HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-16-1993 CARMEL,CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
November 16, 1993
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Ron Houck, President, with the Pledge of
Allegiance in Council Chambers, One Civic Square, Carmel, Indiana. Members present were as
follows: Hank Blackwell; Sue Dillon; Jay Dorman; Ron Houck; Jeff Kennelly; Dick Kiar; Alan
Klineman; Norma Meighen; Max Moore; Barbara Myers; Salim Najjar; James T. O'Neal; Chris
Painchaud; Jeanne Reid; Paul Spranger; and Sharon Clark.
A quorum was established.
Also present were Rick Brandau; Dave Cunningham; Mike Hollibaugh; and Terry Jones of Staff,
as well as Gordon Byers, City Attorney.
Dick Klar moved to approve the minutes of the previous meeting, seconded by Barbara Myers,
unanimously approved.
Dave Cunningham reported that item 9h., Docket No. 84-93 PP, a Primary Plat application for
Ashmore Trace Subdivision, had been tabled by the petitioner for one month.
H. PUBLIC HEARINGS
lh. Commission to consider Docket No. 65-93 O.A., a Zoning Ordinance Amendment
establishing Community Development Permits. The ordinance establishes guidelines and
development standards for the issuance of Community Development Permits, the following is the
Statement of Purpose of the new section:
"The purpose of this code is to provide minimum standards for the issuance of permits
so as to ensure that all building and development activity occurs to the minimum
standards established in the Zoning Ordinance for the protection of life, limb, property,
environment and for the safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Carmel/Clay
Township and the general public."
Filed by the Department of Community Development.
The public hearing was left open on this Docket from the previous meeting. Members of the
public were invited to speak; the following appeared:
Tom Brush, 13586 Landser Place, Carmel, spoke in opposition to the establishment of the
Improvement Location Permit and stated it was against individual rights which are guaranteed
by the Constitution. The original intent of the proposed ordinance was to prevent developers
from "debauching" the environment (unnecessarily destroying and removing trees) and Mr. Brush
supported this intent; however, Mr. Brush felt that individuals should be exempt.
John Price, attorney, 9000 Keystone Crossing, Indianapolis, agreed with Mr. Brush's comments
1
on the constitutionality of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Price stated that the provision which
would allow the Department of Community Development to enter structures or premises has a
direct contradiction with the Fourth Amendment. The granting of the authority to the Department
of Community Development of the right to superintend landscaping is a "reach," whether or not
it is unconstitutional could be determined at a later date. Mr. Price's primary problem with the
proposed ordinance, on behalf of his (un-named) client, was that it appeared to be vague; the
phrase "woody-type vegetative cover" was felt to be an unscientific description and one that a
court would have great difficulty understanding. Mr. Price's recommendation was that the
proposed ordinance go back to the drafting stage and any provisions that could trigger a
constitutional over-turning be eliminated.
Paul Jensen, 10980 Beechwood Drive West, Carmel, spoke in opposition to the proposed
ordinance. Mr. Jensen quoted James Madison in regard to " abridgement of the freedom of
the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power rather than by violent and
sudden usurpations." Mr. Jensen felt that the proposed ordinance was another set of steps toward
total government domination of people and their property and their rights over their property.
Mr. Jensen felt that the ordinance was an endeavor by government to control property, and this
step would lead to a fascist state. Mr. Jensen felt that the current ordinance was eco-fascism and
had no place in America, and that the proposed ordinances were encroachments into rights of
private property.
Charles Lawson, 8467 Admiral's Landing Way, Indianapolis, was opposed to any legislation of
this type being passed which would set a precedent to be imposed in his particular community
(Lawrence Township.)
Mr. Klineman asked if perhaps Mr. Lawson could submit his comments in written form since he
would not be personally affected by the ordinance.
Gordon Byers felt that Mr. Lawson was an interested party and could make a presentation before
the Plan Commission as well as submit written comments.
Mr. Lawson asked that all members of the Commission review the proposed ordinances not as
members of the Board, but rather as individual land owners, and determine how the provisions
would affect them personally, and their Constitutional rights.
Judith A. Demaree, 906 West Auman Drive, Carmel, voiced opposition to the proposed
ordinance. Ms. Demaree felt that regulations were needed for developers in a profit-driven
market, but not for private property owners. Ms. Demaree also felt that the proposed ordinance
was an invasion of privacy and would place a burden on fixed income people, retired persons,
and widows.
The public hearing was left open to be heard again at the next meeting.
Gordon Byers explained that the Staff was attempting to change the text of the zoning ordinance,
2
and that State Statute permits Improvement Location Permits which the Department is trying to
modify. The intent is not to come onto private property, but the Department does have rights and
obligations to enforce certain development standards, through Improvement Location Permits,
under the State Statute. The Staff is sensitive to private rights, but the activities of requiring
permits is pretty well established in almost all types of activities, whether it be an improvement
or building an 800 foot mound or 50 acre lake. The test is whether or not the rules and
regulations are reasonable, and is there a rational nexus to the legislation. The Improvement
Location Permit is not a document created by the Department, it is well-established.
Mike Hollibaugh of Staff gave the Commission members a copy of a communication received
from Mike Butler, 1 l lth Street, Carmel, regarding the tree ordinance. Mike Hollibaugh reiterated
the schedule outlined at the last Committee meeting which set a deadline of November 19 for
written comments; revised drafts of the ordinances will be made available at the next Committee
meeting.
Ron Houck stated that comments from the public are welcomed on the Ordinances and asked that
they be specific in nature rather than general, and that the input will be worked with to produce
the final draft which will hopefully address all concerns.
2h. Commission to consider Docket No. 66-93 O.A., a Zoning Ordinance Amendment
establishing Bufferyards. The ordinance will establish guidelines and development standards for
the establishment of bufferyards between land uses, the following is the Statement of Purpose of
the new section:
"Bufferyards shall be required to separate different land uses from each other in order to
eliminate or minimize potential nuisances such as dirt, litter, noise, glare, signs, unsightly
buildings or parking areas, or to provide spacing to reduce adverse impacts of noise, odor,
or danger from fires and explosions. The bufferyard is a unit of yard together with the
planting required thereon. Both the amount of land and the type and amount of planting
specified for each bufferyard requirement of this ordinance are designed to ameliorate
nuisances between adjacent land uses or between a land use and a public road. The
planting units have been calculated to ensure that they do, in fact, function as buffers."
Filed by the Department of Community Development.
Members of the public were invited to speak; none appeared. The public hearing will be left
open on this Docket. Members of the public were invited to attend the Special Study Committee
which will be reviewing, up-dating and refining the ordinance. The Committees meet the first
Tuesday of each month at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms.
3h. Commission to consider Docket No. 67-0.A., a Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishing
Tree Conservation. The ordinance will establish guidelines and development standards for Tree
Conservation, the following is the Purpose and intent:
"The purpose of this ordinance is to promote the public health, safety, comfort, morals,
convenience, and general welfare, by ensuring the protection and enhancement of the
3
natural environment for the citizens of the City of Carmel and Clay Township by
establishing reasonable regulations governing the protection and replanting of community
tree and woodland resources within the City of Carmel and Clay Township. The intent
is to regulate and determine the use and intensity of the land and lot areas for all citizens
by setting reasonable standards for the protection and replacement of trees, woodlands and
other natural areas in order to:
a) Enhance and protect the quality and availability of ground water and surface
waters within the City and Township, and
b) Enhance and protect the quality of air by removing dust and other pollutants,
or contributing oxygen, and
c) To conserve energy by mitigating the effects of summer sun and winter wind,
and
d) To preserve and protect the identity and environment of the City of Carmel and
Clay Township and preserve the economic base attracted to the City of Carmel/Clay
Township by such factors, and
e) To safeguard and enhance property values and property and to protect public
and private investment, and
f) To promote and maintain a high level of community aesthetics by protection of
existing trees and planting of new ones."
Filed by the Department of Community Development.
Members of the public were invited to speak; none appeared. The hearing was left open on this
Docket and the public was invited to attend the Committee Meeting to be held December 7th at
7:00 P.M. in the Caucus Rooms.
4h. Commission to consider Docket No. 68-93 O.A., a Zoning Ordinance Amendment
establishing Parking Lot Landscaping. The ordinance will establish guidelines and developmental
standards for Parking Lot Landscaping, the following is the Statement of Purpose and intent of
the new section:
"The purpose of this ordinance is to improve the appearance, environment, character and
value of property within the City of Carmel and Clay Township, and thereby promote the
general welfare by providing for installation and maintenance of landscaping as part of
new development. The intent of this article is to improve the appearance of vehicular
accommodation areas and property abutting public rights-of-way within the City of
Carmel and Clay Township, by requiring landscaping to be an integral part of all projects;
and, to protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and value of the
surrounding neighborhoods by requiring buffering between land uses; and, to promote
public health and safety through the reduction of air pollution, visual pollution, air
temperature and artificial glare that tree and other plants provide."
Filed by Department of Community Development.
Members of the public were invited to speak; none appeared. The public hearing will remain
open.
4
Jay Dorman asked Mike Hollibaugh if members of the public could receive the text of the
ordinances on diskette. Mike Hollibaugh responded that if members of the public would bring
a disk into the Department of Community Development, the text could be copies in a few
moments.
5h. Commission to consider Docket No. 74-93 PP, a Primary Plat (cluster) application for The
Parks at Springmill Subdivision. The petitioner seeks primary plat (cluster) approval to plat 222
lots on 129.15 acres of land located on the southeast corner of 136th Street and Springmill, Clay
Township. The site is zoned S-2. Filed by Estridge Development Corp.
Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing Estridge
Development Company, Inc., contract purchaser of the subject real estate, and DePauw University
as Trustee of the Hargitt Trust, owner of the real estate. Also in attendance were Paul Rioux of
Estridge; Paul Clair of Schneider Engineering, and Tom Ford of Pflum, Klausmeier and Gehrum,
Traffic Consultants. Jim Shinnaver of Nelson and Frankenberger assisted Mr. Nelson in the
presentation.
Upon completion, The Parks at Springmill will contain 218 single family homesites, a 20 acre
park to be known as "Roberts Park," and three non-residential lots that have been reserved for
special uses such as a fire station, day care center, church, or any other appropriate special use
under the S-2 residence district classification. Mr. Nelson displayed an aerial photograph of the
site identifying perimeter boundaries and location of the real estate; a color rendering of: the
Primary Plat, the perimeter landscape plan, the detailed development plan for the park, exhibits
depicting the park, and a random series of photographs depicting the front elevations of the
homes that are contemplated being built at The Parks by Estridge.
The proposed site lies near the intersection of 131st Street and Springmill Road, its perimeter
boundaries are 136th Street on the north, Springmill Road to the west, 131st Street to the south,
and Bentley Oaks residential community to the east, as well as a smaller parcel of land 20 acres
in size located adjacent to US31 that is being retained by DePauw University. The real estate
is zoned S-2 residence district, and under the Comprehensive Plan is recommended for moderate
intensity residential development.
The real estate was previously used as agricultural purposes and is relatively flat; there are few
trees except for those which exist along Williams Creek and dissect the real estate east to west.
The Plat being presented is in compliance with the recommended land use under the
Comprehensive Plan and is thought to be compatible with the surrounding residential uses, West
Park, Springmill Ridge, and Springmill Crossing. The plan as shown provides for two residential
sub-areas: Park Place, located west of Williams Creek, adjacent to and accessible from Springmill
Road at two points, (one near the south property line and one near the north property line) and
will contain 60 single family lots around a circular through street, three cul-de-sacs, two lakes,
and to the east, the banks of Williams Creek. The lots in Park Place exceed 12,000 square feet,
have a minimum width of 100 feet, and average 18,000 square feet in lot size. The average price
homes in Park Place will be $210,000. The area to be known as Park Meadows lies east of
5
Williams Creek, adjacent to 31 and the US31 overlay zone, and will contain 158 home sites
around its internal street system, two lakes, and to the west, the banks of Williams Creek. Park
Meadows is accessible from two points, one from 136th Street and another from 131st Street by
way of a boulevard to be constructed along the east edge of the property adjacent to the US31
overlay zone. Under the Thoroughfare Plan, it is recommended that a thoroughfare exist along
the west side of 31 and parallel to 31. This thoroughfare would act as a frontage road or relief
valve for people traveling north and south through the area. The proposed plan contemplates the
dedication of 90 feet of right-of-way for what could be the first leg of the frontage road,
beginning at 131st Street and running northeasterly, adjacent to the US 31 overlay zone.
Approximately one-half of the proposed four-lane roadway is being constructed in conjunction
with this residential development.
The three lots reserved for special uses is adjacent to 131st Street on each side of the boulevard
to be constructed. It is almost certain that one of the parcels will be utilized as a fire station.
Sidewalks are being provided adjacent to the abutting roadways of 131st Street, Springmill Road,
136th Street, along the boulevard, and on both sides of all interior streets.
The final area between Park Place and Park Meadows adjacent to Williams Creek is being
reserved for a park to be known as "Roberts Park," and will contain both active and passive
recreational opportunities. A detailed plan of the Park area was shown to contain an asphalt
pathway, five feet in width, and runs from 136th Street on the north to 131st Street on the south.
The Park is also accessible from the south from 136th Street and within the confines of the
development, between lots 148 and 149 from Park Place, and between lots 162 and 163 from
Park Meadows. Within the park area there are numerous areas set aside for playgrounds,
basketball courts, junior soccer, baseball fields, and picnic areas. The park area will also contain
various trees and plants indigenous to Indiana which will be labeled for educational benefit.
A 20 foot landscape easement has been provided around the entire perimeter of the property
which will contain not only trees but other plant material. There will be slight mounding and
a white, four-rail fence adjacent to 131st, 136th, and Springmill. The entrance signage is
contemplated for all primary and secondary entrances, and will consist of a stone wall with the
name of the area engraved.
This parcel of real estate is in the process of being annexed to the City of Carmel and favorable
recommendation was received from the Board of Public Works and Safety; the request will be
going to the City Council on December 6th.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the project; the following appeared:
Bob Modisett, 12847 Fleetwood Drive, Carmel, president of Westpark Subdivision Homeowner's
Association, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Modisett expressed favor with the
development, but did have some questions: Park Meadows Development Cluster Homes price
range; type of provision for perimeter lighting; disposition of the old farm house on 131st Street;
6
and accessibility by Westpark residents to recreational equipment and facilities (Westpark would
be willing to contribute to the maintenance).
Walt Pavlicek, 1429 Springmill Circle, Carmel, president of Clay West Information Council
(CWIC) and owner of property that backs up to 136th Street directly opposite the proposed
development, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Pavlicek was complimentary of Mr. Estridge
and the Development Group as being responsive to the requests of the citizens of Carmel. The
improvements along Williams Creek and the common open space show a willingness to meet the
needs of the community. Mr. Pavlicek suggested one improvement be added to the development
plan, that of aligning the entrance to Park Meadows along 136th Street with Springmill Boulevard
in the Springmill Crossing Subdivision. In a letter addressed to Paul Clair dated September 10,
1993, the Hamilton County Highway Department recommended that the Rosewood Drive
entrance be aligned with Springmill Boulevard; Rosewood Drive has since become a side drive.
A traffic study submitted with this project recommends that coordination efforts be made to align
drives so that four way intersections are formed with immediate, adjacent developments; if this
cannot be done, then the drives should be separated a minimum of 150 feet. Lots 55 and 56
would have headlights shining into their windows from Springmill Crossing Subdivision. The
Myers home in Springmill Crossing would have a similar issue with people exiting Park
Meadows. Finally, plans in the future should include an impact statement on the incremental
infrastructure needs of the community. The traffic operations analysis did include the aggregate
impact of all developments in the area, including previously approved developments, and
developments with potential to be approved; this needs to be replicated in all proposals. Mr.
Pavlicek felt that the Plan Commission should adopt procedures that would require similar impact
studies on police, fire, open space, and schools to facilitate short and long term planning; these
issues could be addressed in the Subdivision Regulations.
Rick Sharpe, 1309 Thornbird Lane, Carmel, president of Thistlewood Homeowner's Association,
appeared before the Commission and asked what the average market price would be in the Park
Meadows Development; average lot size and lot width. Mr. Sharpe agreed with the alignment
of the entrances, but voiced concern regarding ingress/egress on 136th Street and felt that another
opening should be created onto 136th Street. Also, Mr. Sharpe questioned if the park area was
to be a true park or community common area; is the parkland to be dedicated to the City, who
will maintain it, will the access to the park provide for parking spaces for public use.
Jim Nelson responded to the public's questions as follows:
Park Meadows' average lot size is 10,000 square feet with anticipated, average sale price of
homes to be $175,000. The minimum lot width at the building line will vary between 75 to 85
feet. There is no plan in regard to perimeter lighting; there is lighting at the entry ways. The
existing farm house on the property will be removed. The alignment of the subdivision entrances
will be reviewed before the Subdivision Committee meeting of December 7th; with respect to the
park area, the area is available to the residents of this particular community only.
Mr. Najjar asked about the accessibility of the swimming pool and tennis courts by residents to
7
the south; Mr. Nelson responded that Mr. Rioux is willing to undertake discussions with that
particular Homeowner's Association to determine if that is feasible.
Sharon Clark asked about the payment and maintenance of the park itself; Mr. Nelson responded
that the area will be owned by the Association and it will have sole responsibility of upkeep.
Sue Dillon expressed concern regarding the future of Williams Creek as being a regulated drain.
The standard practice of removing all vegetation and lining the banks with rip-wrap simply
allows the water to go through a lot faster and dumps the problem downstream. If there is an
attempt to improve the drainage, it is hopeful that a more sensitive approach can be addressed
through the County Commissioners.
Ron Houck asked for clarification regarding the number of lots; Mr. Nelson responded that there
are 218 residential lots and 3 special use lots, or a total of 221 lots. One lot was eliminated
during the TAC process in order to provide access to the park from the interior of the
development.
Mr. Houck also asked about roadway improvements; Mr. Nelson responded that the boulevard
is being constructed and the developer is currently in the process of discussing the particular
roadway improvements to be made with the Board of Public Works and Safety, the reason being
that Springmill Road will soon, if not already be completed by the County. The Boulevard has
a cost in excess of $110,000. and this is viewed as a substantial roadway improvement.
Mr. Dorman asked if residents would be able to install privacy fences that would abut the white,
four rail fence along the perimeter. Mr. Nelson responded that the covenants provide for no other
fencing within the 20 foot landscape easement, but it was difficult to restrict fencing outside the
landscape easement.
Jay Dorman also asked if Staff reviewed the traffic studies in detail; Mr. Dorman liked the fact
that previous and future developments were included, but relied mostly on the summary given
in the first few pages. Dave Cunningham of Staff responded that the traffic analysis was used
as a reference guide, as a professionally prepared engineering study by the criteria that the Plan
Commission sets. The Board of Public Works can easier determine road improvements for the
area; the County Commissioners can also use the study for road improvements. There are some
cases where the area is so vast, and there are so many unknowns, another firm will be consulted
for review.
Ron Houck asked about the figure of 1 1/2 % used for future growth on the analysis, and if this
was a more conservative figure than used in the past. Tom Ford of Pflum, Klausmeier &
Gehrum, Traffic Consultants, explained the 1 1/2%growth factor. The current report incorporated
projects in the area that Pflum, Klausmeier was familiar with; when put together, developments
that are already identified but traffic is not yet on the road, plus the 1 1/2% growth factor on top
of that, the percentage growth is much greater.
8
Jim Nelson stated that the petitioner is in process of annexing this development to the City and
all roads are pursuant to the cluster ordinance; the City Engineer has seen the plans. Jim Nelson
also stated that the petitioner is dedicating the entire 90 foot right of way for the boulevard now
as part of the piat.
Dave Cunningham stated that the project has been to Technical Advisory Committee on two
separate occasions; concerns have been addressed to the Department. The City Engineer wrote
a letter stating that the City will have control of the streets and storm drainage, although the
actual Williams Creek area is a regulated drain; those concerns have been addressed. The Board
of Works issue on the roads is still outstanding, but they have the ultimate determination.
This Docket was referred to Subdivision Committee which will meet in the Caucus Rooms at
7:00 PM on December 7th.
6h. Commission to consider Docket No. 80-93 PP, a Primary Plat application for The Trees at
Avian subdivision. The petitioner seeks primary plat approval to plat 96 lots on 58.296 acres of
land located one-half mile south of 146th Street on the west side of Hazeldell Road. The site
is zoned S-l.
The petitioner is also requesting the following Subdivision Regulation variance: 6.3.7 - Length
of cul-de-sac to exceed 600 feet. Filed by Davis Development Corp.
Chris White, vice president of Davis Development Corp., and Rick Davis, president, appeared
before the Commission on behalf of the petitioner. Chris White requested an amendment to the
Primary Plat of Avian Glen as it relates to the final 58 acres and 96 lots of the development. An
aerial photograph was displayed showing the site which abuts Valleybrook Subdivision, and the
existing sections 2 through 5 consisting of 121 lots which have already been developed. There
is an existing street stub located on the west property line that this development will connect into.
On the north property line are Woodfield and Ashton Subdivisions; Woodfield also has an
existing stub street that the petitioner intends to connect into. The petitioner is requesting that
the land plan be changed slightly to allow a price transition in the form of mounds which will
serve as a common area buffer. The petitioner also requested that street patterns be amended.
The amenity area presently being constructed is for the benefit of the entire subdivision and
consists of a swimming pool, tennis courts and bathhouse area.
The proposed change in the street pattern requires a variance on the cul-de-sac length which
exceeds the 600 feet required by ordinance. The petitioner has also agreed to leave the name of
the Subdivision intact in regard to the north half, and these sections will be designated as Avian
Glen Sections 6 and 7.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of this project; none appeared. Members
of the public who were opposed to this project or who had questions were invited to speak; the
following appeared:
9
Andy Auscherman, 5210 Avian Way, Carmel, expressed concern regarding the landscaping
mound buffer as a means of segregating the price ranges of the homes; it should be obvious from
the appearance of the homes. Mr. Auscherman thought the mounds would be ugly in relation
to the existing landscape, and felt that the trees should be used as a natural buffer rather than
mounds.
Chris Hurwitz, 5285 Canary Court, Avian Glen, expressed concern regarding changes in the
traffic pattern not only from the aesthetics but possibly extra time taken by emergency vehicles
to all areas of the Subdivision. Mr. Hurwitz felt that for the areas to the back of the Subdivision,
it was important that the open area be maintained as it was in the original plat. Mr. Hurwitz
stated that there are existing tree lines on the site which can easily be used as a barrier, and Mr.
Hurwitz questioned the need for mounding as a segregation buffer. Mr. Hurwitz felt that the
buffer area and change in the traffic pattern are unnecessary and a concern from the standpoint
of getting emergency vehicles into the area in a timely fashion.
Richard Dollen, 5216 Avian Way, Carmel, stated no objection to the increase in home prices, but
was concerned about the physical appearance of the buffer mounds, i.e. how large, how high, are
the mounds to be. Mr. Dollen also expressed concern regarding what impact the buffer,
separation, and increased prices in housing will have on delaying the development and
construction activities that result as a consequence. Mr. Dollen asked when the additional road
onto Hazeldell would be opened, and the starting and completion dates for the swimming pool
area.
The public hearing was then closed. Chris White responded to the comments as follows:
The installation of the mounds is to create a transition in price range; there is no real natural
feature that exists in relation to the existing land plan to create a buffer of this type. The tree
lines do not align with an exact location that would allow the transition to take place between
lots. In relation to the traffic patterns, the proposed change is minimal and is a more direct
alignment coming from Valleybrook to the site; it is not viewed as a major change and still
connects with the interior loop road. In regard to the timing, the petitioner proposes to develop
the remainder of the project starting in Spring of 1994 and projects completion to be at the end
of Summer, 1994. The parking lot and tennis courts are presently under construction and the
pool and bathhouse facilities are to be completed in May, 1994.
Jeanne Reid asked that the petitioner address the question in regard to the size of the mounds.
Chris White responded that the width of the common area varies from 50 feet to slightly over
100 feet; the mounds will be undulating and range from four to eight feet, and landscaped with
evergreen and deciduous trees throughout, no fencing.
Chris Painchaud asked about the length of the proposed cul-de-sac; Chris White responded that
the ordinance reads a cul-de-sac is measured from the last through street in the project,
(approximately 1200 feet) the distance from the last intersection, (approximately 600 feet) in this
case from Deer Ridge to the end of Dove Drive.
10
Dick Klar asked about through traffic coming off Valleybrook and the street design which
discourages through traffic. The current design makes it more convenient to cut through than the
original proposal, and that the safety factor should be the prime consideration. Chris White
responded that he had talked with Valleybrook residents regarding petitioning the Board of Works
for additional four-way stops to slow traffic; however, the petitioner is prepared to work with
Valley brook.
Sue Dillon questioned the financial responsibility of the landscaped and common areas, and if
these area were to be accessible by all members of the community for recreation area. The
petitioner responded that the common areas are owned and maintained by the Home Owners
Association, and the common areas will be mainly open space/buffer areas and will not have
recreational facilities. The area will be accessible by the citizens.
Jeanne Reid questioned if the covenants were going to be the same for all areas of the
Subdivision and if those persons not in favor of the mounds would be paying to maintain them.
Chris White responded that the cost would be shared by all residents of the community.
Jeanne Reid referred to a letter from Amy Jo Boldt regarding certain changes and inconsistencies
in the neighborhood. Amy Jo Boldt, 5297 Canary Court, Cannel, was in attendance and stated
that she felt her concerns and questions had been answered.
Gordon Byers stated that this project was being reviewed from the perspective of the Subdivision
Ordinance and that the developer, through private declaration, restrictions and covenants, can
allocate rights and responsibilities on maintenance. Most declaration of restrictions gives the
owner of the land the right to come back and make changes subject to public hearing and notice.
Typically, there are blocks and areas reserved that are turned over to the homeowners for
maintenance through assessment; these restrictions run with the land and is an area of private
contract right and not under the Plan Commission's jurisdiction. The developer has the ability
to make changes per his ownership of the land before turning it over to the homeowners'
association. Most declarations set time periods as to when common areas are turned over and
once done, the property owners accept them and must maintain them. Most declarations will put
homeowners on notice that the developer, at his sole option, may expand and take in additional
areas that will have maintenance responsibilities that they will be responsible for. The
maintenance fees are usually phased in at the time of purchase. The protection is that most of
the contract documents pro-rata make it a fair distribution of costs.
Hank Blackwell asked the petitioner if surface drainage was considered in relation to the location
of the proposed mounds. The petitioner responded that drainage has been looked at and taken
into consideration.
Jeff Kennelly asked Chris White if he felt it was possible to connect the cul-de-sac to the drive
off Hazeldell; the petitioner responded that the reason for the request was to save the wooded
area and to extend would create a loss of more trees in that area.
11
Jeanne Reid asked if the petitioner would be willing to reduce the size of the mounds for the sake
of the neighbors in Avian Glen. The petitioner responded that it could be looked at and brought
before the Subdivision Committee.
This Docket was referred to Subdivision Committee which will meet in the Caucus Rooms at
7:00 PM on December 7th.
At this point, there was a short recess; Jim O'Neal left the meeting and did not return.
7h. Commission to consider Docket No. 81-93 PP, a Primary Plat (cluster) application for Plum
Creek Subdivision. The petitioner seeks primary plat (cluster) approval to plat 639 lots on 519.67
acres of land located on the north and south of 126th and 131st Streets, west of River Road,
Carmel. The site is zoned S-l. The petitioner is also requesting the following Subdivision
Regulation variance: 6.3.22 - passing blister on 126th Street eliminated. Filed by Corby
Thompson for Lynnwood Residential Assoc., L.P.
Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing the
applicant, Lynnwood Residential Assoc., L.P., a limited partnership consisting of the owner of
the real estate, an affiliate of Browning Investments, Inc. and the developer of the real estate, K.
E., Thompson, Inc. Also in attendance were Corby Thompson on behalf of K. E. Thompson; and
Rick Rembusch, Browning Investments, Inc. Also present were representatives of Schneider
Engineering and the traffic consultanting firm of Butler, Fairman & Seyfert.
The proposed project will be known as Plum Creek and contain a residential and golf community.
Upon completion over an eight year period, the community of Plum Creek will include five
distinct residential neighborhoods woven together by an 18 hole golf course, available to the
public, and other community oriented attributes. The request for Primary Plat approval under the
Cluster option included an aerial photograph, a rendering of the primary plat, a drawing depicting
the entrance treatment for both the primary and secondary entrances; and a series of drawings
representing the typical front elevation of drawings to be constructed in Plum Creek.
The property lies east of Gray Road; its perimeter boundaries are 122nd Street, 131st Street, and
River Avenue. The real estate is located north of the residential community known as Northwood
Hills, and the Indianapolis Water Co. treatment plant; west of White River and southeast of the
Cherry Tree Elementary School. The real estate is zoned S-1 residence district and under the
Comprehensive Plan is recommended for residential use within the parameters of the designation
moderate intensity residential. As to natural characteristics and trees on the site, the area has
been used for agricultural purposes and topographically, the land is very flat. Except for a stand
of trees near the south property line, and the stand of tree existing in the far northeast corner, the
parcel of real estate is devoid of trees. The legal drain, Mitchner Ditch, which is under the
jurisdiction of the Hamilton County Drainage Board, meanders southeasterly through the property.
The parcel is dissected from east to west by two existing roadways; 131st Street and 126th Street.
The parcel is within the City of Carmel and has been annexed to the City of Carmel. City water
and sanitary sewer service are available to the property. The golf course will occupy
12
approximately 190 acres of the available land and will include several recreational areas. There
will be five residential neighborhoods in Plum Creek and accessible by 122nd, 126th, and 131st
Streets. The area between 122nd and 126th Street will contain the beginning and ending holes
of the golf course and a clubhouse; the area will also contain a separate amenity area which will
include a swimming pool and tennis courts which will be available to both the residents of Plum
Creek and other non-residents on a membership basis. The area will include two residential
neighborhoods to be known as Plum Creek Estates and Plum Creek Village. The estate section
is adjacent to Northwood Hills and will contain 54 single family lots with an average lot size of
33,000 square feet; the prices will range from $300,000. to $600,000. and contain only six lots,
larger in size, thereby preserving the existing trees.
East of the golf course will be the area known as Plum Creek Village which will contain 101
single family lots, average 9300 square feet and will begin in price at $150,000. There is also
a special feature in this area of a six foot wide pathway which will begin at the entrance on
122nd, proceed east to River Avenue, north to 126th Street, west to the entrance boulevard to the
Clubhouse area, then south, southeasterly. It is believed that the pathway will be suitable not
only for walking and jogging, but for biking.
Northward toward the center of Plum Creek will be the middle holes of the golf course and two
residential neighborhoods consisting of 321 single family lots and will be known as Plum Creek
Farms and Plum Creek Ridge. All lots in this area will exceed an average of 14500 square feet
and the homes will be priced between $180,000 to $200,000. This midsection will have access
at four points; two from 126th and two from 131st Street. In addition, a stub has been provided
to the east to accommodate future access to the land to the east at such time as that land is
developed. Under the thoroughfare plan, a north/south boulevard is planned for the area
commonly known as the Hazeldell extension; this area and the area north of 131st Street
contemplates the dedication of a 60 foot one-half right of way for the future construction of the
Hazeldell extension. A connection is being provided into Hazeldell.
The primary entrance is from 131st Street with two stubs being provided along the north line and
future connection to Hazeldell. The plan for the northern most area is sensitive to the future
needs of the Carmel/Clay School System for additional school sites. Information has been
provided to the petitioner of the desirability of a new elementary school in the Plum Creek area;
a 15 acre parcel of land has been reserved for a school, to be purchased by the School System
at a reasonable price at a time frame of three years. The are no plans to develop this land and
it will remain available for purchase by the School System for a period of three years.
The golf course has been positioned along the Mitchner Ditch to provide a greenway through the
center core of the real estate and also positioned along the major thoroughfares. Within the
development are over seven miles of sidewalks on both sides of all internal streets pursuant to
the cluster option. A 20 foot greenbelt/landscape buffer has been provided around the entire
perimeter of the property. Very few trees exist on the property today; upon completion there will
be over 3,000 trees on the project site, (two or three trees in the front yard of each lot). There
will also be a substantial number of trees in the landscape easement and on the golf course.
13
There will be 12 lakes which will function as on-site storm water retention as well as aesthetic
relief for the golf course and residential neighborhoods. The lake has been sized to accommodate
drainage that will ultimately come from the school. All homes constructed within Plum Creek
will be single family, detached homes. Over 40% of the land within the perimeter boundaries
is reserved for either open space, recreational, or landscaping.
Subject to continued feasibility studies, it is the intention of the Thompson Companies to retain
the existing barn, remodel and put into use as an amenity area as well as a maintenance facility.
All internal streets, including cul-de-sacs, are 30 feet, back-to-back roll curb and gutter. All
existing streets within the perimeter boundaries of the real estate will be brought to Carmel
standards, i.e. 30 feet, back-to-back roll curb and gutter.
The primary entrance treatment will consist of a brick wall, landscaping and a "Plum Creek"
identification sign; the secondary entrances will have similar signs only smaller in size. A series
of photographs was shown of the types of homes to be constructed in Plum Creek.
The petitioner's request for primary plat approval requires a single variance for passing blister due
to the fact that the land is not available. The plat as presented has been reviewed by the Staff,
and Technical Advisory Committee and is in compliance with the requirements of the Subdivision
Control Ordinance. The plat is also in compliance with the recommended land use which is
residential. The petitioner's plan is in keeping with the purpose clause of the cluster option which
provides for efficient utilization of land which is sensitive to surrounding land uses and provides
for the preservation of open space for aesthetic and recreational purposes.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of this project; the following appeared:
Michael Kahren, 12015 Forest Lane, vice president of Northwood Hills civic association,
appeared on behalf of the residents of Northwood Hills. Mr. Thompson presented development
plans to the residents of Northwood Hills early in October for question and answer. No official
vote was taken to either approve or disapprove of this particular development; however, no
negative comments have been received to date. Mr. Kahren wanted to commend Thompson
Companies for approaching the area residents first, for having the meeting and answering
questions and addressing concerns. The Northwood Hills residents also wanted to commend
Thompson for their sensitivity to the area residents, particularly those who border the southern
edge of the proposed development, and Thompson's sensitivity to the existing, natural amenities.
Greg Binder, 11819 Westwood Drive, Northwood Hills, commended the developer with the word
"outstanding." The roadways, schools, natural amenities, Mitchner Ditch, bike trails and
neighbors were all taken into consideration in the planning of this project and such interaction
and cooperation is commendable. Mr. Binder asked that the old barn north of 122nd Street be
considered as a senior citizeniyouth center in conjunction with the County Park which will be
in this area. Also, Mr. Binder asked about a more creative name rather than "Plum Creek."
Members of the public in opposition or who had questions of the petitioner were invited to
14
speak; none appeared.
Jim Nelson responded that the largest barn is intended to be utilized, however further study is
indicated to determine if it is feasible for occupied use. The barn which Greg Binder referred
to is believed to be of such condition that it cannot be saved. The petitioner liked the name of
Plum Creek.
Sue Dillon expressed favorable comments about the project and said that the golf course was
certified by the New York Audubon Society. Ms. Dillon did ask if golfers would be crossing
126th and if the 6 foot asphalt path would accommodate golf carts. Ms. Dillon also had
questions concerning the water table in this particular area and the condition of the soil. Jim
Nelson responded that the 6 foot path is a part of the 20 foot landscape easement around the
perimeter of the property. There will be a tunnel under 126th Street to allow passage from one
side of the course to the other. Jim Nelson stated that many studies were performed in regard to
this project and the consensus is that the plan, as shown, can be built. The soils in this project
appears in other developments in this area of Clay Township; there may be some areas within
Plum Creek where basements will not be built. The petitioner is aware of the situation.
Sue Dillon also commented that this is a large subdivision, over 600 homes, and there will be
enough children to occupy one school. The project will have an impact on a number of
infrastructure, one being schools. The school feels that 15 acres is an absolute minimum for a
facility and Ms. Dillon wondered if the area set aside for a school could be increased to 20 acres.
Jim Nelson responded that 15 acres was a much as could be reserved; however, the two acre
retention pond has been sized to accommodate the school's drainage and if and when the school
is built, it will not be required to provide its own, on-site storm water retention. In addition, the
ground to the east will probably be developed and it might be appropriate that they be asked to
contribute.
Ron Houck asked about possible building in the flood way/flood plain areas, and whether or not
there were any underlying variances, other than the passing blister. Jim Nelson responded that
no homes can be built in the flood way (stream bed) and that building is prohibited by the
Department of Natural Resources.
Dave Cunningham stated that any homes placed in the flood fringe area outside the floodway
prone for a 100 year flood must have elevation certificates and go through the Department of
Natural Resources.
Jim Nelson stated that he was not aware of any other variances required, but that two special uses
will be required; one for the golf course/clubhouse, and one for the amenity area.
Jeanne Reid was also complimentary of the project but was concerned about the variance request
for the passing blister and wondered if negotiations had taken place to acquire the right-of-way.
Jim Nelson responded that contact was made and negotiations are in progress. Mr. Nelson
reiterated the commitment of the petitioner to install the passing blister on 126th Street at his
15
expense if someone will condemn the land. This commitment will be in writing. If the right-of-
way is available on 131st Street, the petitioner will install a passing blister.
Sharon Clark stated for the record that Mitchner Ditch has been out of its bounds for the last two
days, and that this development will not negatively impact the drainage. The drainage will go
into the ponds rather than Northwood Hills Subdivision.
Jay Dorman asked if this was the large development referred to earlier that a consultant would
be called in to review the traffic study and if details could be made available of what is trying
to be accomplished. Dave Cunningham responded that the Department is investigating the
possibility, due to the breadth of this development and others in the vicinity of this project, of
having an outside consultant to confirm the findings. At this point, a final determination has not
yet been made, but it is anticipated that it will done before completion at Sub-Committee level.
This Docket was referred to Subdivision Committee which will meet at 7:00 PM on Tuesday,
December 7th in the Caucus Rooms.
Chris Painchaud left the meeting at this point and did not return.
8h. 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.
Glenn Huber, 12557-7 Timber Creek Drive, Carmel, served as chairman of the Sign Ordinance
Committee and appeared before the Commission to make the following public comments on the
previously submitted, proposed Sign Ordinance:
The Committee's study focused on the Noblesville Sign Ordinance which was based on Street
Graphics and the Law; the Committee felt that the book provided a simple, logical, and legally
proven foundation that bases signage on road size and traffic speed of the sign viewer. The
proposed Sign Ordinance is not a carbon copy of the Noblesville Ordinance but rather a new
work with input from sources such as the Builders Association of Greater Indianapolis, the
Metropolitan Indianapolis Board of Realtors, and the Noblesville Main Street Committee, which
was the author of the recently enacted Noblesville Sign Ordinance.
It is the hope of the Sign Committee that the current, proposed Ordinance will become a living
ordinance that encompass not only the current needs of the community but also those that will
rise as the City grows and progresses. The Committee would like to be called upon to address
any changes that are recommended in the proposed document so that the spirit of the ordinance
would remain uniform throughout. Although all committee members may not be in favor of all
of the provisions in the proposed draft, a true majority did pass the document.
After meeting with the Department of Community Development, minor changes have been made
16
to make the document more enforceable; however, no agreement was reached on Section 1.13
which deals with Off Premises Real Estate Signs, and Section 1.10, subsection 2.D, and Section
1.15, subsection 11 as they apply to banners. The Committee majority feels that these sections
are of extreme importance to the economic health of area businesses and recommend passage as
written; the Department of Community Development feels that these sections invoke the copy
control issue that has been raised by the Supreme Court. The Committee suggests that legal
counsel for the City review these issues to satisfy DOCD's concerns regarding enforcement while
allowing the spirit of the provisions to stand.
Mr. Huber felt that the business community of Carmel needs the proposed ordinance which
allows adequate signage to attract new and potential customers. The current ordinance is too
restrictive and causes current and potential businesses to look outside the Carmel/Clay area for
a retail location. Mr. Huber recommended that the Commission help pass the proposed Sign
Ordinance as expeditiously as possible.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the proposed ordinance; the following
appeared:
Karen King, president of the Carmel/Clay Chamber of Commerce, appeared before the
Commission and stated that adequate signage was imperative if a person expected to be in
business today or any length of time. Ms. King felt that the current Sign Ordinance was
somewhat restrictive and very hard to understand without benefit of legal counsel. Many
businesses in the area are concerned that potential customers are going elsewhere to shop and
potential businesses are locating elsewhere. Ms. King stated that the Sign Ordinance Committee
had worked very hard to draft a document that is understandable and enforceable, and the
Chamber's membership urged the Commission to act positively and expeditiously in this matter
in order to help the business community prosper and grow.
John Molator, 253 Haldale Drive, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing
Browning Management Inc. and spoke in favor of the proposed Sign Ordinance for the following
reasons: the existing restrictions have been an impediment for some of the businesses to consider
locating or re-locating to Carmel because of concerns that their customers may not be able to
easily find them; and there are at least two cases where customers of Browning Management
have decided to move away from Cannel because of inadequate signage and they were able to
find it outside Clay Township. Browning Management was in favor of any signage that would
help them be competitive with the neighboring communities.
Greg Binder, 11819 Westwood Drive, Carmel, spoke as a Sign Committee member and member
of the public in favor of the time, effort, and amount of compromise and fairness in the proposed
ordinance. The Committee tried to be very fair to all businesses in Carmel as well as residents
of the community; there are still some open areas, but the Committee as a whole felt very
strongly that they needed to be there, i.e. banners and residential for sale signs. Mr. Binder felt
that the signs were an important part of the business community and the economic base of what
makes Carmel, Carmel (the ability to sell houses, and the ability to have a temporary sign on a
17
building. Mr. Binder felt that the proposed ordinance was a good one and well-founded.
Norm Rothenberg, 8830 Staghorn Road, Indianapolis, spoke as a member of the Sign Committee
and as a member of the Carmel business community. Mr. Rothenberg stated that the proposed
Sign Ordinance was resident friendly and business sensitive. Mr. Rothenberg spoke to the issue
of banners in general and the "now hiring" banner in particular. The market is desperate for
employees not only starting jobs but technical jobs as well. The transportation committee is
trying to solve the problem by bringing transportation through the City of Carmel and into
Westfield, Noblesville and Fishers. Mr. Rothenberg stated that the only resource that pulls
people is a "now hiring" or "help wanted" banner, and that newspaper advertising and working
with churches, schools, and fraternal organizations has not worked. It is doubtful that the
Carmel residents could picture living in Carmel without the tax base that retail stores and offices
provide.
Dennis DeLohke appeared before the Commission representing the Wyndham Hotel. Mr.
DeLohke stated that signage had been a problem with the Wyndham Hotel for three years and
he was very much in favor of the proposed Sign Ordinance.
Members of the public who were opposed to the Sign Ordinance or had questions were invited
to speak; the following appeared:
Josephine McCormick, 11035 Lakeshore Drive West, Carmel, spoke as a minority member of the
Sign Committee. Copies of correspondence and the minority report were sent to members of the
Commission at an earlier date, and this was read for public benefit. Ms. McCormick stated that
she does not consider the proposed ordinance a finished product but rather an instrument that
needs further input and editing from the Plan Commission and the Department of Community
Development before presentation to the City Council. Ms. McCormick pointed out that Section
1.10 of the proposed ordinance is an area that deals with banners and will be extremely difficult
to enforce. A sign ordinance which has sections that are difficult to enforce is not fair to
businesses that try to abide by the ordinance, but still must compete against those businesses who
choose to ignore the law; it is not fair to the D.O.C.D. who must constantly battle to uphold an
ordinance; and it is not fair to the residents who must live with the results. Ms. McCormick
challenged the concept that increased quantity and size of signs automatically creates an increase
in customers.
Ms. McCormick stated that there are other areas of the proposed ordinance that need to be
discussed such as: Statement of Purpose; the effect of the proposed ordinance on the
Keystone/Meridian/State Road 421 overlays; the changeable copy signs; and the amortization
signs. Ms. McCormick asked that the ordinance be fine-tuned to an acceptable form before
approving it and presenting it to the City Council for their deliberation if the Plan Commission
chose to use the proposed ordinance.
Richard Erickson, 4715 Brookshire Parkway, Carmel, spoke as a member of the public and as
an area business owner. Mr. Erickson felt that the proposed Sign Ordinance was great if you
18
operated along a major thoroughfare, but it didn't really work out of the mainstream. Mr.
Erickson expressed offense that a real estate company was allowed to post a temporary ocation
sign, but that his business was not allowed. Both Mr. Erickson's and the real estate company are
in business to make money, but small companies are discriminated against in signage. Mr.
Erickson also took exception that banners were allowed on the fence at 116th and Keystone to
advertise for the High School or the Symphony, all for the purpose of making money, and his
business is not allowed the same. Mr. Erickson wished to make the point that banners should
either be allowed for direction to stores, or now allowed at all, and that discrimination regarding
content of signs was ridiculous.
Ron Houck closed the public hearing on the Sign Ordinance and asked for comments from the
Staff.
Gordon Byers reported that Staffs recommendation would be to continue the public hearing and
leave it open for future discussion at the next scheduled Plan Commission Meeting.
Paul Spranger moved to re-open the public hearing on the Sign Ordinance, seconded by Jay
Dorman, unanimously approved.
Rick Brandau of Staff distributed a second draft of comments, concerns, and issues that the
Department has had with the proposed ordinance. Hopefully, by the end of the discussions, most
of the concerns will have been addressed, but by no means can all of the potential concerns be
addressed. The primary issue with the Department is one of enforcement. The Department
would like to point out problem areas that would be difficult for the administration of the
ordinance. The Staff tried to specifically avoid subjectives, and nowhere in the draft of
comments are there statements that certain size signs, height, etc. are appropriate. The Department
is still in the process of understanding the ordinance and would like this ordinance to be explored
at the Committee level.
Gordon Byers commented that the issues to be reviewed on the Sign Ordinance are: changeable
copy; amortization; and off-site signage in right-of-way. The off-site signage involves a complex
legal analysis of what is right-of-way and whether or not consent of underlying property owners
is required. Mr. Byers thought it would be good to obtain an analysis from Noblesville of their
Sign Ordinance as to problem areas.
Mr. Hank Blackwell asked that the Plan Commission give approval to the work effort of the
Committee which had spent a lot of time and given great consideration to this matter which
prepared a base for a good Sign Ordinance. Mr. Blackwell wished to convey his congratulations
and thanks to the Committee.
Ron Houck invited further comments and input at the committee level, specifically the Special
Study Committee which will meet at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms, December 7th.
9h. Docket No. 84-93 PP, a Primary Plat application for Ashmore Trace Subdivision -- TABLED
19
BY PETITIONER.
10h. Commission to consider Docket No. 87-93 PP, a Primary Plat application for Woodgate
West Subdivision. The petitioner seeks primary plat approval to plat 53 lots on 28.26 acres of
land located one-quarter mile south of 146th Street on the east side of Gray Road. The site is
zoned R-1. Filed by Langston Development Corp.
Stan Neal of Weihe Engineers appeared before the Commission on behalf of the petitioner; also
present was Bob Langston. The subject site is located adjacent to the existing Woodgate
Subdivision and was approved as a primary plat in December, 1989, under the name of Woodgate
Section 5. There was concern regarding the depth of the lots in connection with an overhead
power line. A revision of the original primary plat is being requested. The original wet lake is
now a dry one, more dry retention has been added, the streets were shifted and in the process,
four lots were gained. There are now a total of 53 lots on 28.2 acres zoned R-1. The area is
serviced by city utilities and no variances are being requested. Sidewalks are to be installed on
all interior streets, and along Carey Road adjacent to Woodgate West, and a street is to be
stubbed to the north.
Gordon Byers explained that he had talked with counsel for Bob Langston and counsel for the
adjoining property owners. An agreement has been reached that does not involve the platting of
this particular project. Both attorneys were comfortable with the issues on the primary plat which
were private covenants, lot size, set backs, entrances, etc. Mr. Byers advised the Commission
to proceed with the public hearing and referral to Committee; this Docket should be treated as
if there had never been a dispute. The agreement has been signed by all parties involved and
approved by their counsel.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor; none appeared.
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition or ask questions of the petitioner; the
following appeared:
Bob Peterson, 3348 Foster Ridge Lane, Carmel, asked about the intentions of the builder in
regard to prices of the property; it was Mr. Peterson's understanding that homes were to be built
in this area ranging from $100,000 to $150,000. and if this is true, how is the area to be
separated from the surrounding neighborhoods, what will be the amenities, type of egress, and
what are the plans for the parcel where two roads terminate.
Patrick Reddy, 3578 Foster Ridge, Carmel, voiced concern in regard to drastic price reduction
and size in the proposed homes to be built in Woodgate West, which he felt would decrease the
value of his home. Mr. Reddy's house backs up to the power line. Mr. Reddy stated that
whatever agreement had been reached between the developer and Woodgate homeowners did not
satisfy Foster Ridge. Also, Mr. Reddy thought the lakes were to be wet rather than dry.
The public hearing was then closed on this Docket.
20
Stan Neal responded that a secondary plat had been filed and there were no changes in the
primary plat that had been approved in regard to the area that "T's" into Terry Road. Mr.
Langston reported that homes in the proposed development will range from $190,000. to
$220,000. and will be compatible with Foster Ridge. The detention area was never planned as
a wet lake and those homesites that directly abut the power lines have been increased in depth
to move the homes away from the power transmission lines.
The detention area is basically a broad swale with concrete "V" Ditches through it to take the low
flows, it drains into the dry detention area along the north side of Foster Ridge, continues across
Carey Ridge Road and on west.
Gordon Byers commented that the Plan Commission does not make distinctions based on price
ranges of homes; all people who have corresponded with members of the Board now feel
comfortable that the performance standards are such that price is not a factor; this was reached
by written agreement through their counsel so that the issue of price disparity has been resolved,
and the people who live immediately east of this development and in Woodgate Subdivision feel
comfortable with the proposed price ranges. Agreement has also been reached concerning the type
of review and types of building materials so that the development will be comparable.
Jeanne Reid asked if all concerns of the Department of Soil & Water Conservation expressed by
John South had been addressed. Dave Cunningham responded that as of the resolution of the
Court case this evening, the secondary plat that involves the six lots at the entrance in the
primary were tabled up to this public hearing and review had been stagnated. At this point, the
petitioner will return to full Technical Advisory Committee, and those concerns will be addressed
prior to Subdivision Committee meeting.
Ron Houck referred Docket No. 87-93 PP, to Subdivision Committee which will meet in the
Caucus Room at 7:00 PM on December 7th. Members of the public may attend.
I. OLD BUSINESS
li. Commission to consider Docket NO. 70-93 Z, a Rezone application for 1610 East 116th
Street, Carmel, Indiana. -- WITHDRAWN BY PETITIONER
Sue Dillon voiced concern regarding a newspaper article as a result of the Subdivision Committee
meeting on this particular docket. Gordon Byers reminded the Commission that the
Comprehensive Plan is merely a guide or an analysis of trend or a growing area. A subdivision
may appear in the middle of a commercial area or a commercial area in the middle of a
residential area, and it does not invalidate either the Comprehensive Plan or the Zone Map. The
Comprehensive Plan is a living document that flexes and moves according to the best judgment
that the Plan Commission and legislative body impose on each decision made.
2i. Commission to consider Docket No. 72-93 PP, a Primary Plat application for Huntersfield
subdivision. The petitioner seeks primary plat approval to plat 58 lots on 41.496 acres of land
21
located on the southeast corner of 106th and Shelbourne Road, Clay Township. The site is zoned
S-1. Filed by Balamor Dev., Co., Inc.
NOTE: Salim Najjar excused himself from discussion and abstained from voting on Docket No.
72-93 PP.
James J. Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, appeared before the Commission on behalf of the
petitioner, Balamor Dev., Co., Inc. Mr. Nelson reported that the Subdivision Committee
approved the Primary Plat following presentation and discussion. Hank Blackwell, chairman of
the Subdivision Committee, confirmed that the Primary Plat was approved by unanimous vote.
The Plan Commission's Finding of Fact vote was unanimous for approval of Docket No. 72-93
PP.
J. NEW BUSINESS
lj. Commission to consider Docket No. 85-93 ADLS (Signage), an Architectural Design,
Lighting and Signage application for Meridian at 465 and Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.
The petitioner seeks approval to establish signage (five signs) at the Meridian at 465
development, Clay township. Petitioner will be appearing before the Carmel/Clay Board of
Zoning Appeals for variances. The site is zoned B-1, B-3, and B-6. Filed by James J. Nelson.
James J. Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing
Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc. and Meridian at 465, an affiliate of Browning Investments.
Fred Kellums, design consultant, was also in attendance.
Mr. Nelson presented the complete sign package for Thomson Consumer Electronics which
consisted of building identification, wall and monument signs, as well as directional and
information signs, and for Meridian at 465, park identification signs. Mr. Nelson was
complimentary of Fred Kellums in regard to the sign package which was complete and extremely
informative.
Mr. Nelson displayed an aerial photograph of the northwest quadrant of U.S. 431 and I465,
specifically that part of the quadrant that is known as Meridian at 465, showing the two buildings
of Thomson Consumer Electronics; the Administration building located at the corner of Meridian
and 103rd Street, and south, within the park, the Technical Center. Also shown was a site
location map for each sign which is to be installed in connection with the Administration building
and the Technical Center. The four, individually mounted wall signs were also shown; the
Administration building and the Technical center will each be identified by two wall signs
consisting of individually mounted, internally illuminated letters, mounted on the facia of the
building in letters of yellow. The letters spell "Thomson" and includes the corporate logo. This
sign will be located on the north and east facia of the Administration building and on the north
and south facia of the Technical Center. The wall mounted, identification signs will be located
above each entrance door and consist of dye-cut, metal letter forms again stating Thomson and
22
the corporate logo. There will be a total of five signs, two at the east and west entrance to the
Administration Building, and three at the north/south entrance doors to the Technical Center.
The ground mounted directional signs total 12 for the two buildings. The word Thomson appears
on these signs, however, the primary purpose of these signs is directional and indicates visitor
and employee parking, etc. There are also ground mounted informational signs four in total, that
are informational in nature. The Thomson facility is 27 acres in size and employs a large number
of people; there are also a large number of people visiting the building on a daily basis. It is
Thomson's believe that it is in the best interest of the public that these people be given the
opportunity to find their best way to and from the area.
There are four park identification signs for Meridian at 465, plus one directory sign, and will be
constructed of concrete and metal. The signs are all monument signs and under the ordinance
require landscape plans. This has been provided in detail.
Dave Cunningham of Staff commented that this Docket will be appearing before the Board of
Zoning Appeal this month for the variances.
Salim Najjar asked about the wording on the ground sign; Mr. Nelson responded that it would
read: "Thomson," "America's Headquarters."
Dick Klar moved to suspend the rules and vote on this Docket this evening, seconded by Hank
Blackwell, unanimously approved.
Dick Klar moved to approve Docket No. 85-93 ADLS, seconded by Paul Spranger, unanimously
approved.
Hank Blackwell reminded the Subdivision Committee members that they would be meeting at
6:30 PM on December 7th to discuss the Subdivision Regulations.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 PM.
Ronald F. Houck, President Ramona Hancock, Secretary
23