply; structure data table to show on developmet plan; emergency spillway shown on
plans, petitioner to install animal guard.
- Soil & Water Conservation, John Souh stated that pipes at water line need to be lowered.
Petitionmer to look at again.
- Indiana Gas, Jeff Autry needs updated plans; need contact person for construction of
conduits for power lines--petitioner to advise upon selection of contractor.
- IPL, Dan Davenport stated petitioner may need to move utility poles when road is
widened on east side of Shelbourne, petitioner to look into.
- DOCD, Dave Cunningham suggested easement along right-of-way for utility, drainage,
4
and landscape--to be worked out with County Highwayt. Dave Cunningham asked for a
signed statement in regard to right of way acquisition; covenants to include non-opposition
statement; mounds along 106th and Shelbourne to be undulating rather than wall or dike;
petitioner to work with Mike Hollibaugh of DOCD regarding landscaping. Petitioner has
submitted plans to IDM, waiting for letter from Clay Regional Waste. Comments from
County Highway need to be satisfied prior to January 4th Committee approval. Jose needs
copy of covenants, statement (restriction) re sight distance--petitioner to meet with Jose
next Tuesday. Mark Monroe of DOCD to confirm satisfaction of comments with Co.
Highway in Dave Cunningham's absence.
MOFFIT FARM PRIMARY PLAT (HAVERSTICK)
Petitioner seeks approval (Primary Plat - cluster) to plat 583 lots on 243 acres of land located
approximately 3/4 mile east of Gray Road,north of 131st Street. The site is zoned S-1 residential.
Filed by Centex Development.
Rex Gordon, Mary Arceneaux, and Glenn Christian appeared before the Committee representing
Centex Homes; Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth & Associates was also in attendance.
Glenn Christian gave an up-date of the project; street stubs and layout changes have been made
to provide for greater tree preservation; jogging/walking trails have been completed. Name of
project changed to Haverstick. Additional right-of-way on east side of River Road has changed
•
legal description, copy to go to Randy Powell).
- COMMENTS:
- City Utilities, John Duffy stated all comments addresed, water mains look good; meets
master plan.
- Communications, LuAnna Stephens said 18 of 30 names OK, will send up-dated disk to
petitioner.
- City Engineer, Randy Powell expressed major concern regarding suitability of soils for
construction of roads; problems can be overcome if developer is willing to take necessary
steps; standard cross-section of road does not work. Petitioner is aware of low-bearing
soils and high water capacity.
-County Highway,Jose Kreutz asked petitioner to consider doing requested improvements,
i.e. widening River Road along development frontage; replace structure that carries river
over Warner drain (whatever is needed to be qualified); resurface River Road by County
for one-half of cost quoted from petitioner; petitioner cannot commit dollar funds today,
but will improve what he impacts--wants estimate of cost from county and scope of work;
developer will commit to share cost with County Highway--will resolve by January 18
before public hearing.
- County Surveyor, Jerry Liston stated project contains two regulated drains, Warner and
Vestal. Steve Cash's comments include proposed reconstruction of Vestal drain now in
hearing process. Warner drain tile to be intercepted at northeast corner of property and run
into lake system, retained and then discharged at south end into the open ditch. Petitioner
5
has written DNR asking for exclusion from their jurisdiction. Petitioner is trying to
improve the ditch without removing the trees. Amount of fill in floodway?
- County Soil & Water Conservation, John South stated Warner drain tile does not
currently show being intercepted on plans; offsite drainage from north being provided?
(overland flow) Storm sewer adequate to accommodate surface water? petitioner says yes.
John South expressed concern that current design does not adequately address surface
water from north--18 inch pipe will not handle. Concern also expressed regarding
floodway, petitioner intends to channel bottom up to 50 feet wide; petitioner says it is two
stage and agreed to by John South previously. Petitioner to look at cleaning, clearing and
deepening Vestal drain. Another area of concern is soils which dictates, pretty much, no
basements on entire site unless certified by a soil specialist that bearing strength is there.
John South stated that easement width needs to be increased depending on depth of utility
involved. Will look forward to receiving construction plans and how petitioner expects to
remedy soil problems.
- Indiana Gas, Jeff Autry, no comment.
- DOCD, Dave Cunningham stated that Fairbach is to furnish a traffic report by 1-3-94 to
DOCD. Utility easement, right-of-way easement, and landscape easement need to be
worked out, petitioner to firm up in next few weeks. New copy of legal to come to Dave.
Petitioner to install combination street lights, dusk-to-dawn or coach lights. Petitioner to
install sidewalk on one side and jogging path. Petitioner will return to TAC before going
to subdivision committee.
GREENS PRIMARY PLAT (now known as LINKSIDEI
Petitioner seeks approval (Primaruy Plat - cluster) to plat 343 lots on 140.7 acres of land located
on the east side of Shelbourne Road, approximately one-quarter mile north of 96th Street. The
site is zoned S-1 and R-1 residential. Filed by Davis Development Company.
Chris White and Stu Huckelberry appeared before the Committee on behalf of the petitioner and
gave a brief overview of the project. There have been some changes to the overall plan--the
northeast entrance now aligns with Ashbrooke; the recreational facilities are now in one localized
common area; overall nine lots have been dropped (lots now total 334, overall density of 2.4) A
street stub has been provided to existing right of way, there are now three connections into
Annally Downs, one to Towne Lake, a future stub to Huntersfield, future stubs on east property
line. A meeting has been scheduled with the Fire Department to go over fire hydrant locations.
Traffic study from Pflum, Klausmeier recommends a passing blister and widening 96th and
Shelbourne Road to accommodate left turn movements on 96th Street; the petitioner has agreed
to widen, subject to acquiring right of way at that location. Petitioner also agrees to widen road
on development frontage.
COMMENTS:
- Communications, LuAnna reports street names OK
- County Highway, Jose Kreutz requested copy of Tom Ford's traffic study. Jose to
review, does Right of Way exist at that particular intersection? Petitioner thinks so. Jose
6
encouraged petitioner to reconsider resurfacing Shelbourne Road; nothing in County's file
regarding passing blister. Jose encouraged petitioner to review commitments before
approval; would petitioner be willing to consider improvements along 96th Street; final
decision rests with Commissioners. County Highway asked that petitioner take care of
drainage in regard to tying into Greentree Road. Petitioner is extending sewers to low
points and proposed inlets. Petitioner wants to look at "eyebrows" for purposes of
dedication, perhaps reconfiguring.
- County Surveyor, Jerry Liston requested outlet for drainage--pond overflows. Petitioner
says pond and ditch will be lowered. County requests curb inlets; culvert pipe should be
installed along Ashbrooke for drainage; would like regulated drain. Petitioner should work
with Huntersfield developer in regard to drain on north side of 96th Street.
- County Soil & Water Conservation, John South wants inlet (12 inch pipe) closer to
property line (neighborhood problem); drainage problem along Shelbourne Road needs to
be addressed, only one inlet and seems lagging.
- Indiana Gas, Jeff Autry says gas available and will work with petitioner; requests
covenants contain restrictions regarding gas easement, no structures in easement;prefer no
mounding; common area needs access for possible work in Right of Way.
- IPL, Dan Davenport wants 15 foot utility easement behind all rights of way. Petitioner
to be responsible for installing conduits required; need entrance detail.
- DOCD, Dave Cunningham stated Dept. will try to resolve conflicts in Shelbourne area
for landscape, greenbelt and utility easements. 10 foot sideyard setbacks need to be
maintained. Mike Hollibaugh has not yet reviewed landscape plans. This development
scheduled for public hearing on January 18.
DANBURY ESTATES (formerly Park Meadows) PRIMARY PLAT
Petitioner seeks approval (Primary Plat) to plat 100 lots on 35.7 acres of land located on the south
side of 146th Street, approximately one-quarter mile east of Keystone Avenue (Greyhound Pass).
The site is zoned R-4 residential. Filed by Langston Development Company.
Bob Langston, John Edwards, and Jim Langston of Langston Development Company and Steve
Snyder of Weihe Engineers appeared before the Committee on behalf of the petitioner.
Dave Cunningham read to the Committee a memo which was received by FAX from Sue Dillon,
expressing concern regarding traffic congestion at this particular location. (copy attached)
COMMENTS:
- County Highway, Jose Kreutz reported that a study is presently in process. At this time,
a right of way corner cut is needed for future extension. Obviously, 5 lanes are needed
with a center left turn lane--hopefully the study will address that issue. Questionable
whether Carmel intends to annex to center line of 146th Street. Jose will re-review plat
and driveway permit will be required for project from Highway Dept.
- City Engineer, Randy Powell no comment.
- County Soil & Water Conservation, John South stated large common area needs to be
7
marked on plans along floodway. Soil & Water and County Surveyor jointly commented
that drainage outlet needs to be shown to the northwest as it affects Langston property,
needs to be diverted along west property line; petitioner to furnish letter.
- County Surveyor, Jerry Liston stated he was not sure exactly where the drain is--needs
to be shown on plans.
- Communications, LuAnna Stephens previously reported street names OK.
-DOCD,Dave Cunningham requests pedestrian access to be worked out.Dave Barnes will
address Dave Cunningham's letter in writting. Landscape plan may want to include
residential side along 146th Street. Mike Hollibaugh has not reviewed--petitioner to check
with Mike or Mark Monroe next week.
- DOCD, Terry Jones stated there should be no basements in lots which are along
floodway fringe or move floodplain line per Dave Barnes letter(If this line changes homes
could have basements....if it stays as is homes would not be allowed to have basements.)
WORTHINGTON ESTATES SECTION 2
COMMENTS:
- City Engineer, Randy Powell states water availability fee will be $1010. per acre, also
advised change in manhole castings; petitioner advises sanitary sewer already in
- County Soil & Water, John South requested map of Woodgate/Worthington subdivision.
-DOCD, Dave Cunningham states petitioner will be appearing at Subdivision January 4th.
NO OTHER COMMENTS ON WOODGATE/WORTHINGTON ESTATES
End Meeting.
8
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 26,1994
Members present were: Dave Cunningham and Mark Monroe of DOCD; Randy Powell, City
Engineer; Matt Dickey, Parks Dept.; Charlie Eldridge, IPL; Jose Kreutz, County Highway; Stan
Puckett, Carmel Fire Department; John Duffy, City Utilities; John South and Elvis Douglas,
County Soil & Water Conservation; LuAnna Stephens, Communications; Jerry Robinson, Chuck
Shupperd, and Jeff Autry, Indiana Gas Co..
HAVERSTICK FARM PRIMARY PLAT
Petitioner seeks approval (Primary Plat - cluster) to plat 583 lots on 243 acres of land located
approximately 3/4 mile east of Gray Road, north of 131st Street. The site is zoned S-1
Residential. Filed by Centex Development.
Present for the petitioner: Glenn Christian and Rex Gordon of Centex Homes, and Dennis
Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth & Assoc. Glenn Christian gave a brief overview of the proposed
project. A school site of 16 acres has been set aside for the Carmel/Clay school system. Traffic
analysis has been submitted. Concerns were raised by John South regarding drainage Off-site
water has been addressed by Stoeppelwerth. Additional work has been done on HEC II for the
Vestal ditch; per John South's suggestion, it is a two-stage design. Petitioner has received a letter
from Conner Prairie expressing three major concerns: Stub street; adequate buffer; and
number/size of lots along south property line of Conner Prairie. Petitioner has met with Mr.
McDonald, Conner Prairie representative, and responded to their concerns as follows: Petitioner
does not want stub street either, but it is necessary for compliance with Subdivision Regulations;
in regard to buffering, the petitioner is willing to enlarge the strip to 40 feet with 4 or 5 foot
mounds, coupled with landscaping. In regard to the final concern of lot sizes, S-2 would be
totally out of context with the balance of the neighborhood; however, the petitioner is willing to
compromise and revise the area (increase by 75 or 80 feet) and resubmit prior to the Plan
Commission meeting. There was an outstanding issue of County Highway roadway
improvements. This has been addressed and will be confirmed by Jose Kreutz.
Yard or street lights will be installed by Centex, not necessarily on photo-cells; Dave
Cunningham commented this was an acceptable solution.
COMMENTS:
- Communications, LuAnna stated that all street names have not been submitted for
approval, Glenn Christian states Dave Calaba will be in touch with LuAnna.
- County Highway, Jose Kreutz stated there are no concerns that would hold up project
that cannot be resolved
- County Soil & Water, John South stated offsite drainage addressed fairly well; retention
facilities and drainage structure have been enlarged; work on Vestal ditch has been
1
done in two-stage design, however the lower and more narrow part of channel
needs to be at lease two or three feet deep. Dennis Olmstead says it will
be done and will show in next phase of construction. Wetlands approval? Kent Ward
may require assessment at phase level; at this point, satisfied.
- County Surveyor, Steve Cash stated downstream work willl need to be done; major
questions re HEC II studies/offsite drainage, comments deferred until review, but looks
like petitioner is proceeding on right track.
- Carmel Fire Dept., Stan Puckett referred petitioner to letter regarding hydrants,petitioner
to comply.
- Indiana Gas, Jeff Autry stated easement needed along 131st Street.
- Carmel Utilities, John Duffy stated there is a 16 inch water line to be installed in
February. Will get with petitioner regarding proposed well sites and work out PVC--need
to monitor manholes for inspection.
- City Engineer, Randy Powell needs letter from petitioner requesting public sewer and
water availability to Bd. of Public Works; if possible, Utilities would like clay as a line.
Also, roadway improvements to exisiting roads on petitioner's property (131st & River
Rd.) need to be agreed to in letter.
- DOCD, Dave Cunningham stated the requirement of stub still stands. One stub to 800
acres is not excessive. Concern regarding affability of development of school site.
Warner Ditch and treeing on site will probably generate remonstrance.
- DOCD, Mike Hollibaugh questioned selection of site for school in regard to drainage
and Warner Ditch. Petitioner thought Warner Ditch would be less impact than it is--did
not intend to impose drainage problem on school and the drain being the size it is could
be easily re-located. Petitioner also felt school would be in a better position to save
mature trees than residential developer; also taken into consideration was proximity to
bend in River Road for sight distance. Petitioner has met with school, they are uncertain
of their particular needs--need feedback. Centex open to commitment.
- DOCD, Mike says Vestal project may change petitioner's plans. Petitioner stated
proposed project requires cleanout and watershed done without retention, does not see a
potential problem that would hold up development.
LINKSIDE PRIMARY PLAT %, L! i/
Petitioner seeks approval (Primary Plat - cluster) to plat 343 lots on 140.7 acres of land located
on the east side of Shelbourne Road, approximately one quarter mile north of 96th Street. The
site is zoned S-1 and R-1 residential. Filed by Davis Development Company.
Present for the petitioner were Stu Huckelberry and Don Schweitzer. Stu Huckelberry gave a
brief overview of the project. There were open items with County Highway regarding
improvements on Shelbourne Road and a private drive; these have been resolved and now
conform to curve radius request. The cul-de-sac agreed on with school will accommodate the
school bus turns. Easements on Shelbourne and 96th Street are OK. Greentree drainage is being
provided for; another location can be provided if necessary. Open item: pipe under 96th Street
needs to be discussed with Jose of County Highway Dept.
2
COMMENTS:
- DOCD, Dave Cunningham stated 30 foot streets are required by ordinance; petitioner
will comply.
- Indiana Gas, Jeff Autry requested contact person at Davis; petitioner will take care of
covenants.
- County Surveyor, Steve Cash to meet with Stu Huckelberry of Davis and representative
of Huntersfield re match up redesign of storm sewer.
- Carmel Fire Department, Stan Puckett stated need for final plans--petitioner advises will
be Indianapolis Water.
- Indpls. Power & Light, Charlie Eldridge requests entrance detail and easements.
- Communications, LuAnna Stephens to address streets.
- Petitioner has requested Tabling at Plan Commission meeting 1-27.
BOSTON CHICKEN ADLS
Petitioner seeks approval (ADLS) to establish a restaurant at 615 East Carmel Drive. Petitioner
will be razing the existing structure and completely reworking the site. Filed by James J. Nelson.
Present for the petitioner were Tom Ecker and Dan Harbor of Boston Chicken; and Mark Harris
of American Consulting Engineers. Jim Nelson gave a brief overview of the proposed project.
The application is for review of architectural design, lighting, landscaping and signage. The
proposal basically constitutes a re-use of an existing parcel of land located at 615 East Carmel
Drive,presently the "Country Kitchen." The petitioner will raze the existing structure and replace
it with a one story building. A ground identification sign is proposed and the project is being
currently presented for technical review.
COMMENTS:
- City Engineer, Randy Powell stated development plan OK--no problems with site.
Petitioner will be required to go before Board of Public Works for approval of sewer and
water availability as well as re-location-of present curb cut; design is acceptable. Storm
sewer design is OK; will need additional information, but nothing to hold up project.
Petitioner will get with Randy Powell.
- Co. Soil & Water, John South -- No comment
- Indiana Gas, Jeff Autry stated there is existing service at site; needs to know location
of line and size of meter.
- Carmel Utilities, John Duffy letter of 12-21, three items outstanding: current plans do
not show incoming water service lines and update plans to reflect; internal meter setting
requested and plans should reflect; and incoming water service lines should have an RP
backload extension device, petitioner will contact Utilities Dept.
- DOCD, Mike Hollibaugh thought landscape plan was nicely done; however, suggested
petitioner minimize turf areas wherever possible, also suggested interconnection to either
east or west property. Jim Nelson responded that there is a significant grade difference
3
to the east which would pose some practical problems--drive-up window to the west
would also pose practical problems.
YOUNG'S ASPHALT PAVING & JACK'S TOOL RENTAL
Petitioner seeks approval (Rezone) to rezone properties at 839 and 861 North Rangeline Road
from R-1 to B-1. Filed by James Zoccola.
James Zoccola, attorney for the petitioner, presented an overview of the proposed request for
rezone of two parcels of ground behind Jack's Tool Rental (access point on Rangeline Road north
of 136th Street) and behind Young's Asphalt Paving. There is an existing 100 year floodway
which is not encompassed in any part of the subject property, and should not present a problem.
The entrance way is 47 feet and a Developmental Standards Variance will probably be applied
for. The surrounding property is B-3 (the cemetary), Jack's Tool Rental is zoned I-1, and the
property to the east is R-1. The floodway to the east provides substantial buffer.
There were no comments outstanding in regard to the proposed rezone.
James Zoccola stated that the contemplated use on the subject property is for a small
office/warehouse facility,
COMMENTS:
- City Engineer, Randy Powell stated concern regarding only access being through a
floodplain and it was felt that the Bd. of Public Works would be reluctant to
approve.
- DOCD, Dave Cunningham stated that the rezone becomes a part of the development
plan; petitioner to address all comments at rezone. Remonstrance may come from two
neighbors, Bird and Rice.
NORTH MERIDIAN MEDICAL CENTER BUILDING #3
Petitioner seeks approval (DP/ADLS) to establish the third building at the North Meridian
Medical Center located at 106th Street and Meridian. Filed by James J. Nelson.
Present for the petitioner: Jim Mack, Mack Architects; Bob Donaldson and Bob Whitacre,
Cornerstone Properties; and Ray Stone of Stone Enginering. Jim Nelson presented the overview
for the proposed third building, single story office building, approximately 15,200 square feet.
COMMENTS:
- County Soil & Water, John South requested petitioner provide 100 year storm elevation
on pond; regarding erosion control: restrict pond outlet for sediment trap;
maintenance and cleaning statement needed. South would like revised plans (delivered
4
momentarily).
- County Highway, Jose requested time frame for County to accept Pennsylvania Street
as a County road, and if there was a possibility of a builidng #4.. Petitioner responded
early spring for acceptance; undeveloped parcel to the north will not be developed as a
part of this project.
- County Surveyor, Steve Cash referred petitioner to letter stating five points: need form
for indirect outlet request; non-enforcement agreement; show location of open ditch on
plans; needs revised plans (delivered momentarily).
- Carmel Fire Dept., Stan Puckett sent petitioner letter of review regarding water service;
off Pennsylvania? petitoner says no, from 106th Street to the west of the building.
- Ind Gas, Jeff Autry questioned if main is to be extended, has not received plans, perhaps
easement a possibility.
- DOCD, Dave Cunningham stated all comments have been addressed.
- City Engineer, Randy Powell no comment.
DELTA FAUCET EXPANSION
Petitioner seeks aproval (DP/ADLS) to expand the current facility located 111th and Meridian.
Filed by Landrush Development.
Appearing before the committee were: Tim Stevens, Land Use Consultant of Landrush
Development; Bob Olson and Drew White of CSO Architects.
Tim Stevens gave a brief overview of the proposed expansion. Delta would like to expand their
corporate offices in the Spring, 115,000 square feet, to include a retention pond between the
proposed expansion wing parallel to US 31 and south of existing pond. In addition, additional
parking spaces will be developed. The parking spaces will be short of the ordinance requirement
and a variance application has been sumitted to DOCD to allow landbanking for 39 spaces. The
existing pond on site is not a retention pond and does not serve to drain the site. The proposed
pond will drain the entire site and discharge into existing, County regulated drain on south of
property to the Asher drain, outlet to be controlled. Road improvements are expected to be made
to Pennsylvania, the extent of which is not known at this time; survey work to come, but road
is expected to be extended along parking lot to be developed.
COMMENTS:
- County Highway, Jose Kreutz waiting to see survey results. Jose will provide minutes
of County Highway meetings to petitioner and will defer comments.
- County Soil & Water, John South re erosion control, outlet request permit needed; 4"
orifice for detention pond a concern; petitioner has finalized cut and fill issue, and will
reduce pond size to elevation height (wants to utilize existing outlet). Truck dock
drainage to go to trench drain; petitioner to extend storm sewer, side ditch to be
elimintaed, erosion control plan to be separate; temporary levy or heavy silt fencing to
be used during construction period. Revised plans have been submitted.
5
- City Engineer, Randy Powell recommends use of sand and grease intercepter.
- County Surveyor, Steve Cash stated need for indirect outlet permit to Asher drain; need
verification of condition of existing outlet pipe. Flow line of open ditch needs to be
cleaned of debris, not on petitioner's property, therefore not required. Steve requested
detail of orifice plate; would like location of detention area close to fence and right-of-
way line, hard to maintain (recommendation only). Location of regulated drain easement
to be shown. Petitioner to furnish easement statement.
- Carmel Fire Dept., Stan Puckett stated fire hydrant location OK; requests knocks box,
otherwise OK
- Indiana Gas, Jeff Autry reported new main to be run on west side of Pennsylvania,
street improvements and line will be critical; maintain 2 foot clearance between lines.
- DOCD, Dave Cunningham needs annexation letter; refer petitioner to Mike Hollibaugh's
memo of 1-14 regarding 7 comments (suggestions); also evidence of notice needed.
ST. MARK'S UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
Petitioner seeks approval (Special Use) to expand current church facility located at 126th and
Gray Road. Filed by Mark VanAllen.
Present for the petitioner were: Mark VanAllen,Pecsok,Randall, Nice & Assoc. Architects; Tom
Chiplis, Rotz Engineering, Inc.; James W. O'Bara, Weihe Engineering; and Phyllis G. Morrissey,
member of St. Mark's UMC.
Mark VanAllen gave a brief overview of the proposed expansion for St. Mark's United Methodist
Church, located at 126th Street and Gray Road, Carmel. Phase III expansion creates a Narthex
space and increases their administration and adult education space. Phase IV expansion will
accommodate fellowship hall and will be bid now in the hopes that enough money will be raised
to construct both phases III and IV, if not, Phase IV will be moved to a future date. At present,
approval is being asked of the entire project. The rear of the sanctuary will be infilled and
seating capacity will be increased from 400 people to 500 people. Also included will be parking
lot expansion, currently at 125 cars, and increasing to 250 in the completed expansion. The
original parking lot was designed as a detention basin for storm water management. Also
included in the expansion is an extensive landscaping design which provides for landscaping
around the addition and parking lot area as well as "beefing up" the existing landscaping and
adding street trees. The Church is working with Mike Hollibaugh of the DOCD in regard to the
landscape plans.
In regard to utility connections, the existing gas, water, and sewer service to the present structure
will probably be sufficient to service the addition; however, the electric service will have to be
increased to handle the additional square footage. The exterior of the proposed addition will
match the existing structure; no sprinkler system except for the basement, per code requirement.
6
Signage is presently being looked at; a variance will be sought as a separate process for signage
as well as the elimination of curbing around the parking lot. As the parking lot is expanded, the
parking field will be connected through a new cut onto Gray Road at the northeast corner. The
dumpster enclosure is incorporated into the Phase IV fellowship hall, so that temporary dumpster
facilities of a landscaped enclosure will be instituted until the completion of Phase IV.
COMMENTS:
- City Engineer, Randy Powell advised petitioner of need for additional sewer & water
capacity for approval of Bd. of Wks; also approval will be needed from Bd. of Wks. for
curb cut. Church will ask Bd. of Wks. for waiver of additional connection fees, but does
intend to pay acreage fees. Petitioner will write letter to Bd. of Wks. requesting to be
placed on Agenda. Randy will write letter of recommendation to Bd. of Wks. The
Church will have to present arguments to Bd. of Wks. for curb cut location. City
Engineer would make determination as to installation of passing blister; adequate right of
way? (40 feet--additional five feet to be by deed of dedication along with acceptance to
Bd. of Public Works) Traffic volume will have to be studied; church will put together info
package and submit to Engineer's office. If no decision by Engineer's Office, request
would then be made to Bd. of Wks. by petitioner.
- Carmel Fire Dept., Stan Puckett needs to see plans
- County Soil & Water, John South has not seen plans, will defer to City.
- Indiana Gas, Jeff Autry requests petitioner to furnish BTU load.
WOODPARK
Appearing for the petitioner were Ron Wright and Joe Nicolucci of Kirkpatrick and Associates.
The petitioner is requesting approval for two variance requests; Lot 2 of Woodpark Subdivision,
and Lot 56.
Lot 2 in located on 116th Street adjacent to T.M. Guilford. Mr. Nicolucci presented photographs
of the intersection. As Guilford proceeds south into Woodpark Subdivision as a one way street.
The owner of Lot 2 wish to extend/enlarge the garage into the building line to accommodate
wheelchairs, etc., and are requesting a variance for that purpose. The 9 1/2 foot encroachment
into the landscape easement will not interfere with Guilford to the north and will not have an
impact on right of way, line of sight, safety; there will be no impact.
COMMENTS:
- County Highway, Jose referred to letter from Kevin Kirkpatrick; Jose requests
performance bond for one year. County Highway will not recommend approval until
performance bond in place; petitioner asked for clarification of regulatory sign. Jose and
Mark or Terry will meet at site when performance bond in place. Jose stated a plan has
been prepared by Paul Cripe to do work at this particular entrance, plan OK with minor
modifications. County Highway's number one goal is to keep this entrance open.
7
- County Soil & Water, John South states drainage no impact.
- Petitioner commits to comply with seven items in letter either by agreement with
homeowners or County Highway in terms of road topping and general repairs.
A variance of 1 1/2 feet is also being requested for Lot 56 to allow the house to be better situated
on the lot. There is no impact on drainage, traffic patterns, conditions, etc. It would be a
substantial hardship and impractical to move the house.
COMMENTS:
- DOCD, Terry Jones suggested some aesthetics to shield existing house. The petitioner
wants to finish off house and obtain a resident for upkeep/maintenance.
TREE CONSERVATION DRAFT 3A
John South, Charlie Eldridge, Stan Puckett, Jose Kreutz, Steve Cash,Matt Dickey, Mark Monroe,
Mike Hollibaugh, and Terry Jones discussed the pros and cons of the proposed Tree Conservation
Ordinance. There were numerous questions by the utilities and explanations by the Department.
The general feeling was that the Department was to be applauded for coming up with the
proposed ordinance, and with a few changes, it was felt to be workable by the Utilities and
Government Agencies.
8
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 23, 1994
Members present were: Dave Cunningham, Mike Hollibaugh, Terry Jones and Mark Monroe of
DOCD; Stan Puckett, Carmel Fire Department; John South, Hamilton County Soil & Water;
Randy Powell, City Engineer's Office; Dan Davenport and Kevin Walker, Indpls. Power & Light;
LuAnna Stephens, Communications; Steve Cash, County Surveyor's Office; Jeff Autry and Chuck
Sheppert, Indiana Gas Company; Jose Kreutz, County Highway; John Duffy, Carmel Utilities;
and Roger Conn, Carmel Police Department.
ARBOR PROPERTIES/DAVIS REZONE
Petitioner seeks approval (Rezone) to rezone 68 acres of land located northwest corner of 96th
Street and Westfield Blvd. The site is currently zoned S-2 residential, petitioner is requesting
R-3 and R-4 residential zoning classifications. Filed by Arbor Properties and Davis
Development.
Present for the petitioner were Jim Thomas and Dan Hand of Trammel Crow Residential; Chris
White and Stu Huckelberry of Davis Development; Tom Ford with Pflum, Klausmeier &
Gehrum, Traffic Consultants; and Dave Sexton of Schneider Engineering.
Chris White gave a brief overview of the proposed project, Gables of Carmel, which will consist
of multi-family rentals to be constructed by Trammel Crow as upscale apartments. There will
be buffering on the north side of the project as transition from multi to single family use. Lot
size and width to be consistent with R-3 zoning; price range from $100,000 to $130,000, square
footage ranges from 1200 to 2000. Tree line on north property line to be maintained; additional
landscaping and buffering to be added along Westfield Boulevard. White fencing consistent with
project to north to be added. Creek on site will be relocated at rear lot line. Access to be by
future street stub to north, and future stub to 96th Street. Entrance to be located at northeast
corner of site. Multi family units and single family units will function as separate communities.
The total density is 6.4 units per acre; will connect into 96th Street. Proposed central amenity
area will consist of club house, swimming pool and tennis courts. Developers are purchasing
property on contingency from Fullers. Developer is willing to dedicate right-of-way for future
extension of 96th Street.
COMMENTS;
- Carmel Fire Dept., Stan Puckett questioned emergency access/roadway--not yet
addressed by petitioner but will work with Fire Department. Stan Puckett stated one way
in and one way out is a definite problem.
- County Soil & Water, John South -equested wetland study report. Question on whether
or not improvements need to be done to Creek by dredging or deepening. If so, should
be done now. Soil borings a caution for 3 story buildings.
- County Highway, Jose Kreutz reports two issues: dedication of right-of-way to public;
1
and construction of portion of 96th Street or donation of funds for such construction at
SW corner of property to GE tower. Temporary access road definitely not a go from
standpoint of maintenance and access. Petitioner requests equitable sharing of burden
regarding 96th Street improvements; is willing to dedicate 1/2 mile 150 feet in width, but
not willing to construct road. Jose says school buses and emergency vehicle access need
to be addressed.
- Communications, LuAnna says Gables of Carmel OK for subdivision name but not
street name.
- DOCD, Mike Hollibaugh questioned treatment of Monon Right-of-Way--greenway?
Comp Plan addresses. Petitioner states a pathway could go under I465 or sidewalk over.
Mike Hollibaugh says it needs to be addressed and will be an issue at public hearing.
Petitioner is willing to provide necessary easements but not willing to develop.
- DOCD, Dave Cunningham stated need for non-opposition statment to annexation and
covenants and restrictions to be submitted to DOCD. Wetlands Study needed.
- City Engineer, Randy Powell no comment.
- Surveyor's Office, Steve Cash, not yet in attendance--petitioner needs to contact.
LINKSIDE PRIMARY PLAT
Petitioner seeks approval (Primary Plat - cluster) to plat 343 lots on 140.7 acres of land located
on the east side of Shelbourne Road, approximately one quarter mile north of 96th Street. Site
is zoned S-1 and R-1 residential. Filed by Davis Development Company.
Chris White of Davis Development felt that most all concerns of TAC have been addressed.
Petitioner has met with Jose Kreutz of County Highway Dept. and has agreed on improvements
to 96th and Shelbourne intersection.
COMMENTS:
- Carmel Fire Dept., Stan Puckett reports nothing outstanding.
- County Soil & Water, John South no comment.
- County Highway, Jose Kreutz stated developer and highway dept have come to an
agreement and doesn't see any problem. All comments deferred until latest submission
reviewed. Letter will be forthcoming.
- Communications, LuAnna Stephens no comment.
- County Surveyor's Office, Steve Cash reports no major concerns.
- Indiana Gas, Jim Rebuck reports no concerns.
- DOCD, Dave Cunningham reports nothing outstanding.
- City Engineer, Randy Powell no comment.
KINGSMILL SECTION 1 SECONDARY PLAT
Petitioner seeks approval (Secondary Plat) to plat 27 lots on 19 acres of land located one half
mile west of Ditch Road on 106th Street. Filed by Steve Wilson and Richard Carriger.
2
Present were: Steve Wilson and Dick Carriger; Stan Neal of Weihe Engineers gave overview
of project which was originally presented at Primary Plat as Stonehenge. Project to be all city
utilities; sidewalks installed on both sides of all interior streets.
COMMENTS:
- Carmel Fire Dept., Stan Puckett needs to review plans for fire hydrant location; project
on Indianapolis Water.
- County Soil & Water, John South refered to letter to Stan Neal regarding major and
minor concerns. Site plan and profile sheets to follow with drainage and pipe summary.
Roadside and rear yard swales not identified; recommend erosion control on banks of
lakes and rear yards. Further drainage improvements needed for 106th St. Off-site
sanitation during construction phase needs to be addreessed and pond needs to be clearly
identifed. Concern regarding culvert going south and construction debris--small retention
lake and trap would be OK. South requests pipe sizes and drainage calcs. - County
Highway, Jose Kreutz stated two concerns: drainage along 106th and rear side swales
discharging into ditch on west side of lots 41 and 42; and request petitioner revise
easements immediately parallel to right-of-way--wants 10/15 ft drng. and utility exclusive
easement, cannot be landscaped. - DOCD, Dave Cunningham felt a good compromise
would be 10 feet exclusive drainage and utility easement, 20 landscape easement, and 5
or 10 feet utility as needed. (sidewalk goes inside right-of-way)
- County Surveyor, Steve Cash reported Kent Ward expressed concern re easement over
mounding; would prefer no mounding. Will probably ask for cross-section and will work
with petitioner. Requests petition for regulated drain on Section I and II. Cash to send
letter to petitioner with comments. Requests petitioner show flow arrows, slope, 100 yr.
flood, identify location of swales, show proposed drainage basin, requests copy of
secondary and plan profile and cross section of typical lots with mounding. Requests sub-
surface drains be located.
- Communication, LuAnna Stephens reported street names not shown on plans--petitioner
will send to LuAnna.
- DOCD, Mike Hollibaugh has not yet reviewed plans--mounding would be a concern.
Needs landscaping plans.
- IPL, Dan Davenport requests an overall of entire project; rebuild overhead line; lift
station location will be sent to IPL.
- DOCD, Dave Cunningham stated covenants should specify that lot 37 can only face cul-
de-sac. Need non-opposition statement to annexation, yard lights to be installed by
builder/developer.
- County Highway, Jose Kreutz needs copy of covenants; median NOT to be made a
block. Covenants to state any plantings or signage in median to be approved by Co.
engineer and may be removed at request of Counry; to be maintained by homeowner's
association.
DANBURY ESTATES SECTION 1 SECONDARY PLAT
3
Petitoner seeks approval (Secondary Plat) to plat 48 lots on 22.5 acres of land located one half
mile west of Carey Road on 146th Street. Filed by Langston Development.
Present for petitioner Jim Langston, John Edwards. Stan Neal gave a brief overview. Project
is all city utilities. Standard sidewalks; primary approved about one month prior.
COMMENTS:
- Carmel Fire Dept., Stan Puckett requests hydrant at corner of Danbury & Dublin.
- Soil & Water, John South sent list of items to be addressed to Stan Neal. Plans need
to be spruced up and details finished; design is a concern re flat swales; requests
explanation on major drainage way into lake--need elevation.
- County Highway, Jose Kreutz stated no response to February 7th, Stan Neal will do so.
Needs driveway application.
- Communications, LuAnna Stephens states street names OK; final plat needs to show 1
inch equal 100 feet for addressing; petitioner will do.
- Indiana Gas, Chuck Shepherd states gas in area, no problem with extension.
- County Surveyor, Steve Cash no comments.
- City Utilities, Jim Dougherty will send letter to petitioner re water lines. Sanitary sewer
should show 27 inch intercepter; entrance into community area should show; will send
letter of comments; may or may not require fire hydrant off 146th Street at entrance.
- DOCD, Dave Cunningham stated plat does not show community area. Letter of items
of concern given to Stan Neal; Stan to address.
- City Engineer, Randy Powell stated sanitary sewer needs to be relocated--make sure
detention area included in plat--storm sewer needs to be in easement.
LAUREL LAKE PRIMARY REPLAT
Petitioner seeks approval (Primary) to plat 91 lots on 74.46 acres of land located on the southwest
corner of 126th Street and Towne Road. Filed by James Dugan.
Present was Jim Dugan. Stan Neal gave overview of project which is served by Indianapolis
Water and Clay Sewer. No lots back up to Towne Road or 126th Street. Storm water runs to
legal drain at northwest corner of property. Sidewalks on all interior streets except those which
abut Towne Road and 126th Street to north and east.
COMMENTS:
- Carmel Fire Dept., Stan Puckett needs plan on fire hydrant.
- County Soil & Water, John South stated drainage along County Road needs to be
addressed adequately.
- County Highwayt, Jose Kreutz stated request stands for improvements to adjacent
roadways; intersection too close to Towne and 126th Street. Item 4 on letter will be
looked at. Easements parallel to right-of-way need 10-15 ft. exclusive drainage and utility
4
easement eadjacent to right-of-way to Towne and 126th Street.
- Communications, LuAnna needs street names, petitioner will comply.
- Indiana Gas, Jeff Autry concern regarding utility easement and mounding.
- County Surveyor, Steve Cash stated 25 foot utility easement is to be outside right of
way. Letter forthcoming re: easement widths; storm sewer needs to be shown, drainage
along 126th and Towne Rd.needs calcs., watershed being diverted? show pipe inverts.
common areas need to be included in drng. easement. need copy of easement agreement
for offsite piping; need petittion for non-enforcement.
- DOCD, Mike Hollibaugh requests more detail on landscape plan
- IPL, Dan Davenport needs more detail at entrance
- DOCD, Dave Cunningham request traffic statement. Petitioner needs to re-file with Clay
Regional, petitioner to get with Marvin Pike. Variance for passing blister on file? Five
year commitment from Dugan re right-of-way.
DELTA FAUCET EXPANSION
Petitioner seeks approval (DP/ADLS) to expand the current facility located at 111th and
Meridian. Petitioner is seeking a variance to landbank 39 parking spaces in conjunction with
their proposed addition at 55 East 111th Street. Site is zoned B-5/Business. Filed by Landrush
Development.
Present for the petitioner were Bob Olson of CSO Architects and Tim Stevens of Landrush
Development. Tim Stevens gave a brief overview of the request.
COMMENTS:
- County Surveyor, Steve Cash stated need for outlet request form to County Drainage
Board.
- County Highway, Jose Kreutz stated road plan as proposed is unacceptable; petitioner
to work with DOCD and Commissioners for acceptable solution. Petitioner willing to
share half the cost of recommended improvements (1/2 = $75,000.00); petitioner to
dedicate Right-of-Way.
ST. MARK'S UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
Petitioner seeks approval (Special Use) to build an additional to their church at the intersection
of 126th Street and Gray Road. Site is zoned R-1 residential. Filed by St. Mark's United
Methodist Church.
Martk VanAllen of Pecksok, Randall, Nice & Assoc. presented the overview of the proposed
expansion project which is a Special Use approval for adding educational, administrative,
fellowship space and increasing sanctuary seating from 400 to 500 persons; parking lot size to
be doubled to 250 spaces. A new curb cut is being planned off the proposed expanded parking
lot onto Gray Road. It is the intent of the petitioner to be in compliance with all standards of
5
the Dept. of Community Development.
COMMENTS:
- City Engineer, Randy Powell stated need for drainage calcs.
- Carmel Fire Dept., Stan Puckett no comment.
- County Soil & Water, John South recommends seeding & sodding during construction
period for erosion control.
- Indiana Gas, Jeff Autry stated need for larger meter, project to be coordinated through
Steve Nevins.
- City Utilities, John Duffy stated no connection fee for water service needed; petitioner
agrees to pay availability fee. There will be no full service kitchen. Petitioner will
request variance after BZA meeting of 2-28 regarding parking curbing enclosure. Parking
lot to be used for storm water retention.
WORLD WIDE MOTORS
Petitioner seeks approval (Special Use) to construct a car dealership approximately 1/4 mile east
of Keystone Avenue on the north side of 96th Street. Site is zoned B-3 Business. Filed by Jim
Nelson.
In attendance for the petitioner were: Paul Pettenaro, World Wide Motors; Mark Thomas,
Custom Facilities; Michael Little and Michael Terry of Earthscape Engineering Corp. Mike
Terry gave an overview of the project. A Special Use is being requested for a car dealership in
Bauer Park which is zoned B-3 Business.
COMMENTS:
- City Engineer, Randy Powell stated nothing unresolvable.
- County Soil & Water, John South stated letter sent to petitioner asking for updated
plans; petitioner says erosion control and silt fencing have been added; structure label
should be added.
- Carmel Fire Dept., Stan Puckett requests knocksbox, petitioner will comply; Indpls
Water Co. will serve site.
- County Highway, Jose Kreutz needs set of plans, all comments defered until review;
traffic report to be submitted.
- Communications, LuAnna Stephens no comments.
- Indian Gas, Jeff Autry has not rec'd. plans--petitioner will comply.
- Carmel Utilities, John Duffey requests detail on grid trap; Carmel sewer will service.
- IPL, Dan Davenport no comments.
- DOCD, Mike Hollibaugh; petitioner will forego street trees because of impaired
visibility of motorists, and leaves and sap dripping on cars on lot would ruin paint finish.
In regard to parking and interior plant scaping, petitioner intends to minimize amount of
islands in order to maximize amount of parking area; otherwise landscaping constraints
6
•
would impose undue hardship on car dealership.
PLUM CREEK GOLF COURSE
Petitioner is seeking approval (Special Use) to construct a golf course within the Plum Creek
Subdivision located between 122nd Street and 131st Street just east of Hazeldell Road. Site is
zoned S-1 Residential. Filed by Thompson Land Company.
Present for the petitioner were: Cort Crosby and Paul Clare of Schneider Engineering. Petitioner
will return to TAC and BZA for special use approval on Clubhouse, full tennis maintenance
facility, and for secondary plat for residential facilities. Petitioner will file construction plans
with IDEM and DNR for approval of suitability of ground for golf course. Golf course not
included within plats, and will be completed prior to residential construction.
CONLMENTS:
- City Engineer, Randy Powell states petitioner required to pay availability fee; will need
to record easements prior to approval.
- County Highway, Jose asked about improvements to intersection at River Road and
131st, right-of-way to be dedicated? Petitioner not sure.
- County Soil & Water, John South wants to see more detail. - Indiana Gas, Jeff Autry
will get with Jim Rebuck for plans on excavation, etc.
- County Surveyor, Steve Cash cautioned petitioner re allowing time for necessary permits
to be processed.
- City Utilities, John Duffy re wall sites, where? petitioner to meet with utilities on
Friday.
SHADYBROOK
Appearing for petitioner were Christy Star of C.P.Morgan Co., Paul Clair and Brian Sullivan of
Schneider Engineering.
Christy Star stated that annexation has been approved and includes the entire section of Chester
Road from 99th Street to the north property line of Shadybrook. Petitioner reports adjacent
homeowner's driveway in Briar Creek extends into easement; looking for remedy.
- COMMENTS:
- DOCD, Dave Cunningham needs final revised plans by Monday. Sidewalks required
on both sides of Chester Road. Petitioner states common area to north of Creek to be
platted in section II.
- County Soil & Water, John South will defer comments until review.
- Carmel Fire Dept., Stan Puckett needs plans--Indpls Water.
- County Highway, Jose Kreutz has submitted comment letter. Petitioner to work with
7
Jose re coordination of bridge and road. Petitioner will install curbs to bridge.
- Communications, LuAnna Stephens, street addresses OK.
- Indiana Gas, Chuck Shuppert sates Jeff Autry will coordinate gas installation, no
problem.
- County Surveyor, Steve Cash states trying to have Carmel Creek regulated; will send
petition for storm sewers.
- Carmel Utilities, John Duffy states comments mailed to petitioner; petitioner to reply.
- County Soil & Water, John South stated 100 yr. flood elevations should be labeled on
plans; inlet on Kendowa Ct. needs to be protected (sandbag.) South recommends
permanent seeding around lake #2 and temporary seeding around lots 21 and 22.
- City Engineer, Randy Powell concern re Chester Road, requiring upgrade to 30 ft paved
street with 3 ft. chip and seal shoulder and resurface where needed. Common area (lake
#2) to be labeled as drainage easement. Concern regarding drainage at southwestern end
of project; presently area of Briar Creek floods because of lack of drainage outlet;
engineer to resolve water problem, petitioner to address in Section II.
WALGREENS
Petitioner is seeking approval (ADLS and Secondary Plat) to construct a drug store at the
intersection of Rangeline Road and the proposed extension of Executive Drive. Site is zoned
B-8 Business. Filed by Flynn and Zinkan Realty Co.
Appearing for petitioner were: Kelly J. Flynn and Alan Clough of Flynn & Zinkan Realty
Company, and Richard Henderson of Schneider Engineering. Kelly Flynn gave an overview of
the proposed project. Kelly Flynn states a redesign has been done relating to ingress and egress
pursuant to concerns expressed by Chief Conn and the Mayor re public safety. Petitioner has
changed right in-right out to smaller radius area to north. Siamese connection done pursuant to
request of Fire Chief.
COMMENTS:
- City Engineer, Randy Powell request status of sanitary sewer; Cripe preparing addendum
to Kroger proposal--Kroger will construct sewer. BPW to approve commercial curb cuts
as well as sewer & water availability for project. Petitioner required to submit letter to
engineer's office requesting inclusion in Agenda for approval. Engineer's office needs
recorded cross-easement for drive on west property line prior to project approval.
- Carmel Fire Dept., Stan Puckett states fire hydrant locations and siamese not shown on
plans. Stan stated Chief Couts in favor of ingress/egress as shown on plans.
- County Soil & Water, John South states letter sent to Rich Henderson re no remaining
sediment control on property.
- Communications, LuAnna Stephens stated name of Center to be changed; petitioner
agrees and will comply.
- Indiana Gas, Chuck Shuppert stated main to be extended along Executive Drive.
- Carmel Police Dept., Chief Conn stated concern re angle of turn onto Rangeline to
8
eliminate possibility of U-turn; petitioner to comply. Chief pleased with overall drawing.
- City Utilities, John Duffy needs updated plans to show service line; request inside meter
setting. Will also request reduced principle device to service line on petitioner's side.
- DOCD, Mike Hollibaugh has not rec'd. revised plans for landscaping. Request
landscaping match with Kroger on west and south property lines. Petitioner agrees not
to landscape northwest corner of building and will look into providing landscaping island.
Petitioner agrees to increase plantings along north property line; landscape buffer to be
shown in northeast corner; trash areas to be hidden. Structure is basically a glorified
block building and some type of foundation landscaping/treatment needed. Roof line
needs to be addressed.
- DOCD, Dave Cunningham and Terry Jones object to number of access points; too many
turn movements--hinders safety. Curb cuts were discussed at length. Terry Jones states
objection to parking across entrance into Walgreens. Dave Cunningham would like to see
similarities between Kroger and Walgreens regarding color, lighting, signage, etc.
- NOTE: There were definite disagreements between Flynn & Zinkan Realty and DOCD
Management Team regarding traffic flow and emergency vehicles into the facility and the
number of curb cuts. This case will go to the Plan Commission public hearing on March
15th.
EODUS RIDING STABLE
Petitioner is seeking approval (Special Use) to construct a riding stable in a residential zone
located on West 131st Street between Shelbourne Road and West Road. Site is zoned S-1
residential. Filed by Insite Architects, Inc.
Ronald J. Lake made introductions and gave the presentation. Proposed are facilities for horse
riding, training and stabling for horses off of 131st and West Road. Access would be off 131st
Street to a circular drive around the facility which will also accommodate required parking;
stables will have space for 50 horses. On site will be a barn; training facilities such as runs,
fenced turnout areas for horses, inside and outside riding arena; and gravel drive for storage
building and 25 additional parking spaces. Barn meets setback requirements and parking
requirements. Offsite drainage does come across property, but will be split--part to go south,
other part to go west to swale with a pipe to carry to the south. All neighbors have been advised
of proposal.
COMMENTS:
- County Soil & Water, John South would like to see drainage directed to the back and
discussed positive drainage and outlets. John South recommends good surface
drainage/sub drainage in the turnaround areas, not required but recommended; positive
outlet needed along 131st street. John South thought drain woiuld be needed for every
ditch; also possible existence of drainage tiles across 131st Street that will probably need
to be replaced. Driveway culvert needed as well as erosion control plan. John South
recommended a construction entrance during construction and a vegitation (grass) barrier
be used.
9
- Petitioner states Norway Spruces are intended for use along barn and drive. Silt fencing
to be used during construction.
- Carmel Fire Dept., Stan Puckett no comments.
- County Highway, Jose Kreutz referred to his letter re septic, 45 ft. half right-a-way.
Jose questions drainage - can't determine were it goes. John South thought drainage
would go to an area Creek. Jose does not want drainage into roadside swales, and
requests headwall be removed. Additional comments will follow from Jose at a later date.
- County Surveyor, Steve Cash wants some type of outlet; proposed septic field
(Brookstone soil); wants to see septic perimeter drain outletting point. Steve suggested
tapping into tile drain, (if there is no ponding on site at present, indications are there is
tile drain in existence.) Connection would need to be shown on plans.
- DOCD, Mark Monroe requested updated set of plans.
KEYSTONE SQUARE MALL (ADLS and parking variance)
Petitioner seeking approval to upgrade the parking areas surrounding the Keystone Square Mall
by constructing landscaped medians and define the parking and driving areas by inclusion of
curbed islands. Filed by Keystone Square Mall.
Overview presentation given by Louise Moretto. Concrete island to be installed on the north and
east side; solid curb to be installed along the south to deter traffic from cutting across.
COMMENTS:
- Carmel Fire Dept., Stan Puckett recommends elimination of parking in front of theater
and using for emergency fire lane, Dave Cunningham agrees.
- DOCD, Dave Cunningham suggests making AAA Drive a throughway to the Bank.
- Petitioner states parking spaces will go from 1268 to 202.
- DOCD, Mike Hollibaugh requests revised landscape plans show a plant list, quantities,
size, etc; Mike requested Jim Altum call him to dicuss the landscape plans. Cart corals
will need to be detailed for Plan Commission. 10 ft width needed on all concrete curb
islands - keep in mind the long term safety of the tree lasting in these islands. Monument
Pad is an area put aside for possible future signage. The 10 ft width or close to it was
discussed again for the Plan Commission meeting. Handicapped parking is to code.
- Carmel Fire Dept., Stan Puckett stated he would prefer fire hydrant to be located in
island.
- Petitioner thinks AAA Way parking will be addressed in another project.
MEETING ADJOURNED
10
CARMEUCLAY
PLAN COMMISSION/BZA
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
January 27, 1994
The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:00 PM by Ronald F. Houck, President, with
the Pledge of Allegiance in Council Chambers, One Civic Square, Carmel, Indiana.
John Hensel, Township Trustee, administered the Oath of Office to the following persons who
were sworn in as Commission Members: David Cremeans; Ronald F. Houck; and Barbara
Myers.
Members present were as follows: David Cremeans; Sue Dillon; Jay Dorman; Ronald F. Houck;
Jeff Kennelly; Richard J. Klar; Alan Klineman; Norma Meighen; Max Moore; Barbara Myers;
Salim Najjar; James T. O'Neal, Sr.; Jeanne Reid; Luci Snyder; Paul Spranger; and Sharon Clark.
A quorum was declared.
Members of the Department of Community Development present were: Dave Cunningham;Mike
Hollibaugh; Terry Jones; and Mark Monroe. Also present was Gordon Byers, City Attorney.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Alan Klineman nominated Jay Dorman for president, seconded by Barbara Myers; Dick Klar
moved to close the nominations for president, seconded by Jeanne Reid. Jay Dorman was elected
president by unanimous consent.
Alan Klineman nominated Max Moore for the office of vice president, seconded by Norma
Meighen; Dick Klar then moved to close the nominations for vice president, seconded by Jeanne
Reid. Max Moore was elected vice president by unanimous consent.
Max Moore nominated Jeanne Reid to serve as Chairman of the Special Study Committee for the
coming year, seconded by Dick Klar; Jeanne Reid declined the nomination.
Sue Dillon nominated Alan Klineman to serve as Chairman of the Special Study Committee;
Alan Klineman declined the nomination.
Max Moore nominated Jeff Kennelly to serve as Chairman of the Special Study Committee,
seconded by Luci Snyder. Ron Houck nominated Sue Dillon to serve as Chairman of the Special
Study Committee, seconded by Jeanne Reid.
Dick Klar moved to close the nominations for Special Study Chairman, seconded by Alan
Klineman, unanimously approved. The votes were cast by paper ballot, nine in favor of Jeff
Kennelly, six in favor of Sue Dillon. Jeff Kennelly was elected Chairman of the Special Study
1
Committee.
Max Moore nominated Paul Spranger to serve as Chairman of the Subdivision Committee for the
coming year; seconded by Ron Houck. Dick Klar moved to close the nominations for
Subdivision Committee Chairman, seconded by Ron Houck. Paul Spranger was elected Chairman
of Subdivision Committee by unanimous consent.
Nominations were then taken for a representative to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Jeff Kennelly
nominated Max Moore, seconded by Alan Klineman; Ron Houck nominated Dick Klar, seconded
by Barbara Myers. Dick Klar moved to close the nominations, unanimously approved. The votes
were cast by paper ballot, ten in favor of Dick Klar, five in favor of Max Moore. Dick Klar was
elected as Plan Commission representative to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the coming year.
Dick Klar moved to approve the minutes of the December 21, 1993 meeting, seconded by Ron
Houck, unanimously approved.
Dave Cunningham of DOCD announced that item 4j., Docket No. 5-94 P.P. was tabled by the
petitioner and will appear before the Commission on February 15th.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
lj. Commission to consider Docket No. 82-93 O.A., a Zoning Ordinance Amendment replacing
the current Sign Ordinance. The ordinance will replace the current Sign Ordinance in its entirety
and establish guidelines and development standards for the establishment of signage within the
Carmel/Clay jurisdiction. Filed by the Sign Ordinance Committee.
Jeanne Reid, outgoing Chairman of the Special Study Committee, reported that the Committee
had met with members of the D.O.C.D. and members of the Sign Committee in January. It was
decided at that time that there were issues that the Special Study Committee did not feel clear
on. The Sign Committee requested that they be allowed to reconvene and continue to work on
these issues, banners in particular.
Terry Jones reported that the Sign Committee was scheduled to meet with the DOCD on
Wednesday, February 2, 1994. Gordon Byers had agreed to review the legality of certain parts
of the proposed ordinance.
Jeanne Reid then suggested to Mr. Kennelly that the Special Study Committee receive an up-date
of the sign ordinance and any information that would come out of the meeting of February 2nd
prior to public hearing in March.
Alan Klineman moved to hold the public hearing open on the Sign Ordinance and continue to
have the Special Study Committee work on the proposed ordinance, seconded by Dick Klar,
unanimously approved.
2
2j. Commission to consider Docket No. 2-94 P.P., a Primary Plat (cluster) application for a
subdivision named Brookfield & Bayhill at Waterstone. The primary plat consists of 154 lots
on 81.72 acres of land located south of 126th Street and approximately one half mile east of Gray
Road. The site is zoned S-1. Filed by George Sweet for Waterstone Land Co.
Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing the
applicant, Brenwick Development Co., Inc. and its president, George Sweet. Also present was
Dave Sexton of Schneider Engineering.
Waterstone is being developed under three existing residential zoning classifications: S-1; S-2;
and R-2, pursuant to a plat that was approved by the Plan Commission. Mr. Nelson displayed
an aerial view of the project site. As approved, Waterstone will consist of 417 home sites on 288
acres. The Davis parcel was intended to be incorporated into Waterstone and street stubs were
provided for that purpose. The Davis parcel is zoned S-1 and under the Comprehensive Plan
is recommended for moderate intensity, residential. There are currently five homes on the Davis
parcel; three occupied by members of the Davis family, and two rental properties. The Davis
homes will be incorporated into Waterstone and the two rental properties will be razed.
The primary plat under the cluster option was presented to the Commission for review. The plat
would provide for the annexation of the Davis parcel, and would become known as Bayhill and
Brookfield at Waterstone. Ingress and egress will be by a single, primary entrance off 126th
Street. Four lakes have been provided which serve both as an amenity area and provide on-site
storm water detention. A 20 foot greenbelt around the entire perimeter of the Davis parcel has
also been provided as well as pockets of open area throughout. Sidewalks are being provided
on both sides of all interior streets as well as adjacent and parallel to 126th Street.
The plat, as presented, meets all of the development standards of the Subdivision Control
Ordinance as well as the cluster option, and no variances are being requested. The intensity of
residential use as contemplated is at the lower end of the density spectrum as set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan. The number of lots contemplated on the real estate total 146. It is believed
that Waterstone is compatible with existing developments in the area and the current use of the
homes by the Davis family.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed project; none
appeared.
Members of the Commission were then asked for their comments or questions.
Ron Houck asked that a letter from George B. Fisher, 5179 Carrington Circle, Carmel, be entered
into the record as a statement of Mr. Fisher's opposition to the extension of Waterstone by reason
of school capacity and traffic.
Salim Najjar asked Staff for an up-date of the Hazeldell Road extension, i.e. when or if it would
be in place.
3
Dave Cunningham reported that the Mayor is proposing to present the Hazeldell extension to the
City Council in the near future, and it will be determined if it is a fundable project that they
would like to approve. As of this moment, the exact status is not known.
Salim Najjar stated that if Hazeldell Road extension is not in place, the present intersections will
fail.
Dave Cunningham agreed with Mr. Najjar's assessment of the situation, but stated that the
Department had to operate on the basis of the Comprehensive Plan; that Hazeldell is a proposed
Street and that it will be installed.
Jeanne Reid also expressed concern regarding the traffic analysis which was predicated upon the
existence of Hazeldell Road. If, after Hazeldell is in place, the intersection of 116th and Gray
Road will be level service "D" which is not good; even the traffic analysis states that level of
service "D" is acceptable in urban areas and this area is not urban. Also, at the time of initial
proposal on Waterstone it was anticipated that the buildout was approximately 10 years;
obviously this is not the case and the traffic is cause for concern. Ms. Reid also stated that she
was not comfortable with some terms in the traffic analysis which were considered to be vague.
Also stated in the traffic analysis was the need for a traffic light at 126th and Gray Road and Ms.
Reid inquired as to the current status of such a traffic signal.
Alan Klineman suggested that the Department hire an independent traffic engineer.
Jay Dorman advised the Commission members that he and Max Moore would be meeting with
the DOCD Management Team to go over some goals and objectives, and perhaps at that time
a methodology could be identified that would provide a better sense of comfort in these particular
types of analyses.
Gordon Byers commented on traffic analysis and cautioned the Commission that there is no
current means to vote against Subdivision Ordinances as it relates to traffic. Certainly traffic is
important, especially as it relates to accel/decel, movement, etc., but the current Subdivision
Ordinance does not give the Commission the ability to vote against a Subdivision based on a
finding of fact according to the level of traffic service. Gordon Byers suggested that if the
Commission wanted to make traffic an issue as a basis for turning down a project, the
Subdivision Ordinance would need to be amended. As the ordinance exists now, it does not have
objective criteria, only general health, safety, welfare criteria regarding traffic congestion.
Paul Spranger stated that the traffic issue was relevant to the upcoming review of the
Comprehensive Plan, and that each item comes before the Commission, the members should
redouble their efforts to get an infrastructure plan in place considering the level of growth Carmel
is now experiencing. This issue needs to be addressed not only in the Subdivision Ordinance but
also in the Comprehensive Plan.
Terry Jones of DOCD stated that there is a line item in DOCD's budget and the Plan
4
Commission's budget for consulting fees and these monies can be used to obtain outside,
unbiased review; this will be looked into. Terry also stated that the current Comprehensive Plan
did speak of Hazeldell Road and Gray Road, and gave comment that if Hazeldell Road did not
exist, then Gray Road would have to be taken to four lanes.
Ron Houck moved to require the Plan Commission to ask for a review of the traffic report within
the scope of their budget, and that it be contracted with HNTB, this motion died for lack of a
second. Mr. Dorman felt that Mr. Houck's motion was appropriate, but that the recommendation
should be initiated at the Committee level.
Sue Dillon expressed concern regarding the number of cluster projects coming before the
Commission, and the fact that the Plan Commission is still operating under the same cluster
ordinance that was considered unsatisfactory years ago. At one point, a new cluster ordinance
was written, but it was never adopted. Ms. Dillon felt that the current project was a rezone
without going through the process of rezoning.
Jeanne Reid expressed concern regarding the wetland issue and creative use of open space.
Docket No. 2-94 P.P. was referred to Subdivision Committee which will meet on Tuesday,
February first at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms.
3j. Commission to consider Docket No. 4-94 P.P., a Primary Plat (cluster) application for The
Reserve at Springmill Subdivision. The primary plat consists of 74 lots on 33.9 acres of land
located east of Springmill Road and approximately one half mile south of 106th Street, Clay
Township. The site is zoned S-2 residence district. The petitioner is requesting the following
Subdivision Regulation Variances:
6.3.6 -Road widths to be reduced from 30' to 26'
6.3.7 - Cul-de-sac length to exceed 600'
6.3.22 - Passing Blisters to be eliminated from entrances
Filed by Steve Pittman for Pittman Partners, Inc.
Steve Pittman, 810 Pebblebrook Place, Noblesville, appeared before the Commission on behalf
of the petitioner. Also in attendance were Paul Clair of Schneider Engineering and Steve
Fairbach of A & F Engineering. Mr. Pittman gave an overview of the proposed project and
displayed an aerial photograph; a quadrant map; a local area map; and home elevations.
Wherever possible, the existing wooded areas have been preserved and a dry detention area has
been created. An eight foot brick wall has been built from the northeast corner extending south
to the west corner, and a significant row of non-deciduous trees will be planted in this area.
Approximately 21% of the site has been set aside for common area/green belt buffer. A six foot,
shadow box fence will be built to the southeastern border, and the plantings will continue.
Common areas have been created; through the use of curvilinear streets and cul-de-sacs, homes
that back up to Spring Mill Road will be minimized. It was felt that a better living environment
5
could be created for future residents through utilizing the Cluster option.
The petitioner contemplates the dedication of a 45 foot half right of way on Spring Mill Road
and the widening of Spring Mill Road to a 12 foot width with a stone shoulder. Two points of
ingress and egress have been provided with full accel/decel lanes at each point, and a divided
boulevard with a landscaped island. A sidewalk will be provided the full length of the property
as well as both sides of all interior streets. Two street trees per lot will also be provided.
There are three variances requested; these have been presented to the Technical Advisory
Committee and have been approved by those members and the Hamilton County Board of
Commissioners. Passing blisters are required at each entry way and the petitioner is willing to
install; however, ground is presently not available. The petitioner commits to installing the
passing blister if the right of way becomes available within the next five years.
In regard to pavement width, Hamilton County requires 26 feet; this has been approved by the
Board of Commissioners; street requirements in the Carmel City limits are 30 feet unless it is a
cul-de-sac, then the requirement would be 26 feet.
It is anticipated that home prices on the southern part of the project will range from $250,000
to $300,000; the north side of the project that has larger lots will exceed $400,000 in price.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition; the following appeared:
Tom and Heather Lord, 10435 Hussey Lane, Carmel, whose home is immediately west of the
proposed development, expressed favor with the proposed development and stated that they
highly endorse the project.
Guy W. Grazier, 10120 Spring Mill Road, Carmel, expressed opposition to the proposed
development by reason of personal opinion and environmental changes (air pollution). Mr.
Grazier also felt that the added area would be difficult for the Carmel Police Department to
maintain law and order in the area, and that increased traffic would be a problem.
Barbara Layton, 10300 Spring Mill Road, Carmel, stated that she and her husband, Dick, favored
the proposed project very strongly.
Public hearing on this Docket was then closed.
Mr. Pittman responded that he had met with Mr. and Mrs. Grazier and did not wish to make any
response to their comments.
Members of the Commission were invited to comment and ask questions.
Ron Houck asked if homeowner's covenants had been submitted to provide for regular
maintenance and monthly fees, collections, liens, etc. Dave Cunningham responded in the
6
affirmative.
Alan Klineman asked if Mr. Pittman had attempted to acquire land on the west side of Spring
Mill Road to provide for accel/decel lanes; Mr. Pittman responded in the affirmative, and that he
had also had conversations with the Meads and David Simon, and David Simon's attorney,
however, Mr. Pittman had not made a formal offer. Mr. Klineman requested that this be done and
Mr. Pittman agreed to do so. Mr. Klineman also suggested that Mr. Pittman attempt to acquire
access onto 106th Street.
Jeanne Reid asked if John South's concerns as expressed in the TAC minutes had been addressed,
Steve Pittman responded in the affirmative.
Docket No. 4-94 P.P. was referred to Subdivision Committee which will meet Tuesday, February
1, 1994 in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall.
4.4j. Docket No. 5-94 P.P., a Primary Plat (cluster) application for a subdivision named Linkside,
TABLED BY PETITIONER
5j. Commission to consider Docket No. 6-94 Z., a Rezone application for Young's Asphalt
Paving Co. and Jack's Tool Rental. The sites are located at 839 and 861 North Range Line Road,
Carmel. The petitioners are requesting to rezone the property from R-1 residential to B-1
business. Filed by James E. Zoccola.
James E. Zoccola of Coots, Henke & Wheeler, 255 East Carmel Drive, appeared before the
Commission representing Young's Asphalt and Jack's Tool Rental. The petitioners are requesting
a rezone of the subject property from the current R-1 residential classification to B-1 business
district. The petitioner intends to construct a small office/equipment building on the subject
premises to be used for general business purposes. The petition is believed to be consistent with
the 1991 Comprehensive Plan in that the Central Clay Township section is the focus of
commercial, office, and industrial development in the community.
The subject property is wholly consistent with the currently zoned parcels immediately adjacent.
The property immediately to the southeast of the subject property is the Carmel Cemetery and
is zoned B-3; the property immediately to the west is zoned I-1; directly to the north of the
subject property is the zoning classification B-3; and immediately to the east lies Cool Creek
which contains a substantial buffer with the 100 year flood plain.
The petitioner has appeared before the TAC committee; originally it was intended to rezone a
portion of the 100 year flood plain, but this request has been amended not to include any portion
of the 100 year flood plain at the request of the DOCD. The TAC committee was concerned
about the ingress and egress of the existing building; the petitioner has committed to the TAC
committee and now to the Plan Commission that an ingress/egress easement will be provided to
allow access to Range Line Road.
7
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or in opposition to the project; the
following appeared:
Lynn Nevitt, 1840 East 136th Street, Carmel, stated that her property adjoins the Young property.
Mr. Young attempted a rezone in 1985 with no success. Complaints were filed with local
authorities and the business was interrupted for a time; the property is currently zoned residential
and Mr. Young has continued to operate his business against zoning classification. Ms. Nevitt
stated that she also spoke for Mrs. Pickett and Mrs. Smith (both in their 80's) who are very
opposed to the business, but could not be in attendance. Ms. Nevitt stated that she and the
neighbors are concerned about the noise of the asphalt trucks dumping the refuse and the smell
of asphalt that pollutes the air. Ms. Nevitt circulated pictures of the asphalt business among the
Plan Commission members.
Entered into the record was a letter from Ronald Bird dated January 3, 1994 stating opposition
to the requested rezone.
The public hearing was closed.
James Zocolla stated that he had received Mr. Bird's letter and it had been discussed with the
DOCD and the TAC committee. Most of the comments in the letter are related to how the
property could be developed; any development that may occur would be consistent with the B-1
developmental standards and if there were any non-compliance,the petitioner would be appearing
before the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance from those developmental standards.
Mr. Zocolla stated that he was not personally aware of any complaints regarding the current use
of the property and it is the petitioner's position that the proposed rezone of this property is
wholly consistent with the immediate vicinity surrounding the property, and that the rezone is in
concert with the 1991 Comprehensive Plan, and the petitioner is requesting that the rezone be
granted.
Max Moore asked the Department about the history of the proposed property; Dave Cunningham
responded that in 1985, a similar petition had been filed with the Plan Commission and it was
either withdrawn or denied. Mr. Moore was certain that it had been denied. Jim O'Neal agreed
with Max Moore's recollection that the petitioner's prior request had been formally denied.
Dave Cunningham stated that the Technical Advisory Committee had reviewed the request for
rezone from the standpoint of technical issues such as drainage and impact to the area. There
were no drainage problems found with the anticipated use due to its location with the floodway
and the available land for detention/retention; there is currently sewer and water to this site, and
TAC has approved the petition because there are no technical constraints.
Ron Houck expressed concern that if the business had been in operation since 1987, there are
8
some obvious enforcement issues that need to be addressed, particularly in view of prior
complaints.
Jeff Kennelly requested that the petitioner bring exhibits to the Special Study Committee so that
the request could be better reviewed.
Jay Dorman encouraged the Committee to look very closely at the petitioner's request for the
rezone.
Ron Houck addressed a comment to DOCD that was prompted by Mr. Bird's letter; if a member
of the community suspects a business is doing environmental damage on a property, what steps
should be taken. Dave Cunningham responded that if this were the case, a person should contact
the Indiana Department of Environmental Management.
Docket No. 6-94 Z., a Rezone application for Young's Asphalt Paving Co., was referred to the
Special Study Committee which will meet February 1, 1994 at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms
of City Hall.
6j. Commission to consider Docket No. 11-94 P.P., a Primary Plat (cluster) application for a
subdivision named Haverstick. The primary plat consists of 583 lots on 243 acres of land located
north of 131st Street and approximately one quarter mile west of River Road. The site is zoned
S-1. Filed by Centex Homes, Inc.
Philip A. Nicely, attorney, 8888 Keystone Crossing, Indianapolis, appeared before the
Commission representing Centex Homes, Inc. Also in attendance were: Rex Gordon, General
Manager of Centex Homes for the Indianapolis Metropolitan area; Glenn Christian, Director of
Development for Centex; Curt Huff and Dennis Olmstead, engineers with Stoeppelwerth &
Assoc.; Bill Fairbach, traffic engineer with A & F Engineering; Dave Calaba, landscape architect;
and Steve Grannar, an associate of Mr. Nicely's.
Mr. Nicely gave the overview for the proposed project. Centex Homes filed an application for
primary plat approval for a 583 lot subdivision on a 246 acre tract of ground located on the north
side of 131st Street and immediately west of River Road, as displayed on an aerial photograph.
The Vestal ditch runs through the property and this has been developed into a substantial amenity
for the development. The property is currently zoned S-, and it is proposed to develop this
property under the S-1 cluster option. The property is not within the City of Carmel at this
particular time, however, a petition is being prepared proposing that the property be annexed to
the City of Carmel.
The petitioner is proposing to install a primary road through the middle of the Subdivision from
which all other areas in the Subdivision would be accessed, and contains 60 feet of right of way
and a 30 foot pavement area. On either side of the road is a minimum area of 55 feet of green
area which will be landscaped and developed, and will present a substantial amenity to the
development and those homes which back up to the roadway. There will also be a walkway and
9
a jogging path in connection with the roadway. In effect, the Vestal ditch area which runs from
131st Street to the north end of the property will be a lineal park development which can be used
by anyone desiring to do so.
There are three potential well sites on the property, and using the cluster option, these have been
designed around and left vacant in order to provide the City of Carmel an opportunity to acquire
those sites for additional well facilities for water usage. In addition to the well site, the area
would be used for recreational purposes, i.e. volleyball, soccer, basketball. One of the well sites
is a very heavily wooded area and will remain so; another well site will contain the retention
pond and lake.
A 16 acre tract has been designated as a school site and an opportunity has been given for the
school to acquire the property any time within the next three years at the then current appraised
value. This particular tract would not need a retention pond and all sanitary sewers would be
currently available to the school. If the school does not acquire the property, the land would be
developed for home sites.
Of the 243 acres being developed, approximately 55 acres are common area or over 20% of the
development. If the school site was considered to be open area, the percentage would be
substantially greater. Within the development is a recreational area which will include
Clubhouse, Tennis Courts,Pool facilities, etc. Along 131st Street, a sidewalk will be constructed.
Stub streets have been provided to adjoining areas; however, a letter was received from Conner
Prairie requesting that the street NOT be stubbed to the north, and the petitioner will do whatever
the Plan Commission requests. In addition, the petitioner is providing a 20 foot landscaping area
with undulating, 3 to 4 foot mounds, as a buffer between Conner Prairie and the Haverstick
Subdivision. This has been agreed upon with the Conner Prairie representative.
The project will be served by both sanitary sewer and water, and the design of both have been
approved by Carmel Utilities; some oversizing has been provided for the sanitary sewer at the
request of the Carmel Utilities and also for extension of the sanitary sewers for the perimeter of
the property.
Mr. Nicely displayed some view graphs of the roadway; overall development; the proposed
landscaping; and the entrance treatment.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the project; the following
appeared:
Douglass McDonald,Director of Operations/Corporate Treasurer for Conner Prairie and an officer
of Earlham College, appeared before the Commission on behalf of Conner Prairie. Conner Prairie
is not adverse to the development of the area but is concerned regarding the density and type of
housing adjacent to the Conner Prairie property. Centex has indicated a willingness to work with
Conner Prairie and Conner Prairie wanted to go on record as being hopeful that a consensus
could be reached in regard to the development. There were two specific areas of concern for
10
Conner Prairie: one is the stub street, the second is the size of the lots on the property line.
Conner Prairie would prefer that the area NOT begin to look urbanized, and that is precisely what
the R-3 zoning classification indicates is appropriate. Conner Prairie does not feel comfortable
with the area beginning to develop into an urbanized area. Conner Prairie also objected to the
stub street because it was felt to be the beginning of pre-disposing them to developing their
property. The stub street as well as an urbanized environment presents a problem to Conner
Prairie as being an operating, outdoor, living history museum focused on nature concerns. There
are a number of sensitive areas on the Conner Prairie property that could be developed in an
interesting manner, and Conner Prairie would like to have those options retained for them rather
than eliminated. Mr. McDonald reiterated the concerns of Conner Prairie which were spelled out
in a letter to the Plan Commission dated January 14, 1994, copies of which were distributed to
all members of the Plan Commission.
Public Hearing was then closed.
Mr. Nicely responded that the petitioner has tried to accommodate and will continue to work with
Conner Prairie to satisfy their concerns.
Alan Klineman suggested to Mr. Nicely that perhaps the proposed school site could be donated
by the petitioner rather than putting the Commission in the position of zoning the area and then
having the School Board acquire the property from the petitioner at an appraised value which
would take into consideration the platting the Commission is about to do.
Jim O'Neal supported the proposal of having the petitioner donate land to the school district, but
felt that 16 acres was not large enough to accommodate an elementary school and grounds.
Rex Gordon of Centex Homes responded that they have agreed to make the property available
to the school; an elementary school would definitely be an asset to the proposed subdivision.
The ground is worth a lot more to Centex for the construction of homes than to sell it to the
school, but a reasonable price could be agreed upon.
Ron Houck asked about roadway improvements that had been committed to by the petitioner; Mr.
Nicely responded that along 131st Street, the north half will be resurfaced; a new culvert will be
installed along River Road; and accel/decel lanes will be installed without the necessity of a
variance. The County Highway requested that the petitioner rebuild River Road from 131st Street
to 146th Street; the petitioner felt that this was too costly. The petitioner did agree that if the
County would rebuild the road between 131st Street to 146th Street and it was completed in
1995, the petitioner would pay $25,000 upon completion (in 1995), $25,000 at the first
anniversary, and $25,000 at the second anniversary (a total of $75,000.), provided that the
development to the south (Plum Creek) would also pay a like amount.
Glenn Christian of Centex Homes stated that the outlined proposal was submitted to the County
Highway and they, in turn, would pass it on to the County Commissioners for their consideration.
Sue Dillon expressed concern regarding the selected site for the school because of the Creek and
11
the woods, and the fact that one corner of it will not be buildable. Also, Ms. Dillon asked if the
Department was comfortable with the landscaping in view of the very steep slope on the
property; Mike Hollibaugh responded that he was not totally comfortable with the plans, but
discussions had been held with the petitioner who has assured the Department that the impact of
that particular area would be as little as possible; at secondary, there would be more details
available.
Sharon Clark asked if pernaps the site for the school could be shifted from the northeast corner
along Conner Prairie's boundary, since there was concern. Mr. Nicely responded that an essential
part of the plan was access to River Road, but that the petitioner is flexible in their position. Mr.
Nicely stated the petitioner could possibly design a road which would serve both the subdivision
and the school.
Docket No. 11-94 P.P., a Primary Plat (cluster) application for Haverstick, was referred to
Subdivision Committee for further analysis and consideration on February 1, 1994, at 7:00 PM
in the Caucus Rooms.
Jim O'Neal left the meeting at this point and did not return.
K. OLD BUSINESS
Items lk. through 4k. were considered as one and addressed by Mike Hollibaugh of the
Department of Community Development.
lk. Commission to consider Docket No. 65-93 O.A., a Zoning Ordinance Amendment
establishing Community Development Permits Filed by the Department of Community
Development.
2k. Commission to consider Docket No. 66-93 O.A., a Zoning Ordinance Amendment
establishing Bufferyards Filed by the Department of Community Development.
3k. Commission to consider Docket No. 67-93 O.A., a Zoning Ordinance Amendment
establishing Tree Conservation Filed by the Department of Community Development.
4k. Commission to consider Docket No. 68-93 O.A., a Zoning Ordinance Amendment
establishing Parking Lot Landscaping Filed by the Department of Community Development.
Mike Hollibaugh stated that there was not a lot to report thus far. No revisions have been made
to items lk., 2k., and 4k., with the intent that time and energies would be focused on item 3k.,
Tree Conservation. At this time, it is hoped that the final revision of the Tree Conservation
Ordinance will be completed and ready for Committee review on Tuesday, February first. Those
comments offered by Chris Painchaud at the last Special Study Committee are being addressed.
Jeanne Reid had some general comments for future reference: there seemed to be one flaw in the
12
Committee's review that meets only on a monthly basis with inconsistent membership; this would
be true of any ordinance review, and with the general public present, there seemed to be a lot of
backtracking. The committee felt good about the things they were doing and believed in what
Mike had written; the ordinances had been worked on to make them more "public" and
"developer friendly," but it is impossible to work on these ordinances only once a month to get
them done and on the floor--the public loses interest and forgets where you are; the public
attended three months ago and saw one revision and became upset that two meetings later
revision six is being worked on. Incorporating public input is wonderful, but it isn't done fast
enough, that is, meeting more often. Something in the system needs to be reworked because of
the present situation, i.e. frustration that Committee members and DOCD felt at seeing nothing
come to fruition, and people becoming disinterested, for instance Mr. Painchaud. In the future,
it would be good to strive for consistency and meeting on a more frequent basis in order to get
these to the public in a timely fashion.
Dave Cunningham of DOCD stated that in the future, a better system will be tried to critique the
current procedure for reviewing the ordinances. The tree ordinance has been being worked on
since April or May of last year and there should be a more constructive procedure to write the
ordinances.
Sue Dillon addressed the Commission in response to a circulated newsletter and some general
misconceptions of the public regarding the proposed ordinance revisions, in particular the tree
conservation ordinance.
Jay Dorman commented that there are things that could be done better, and hopefully some
changes will be forthcoming in Mr. Dorman's term.
5k. Commission to consider Docket No. 83-93 P.P., a Primary Plat (cluster) application for a
subdivision named Spring Farms. The primary plat consists of 90 lots on 60 acres of land
located between 131st Street and 136th Street on the west side of Spring Mill Road. The site
is zoned S-1. Filed by James J. Nelson for Bay Development Co.
Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing the
petitioner. Mr. Nelson stated that the public hearing on this particular Primary Plat request was
held in December, and reviewed by the Subdivision Committee on January 4, 1994, with a
unanimous, favorable recommendation.
Mr. Spranger of the Subdivision Committee offered no comment on this Docket.
Ron Houck moved to approve Docket No. 83-93 P.P., seconded by Paul Spranger; the Findings
of Fact vote were 13 in favor, David Cremeans abstained; motion approved.
•
6k. Committee to consider Docket No. 88-93 PP, a Primary Plat (commercial) application for
Carmel Village Center. The property is located on the east side of Range Line Road,
approximately one eighth of a mile north of Carmel Drive. The plat includes 7 lots on 12.82
13
acres of land for commercial development. The site is zoned B-8. Filed by Mick Scheetz.
Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing the
petitioner. The public hearing on this matter was held in December and referred to the
Subdivision Committee for review on January 4, 1994. The committee considered the landscape
plan and two different types of fencing, and after much discussion, recommended the construction
of a 6 foot wooden fence with landscaping to be used as a buffer.
Paul Spranger reported the findings of the Subdivision Committee: it was a compromised
decision on the part of the Committee, not an easy one, and was deliberated for a good portion
of the meeting; if there were new evidence to be heard, it would be appropriate at this time, but
the vote of the Committee stands.
Ron Houck offered his understanding of the two sides of the argument: the residents of Shoshone
Neighborhood would like to have had a fence and mounding that would provide a ten foot visual
barrier between the neighborhood and the commercial development; the petitioner was willing
to provide a fence and four foot mounding if it was the will of the Committee. Mr. Houck felt
that mounding has a place and a purpose, but not overused and abused. Mr. Houck felt that this
project deserves to have a mound and fence on top in order to provide immediate or at the time
of development,the type of buffering that will separate residential from commercial development.
Sue Dillon stated that she had second thoughts about the committee meeting and was not
comfortable with the outcome. At the last public hearing, both parties were encouraged by Mr.
Blackwell to go back to the table to see if perhaps an alternate solution could be found. The
Shoshone Neighbors say that Mr. Scheetz has not attempted to contact them, and even Mr.
Nelson previously stated that he felt it was unfair to make the Plan Commission an arbitrator.
Ms. Dillon commented that she would like to have this Docket tabled for another month to allow
Mr. Scheetz and the Neighborhood Association to get together to bring a solution to the
Commission.
Jay Dorman stated that the public hearing on this Docket was closed and Committee
recommendation had been made; Mr. Dorman asked direction from Commission members
regarding the next appropriate course of action, but Rules of Procedure would dictate that the
Commission vote on this particular Docket.
Mr. Klineman felt that the Commission did not need to vote on what the Committee had sent the
Commission, but the Plan Commission could structure a resolution approving (if that was the will
of the Commission) the approval of the Primary Plat, subject to the condition of a four foot
mound and a six foot opaque fence. If the will is elsewhere, then the Plan Commission could
structure that.
Jeff Kennelly asked Mr. Nelson if he felt this situation had been resolved, and if his client, Mick
Scheetz, felt good about what he wants to do. Mr. Nelson responded that in regard to the
Kroger site and the seven lots, Mr. Scheetz felt that it was responsible to address landscaping at
14
the time of plat approval, even though it was not a requirement of the Subdivision Control
Ordinance or Zoning Ordinance; however, a landscape plan was submitted on December 20th and
was the culmination of many group and individual meetings with the neighbors and many
meetings with Mike Hollibaugh of the Department. Four plans were provided for review:
October 30; December 3; December 7; and the final one on December 20. Mr. Nelson stated that
Mike Hollibaugh approved of the final plan, thought it was good and in the best interest of the
community as a whole. The plan that is being presented is the plan that provides the most
landscaping and, in the petitioner's opinion, the most screening. Mr. Nelson stated that he was
not comfortable with the process of the voting at the Committee level. Mr. Nelson stated that
the Plat is the issue, and if that is approved, Mr. Scheetz will honor the landscape plan of 12-20
with the wooden fence. Landscaping is not an issue before the Commission at this time. The
petitioner has followed the Ordinance and meets the Ordinance. If not put to rest at this time,
landscaping will come up in the future as each parcel is developed. The mounds are not favored
by the petitioner; they are conducive to higher maintenance costs, destruction, etc., and it is not
believed to be the thing to do. The petitioner does not have an agreement with the neighbors,
but he has tried.
Mr. Kennelly asked if the petitioner was still willing to make a condition of the primary plat the
six foot fence and the landscaping. Mr. Nelson responded that the Committee had approved the
landscaping plan shown on December 20 with a six foot wooden fence and the petitioner is
willing to go with that.
Ron Houck asked the City Attorney if the Commission could approve a Docket subject to
conditions; Gordon Byers responded that plat approval can be conditioned upon certain items,
but in this case, the ordinance does not dictate landscaping and Mr. Byers felt that it was not
proper to condition in this instance. Mr. Byers commented that this was the genesis of the
Bufferyard Ordinance. The Commission has the right to approve, but they cannot extract
requirements over and above what the Subdivision (commercial in this instance) Ordinance
requires. The petitioner only has to reserve an easement for landscaping, the plat would have
to be approved if it complied with the ordinance, the petitioner would return to the Commission
at ADLS, and then the issue could be revisited. Legally, the Commission is simply voting on
the plat at this time and whether or not it complies with the Ordinance.
Alan Klineman respectfully disagreed with Mr. Byers' opinion. Mr. Klineman felt that the
neighbors wanted the Plan Commission to do something in the landscaping area, the neighbors
wanted a certainty as each lot was developed and returned to the Commission for ADLS. Mr.
Klineman felt that this was something the Plan Commission could do without stepping outside
the law.
In response to Norma Meighen's question as to whether or not the Commission should now vote,
Jay Dorman commented that this Docket had received a lot of attention and there was still a lot
of sensitivity that remains by the residents. Mr. Dorman felt sure that Mr. Scheetz wanted to do
what was fair and equitable for both parties. Mr. Dorman also disagreed with the City Attorney
and felt that whether on this case or traffic matters, the Commission needed some mechanism in
15
place to continue and move forward, but to advise the next step forward (the Council) on items
that the Commission still finds subject to question or that should receive additional consideration.
Mr. Nelson went on record as stating he had not asked the Commission to vote on this
landscaping plan as one that would satisfy B-8 and forever preclude additional discussions
regarding landscaping on this site in the future. This could not be done until an ADLS application
were submitted for a single lot.
In response to Jay Dorman's questions, Gordon Byers stated that written Findings of Fact must
be made and if the Plan Commission voted no, reasons would have to be given as to why this
plan does not comply with the Ordinance. Whether agreed upon or not, the only true issue on
the table is the Plat. Gordon then reminded the Commission that in turning down a Docket, the
fairness of the ordinance is that you must offer specific written language, factually, why a case
is not in compliance with Subdivision Ordinance.
Ron Houck felt that this particular case came under "other relevant factors," and asked Mr.
Nelson if the petitioner would be willing to go with mounding and fencing if it were the will of
the Plan Commission. Mr. Scheetz stated that he would feel very uncomfortable with that in
view of the number of trees that have already been moved and if they are moved again, they
would not survive.
Sue Dillon offered the following comments: if a fence goes on a four foot mound, it would go
down the middle, and in this case, there would be 17 1/2 feet on either side; this would present
a maintenance problem. It is difficult to mow the mounds and for maintenance purposes, there
would have to be a gate; also, in view of the utility easements, any maintenance would be
complicated; it is also difficult for vegetation to grow on mounding. If the wooden fence were
not put on a mound but rather on the property line, the full landscaped plan would be utilized,
but the neighbors would not get as much screening--it is not an easy decision and certainly
impossible please everyone in this situation.
Alan Klineman moved for approval of Docket No. 88-93 PP, subject to the landscaping plan of
December 20, 1993, with a six foot wooden fence, seconded by Sue Dillon.
Max Moore commented that this is the second time that utility easements are trying to be covered
with mounding, and if the precedent were established, it would be very costly for everyone
involved.
Salim Najjar noted that there was a motion on the floor which had been seconded, and he called
for the question, this was seconded by Barbara Myers, approved 12-2.
Jeff Kennelly asked for clarification of the motion. The motion, reiterated, was for approval of
the Docket subject to the condition of the landscape plan of December 20, 1993, including a six
foot wooden fence which was volunteered by the petitioner.
16
The findings of fact were as follows: 10 for approval; Jeanne Reid and Ron Houck, opposed;
David Cremeans and Dick Klar abstained; motion passed.
7k. Commission to consider Docket No. 89-93 PP, a Primary Plat application for Danbury
Estates. The property is located on the south side of 146th Street,just east of Keystone Avenue.
The plat includes 100 lots on 35.7 acres of land for single family residential development. The
site is zoned F-4. Filed by Langston Development.
Stan Neal of Weihe Engineers appeared before the Commission representing the petitioner. This
particular Docket went to subdivision committee and received a positive recommendation for
approval.
Paul Spranger confirmed the positive recommendation of the Subdivision Committee.
Sue Dillon asked about the traffic situation and confirmation that the petitioner is adding another
lane; Mr. Neal responded that the petitioner is continuing to work with the County Highway who
has jurisdiction over the area for some resolution.
Ron Houck moved for approval of Docket No. 89-93 PP, seconded by Sue Dillon,; the Findings
of Fact vote were as follows: 13 for approval, David Cremeans abstaining, motion approved.
8k. Commission to consider Docket No. 90-93 ADLS (Signage), an Architectural Design,
Lighting and Signage application for North Meridian Medial Center. The petitioner seeks
approval to establish signage at 10601 North Meridian, Clay Township. The petitioner has
appeared before the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals for variances. The site is zoned B-5.
Filed by James J. Nelson.
James J. Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing the
petitioner. Mr. Nelson wished to remind the Commission that the presentation for Hoosier
Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine was made in December and probably could have been voted
upon except for lack of majority for suspension of the rules vote.
Mr. Kennelly commented that this particular site has a tremendous amount of light and is against
the sign because it is much larger than it should be.
Ron Houck stated that he thought the sign exceeded the allowable amount by almost 50% and
is considerably larger than the Sign Ordinance allows.
Mr. Nelson stated that the signage does comply with the current ordinance due to the fact that
a variance has been obtained. Mr. Nelson stated that presentation was made in December for 4
signs: two ground signs and two wall signs. The number of signs is permissible; the ground
signs are permissible as to size; variances were requested and received for the two wall signs on
the facia of the building. The sign, "Hoosier Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine" that is
individually mounted, internally illuminated, and white in color. This particular sign is 91.6
17
square feet in size, 75 is permitted; it is 16.6 feet larger than permitted by the Ordinance, but a
variance was obtained. The letters are the standard height of letters that exist within the
Meridian corridor; the length of the name put the sign over the size requirement and necessitated
a variance through the Board of Zoning Appeals. The south facia of the building that faces 106th
Street contains the sign "North Meridian Surgery Center," again, white letters, individually
mounted, internally illuminated. Since 106th Street is not classified as a freeway under the
Carmel Sign Ordinance, the size permitted is 45 square feet; this particular sign is 71.6 feet or
26.6 square feet larger. Again, the height of the letters is standard (20 inches).
Alan Klineman moved f r approval of the signage as shown in Docket No. 90-93 ADLS,
seconded by Dick Klar; 11 for approval, Ron Houck, Jeff Kennelly, and Paul Spranger opposed,
motion approved.
L. NEW BUSINESS
Committee rotations were discussed and it was DOCD's recommendation to keep the present
committee members intact until AFTER the next Committee meeting (February 1st).
Max Moore nominated Barbara Myers for Member-at-Large, seconded by Jeff Kennelly.
Dick Klar moved to close the nominations, seconded by Jeanne Reid, unanimously approved.
Barbara Myers was elected Member-at-Large by unanimous consent.
The members of the Plan Commission submitted their Committee preferences to the President;
these will be published at a later date.
There being no further business to come before the Plan Commission, the meeting was adjourned
at 11:15 P.M.
° Jay Dorman, President Ramona Hancock, Secretary
18
CARMEL/CLAY
PLAN COMMISSIONBZA
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MINUTES
MARCH 1, 1994
The meeting was called to order by the Committee Chairman at 7:00 PM in the Council
Chambers of Carmel Civic Square. Members in attendance were as follows: David Cremeans;
Norma Meighen; Barbara Myers; Salim Najjar; and Paul Spranger. Also in attendance was Jay
Dorman.
A quorum was declared.
David Cunningham and Mike Hollibaugh were in attendance representing the Department of
Community Development.
Norma Meighen moved for approval of the February minutes, seconded by Barbara Myers,
unanimously approved.
1. Committee to consider Docket No. 5-94 P.P., a Primary Plat (cluster) application for a
subdivision named Linkside. The primary plat consists of 334 lots on 139 acres of land located
east of Springmill Road and approximately one half mile north of 96th Street. Site is zoned R-1
and S-1, filed by Davis Development.
Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, appeared before the Committee representing the
Developer. Also in attendance was Chris White, president of Davis Development.
The Agenda incorrectly locates the subject development as 96th Street and Springmill Road; the
correct location of the subject site is 96th Street and Shelbourne Road.
Jim Nelson gave an overview of the project including the locational attributes of the real estate;
the current zoning; and its recommended land use under the Comprehensive Plan. The
development plan for Linkside was reviewed as represented by the Primary Plat; the homes to
be located within Linkside were reviewed by architectural design, size, and style. The proposed
roadway improvements were-also reviewed and response was given to statements made at public
hearing regarding the primary plat request.
Jim Nelson clarified two matters which he felt were a source of misunderstanding at public
hearing on the primary plat: All homes to be constructed on Linkside will be single family,
detached homes on individually platted lots; the development plan does not contemplate attached,
single family homes. Secondly, Davis Development is not seeking a rezone of the real estate or
a variance from the Subdivision Control Ordinance permitting different development standards
for the real estate. The petitioner is seeking primary plat approval for a residential subdivision
pursuant to the development standards of the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Control
Ordinance. The golf course is not part of the primary plat request, only the land lying around
1
its outer perimeter to the west, east, and north.
Density has been established under the Zoning Ordinance, Cluster Option, and under S-1, (38
acres) the maximum density is 2.4 units per acre; the maximum density for the R-1 portion of
the real estate (101 acres) is 3.5 units per acre.
The Comprehensive Plan Update of 1991 recommends medium density residential use for this
parcel of real estate, or 2 to 4 units per acre. The surrounding land uses, as mentioned at public
hearing, are extremely diverse and range from commercial, residential, church use, and business.
Pursuant to the cluster option requirement, there is a 20 foot perimeter greenbelt, in fact, there
is a green belt on all sides of Linkside: along Shelbourne Road; north along Huntersfield and
Annally Downs; and southward along the eastern most property line. Also required is a greenbelt
within the interior of the development, since the golf course is not owned by Davis Development.
The primary purpose of the greenbelt in this case has been to retain the perimeter of existing
trees, and in several areas, the width of the greenbelt has been substantially increased. The open
space area is 30.3 acres or 22 percent of the land.
With respect to drainage, an agreement was reached with the golf course that contemplates the
creation of certain retention facilities on the golf course; there are two lakes presently in
existence, the number will increase to four to accommodate onsite storm water retention.
Roadway improvements are as follows: at the 96th Street entrance, an accel/decel lane is being
provided as well as a passing blister; accelidecel lanes are being provided at the two entrances
from Shelbourne Road, passing blisters are not required at this location due to the alignment of
the entrance with Ashbrook and Spring Arbor. At the developer's expense, the northbound lane
of Shelbourne Road will be widened by 3 feet of pavement and 3 feet of chip and seal shoulder
for the distance adjacent to Linkside's property line north to south. Beginning with the north
property line to the intersection, the developer is providing an additional coat of surface on the
entire roadway of Shelbourne Road; improvements will be made to the intersection by widening
the intersection as it exists north of 96th Street, 96th Street will be widened by providing an
additional lane which will serve as a turn lane at the intersection.
In regard to the major issues of density, price, and traffic raised at public hearing: the project not
only meets but exceeds the ordinance in regard to the overall density of 2.4 units per acre under
the S-1 cluster option; the price of the homes is not relevant at platting request, size, however,
is established by the ordinance and this project meets and far exceeds the ordinance; the solution
to the traffic is found in the ordinance requirements and the developer has met the ordinances.
The developer has gone far beyond the requirements of the ordinance in making improvements
to Shelbourne Road and the intersection of 96th and Shelbourne.
Equal time was then set aside for members of the public to speak in favor or opposition to the
proj ect.
2
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the project; the following appeared:
Jim Skinner spoke in favor of the project and believed that the project will enhance the area by
the installation of sewers and utilities in the area.
Mike Irons, adjacent property owner, wanted to clarify his position as not one of support, but
stated that he did agree not to speak out in opposition to the project.
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the proposed project; the following
appeared:
Greg Sawyer, Ashbrook resident, expressed opposition by reason of traffic and inquired if the
traffic studies had taken into consideration the subdivisions of Hunters Ridge and Stonehedge.
Mr. Sawyer also cited density, aesthetics, and lack of open space as issues. Mr. Sawyer also
stated that the project is not compatible with existing neighborhoods, the cluster ordinance is
being grossly misused, and the developer is not within the letter of the law in developing.
Dan Rimstedt, 3106 Towne Drive, stated that his residential subdivision of Towne Lake is
immediately east of the proposed development. Mr. Rimstedt expressed opposition by reason of
the cluster option being a loophole in the ordinance, and requested a moratorium until the cluster
option could be amended as was instituted in a similar situation in Michigan. (The gentleman's
name and phone number in Michigan was submitted to the Committee Chairman.)
Dorta Watski, 3742 Treewitham Lane, Ashbrook, expressed opposition by reason of density and
compatibility of homes within the neighborhood.
Tom Williams, 3203 Dogwood Lane, Greentree, expressed opposition by reason of separation of
character of existing neighborhood, and that the proposed development was not appropriate. The
neighbors are not against development, but are against this particular project and would like to
maintain the current character of the neighborhood. Improvements to the neighborhood would
bring the needed sewers and utilities, whether it be another developer or Davis.
Judy Hagan, 10946 Springmill Lane, spoke in regard to the S-1 classification which part of the
proposed project comes under, and the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Hagan spoke to the necessity
of revamping the cluster ordinance or even revoking the ordinance, and stated that the Plan
Commission must use judgment in representing the community and exercise some say, even if
the petitioner technically has an argument, otherwise there is no need of going through the
motions of a public hearing.
Mr. Nelson responded to specific questions as follows:
Huntersfield Subdivision of 58 lots was included in the traffic studies; Stonehedge, proposed 108
lots was not. The traffic impact analysis did include a 2 1/2% annual growth rate for the area
so that indirectly, Stonehedge would be included.
3
Mr. Nelson felt that the balance of public input was personal opinion only and felt no need to
address the comments. Mr. Nelson stated that it was the burden of the petitioner to meet the
ordinance and when met, the petitioner is entitled to approval. The petitioner is bound by the
law and required to follow it; the Plan Commission is being asked by the public to disregard the
law as it applies to this particular site and Mr. Nelson did not deem that to be fair.
Questions of the Committee Members:
Dave Cremeans questioned the role of the Plan Commission; Mr. Nelson responded that under
Indiana law, it was perceived as a ministerial, non-discretionary act, to review the plat and
determine if the plat, as presented, meets the development standards of the zoning ordinance and
subdivision control ordinance. If so, it is entitled to approval. Further requirements include that
the standards must be definitive, concrete, consistent, predictable, capable of interpretation;
basically the applicant must present to the Plan Commission proof that he has complied with the
definitive development standards. The Plan Commission is also an advisory body as it pertains
to changes in the text of the zoning ordinance, comprehensive plan, or zone map.
Salim Najjar asked how the Commission would ensure that 96th Street is developed in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan which shows 96th Street as four lanes. Mr. Nelson
responded by citing the Dolan case which is at present before the U.S.Supreme Court which is
trying to define what is permissible for a municipality to request of a developer when developing
real estate. Mr. Nelson felt that if 96th Street were to become a four lane road, the benefits
conferred upon the community would be far beyond the petitioner's property and the road
expansion in this particular case should be a function of government, i.e. the County's
responsibility rather than the developer.
Salim Najjar stated that the case before the Commissioners presents a dilemma; to approve
developments such as this and ignore the fact that 96th Street needs to be four lanes would be
irresponsible.
Mr. Nelson felt that the key might be a closer working relationship between the City and the
County.
Mr. Dorman addressed the Committee as follows regarding the obligation of members of the Plan
Commission: Section 5.1.7 titled "Approval or Disapproval of the Preliminary Plat" states that
the obligation of the Plan Commission members is to all the residents of Carmel and the review
must take into consideration many different factors: quantitative and specific such as density and
compliance with regulations, and subjective interpretation or non-quantitative information. Mr.
Dorman proposed an amendment to Section 5.1.7 which would expound on "other relevant
factors" as "including but not limited to: the review of traffic studies and traffic analyses which
identify potentially negative impacts where the levels of service fall below a level of(to be filled
in at a later date) or where necessary improvements are required as identified by the Department
of Community Development or the County Highway Department. These may include upgrading
or widening of roadways, the need for traffic signalization, intersection improvements, installation
of passing blisters, the need for sidewalks, bikeways and perhaps highway beautification." Mr.
4
Dorman proposed the drafting of a legal opinion by an Indianapolis planning and zoning attorney
which would state that if the Commission wishes to interpret other relevant factors, it would be
within the jurisdiction of the Plan Commission.
Mr. Dorman also stated that if more information is required as a group, that information can be
requested, even if it is an independent study. The sub-committees of the Plan Commission may
approve, disapprove plats or return to the Plan Commission with no decision, or table for further
study; these avenues are open to the Committees. Mr. Dorman expressed his opinion that the
project at hand was a good project, but that it did take liberties with the cluster ordinance.
Committee Chairman Paul Spranger stated the Subdivision Control Ordinance as well as the
cluster option are presently under review and re-write at this time, but the Committee is currently
bound by the ordinances as presently published. Mr. Spranger also wished to make clear to the
public that the sub-committee is merely an advisory body to the Plan Commission and as such,
approval or disapproval is not conclusive.
An unidentified member of the public stated that even though the developer may be perceived
as complying with the letter of the law, the adjoining neighbors feel that the developer has not
complied with the "spirit" of the ordinance and therefore feel that the committee would be
justified in rejecting this project.
Mr. Najjar reiterated that he felt it would be irresponsible on the part of the
Committee/Commission to ignore 96th Street and stated that somehow a message needed to be
sent to the County and the County Engineers regarding their position.
David Cremeans read from S-1 zoning, that its purpose is to provide continued rural agricultural
activities and to introduce single family residential uses. R-1 zoning is to provide for low to
medium density, single family residential developments on wide frontage lots in urbanized or
urbanizing areas. Mr. Cremeans expressed concern at a neighbor's possibility of 7 houses in his
back yard; and the traffic study which supports an additional 3,150 daily trips in and out of the
area which is already congested (geometric improvements are recommended for 96th Street at
She!bourne Road.)
Dave Cunningham of DOCD stated that his petitioner meets the "letter of the law." The project
has gone through Technical Advisory Committee which is comprised of City of Cannel members,
Hamilton County Highway Department, County Survey, County Soil & Water, City Utilities, and
technical people that are involved in the construction and development end of this project. This
petitioner has appeared before TAC committee on three separate occasions and there are no
outstanding items. At this time, the petitioner meets the Technical aspects and the letter end of
the law.
Dave Cremeans asked whether or not 96th Street would be a four lane road; Dave Cunningham
stated that 96th Street will ultimately be a four lane road, but it is not known when that will
occur.
5
David Cremeans moved to deny the primary plat application; after discussion, MR. CREMEANS
RE-STATED HIS MOTION TO VOTE FOR APPROVAL of the primary plat on Docket No.
5-94 P.P., seconded by Norma Meighen. The vote was two in favor, David Cremeans, Salim
Najjar, and Paul Spranger opposed, MOTION DENIED.
Item 2. Committee to consider Docket No. 11-94 P.P., a Primary Plat (cluster) application for
a subdivision named Haverstick. The primary plat consists of 583 lots on 243 acres of land
located north of 131st Street and approximately one quarter mile west of River Road. Site is
zoned S-1. Filed by Centex Homes, Inc.
Dave Cunningham of DOCD reported that this Docket was tabled at last month's Plan
Commission meeting because of five outstanding issues. These outstanding items have now been
addressed, and the petitioner will be appearing before the Plan Commission at its meeting of
March 15.
Item 3. Committee to consider Docket Nos. 16-94 SP., 17-94 SP., 18-94 SP., Secondary Plat re-
approvals for a subdivision named Windemere. The Secondary plats for this project were
approved in early 1993, the one year time limit has expired for recordation and the petitioner is
applying for re-approval. The site is located on the south side of 96th Street, approximately one
half mile east of Towne Road. The site is zoned S-l. Filed by Windemere Corporation.
CORRECTION: The site is located on the south side of 106th Street.
Dave Cunningham of DOCD reported that these Dockets were approved one year ago and the
time limit expired the first of February. These Dockets are being presented for re-approval and
DOCD recommends same.
Barbara Myers moved for recommendation of approval of item 3., seconded by Norma Meighen,
unanimously approved.
Item 4. Committee to consider Docket No. 20-94 S.P., a Secondary Plat application for Section
1 of Kingsmill (formerly Stonehenge.) The secondary plat consists of 27 lots on 29.31 acres of
land located north of 106th Street and approximately one half mile west of Towne Road. The
site is zoned S-l. Filed by Wilson/Carriger.
Stan Neal of Weihe Engineers gave a brief overview of the project. Also in attendance were Stan
Harlow, Dick Carriger, and Steve Wilson.
The Primary Plat was formerly approved as Stonehenge. Since then, the property has been
purchased by Steve Wilson and Dick Carriger and they are now requesting approval of a
secondary plat on phase I. This project went to TAC on February 23; their comments were
addressed and plans were re-submitted. All TAC comments have now been addressed; however
formal review has not been received.
Dave Cunningham of DOCD stated that the petitioner has addressed all concerns with the
6
petitioner. Approval is being sought for final plat of Section I. There are two phases being
planned and the project has been annexed to the City of Carmel and is exemptroemthe
provisions of the U.S. 431 Overlay Zone. The wtll be existingfarmhouse
to hty standards of property0 feet ( resently
on one of the platted lots. Chester Road
24 feet, narrowing to the north to 12 feet.) The county bridge will be widened upon DNR
approval. This project went before TAC on February 23rd and all concerns have been addressed.
Dave Cunningham of DOCD confirmed that all TAC items have been addressed.
Salim Najjar moved for recommendation of approval of Docket No. 22-94 S.P., seconded by
Barbara Myers, unanimously approved.
Item 7. Dave Cunningham reported that he had only received 7 out of 15 Cluster Questionnaire
forms. This questionnaire will be circulated
sand
will lberequested
tabulated and all
b ought befltorehthe
in and return to the DOCD office. The result
Subdivision Committee.
used to
Item 8. The Subdivision Regulations were discussed;
Se are tothe "letter of the law" soerviewed dto speak.
determine whether or not a subdivision meets the ordinance;
If any member has any questions, they need to contact Dave Cunningham at the DOCD office.
There was open discussion regarding the present ordinances, proposed, and possible amendments,
and the role of the Commission members.
There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at
10:40 PM.
Paul Spranger, Chairman Ramona Hancock, Secretary
4
4
4
4
8
4
1
CARMEUCLAY
PLAN COMMISSIONBZA
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
APRIL 19, 1994
The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:00 PM by the president with the Pledge of
Allegiance in Council Chambers, One Civic Square, Carmel, Indiana.
Members present wereas follows: Dave Cremeans; Sue Dillon; Jay Dorman; Ron Houck; Jeff
Kennelly; Dick Klar; Alan Klineman; Norma Meighen; Max Moore; Barbara Myers; James T.
O'Neal; Jeanne Reid; Luci Snyder; and Paul Spranger.
A quorum was declared.
Members of the Department of Community Development in attendance were: Dave Cunningham;
Terry Jones; and Mike Hollibaugh. Also present was Gordon Byers, City Attorney.
Max Moore moved for approval of the minutes as corrected, seconded by Dick Klar, unanimously
approved.
F. The City Attorney reported that there were issues to be discussed; however, Gordon Byers
elected to make presentation at the end of the meeting due to the lengthy Agenda.
G. David Cunningham reported that items lh. and 4h. on the Agenda had been tabled until a
future date, and item 5j. had been withdrawn.
H. PUBLIC HEARINGS
2h. Commission to consider Docket No. 19-94 Z, a Rezone Application for 67.975 acres located
on the northwest corner of 96th Street and Westfield Boulevard. The current zoning isS-2
residential. The petitioners are requesting to rezone approximately 36 acres to R-4 residential
and approximately 31 acres to R-3 residential. Filed by Arbor Properties and Davis
Development.
Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing the co-
applicant, Trammel Crowe Residential, and Davis Development L.P. Also present for the
petitioner were Jim Thomas of Trammel Crowe, Chris White of Davis Development, Tom Ford
of Pflum, Klausmeier and Gehrum, and Dave Sexton of Schneider Engineering.
An aerial photograph of the subject site near the intersection of Westfield Boulevard and I-465
was displayed. The project will be known as "The Gables of Carmel." The Comprehensive
Plan's recommended land use map was also displayed and Mr. Nelson pointed out that the plan
as presented is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
A conceptual development plan was shown and explained to be the by-produt of several general
1
meetings with neighbors as well as three special meetings. The area north of the lake is to be
zoned R-3 and reserved for 97 single family homesites; moving westward on this particular parcel
is the Monon Corridor. The petitioner believes that the Monon Corridor should be a special
opportunity and that the development plan does not impact the use of the corridor. The petitioner
is willing to dedicate a part of the Monon Corridor that lies within its property line for public
purposes. The area south of the lake which is nearest I-465 is requested to be zoned R-4; this
particular area is planned for 336 multi-family homes, two story buildings in the central area
adjacent to Westfield Boulevard, and three-story buildings in the southern area nearest 1-465.
There are two points of access; the primary one being to the single family area from Westfield
Boulevard 110 feet south of the intersection of 98th Street and Westfield Boulevard, and midway
on Westfield Boulevard between the north and south property line to the multi-family homesites.
The roadway system does connect so that there would be an opportunity for travel between the
two housing areas.
In regard to a possible westward extension of 96th Street, the petitioner does not agree to
construct the roadway and does not believe the roadway is necessary to serve their property; also,
the Hamilton County Highway Department is not requiring the petitioner to construct the
roadway. The petitioner does, however, agree to dedicate for public right-of-way purposes a
parcel of land if required.
Substantial landscaping has been provided; the setback of the buildings has been increased; and
a 100 foot buffer has been provided along Westfield Boulevard. The petitioner is also proposing
an improvement to Westfield Boulevard, specifically the construction of a third lane beginning
at the north property line and running southward to the south property line. The plan also
includes the concept of transition.
Members of the public in favor of the project were invited to speak; none appeared. Members
of the public opposed to the project were invited to speak, the following appeared:
David Peerless, 9673 Wild Cherry Lane, Carmel, appeared before the Commission on behalf of
the Chesterton Neighborhood Association, and wanted to go on record as opposing the request
for rezone because of the tremendous amount of development iin the area. Mr. Peerless
presented a petition of opposition which had been circulated and signed by residents of
Chesterton, Holiday Hills and Dales, Orchard Park, Forest Glen, Wild Cherry, Lakewood
Gardens, Haverstick, Colony Court, 96th Street, and Walden Pond. The petition requested a
complete and comprehensive study of the surrounding area of 96th and Westfield Boulevard
intersection, including south to Real Street, east of College, west of Keystone, and north to 106th
Street, said study to include a detailed impact study and take into account undeveloped property
on the Hamilton County side, and a more inclusive study at the site as well as a best land use
recommendation, which would take into account present communities in the area before rezone.
Pat Rice, 9659 Wild Cherry Lane, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing the
Grass Roots Coalition which includes all surrounding communities of the 96th and Westfield
area. The Coalition requested a comprehensive study of the 96th and Westfield area before any
2
change in zoning is made. The main reason for opposition was traffic, especially on the
Westfield Bridge; lack of traffic impact projection if and when the bridge over White River is
built; lack of clarity in who or what entity has primary concern over 96th Street between
Keystone and Westfield, and from Westfield west to County Line Road; impact on Carmel
Schools; unanswered questions as to how and why this area was designated in the plan update
to become high density, when with the exception of Walden Pond, all other so designated areas
in the township are in close proximity to commercial land use; and little or no consideration
given to Carmel community in terms of parks and recreation.
Michelle Truex, 1555 East 101st Street, expressed concern regarding the local school, Orchard
Park Elementary, which is currently over capacity, 578 students, and current enrollment is 619.
The current project offers a potential of increasing school population by 259. Waterwood
Subdivision which is currently under construction h� h is willconsist
at over-capacity.and
has a Also apcooncelalrn
of 68 more students into the school district
was traffic.
Doug Viverberg, 10632 Westfield Boulevard, opposed the project saying that the development
would infringe upon the rights of the adjoining homeowners; and mainly objected by reason of
traffic.
Judy Hagan, 10946 Spring Mill Lane, spoke neither in favor nor opposition of the rezone, but
mainy focused on preserving the integrity of the Monon Corridor as a potential hiking and biking
trail for the future. The rezone would impact the Monon Corridor because it would set the
pattern for the extension of 96th Street west. Carmel's Comprehensive Plan identifies the
abandoned Monon Rail Line as a special opportunity corridor, the only one of its kind in Clay
Township. The question remains how the 96th Street extension and the Monon trail will tangle
at the intersection and how the trail will co-exist. A health club is proposed south of the
interstate and west of the Monon; right of way is also being requested from that developer. A
health club would be a special use application to the Board of Zoning Appeals and not before
the Plan Commission. The Monon ("Hoosier Line") was the first south/north rail line in the
interior of Indiana. Upon its completion in 1859, it ran 287 miles from Louisville Kentucky to
Michigan City. The potential of this and future tourism has ye
rridor in our lifetime
recreation, alternative to be
transportation, economic development of Old Towne Carmel"
tapped. The continuity of the Monon is threatened now as it enters Hamilton County because
of the proposed extension of 96th Street and Ms. Hagan requested that this situation be evaluated
now and not as a reactionary measure.
The public hearing was then closed and Mr. Nelson responded to comments as follows: The
comments from Pat Rice and Mr. Peerless were very general in nature and concerned the area
as a whole and did not specifically focus on the development plan as presented. Trammel Crowe
and Davis Development are willing to participate in solution to many of the issues raised by the
Grass Roots Coalition, however the issues exist today, whether or not this particular project is
developed. It is believed that the currently proposed project's impact would be minimal as stated
in the traffic impact analysis. In regard to the Monon corridor, the petitioner supports it 100%
3
and Mr. Nelson felt it was unfair to focus on this particular project as being the cause for the
extension of 96th Street which could have an impact on the Monon corridor. The petitioner's
development plan does not provide for development within the Monon corridor and the petitioner
has agreed to contribute for public purposes. Mr. Nelson stated that the petitioner's project has
nothing to do with 96th Street; it is an issue for the Hamilton County Highway Department. If
the dedication of the Monon corridor is required for public right of way, the petitioner is willing
to contribute the land for that purpose.
Jim Thomas, 11405 North Pennsylvania, Carmel, reviewed the school statistics and said that
children generated by multi-family units are lower in number as opposed to single family. Mr.
Thomas thanked the Grass Roots Coalition and the neighbors, and said there was a genuine spirit
of cooperation in working toward a consensus.
Members of the Commission were then given an opportunity to ask questions.
Ron Houck asked a number of questions pertaining to traffic level of service, right of way, and
whether or not INDOT would need to review the extension of 96th Street (no, since this is
County Highway's jurisdiction).
Max Moore asked if a part of 96th Street west of Rangeline still belonged to the County; Jim
Nelson responded affirmatively but could not confirm the footage.
Sue Dillon asked about traffic flow out of the proposed project and if the traffic engineer
anticipated the route as being across 96th Street, south on Keystone to the Interstate; traffic
exiting the project would need room to stack and asked how many cars could stack at the
entrance. Tom Ford stated that he reviewed traffic counts and did not assign routes for traffic
flow, and that there was 570 feet for stacking (3 cars.)
Jay Dorman asked for comments from the staff regarding a request for an independent traffic
study. Gordon Byers stated that staff would need a defined concept on what the study would
cover. Jay also asked if there had been a previous study conducted by the County; Dave
Cunningham responded that there had been a previous study by the Hamilton County Engineer's
office for the County Highway Department in late '91, early '92 which dealt with the 96th Street
and Westfield intersection and upgrading from a one way stop sign to a three way stop sign to
a full three way automatic signal. In addition, there has been some preliminary engineering done
within the last 18 months to two years regarding the extension of 96th Street. Those studies are
available and copies could be given to the Commission members.
Jay Dorman asked Dave Cunningham about the approximate cost of employing an independent
consultant to review this particular area, focusing on the transportation aspects and the road
extension. Dave Cunningham responded that the detail requested in a report would determine
the amount of money for the service.
Jay Dorman asked for discussion for employment of outside consultants. The amount of monies
4
in the budget was explored. Jay Dorman asked for a motion for the Department to compose a
Request for Information for those items it feels, in its best judgment, should be included in a
study of the area, along with the estimated costs, between now and prior to the meeting of the
Special Study Committee. In response to questions, Gordon Byers stated that hiring a consultant
would be a contractual service rather than a bid review.
Ron Houck moved to request the Department to develop their concerns that could be addressed
in a contractual basis with the caveat that the Plan Commission pick the consulting firm for such
study, to be paid for by Plan Commission funds.
Jeanne Reid asked for more information in the form of results from a study by the Hamilton
County Thoroughfare Plan rather than possibly paying for information that already exists, as well
as the results from the prior traffic study done in 1991 and the firm that did the work.
Jay Dorman agreed with Ms. Reid and asked that the previous work be incorporated into a new
document. Jay stated that he did favor an independent review of particular projects, but
cautioned that the tools be used on a consistent basis.
Jeanne Reid asked Jim Nelson about the setbacks of lots 51 and 52 from the Monon corridor; Jim
Nelson responded that the petitioner's property runs from the center line of the Monon corridor,
and the petitioner's commitment is that part of their property that is currently the Monon corridor
will be dedicated to the public for its use. The sideyards on lots 51 and 52 are 10 feet, 20 feet
aggregate.
Ron Houck then amended his motion to provide that the consulting firm who worked on the 1991
Comprehensive Plan traffic study, namely HNTB, be allowed to complete the traffic review of
the 96th and Westfield area, and Request for Information be given; seconded by Norma Meighen.
Paul Spranger asked if it would be advisable for the Special Study Committee to put a budget
cap, perhaps $3500.00, as an authorized expenditure for the proposed study. Dave Cunningham
of DOCD responded that the detail requested is commensurate with the charge.
Sue Dillon commented that this particular area was a crisis spot in the Township this year. It
is understood that the government entities are not communicating and the Plan Commission owed
it to the residents and the planning process to bring the agencies together. Ms. Dillon also
requested that the Request for Information be conclusive in allowing the Plan Commission to
make a decision, based on total impact, not a "number crunch."
Jay Dorman asked if it was reasonable to expect results of the study prior to the Special Study
Committee meeting on May 10th. Dave Cunningham responded in the affirmative, and that
hopefully the estimated cost would be conveyed to the members so that some pre-study could be
done by Plan Commission members.
Jay Dorman asked for the vote on Ron Houck's motion to request an RFI, as previously stated,
5
as amended; 11 in favor, Jeff Kennelly, Max Moore, and Jim O'Neal opposed, motion passed.
Docket No. 19-94 Z, a Rezone Application, was referred to Special Study Committee which will
meet May 10, 1993.
3h. Commission to consider Docket No. 35-94 Z, a Rezone Application for 29.1 acres located
on the northeast corner of 106th Street and Michigan Road (IUS 421). The current zoning is S-1
Residential. The petitioners are requesting to rezone to B-2 Business. Filed by Estridge
Development Company.
Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing the
applicant and contractor purchaser of the real estate, Estridge Development Company. Also in
attendance representing Estridge Development was Ken Brasseur. The real estate is owned by
Regency Realty Company and the Jewish Federation of Greater Indianapolis. Present for the
petitioner were: Steve Fahribach of A & F Engineering, Curt Huff and Dennis Olmstead of
Stoeppelwerth and Associates.
The subject real estate is located in the western most part of Clay Township, north and east of
the intersection of West 106th Street and Michigan Road (421). The parcel in its entirety is
zoned S-1 and consists of 144.5 acres; however, a small portion of the real estate lies within the
US 421 overlay zone and the recommended land use is regional and local commercial. Currently,
the petitioner is requesting that the zone map be changed to reclassify 29.01 acres of the real
estate lying nearest 421 and predominately within the overlay zone from S-1 to B-2. The
remaining 115 acres is not a part of the current request and no change is being made with respect
to its current, S-1 Residence classification.
Mr. Nelson displayed an aerial photograph of the real estate; a photograph of the nearest existing
neighbor, Pearson Ford; an overlay of the Comprehensive Plan; and a Zoning Exhibit. Mr.
Nelson gave an overview of the surrounding property, existing neighbors, and surrounding
zoning. One of the excluded uses in the 421 Overlay Zone is single family, residential. The
Comprehensive Plan recommends regional and local commercial and office uses for this parcel
of real estate, which is consistent with the other zoning in the corridor and with the US 421
Overlay Zone. This particular parcel of land lies within the 421 Overlay Zone, is zoned for
residential use, yet the Overlay Zone precludes it for residential use.
If the rezone is approved, the petitioner will be returning to the Plan Commission for review of
a development plan as well as Architectural Design, Lighting/Landscaping, and Signage. Certain
commitments have been made to the Highway Department which are: along the southern
property line for a distance of approximately 1340 feet, beginning at Michigan Road and
continuing eastward, the petitioner has agreed to install an additional lane on 106th Street; the
right of way for the additional roadway has been dedicated to the County as of this date. It was
requested of the petititoner to align one of the entrances from 106th Street with the entrance to
Hamilton Business Park; that commitment is in writing and filed with the Department of
Community Development.
6
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of this project; none appeared. Members
of the public opposed to the project were invited to speak; the following appeared:
Robert Hoffman, 4281 West 106th Street, Carmel, was complimentary of the petitioner who had
met with the area neighbors and disclosed their intentions. Mr. Hoffman stated he was not
vocalizing strong opposition to rezoning along the Overlay Zone within the "tapering parcel," but
under no circumstance is business or commercial acceptable to the residents in the area east of
the boundary indicated on the plot plan. The area must be maintained acceptably, low density
residential development to preserve the integrity of the area. Mr. Hoffman voiced concern that
B-3 zoning to the south of 106th Street should transform to a more forgiving commercial
standard to the north of 106th Street on the parcel in question, to the extent that B-2 zoning
would afford more burden to residential area surrounding use of the real estate to the extent it
is not consistent with the neighbors to the south.
Marilyn Anderson, 3884 Shelborne Court, Carmel, stated that she and her husband had not
received notification of the hearing for rezone. Mr. & Mrs. Anderson were opposed to the rezone
by reason of incompatibility with existing neighborhood, and questioned the wisdom of requesting
a rezone to B-2 rather than B-3. By rezoning to B-2, the area would become heavy commercial
with minimal requirements; permitted height of buildings is 60 feet, and B-2 would affect what
is built in surrounding properties. The present plans for future building on the 113 acre parcel
effectively eliminate the woods in favor of the installation of a connecting road. Another reason
for opposition is the current traffic congestion at the intersections of 96th and Shelborne and
106th and Michigan Road, and the absence of a biking or walking path for residents of the area
to walk or bike to the proposed retail shops.
Randy Schultz, 3796 Shelborne Court, Carmel, expressed opposition to the proposed project by
reason of lack of information for the land's intended use and the type of access road that will be
needed to support future development, and future traffic into an already congested area.
Jim Nelson stated that the petitioner would be returning to the Plan Commission for development
plan and Architectural Design, Landscaping/Lighting and Signage. B-2 provides a permitted use
of those business uses which the petitioner feels will be applicable to this parcel of real estate,
subject to Plan Commission approval of ADLS. B-3 zoning provides for all special uses, not
permitted uses, requiring an appearance before the Board of Zoning Appeals. It was not deemed
necessary for the petitioner to appear before both the Plan Commission and Board of Zoning
Appeals in order to seek the proposed use of the real estate.
Jeanne Reid asked about the height of the buildings, since this was an obvious concern to the
neighboring residents. Mr. Nelson responded that at present, there is no development plan for
the land, but he would like to talk with the Estridge Development people to see if 35 foot tall
buildings would be a problem, although Mr. Nelson did not believe it to be. The purpose in
picking B-2 was not to provide for higher buildings but merely to relieve the petitioner of the
burden of appearing both at Plan Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals.
7
I
Alan Klineman asked if the petitioner were willling to make any commitments in regard to the
remainder of the ground; Mr. Nelson responded in the negative. The development plan has not
been completed at this point and it remains zoned S-1. Estridge has entered into a contractual
relationship to purchase the ground, but again, the development plan is not complete.
In regard to the differences between B-2 and B-3 zoning, Ron Houck asked the Department if
there were other restrictions in terms of setbacks and building heights that would be a factor
between the two designated zones. Dave Cunningham responded that there are some height
restrictions; however the overlay zoning has more effect than the underlying zoning in relation
to setbacks, developmental standards, and landscape buffer yards between residential and
commercial. The underlying zoning is basically in coformance with each other. Betwen B-2 and
B-3, regarding permitted uses in one classification and special uses in the other, of the 220 uses
in the zoning ordinance, approximately 190 appear both in the B-2 and B-3 classification, with
a difference of about 20 uses that are not in both. The B-3 zoning classification would require
special use and appearance before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Due to the 421 Overlay Zone,
either B-2 or B-3 classification would require a development plan/public hearing, and ADLS,
before the Plan Commission. Whatever is developed, no matter what the ultimate zoning, the
petitioner will be appearing at a public hearing.
Sue Dillon asked for clarification; if permitted uses are automatic but special uses are usually
looked upon favorably; perhaps conditions are placed by the BZA for protection of neightbors,
etc. Dick Klar responded that permitted uses do not have to go through the BZA, it is done
through the development plan; special uses still have to go through the development plan, but
must also appear before the BZA for special use approval. Dave Cunningham added that there
are 25 items of review for special use.
Jay Dorman commented on the recommendation made by Ms. Anderson regarding a pedestrian
orientation, no matter what happens to occur in the zoning classification; Jay reinforced that this
be incorporated into future plans for the area. Jay Dorman asked Tom Ford, traffic consultant,
if the "Linkside" project had been taken into account when looking at the present proposal, and
if the traffic from Linkside would materially affect the level of service; if the level of service
contained in the study might decline. The response was that it was a hypothetical question, but
the best answer is that Shelborne and 106th Street are far from being at capacity. Approximately
1500 vehicles would be capacity; the projection is 750, 695, 494, etc.; whether or not Linkside
will generate the numbers to the north is questionable, the traffic will probably route to Michigan
Road via 96th Street. Jay Dorman recommended that the traffic consultant factor in the Linkside
project when doing the traffic study.
Ron Houck asked if, as a result of the TAC meeting, the County had made any requests for
improvements to 126th Street. Mr. Nelson responded that the petitioner has agreed to install a
third lane; upon completion of Hamilton Business Park, it would actually be a fourth lane on the
north side of 106th Street from Michigan Road eastward for a distance of 1340 feet. This fourth
lane would encompass the entire S-1 parcel.
8
Docket No. 35-94 Z was referred to Special Study Committee which will meet May 10 at 7:00
P.M. in the Caucus Rooms.
NOTE: Norma Meighen exited the meeting at this point and did not return.
I. OLD BUSINESS
Items li., 2i., and 3i. were TABLED by Special Study Committee.
4i. Commission to consider Docket No. 68-93 O.A., a Zoning Ordinance Amendment
establishing Parking Lot Landscaping. The ordinance will establish guidelines and development
standards for Parking Lot Landscaping. Filed by the Department of Community Development.
Dave Cunningham reported that at this time, there was an ordinance that came out of Special
Study Committee with a positive recommendation; however, since the proposal has been at the
Committee level for such a long time, it was requested that the ordinance return for Public
Hearing. At this time, the Department is requesting authority from the Plan Commission to re-
notice the Ordinance, as proposed, for the May 17th meeting for public hearing.
Max Moore moved to grant permission for re-noticing the Parking Lot Landscaping Ordinance,
seconded by Dick Klar, unanimously approved.
* 5i. Commission to consider Docket No. 5-94 P.P., a Primary Plat (cluster) application for a
subdivision named Linkside. The primary plat consists of 334 lots on 139 acres of land located
east of Shelbome Road and approximately one half mile north of 96th Street. The site is zoned
R-1 and S-1. Filed by Davis Development Co.
Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, appeard before the Commission representing the
petitioner. Mr. Nelson reported that per the Commission's suggestion, he had met with Dave
Cunningham of the Department of Community Development to attempt to identify and evaluate
what changes might be appropriate to the petitioner's plan. The petitioner also reviewed a
suggested video by Randall Arendt and discovered that most of the things suggested by Mr.
Arendt were to the petitioner's liking and representative of concepts that the petitioner would
whole-heartedly support. It is the petitioner's belief that Mr. Arendt's comments were directed
more toward plan commission members who have the responsibility for drafting the ordinances
necessary to implement his policies and guidelines. The petitioner did make some refinements
and changes to the Primary Plat which pertain to an increase in the perimeter areas adjacent to
the existing homes.
Chris White of Davis Development addressed the Plan Commission and stated that he wished to
emphasize two points: all proposed changes to the plan comply with subdivision regulations,
zoning ordinances and no additional variances are required for these changes. Numerous changes
have been made to the plans since the inception of the project and the current changes have been
primarily directed towards increasing the buffer areas between some existing subdivisions
119
surrounding the Linkside community, and also an effort has been made to preserve additional
wooded areas within the subdivision. In the southeast portion of the site (The Manors), some of
the lots have been redistributed to internal common areas to move the internal open space to the
buffer area; the buffer area has been increased from a minimum of 30 feet to 110 feet, expanding
to 180 feet adjacent to the existing home closest to the north property line, and along the west
boundary, the buffer is approximately 70 feet adjacent to the Greentree subdivision. The
northeast corner of the site, the land plan has been reconfigured to increase the buffer area
adjacent to Towne Lake Subdivision and the east property line. The landscaped island adjacent
to the main drive has been eliminated as well as three estate series lots in order to preserve an
existing wooded area. It is intended to incorporate mulched, walking paths and a picnic area for
the benefit of all residents of the association. Along the north property line, the buffers range
from 50 feet to 80 feet adjacent to Huntersfield Subdivision, and the wooded area would also be
preserved in this area. Along Shelbourne Road and the area known as The Villages, the buffer
area has been further expanded between Ashbrooke Subdivision and The Villages. Some of the
common area adjacent to the golf course has been redistributed to the Shelbourne side of the
lots, thereby increasing the buffer area from a minimum of 20 feet to a minimum of 45 feet;
further south the buffer extends to 70 feet, 50 feet, and 130 feet. The landscaping will be
increased south of the entrance adjacent to the Ashbrooke Subdivision.
In summarizing, the petitioner has eliminated four lots, redistributed a portion of the internal
common areas to the perimeter to further buffer the existing homes from the proposed
community.
Jim Nelson stated that the proposed plat does meet the ordinance; Davis does feel that they have
done their best in reconfiguring, and consideration is asked of their request.
Paul Spranger, Chairman of the Subdivision Committee, reported that several previous issues had
been addressed at the Committee level and that it is correct to say that the adjacent neighborhood
residents still have some major questions regarding the project. The project is meeting the
ordinance, but not necessarily in the "spirit" that the Plan Commission likes to see in cluster
options. The golf course amenity does add to the project, but it will be a difficiult decision for
the Commission.
Jeanne Reid asked if there were any feedback from the public on the proposed changes. Ron
Houck agreed and felt that feedback was relevant for decision making.
Jim Nelson stated that the petitioner had not met with any members of the neighborhood group,
but had met with Dave Cunningham of the Department of Community Development for the
purpose of attempting to make those refinements which would provide the most direct benefit.
Dave Cunningham stated that suggestions from Plan Commission members and issues brought
out at the last meeting were discussed with Davis. It was Mr. Cunningham's understanding that
this was the first time the public had seen the changes and that specific addresses to members
of the public had not been made.
10
Jeanne Reid asked for a summary of the outstanding items; Jim Nelson responded that it was
obvious at both Public Hearing and Subcommittee that the neighbors were concerned about
density, traffic, and home values. It is believed that the petitioner has met the requirement on
all those issues; the petitioner was willing to look at the project again to see if the plan could
be further redefined to provide for a greater perimeter buffer, and this was done. The petitioner
is requesting a vote on this Docket this evening.
Sue Dillon asked if the 22.9% open space included the buffer area behind the lots or if it was
only in the three amenity areas. Jim Nelson stated that the percentage question was mentioned
at subdivision committee, and that the cluster option, ordinance Z-201 does not require any
percentage on open space.
David Cremeans read paragraph 33-11 of the zoning ordinance which refers to compatibiity of
cluster housing with adjacent land uses, and did not feel that the proposed development met the
criteria of the zoning ordinance. Jim Nelson responded that he felt that particular provision was
basically illegal because the ordinance introduces a subjective standard; in the primary plat
process, a project is to be judged only by subjective standards found in the ordinance capable
of interpretation by reasonable persons.
Max Moore asked for comments from City Attorney Gordon Byers. Gordon Byers responded
that the petition was in compliance with the objective criteria, and his interpretation was such that
he did not dispute the vagueness of the ordinance; adjacent land uses meant residential as it
relates to residential, residential as it relates to commercial, residential as it relates to step-up step
down, that type of thing. Mr. Byers felt it was the responsibiilty of the Council to draft the
ordinances so that the "spirit" of the law is not focused on but rather what it says.
Mr. Dorman commented that there were still areas of the project he was not real happy about,
but that overall, the project had some very good potential. Mr. Dorman did state that there were
still problems to be resolved between the developer and the neighboring residents.
Barbara Myers moved for approval of Docket No. 5-94 P.P., seconded by Ron Houck. The vote
was six in favor, Dave Cremeans; Sue Dillon; Jay Dorman; Dick Klar; Jeanne Reid; and Luci
Snyder opposed, Alan Klineman abstaining, MOTION DENIED.
Docket No. 5-94 P.P., a Primary Plat (cluster) application for a subdivision named Linkside, will
automatically return to the May 17 Public Hearing for an action vote.
6i. Commission to consider Docket No. 23-94 P.P., a Primary Plat application for a subdivision
named Laurel Lake. The primary plat consists of 91 lots on 74.4 acres of land located west of
Towne Road and approximately one half mile north of 116th Street. The site is zoned S-l.
Petitioner is requesting a variance from section 6.3.22 for the installation of a passing blister.
Filed by James Dugan.
Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing the
11
petitioner. Mr. Nelson reported that the present request to amend the primary plat of Laurel
Lakes had been submitted to the Subdivision Committee and unanimously recommended its
approval.
Dick Klar moved for approval of the variance from section 6.3.22, seconded by Max Moore, The
vote was 13 in favor, none opposed, MOTION APPROVED.
Dick Klar moved for approval of Docket No. 34-94 P.P., a Primary Plat application for Laurel
Lake, seconded by Paul Spranger. The vote was 13 in favor, none opposed, MOTION
APPROVED.
J. NEW BUSINESS
lj. Commission to consider Docket No. 36-94 SP, Secondary Plat application for Walgreens (lot
1 of Carmel Centerpointe) & Docket No. 37-94 ADLS for Walgreens. Petitioner has filed the
Secondary plat and ADLS is seeking a simultaneous approval of the Secondary plat and ADLS
for Walgreens The building is proposed to be 13,500 square feet for general retail use. The site
is zoned B-8. Filed by Flynn and Zinkan Realty.
Kelly Flynn, 10557 Tremont Lane, Fishers, appeared before the Commission representing the
petitioner. Also in attendance were Alan Clough of Flynn & Zinkan, and Richard Henderson of
Schneider Engineering.
Mr. Flynn gave a brief business history of Flynn Zinkan in the Carmel area and an overview of
the proposed Walgreens. The proposed site is 1.3 acres, zoned B-8, and would be accessible
from two points, Rangeline Road and Executive Drive. There will be a drive-thru window for
picking up prescriptions, with a canopy carrying an "enter" and "exit" sign above for information
and safety; the letters will be 10 inches high and 5.8 and 4.9 square feet respectively. The
architectural plan uses residential style brick and will be similar to the new Kroger exterior.
There will be eight wall mounted fixtures on the exterior of the building, 10 feet high, 400 watt
high pressure.
The landscaping plan will utilize over 390 plantings, incuding Red Sunset Red Maple trees of
2 inch capliper in the west and south elevations, and 2 inch caliper Tillia Americana trees on the
north elevation; six different evergreen species,plus five foot, bush type Washington Hawthornes.
The trash area will be completely enclosed in a shadow box wood fence.
After numerous meetings with the Department of Community Development and public safety
officials, a traffic flow pattern has been designed to include a one way traffic area, angle parking
on the north side of the building and the drive thru pharmacy area which is also one way traffic.
One full entrance and egress point on Executive Drive is provided. The entrance point on Range
Line Road is right in--right out only. The parking spaces provided total 63; with required parking
being 45 spaces.
12
Sue Dillon asked about the lighting fixtures, inasmuch as the Shoshone residents would be
affected.
Paul Spranger also asked that the Commission be extremely sensitive to this issue because of the
residents in the area. The screening being used to the rear of the property is a fence and
landscaping material, and the lighting used by Walgreen, if not used with some sensitivity, will
create problems for the neighbors and their back yards.
Mike Hollibaugh of the Department of Community Development reported that the lighting had
been discussed with the petitioner and that this particular project as a whole would be critically
evaluated as to its impact on the adjoining residential area to the north, and lighting and
landscaping would be critical. The wall mounted lighting is workable in this case. Mike did
point out that it was not clear how Scheetz intended to treat the bufferyard area; however, the
northeast corner needed additional landscaping. Overall, Mike Hollibaugh was pleased with the
landscape plans as submited by Walgreen's, but felt that the landscaping plans should be
consistent with Scheetz' proposal. In other words, if Mick Scheetz' plans called for a six foot
fence, then, at least in the 25 foot section, this site should be consistent. (In fact, Scheetz plan
calls for a six foot, wooden fence with landscaping.)
Paul Spranger asked Mike Hollibaugh what would be ideal to plant in the 25 foot section, Again,
Mike's response was that the landscaping plan should be consistent with Mick Scheetz'.
Ron Houck asked about the timing of the installation of Scheetz landscaping. Richard Henderson
of Schneider Engineering responded that Mick Scheetz' plan had been conditionally approved at
Subdivision Committee April 12. The 25 foot buffer strip is part of the required green belt in
B-8 adjacent to residential. Mick Scheetz' landscaping plan does extend into the strip, as well as
the fence, stops at the end of the green belt buffer. Mick Scheetz is putting up a fence and
landscaping the 25 foot strip consistent with his approved plan. Mike Hollibaugh stated that the
plans to date, do not reflect that. Richard Henderson stated that Mick Scheetz' plan for
landscaping is in addition to the plan before the Commission.
In response to Mr. Klineman's question, Mr. Flynn stated that he had no problem puting up an
additional 6 foot section of fence; that it seemed sensible. Mr. Flynn did undertake to come up
with some sort of proposal before sub-committee meeting so that Mr. Flynn would have a chance
to meet with Mick Scheetz.
Mike Hollibaugh stated that since day one, the Department has had a problem with the design
of the building; in general, the proportion is off, there is no base to tie the building to the site,
the gable ends are out of proportion with the balance of the site, and that it would not be an
attractive addition to Range Line Road. There has been some compromise as far as going with
the Kroger brick, but as far as changing any proportion of the building itself, we are at an
impasse. Another concern is signage. The Department has requested consistency with Kroger's
signage; however, there is some confusion between Mick Scheetz and Walgreen's as to who gets
the ground sign; this has not been resolved and if both have ground signs, there would have to
13
be a variance. The Department has a problem with the basic design of the sign.
Ron Houck questioned the lighting fixtures again; Mr. Flynn responded that they are mounted
on the wall. Mr. Houck also questioned the ground sign, in that there seemed to be a number
of requests for changeable copy signs, and that perhaps this would set a precedent. Mr. Houck
did not see the necessity for a changeable copy sign. Mr. Houck also questioned the square
footage; Mr. Flynn responded that 13,355 is the appropriate square footage.
Mr. Dorman commented that there are significant, outstading concerns that the Department and
the petitioner have not resolved, and that it would be a dis-service to take the case forward until
these concerns have been resolved.
Barbara Myers stated her feelings that the present case should go on to Committee; the
Committee would then have the right to table the project at that time if it does not meet
demand/specifications.
Jeanne Reid agreed with Barbara Myers, but wanted to add that the Commission would like
information from the Department and from Walgreen's as to how they have resolved some of the
conflicts, specifically the landscaping, design of building, etc.
Luci Snyder agreed with the lighting concern and how it would affect the neighbors. Luci was
complimentary of the Walgreen stores in general, but did agree with extra landscaping and the
exterior brick to match Kroger's.
Docket No. 40-94 ADLS was referred to Special Study Committee which will meet May 10 at
7:00 P.M.
2j. Commission to consider Docket No. 40-94 ADLS for Hook's Drugs. The petitioner is
seeking approval to add 1500 square feet and reface the existing building at 1421 South Range
Line Road. The site is zoned B-8. Filed by Hook's Drugs.
Brad Barnes of Cuppy, Graef & Turner appeared before the Commission representing the
petitioner and the owner, Thomas C. Barnes. The petitioner is seeking approval to up-date and
remodel the building into a more efficient drugstore by improving the facade and the interior
layout. The current proposal is to increase the structure by 15 feet toward Medical Drive and
duplicate the brick facade that faces Range Line Road. The site lighting will be pole mounted,
bronze fixtures. A present access drive for trash trucks will be converted to a one way drive for
traffic to exit onto Medical Drive. A 7 foot high concrete block would fully enclose the
dumpster. The HVAC facilities located on the roof will be screened with a shadow box type
fence and color coordinated with the project. The signs are within the allowable under the
ordinance. The sign facing Medical Drive is 45 square feet; the sign facing Range Line is 35
square feet, box letters, typical of Hook's Drugs. The sign facing Medical Drive would
accommodate apothecary symbols. Landscaping will be decorative planters, with plantings
selected primarily for their color.
14
Ron Houck asked about the lighting and where they would be placed. Mr. Barnes responded
with the locations; Mr. Houck asked for DOCD's comments: Dave Cunningham commented that
Mike Hollibaugh had reviewed the landscaping plans and found them to be acceptable. In
response to Sue Dillon's questions regarding landscaping, Dave stated that in addition to trees
planted by Greenspace, there are threr planting areas on Medical Drive and two on Range Line
Road which are made up of some type of small hedging material; steel edging, mulched annually.
There will be low plantings in the areas so that sight lines will not be restricted.
Parking requirements are for 47 spaces and 63 are provided.
Signage will continue with Hook's identification, even though they are being purchased by
another Company.
The Department of Community Development raised an issue regarding the internal site
circulation, i.e. the angle parking on the south side of the building should be eliminated to allow
for east/west traffic flow, and the elimination of the farthest west curb cut on Medical Drive to
allow for vehicular safety and pedestrian safety. The curb cut farther east would then become
an exit; this is an issue for the Plan Commission's discussion.
Ron Houck felt that the curb cut immediately to the east of Range Line Road was much too close
to the intersection to be a safe point of ingress/egress.
Gordon Byers commented that the curb cut was a Board of Public Works issue and not ADLS.
There is a good point from DOCD regarding the health, safety, welfare issue, but the curb cut
is not an ADLS consideration.
Dick Klar stated that if the petitioner were made to close off the curb cut, it would cause more
problems at this point unless it would be moved back farther; the biggest factor is the joint
parking between Hook's and Taco Bell. Mr. Klar felt that the entrance into Hook's from Range
Line Road should be made one way, but it would probably be impractical at this point.
Gordon Byers stated that he and the DOCD would work with the petitioner for some resolution.
Docket No. 40-94 ADLS was referred to Special Study Committee which will meet May 10 at
7:00 P.M.
3j. Commission to consider Docket No. 41-94 ADLS for Ponderosa. The petitioner is seeking
approval (after the fact) to add an artistic canopy to the front of the existing Ponderosa building
located at 1301 South Range Line road. The site is zoned B-8. Filed by John Jones.
John Jones, appeared before the Commission representing the petitioner and explained the current
re-imaging/remodeling undertaken by Ponderosa MultiMedia Steakhouse. As a part of the
remodeling, the present canopy was installed. The Department of Community Development
maintains that the canopy is a sign; the petitioner says no.
15
Max Moore moved for suspension of the rules in order to vote on this Docket, seconded by Ron
Houck, unanimously approved.
Dave Cunningham stated that the Department has determined that the canopy meets the definition
of a sign under the Sign Ordinance. The petitioner is appealing that decision and will be
appearing before the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals. If the BZA agrees with the
Department's determination, the sign would exceed the allowable sign area and will need to seek
a variance If the BZA does not agree with the Department's interpretation and determines that
the canopy is not a sign, the petitioner would then go before the Plan Commission for
determination of architectural design, lighting and signage. If the canopy is approvd as a sign
this evening, it would go to the BZA for appeal; if disapproved, there is no reason to go further.
Dick Klar moved for approval of the canopy as it presently exists (as a sign), seconded by Max
Moore, the vote was 11 in favor, Jay Dorman and Paul Spranger opposed, MOTION
APPROVED.
4j. Commission to consider Docket No. 42-94 ADLS for Indiana Back Center. The petitioner
is seeking aproval to aloow back illumination to the signage at 13450 North Meridian. The site
is zoned B-6 and located within the US 31 Overlay Zone. Filed by Philip Nicely.
Philip Nicely, attorney, 8888 North Keystone Crossing, Indianapolis, appeared before the
Commission representing the petitioner and Duke Realty Investments, Inc. The petitioner is
requesting an amendment to a previous ADLS approval obtained last year which allowed a sign
saying "Indiana Back Center." The Indiana Spine Center is located at 13431 Old Meridian and
is the first sign patients see. The two signs cause confusion: the addresses are similar; the
building names are similar; and the uses are similar.
What is being requested this evening is simply that the approved sign that says "Indiana Back
Center" be approved to be backlighted. The Indiana Back Center occupies 17% of the building
(half of one floor), and they feel very strongly that the sign needs to be backlit for identification,
inasmuch as they have received a number of comments/complaints from patients regarding the
confusion.
Paul Spranger asked if the sign was acrylic and illuminated in terms of the lettering or solid,
opaque letters backlit against the facade of the building; Mr. Nicely responded that the sign
would be individually, internally illuminated, backlighted letters installed on the existing building
projecting 3 inches, the letters are fabricated 4 inchest deep and finished with dark bronze or
acrylic polyurethane coating.
Dick Klar moved to suspend the rules, seconded by Ron Houck, unanimously approved.
Ron Houck moved to approve Docket No. 42-94 ADLS, seconded by Dick Klar, unanimously
approved 13-0.
16
5j. Commission to consider Docket No. 43-94 ADLS for Thomson Consumer Electronics.
WITHDRAWN by Petitioner.
Dve Cunningham addressed the Commission with the following concerns for clarification:
In regard to item 2h. on this evening's agenda and the anticipation of the Request for Information,
Tom Ford mentioned that he had a question regarding the issue of having another engineer study
this particular area. Tom Ford's question was, and it does need to be clarified, does the Plan
Commission wish for the study to entail a review of the current study by PKG, or a review of
the study prepared by DOCD staff. This qualification needs to be made.
Jay Dorman commented that the options seemed to be: 1) to review PKG's existing work 2)
inclusion of existing information from the County added into a new study to be created or 3)
from ground up, a new study.
Ron Houck stated that it was not the desire to commission a new study, but rather a critique of
what was presented.
Dave Cunninghanm stated that the view of the public indicated a request for a new study. There
are definitely two issues to be addressed: one is a critique of the PKG study, the other is a
comprehensive review of the traffic impact of the 96th Street extension. Dave Cunningham asked
the Commission which course they would like to follow.
Max Moore asked if the Engineering Dept. had a copy of the previous study made on 96th Street
at the time of installation of the stop sign. Dave Cunningham responded that there was no copy
in house, but that a copy is available through the County Highway Dept.
Jeanne Reid commented that if all the Commission did was critique the study which is presently
at level F service, it was pointless because there is no level lower to indicate what degree. A
critique would only agree that the level will be worse.
Ron Houck agreed with Jeanne Reid, but stated that what was hoped for in a review was not
merely a confirmation of their information but ways to alleviate recognized problems through
alternate configuration or different design of curb cuts or roadway improvements that were not
offered by the petitioner. If the petitioner could offer an increase in road width, or could make
a separate turn lane, something that would change the overall traffic flow and make the situation
better in this particular area--these types of concessions would be items to be looked for, not
merely a confirmation that everything is bad but what the petitioner could do to improve the
situation.
Jeff Kennelly stated that he voted against a study, one reason being that there are several
concerns, one of the main ones is traffic. Mr. Kennelly felt it was up to the petitioner to pay for
17
possible solutions, and costs incurred, in order to encourage the Commission to recommend a
rezone. It would still have to go to City Council, and to ask the Plan Commission to pay for
a study was a no win situation.
Jay Dorman then asked the Commission what the scope of proposal should be; if the Commission
wanted DOCD to get a couple of estimates: 1) review existing ideas, critique, and see what
suggestions could be made, or 2) take whatever information the DOCD could gain from the
County. Mr. Dorman said he would have a difficult time spending the entire budget on one
particular study for one particular project with the limited budget.
Ron Houck then commented that the more vague the request for information, the more the costs
will be inflated; it would be easier to home in on one item than "shoot a moving target." The
more definite the questions, the more it should contain the costs.
Alan Klineman agreed with Jeff Kennelly and Jeanne Reid; that the Commission is probably
wandering off into some area that poses no solution. Mr. Klineman reiterated that he agreed with
Jeff Kennelly, that if the petitioner wanted the Plan Commission to recommend approval of the
rezone, the petitioner should come up with solutions and run it through the County Highway.
It is possible that the Commission will come up with some answer that if not feasible to perform
on.
Jay Dorman stated that he was under the impression that the Commission had agreed to explore
the price of a fairly comprehensiove study and it was up to them to get an estimate and tighten
it as much as possible with the Staff. Also, the Commission needed to look at review and
enhancement of what has been proposed, see what those proposals are from existing information
(requested of Dave Cunningham), and convene the Executive Committee and any other members
of the Commission who would care to attend, and come up with a recommendation prior to the
May 10 Special Study Committee meeting.
Sue Dillon remarked that in looking at the Comprehensive Plan, there are three areas circled that
indicated further study was needed: one was the 96th and Westfield area; one was 136th and
Meridian; one was 146th and Meridian. The Comprehensive Plan will be re-done, but will a
study of those three intersections be done as a part of the Comprehensive Plan and if so, is it
appropriate to do a study of 96th and Westfield intersection at this point and consider it as part
of the Comprehensive Plan. Without some sort of study, Ms. Dillon felt the Commission would
be making subjective decisions about whether or not this level of density is appropriate. The
Commission will have to vote to rezone or not rezone--it is not automatic.
Alan Klieman commented that there is still the two lane bridge over the interstate to think about.
Ms. Dillon thought that it would all hinge on what the County planned too; if the area is always
going to be a bottleneck, is it irresponsible of the Plan Commission to approve this level of
density? This question is one that Ms. Dillon asked for guidance on.
18
Max Moore reported that the County, along with the White River Bridge, is making a study of
this area and one item being discussed is a bridge across 465 at 96th and Range Line Road, if
someone has approximately $100 million.
Dave Cunningham stated that the most recent study of the area was done by the County in 1991
and that alternative came up with the proposal of going underneath the Monon; financially, this
alternative was the one determined because the other options are to bridge or tunnel, and it was
financially inconceivable at that time with County Budget. This issue appeared on the Marion
County Comprehensive Plan since the early '50s; it has been on the Carmel/Clay Comprehensive
Plan since 1961; it has been on the Hamilton County Plan dating back to the '60s, and reinstituted
with the Hamilton County Plan Commission two years ago and is now back on their
Comprehensive Plan. All three Comprehensive Plans show the connection of 96th Street. The
petitioner has stated his willingness to reserve additional right of way for that area; there has not
been a determination of participation for the connection of the road at this time, and that is a
point that should be addressed in relation to the development. Ultimately, it is a Hamilton
County project.
Dave Cunningham summed up the alternatives earlier stated by Jay Dorman: 1) Request for a
series of estimates starting with a review of the current PKG study; 2) A probable interim step
review of all the studies available that are pertinent to this development; and 3) The alternatives
will be presented at the May 10 6:30 Executive Committee, and the Executive Committee will
be making a recommendation to the Commission. It is foreseeable that this project will be tabled
at the May 10th Committee.
Jay Dorman asked the cost that would be incurred and by whom, to get the level of information
that is sought. Dave Cunningham responded that he would do his best to get the information to
the Commission prior to the meeting.
Jeanne Reid stated she was OK with that, but at the same time, whatever information is available
from the Hamilton County Traffic Dept. needs to be made known because it may be sufficient
information and the Plan Commission will not deem it necessary to pursue. The Plan
Commission's job is not to do individual traffic studies of all areas.
Dave Cunningham undertook to furnish the Plan Commission with whatever information could
be gathered from available sources.
Jeanne Reid stated that the question is "What is the information going to do to help the Plan
Commission?" Right now, we know that the 96th Street extension is not happening; we also
know that Westfield is not being widened--we will still be faced with a decision. Jeanne Reid
thought that in the end, the answer will be the same--this will definitely be impacting the traffic,
that is not going to change right now; we will know that when the study is finished--this project
will terribly impact this area. The ultimate decision is on this rezone.
Under New Business
19
Ron Houck stated that he thought the Commission received excellent advice from Gordon Byers
regarding the Cluster Ordinance--is it going to be repealed, or are we going to do anything?
Gordon Byers then addressed the Commission as follows:
The comments deal with notice; historically the Carmel Plan Commission was publishing Notice
in the Noblesville Ledger and the Noblesville Times; supposedly a Democrat and Republican
paper. In looking at the requirement in Indiana, we can eliminate the Noblesville Times from
the publication requirement. The Board of Zoning Appeals has already dropped the Noblesville
Times and it would be the recommendation, through a majority vote, to amend the Rules of
Procedure to require notice in the Noblesville Daily Ledger. Interested notice is given by
certified mail to surrounding property owners; notice is sent to adjacent counties; and notice is
published.
Dave Cunningham stated that by publishing notice in the daily paper, they are automatically
printed in the weekly Carmel paper.
Dick Klar moved to require notice in the Noblesville Daily Ledger only and to eliminate the
Noblesville Times as is currently provided in the Rules of Procedure, seconded by Ron Houck,
unanimously approved.
CLUSTER ORDINANCE DISCUSSION
There was much discussion regarding the repeal of the current Cluster Ordinance. Any intentions
would have to be noticed for the May meeting. Gordon Byers reviewed the process; the
Commission would vote on the repeal recommendation, send the recommendation to the
legislative body who would then take action.
Ron Houck moved for repeal of the current cluster ordinance; seconded by Dick Klar.
Jeff Kennelly commented that he thought this had been voted on at the last meeting; Jay Dorman
responded that the motion was made, however it failed to pass by a 6-4 vote.
Jay Dorman asked for a vote from all those in favor of going forward to recommend repeal of
the present Cluster Ordinance until a new ordinance is presented in its place; the vote was 12 in
favor, Jeff Kennelly opposed, MOTION PASSED.
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
1:00 A.M.
Jay Dorman, President Ramona Hancock, Secretary
20