Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 11-19-91 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 19, 1991 1 The regular meeting of the Carmel Planning Commission was brought to order November 19, 1991 at 7 : 32 P.M. by Vice President, Sue McMullen at the City Council Chambers . The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance . The board members present were : Judi Jacobs , Alan Potasnik, Max Moore, Richard Klar, Sue McMullen, Tom Whitehead, Henry Blackwell, Annabelle Ogle, Tom Welch, Henrietta Lamb, Ron Houck, Jim O'Neal and Norma Meighen. Caroline Bainbridge and Jeff Davis were not present . The staff members present were : David Cunningham, Rick Brandau, Terry Jones, Mike Hollibaugh, William Wendling, Jr. and Dorthy Neisler. Mr. Potasnik moved that the approval of the minutes of October 15 , 1991 as revised be delayed until the December meeting. Mr. Klar seconded. Unanimously approved. COMMUNICATIONS, BILLS EXPENDITURES & LEGAL COUNCIL REPORT. I . NEW BUSINESS 2i . Commission to consider participation with Hamilton County and surrounding communities in County wide Geographic Information System(GIS) . Presented by Hamilton County Plan Commission - Chuck Kiphart . Mr. Chuck Kiphart, Hamilton County Plan Commission made the presentation, a copy of which is on file at the Carmel Department of Community Development . Kent Ward, County Surveyor, Tess Christy, Computer person, Charlene Avery, Indianapolis Water Company and Roger Johnson with Fishers and several persons with Carmel Department of Community Development were present and has helped considerably with this project . Mrs . McMullen asked what the total amount they were asking for. Mr. Kiphart stated that the total for Phase 1 they need a minimum of $106, 000 and from Carmel $16, 000 . If other communities would decide to come in that amount would decrease, $16 , 000 is the maximum. Mr. Houck asked if there is more than one Phase . Mr. Kiphart stated that right now you would be committing to would be flying the aerial photography, establishing the GPS points throughout the county and then doing the area triangulation of taking those points and through mathematical calculations you are able to get many more points with accuracy 411111111 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 19 , 1991 2 throughout the county, with actually having to go out and physically establishing those points . That information would be on tape or on film along with the triangulation information and that would be shared with those communities that initially participated in the project . The next phase would probably be the actual stereo digitizing of land based information, such as contour lines, building locations , streets, edge of pavements on streets, road right-of-ways, easements, they could go down to as detailed as fences and manhole covers . As far as the county is concerned this will be a very long range project . Mr. Houck asked if at the end of Phase 1 what do you have as an useable product? Is this information usable into anything currently that we have? Mr. Kiphart stated that we would have the up-to-date aerial photography based on the day it is shot in March. You would have these data base points throughout the county that could be used immediately by any organization . Fishers might be one of the first ones, they are looking into buying a GIS System for their community. Let ' s say they have the funding available to do it, they could take this information and start digitizing the features on the ground immediately, as Mr. Kiphart ' s office could do for their part of Hamilton County. You would get that information and then you could use it within our own department . Mr. Houck asked if they have preliminary estimates for the other stages and their costs? Mr. Kiphart stated that they had a study done by Midstate Engineering two summers ago to look at the entire project and to be able to digitize, they didn' t go county wide down to the fences, they went down to the utility poles . That was the smallest thing, but the aerial photography that they are asking for, Fishers is interested in fences, because they issue permits for fences . So that was included. It was 3 1/2 - 4 million dollars . Images in Marion County he believes is around 7 million dollars . One of the good things about us is that we can learn from other counties . Mr. Houck asked is all parties would share in the same ratio that they did in the $106, 000 for the total cost? So the percentage that we have of the first phase would be the same percent of the entire project . Mr. Kiphart stated that is their proposal to this board. That is their recommendation as staff people . They were hoping as their first phase to digitize the edge of the road pavements, that was one of the priorities for the water company, but when we looked at the price of that and it would be another $100, 000 to the cost, they felt that was too much to begin with. They were just wanting to take it step by step. Mr. O'Neal asked what the step would be if the board was in favor CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 19, 1991 3 of this? Mr. Brandau, Deputy Director of the Department of Community Development stated that they have been working on this for quite a few months trying to come up with an idea of sharing the cost of collecting data . Realize that this is a product or data that can be used today and can be useful and that doesn' t mean we have to carry on. However, getting in on the ground level and participating up front helps out everybody and municipalities that are involved with the cost sharing. The city would have the option of participating further or not . That is one advantage of this . However, if we choose to participate there are some major cost that will be requested and implemented as the project increases and goes into more detail . Such as Chuck talked about, the digitizing different information, that is a major cost . The digitizing of edge of streets and pavements , Carmel has a lot more streets than other areas of the county, therefore, our portion of the cost would be more . What is requested tonight will be beneficial and useful, but this is just a tip of the iceberg if we want to pursue it, the long term and detailed information . The main reason that they are here tonight is to capture some of the funds that are available in the Plan Commission budget yet this year. Ms . Judi Jacobs asked if other departments would be using this or just the Department of Community Development . Mr. Brandau stated that the Engineering Department and Utilities Department would have the most use for this type of system, especially with the type of accuracy that is being proposed. The type of accuracy they are talking about is two foot accuracy, which means if you find something in the computer it will be within two feet when you get out in the field to find it . The guidelines are for engineering purposes . Any better accuracy then what they have available right now would be very beneficial . Mr. Potasnik asked if there were any other maps available in the county to the department in regards to this . Mr. Brandau stated that the big difference you will find with this is the ground full global positioning points . To his knowledge there hasn ' t been any aerial photography for the county that has, except for two pilot areas that the county has made some attempts , they are called pilot projects , to see the feasibility of this overall county wide project is feasible . The key difference is with this they have GPS or Global Positioning points which basically give you a reference point of where this aerial photography is in relationship to known points . To his knowledge except for those two pilot areas, he doesn ' t know of any that have global positioning in it . Mr. Kiphart stated that the most recent aerial photography that there is on a county wide basis would be in 1984 and they don' t have much accuracy at all . The Hamilton County Plan Commission CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 19 , 1991 4 has had theirs flown 3-4 years ago but not able to make them for accuracy at that time . Once that has been established and the triangulation is done it will never have to be done again. All the computer mapping and computer bases will be built upon that and this part won' t need to be done again . So you can' t loose on it . All the bases information, the most expensive part of it, will be good forever. That is why we feel this is such a good thing for all of us . Mr. Tom Whitehead stated that it was stated that this work could be done piecemeal or it could be done in one global effort and this is costing around $16, 000 , and having to go back and piecemeal it in the next year or so, what type of savings will this have in the long run? Mr. Brandau stated that if we attempted to do any type of this project for simply Clay Township or simply the City of Carmel he believes the cost would be well in excess of what is being requested. As far as us participating now then dropping out of the participation and it is not a now or never type of issue, they are not going to snub us off and say no you can' t ever join again. We are getting in on the ground level, there is with images different information that can be shared with private agencies . Right now they are looking at changing some state law to even allow the municipalities to charge for some of that base information, such as engineering firms and that type of thing. Current laws on the book he believes that may be a gray area, the municipalities may have to give it up just for the cost of reproducing it . Some of the cost can recouped. Mr. Houck move to act on the appropriation to appropriate up to $16, 000 for the GIS mapping Stage 1 . Mrs . Meighen seconded. Mr. Moore asked is this aerial photograph the only thing we get, if so then they would be back for more money. Mr. Brandau stated that the first phase is not only the aerial photograph it is also with the global positioning and has the ground control points that would be digitized into some type of magnetic format . Mr. Houck asked if the information obtained from Phase 1 be integrated into the system that is currently in the department . Mr. Jerry Spickelmeyer, Computer Technician of Department of Community Development, stated that the current system that they have compliments the proposal very well . The data that will become available after the initial stage 1 can be in effect, scanned into our computers and used as a background. None of this information is available now, however, much of the data that we do have in the computer, for instance, digitized plats of subdivisions, that is one thing that we can very accurately do in house now. It can very well be overlaid onto the new data and to CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 19 , 1991 5 him looking down the road to next year when this type of data can become available the most obvious initial project that would be facilitated would be updating the zoning map, which should accompany the updating of the zoning ordinance . We could do that in house, we could literally update the zoning map without reference to any outside engineering or professional services . Mr. Brandau stated that the information would be available to us on a county wide basis, but the portion of money being allocated is for the township . Unanimously approved. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS lg. Commission to consider Docket No. 52-91 OA, a Zoning Ordinance amendment to Z-160 , entitled the Zoning and Subdivision Control Ordinance of the City of Carmel, Indiana, 1980 , as amended. The amendment would establish regulations for installation of sidewalks in all developments . Filed by William Wendling, Jr. for the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission . The public hearing was opened at 8 : 05 P.M. Mr. Wm. Wendling, Jr. , 650 E . Carmel Dr. , Carmel, IN, made the presentation, a copy of which is on filed at the Department of Community Development . Mrs . McMullen read a letter from Mr. Rick Rembusch, Executive Vice President of Browning Investments , Inc . stating his comments regarding the installation of sidewalks (which is a part of the official minutes and attached to the Master Copy) . There were no comments from the public at this time . The public hearing was closed at 8 : 16 P.M. This will go to the Land Use Committee on December 3 , 1991 at 7 : 30 P.M. in the Caucus Room. 2g. Commission to consider Docket No . 55-91 OA, a Zoning Ordinance amendment to Z-160, entitled the Zoning and Subdivision Control Ordinance of the City of Carmel, Indiana, 1980 , as amended. The amendment proposes to change Section 28 . 7 . 5 of the Ordinance to exempt all City of Carmel and Clay Township governmental facilities from zoning requirements and procedures . Filed by William Wendling, Jr. for the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission. 411111111 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 19, 1991 6 The public hearing was opened at 8 : 17 P.M. Mr. Wm. Wendling, Jr. , 650 E . Carmel Drive, Carmel, IN, made the presentation, a copy of which is on file at the Carmel Department of Community Development . Mr. Bob Campbell, partner of Campbell Kyle Proffitt, representing Clay Township Trustee and the Township Board as well as the Township Regional Waste District. This proposal was initiated by the Township Trustee and the Township Board. As suggested by council, existing 28 . 7 . 5 of the Zoning Ordinance exempts the facilities and buildings built by the city from its own zoning requirements and procedures . If this represents sound public policy and he believes that it does then it is only fair and equitable that the township also be exempted under precisely the same section of the zoning ordinance . The township and the city have been joined for zoning purposes since May 2, 1961 . 1991 Extension Agreement calls for $248 , 000 budgetary obligation on the part of the township. That is significant and that represents 38% of the preliminary budget for all of the zoning and land use requirements for our communities . To the best of his knowledge during the past 30 year history of the joinder, neither the city nor the township has ever formerly requested zoning approvals, variances or any other regulatory governmental facilities on a local basis . The result of this nonregulation has been positive, public officials have acted responsibility and the public has generally been well served by the governmental facilities provided. At the township level, fire stations have been built, at one of those fire stations a Sheriff ' s substation exist, utility improvements have been constructed, facilities have been maintained, all without damage to the Carmel/Clay Comprehensive Plan or to the rights of individual property owners . In the future, the township sees additional fire stations, perhaps a branch library, and perhaps a government complex and meeting hall . Once again these facilities will be planned, constructed and maintained for and used by or for the residents, taxpayers and voters of our communities . As suggested exempting the city from the requirements, procedures of its own ordinance is good public policy. Exempting the township is also good public policy. There are many many reasons for this . Mr. Campbell mentioned three which are : 1) unlike private use and development government use and development facilities provides direct accountability to the public; 2 ) the taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for the regulators and the regulated, reasonable people can differ and by imposing zoning procedures on the township or the city can create havoc when the elected officials disagree with their own appointees; 3 ) elected officials and their appointees should always avoid even the appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest . Sometimes granting a simple variance is proper and just, not withstanding a CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 19, 1991 7 remonstrators plea. How can Plan Commission, BZA, City Council or indeed the township board discharge their own sense of responsibility if it conflicts directly with another official sense of responsibility. As suggested in staff recommendations (which is a part of the official minutes and attached to the Master Copy) there are legal implications which might prevent enforcement of the zoning standards . In summary, let ' s give our elected officials the ability to continue representing their constituencies without conflicts with their own appointees . A favorable recommendation from the Plan Commission to the Council for the zoning change would be appreciated. Mr. James Quinn, 3129 Jason Street, Carmel, recommend that building corporations not be included in this exemption . People who run and manage building corporations are not elected officials and they do not always represent the wishes and the desires of the people of the township or the City of Carmel . This is a potential loophole in this ordinance and would like to see this cleared up and this loophole closed before we go on and pass this . Mr. O'Neal asked Mr. Wendling, Jr. if the schools and the holding corporations were changed a few years ago. Mr. Wm. Wendling, Jr. stated that is correct . A few years ago school corporations and their building facilities were exempt from local land use controls , such as the BZA and the Plan Commission. As a matter of fact, that was changed not through the statues of the state that governed the ability of a community to govern the use of its land but they were actually inserted in a statue that was within the statues that controlled the education endeavors in this state . It was somewhat obscure frankly and that is why when the school expansion did come before the BZA there was a specific state statue that allowed that and required that . Until that time it was not . The public hearing was closed at 8 : 27 P.M. Mr. Blackwell stated his concern, is there no redress at all, is there no voice at all on behalf of the public if we pass this . Mr. Campbell stated that no, he doesn ' t believe a neighbor living next to this building would have had an opportunity to, under the zoning ordinance, to come before the Plan Commission or the Board of Zoning Appeals and the City Council to address a grievance . One point is that neither the city nor the township has the authority to exempt itself from the state building codes and the safety standards that are existing. He doesn ' t believe that the redress would be through the City Government, likewise if the amendment that he is advocating is adopted by the council, the same would hold true for the residents that live next to the fire station that is built out in the township. 411111111 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 19 , 1991 8 Mr. Houck stated that he has strong reservation about the nature of this amendment . He doesn' t believe that the city and township should be treated differently, he thinks that under the Joinder Agreement it is reasonable to expect to be treated the same . His reservation is in municipalities exempting themselves from their own zoning ordinances . If you believe that the process, the Plan Commission serves a purpose, he thinks it serves that purpose for all facilities, for projects, it is a chance for the public to voice their concerns . As was mentioned, the accountability is not an issue, the accountability of an elected official, elections occur so infrequently that to even offer that as some satisfaction to the homeowner is empty. My reluctance again, is if the city itself should have the same right to exempt themselves from those ordinances . Mr. Potasnik asked Mr. Campbell if what he speaks is related to the township and not with the schools? Mr. Campbell stated that is correct . This amendment only deals with the units of government of the city and the township, not the school . Mr. Potasnik request that the staff or attorney give a brief summary of why the city is exempted from our local zoning ordinances . There was a time when the city was not exempted from this . Perhaps there was a building or something that was to be constructed and something was passed along similar lines to exclude the city from the local zoning ordinances . The good public policy would be to hold a hearing to let the public know what it intends to do. Mr. Wendling, Jr. , stated that one of their missions were to give a feel on how other communities handled this certain situation . They found that there was a diverse way in which it was handled. With primarily even there were some restrictions, they were limited and scoped. Some communities do not limit them at all, they were exempted from the ordinances and others had some limitations , which he found where there was an absolute control . He thought the rational then, when he was not here, would be basically the same of what his is today. Mr. Wendling, Jr. stated that this was conscious effort on the part of the people that developed the current zoning ordinance that it would be exempted from it . There was further discussion . Mr. O'Neal moved to suspend the rules and act on this at this time . Mr. Klar seconded. The vote was 12 for and 1 against . Mr. O'Neal moved to approve Docket No. 55-91 OA as presented. Mrs . Judi Jacobs seconded. CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 19, 1991 9 The vote was 10 approved and 3 against . Ms . McMullen, Mr.Whitehead, and Ron Houck voted against . This will go to City Council for a final vote . 3g. Commission to consider Docket No. 56-91 PP, a Primary Plat (replat) application for Avian Glen, located on the east side of Hazeldell Road, approx. one half mile south of 146th Street . The plat includes 196 lots on 113 . 78 acres of land, that is zoned S-1(residence) . The petitioner is also requesting the following Subdivision Regulation variance : 6 . 5 . 3 - Platting of double frontage lots . Filed by Stuart Huckleberry for Avian Glen Associates . The public hearing was opened at 8 : 49 P.M. Mr. Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, made the presentation, a copy of which is on file at the Carmel Department of Community Development . Mr. Chris White was present . An aerial view, a site plan, and a development plan was displayed. Mr. Steve Brown, 1220 Hemlock Street, Locke Reynolds Boyd & Weisell, representing the homeowners that reside in Valley Brook Subdivision. They are not in opposition of the development of this property as a platted subdivision . They do have strong disfavor with creation with what they feel will be very dangerous access points from the west to Avian Glenn . The amount of traffic that will go through this subdivision and the safety of the children. Mr. Peter Hogan, 5284 Woodfield Dr. South, stated that he would like to be a part of the process and requested a cul-de-sac between lots 1 and 3 . Mr. Steve Brown stated that they were not here on a property value issue. Mr. Bob Fanning, 4881 Deeridge Dr. South, spoke on behalf of the children in the neighborhood. The concern is the safety of the children. Mr. Jerry Myers , stated his concerns regarding what are we going to do about the roads and the sewers? Who is going to do the building and developing? The public hearing was closed at 9 : 23 P.M. 411111111 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 19, 1991 10 Mr. Nelson spoke in response to the remonstrators comments . Mr. Nelson reviewed the comments from the remonstrators . Earlier this year, the developer of Valley Brook, requested of this Plan Commission the right to amend its plat, to provide for that existing stub in Valley Brook no longer being a stub street, but being a cul-de-sac . This Plan Commission acted unfavorably against that request . Through Gordon Byers, his attorney, the developer then appealed that decision to the courts and an agreement was reached between council for the Plan Commission, Wm. Wendling, Jr. and council for the developer, Gordon Byers . Basically, what it provides is that the case will be dismissed, that a temporary cul-de-sac will be installed. But at such time that the land to the east of Valley Brook is developed the street will be extended. This is our request to amend the plat is just another opportunity for these people to rehash a matter that has been decided, not only by this Plan Commission, but also through litigation. As far as Mr. Nelson is concerned the issue should be closed. It is the policy of this Plan Commission, it is a requirement of the Subdivision Control Ordinance that wherever possible interconnecting subdivisions should be encouraged. Secondly, when the primary plat for Avian was approved in January it also provided for a stub at this very same location. Our stub in Valley Brook is not new, it has always been there, it has been there since January. Another drawing in the booklet shows that under the new thoroughfare plan that a proposed roadway running west to east through this area should be encouraged. Under most circumstances interconnecting subdivisions do provide a useful purpose and specifically for service vehicles . They were required to stub to the west to this existing street stub. Our preference is that it would stay as presented. They made a great effort to mitigate what some of them feared being a raceway through two developments . At the point of Wood Valley stub, once you enter Avian Glen from the west, they have provided for a T intersection . A vehicle approaching that intersection has to stop. Further east they have provided for a curvilinear street pattern, which should serve to mitigate this road way for improper purposes . Mr. Chris White explained the route of the sewers in Avian Glen. The northeast corner of the site will drain to an existing sanitary sewer at the north property line, the southwest two- thirds of the site will drain to the southwest corner to a proposed sanitary sewer that will be extended up Mitchner Ditch from 131st Street . A portion of that sewer is proposed to come through a portion of Mr. Myers property of which easements will need to be negotiated and obtained from him. Mr. Nelson stated that with respect to builders, Davis Development is a land developer as it relates to the Avian Glen . Their business goal and objective is to develop lots for resale to custom home builders . We do have a list of the builders that will be building in their. He assumes they will be builders that CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 19, 1991 11 build in Carmel today and will build in the $200, 000 to $250, 000 price range . This item will proceed to TAC committee Nov. 21, 1991 at 9 : 30 A.M. and then to the Subdivision Committee on December 3 , 1991, at 7 : 30 P.M. in the Caucus Room. 4g. Commission to consider Docket No. 57-91 OA, a Zoning Ordinance amendment to Z-160 , entitled the Zoning and Subdivision Control Ordinance of the City of Carmel, Indiana, 1980, as amended. The amendment proposes to add a new subsection to 25 . 13 of the Ordinance to not allow mobile or cellular telephone towers as a permitted use, special use, or accessory use in all residentially zoned districts . Filed by William Wendling, Jr. for the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission. The public hearing was opened at 9 : 34 P .M. Mr. Wm. Wendling, Jr. , 650 E . Carmel Drive, Carmel, made the presentation, a copy of which is on file at the Carmel Department of Community Development . Mr. James Quinn, 3129 Jason Street, (a petition was signed by 275 homeowners in objection to the communications tower recently constructed by Cellular One) (which is a part of the official minutes and attached to the Master Copy) requesting the City Council to enact an immediate ordinance to prohibit the construction of any towers in the City of Carmel and Clay Township until an environmental impact study is completed and presented for public input . He requested that the board act on this immediately so the council can act on it immediately. Ms . Janie Norien, 12229 Spruce Drive, requested that this be acted on immediately so that a second tower cannot be built . Mr. Dave Coots , 255 E . Carmel Dr. , Carmel, stated that he has submitted a petition to the board to look at this evening. It is a question of reasonableness , not a for or against issue . GTE sought to follow procedures before the BZA by noticing two public hearings . One site the Board of Zoning Appeals voted down the special use that GTE sought at 96th and south side of 465 and then came back to the BZA with a new site on the north side of 465 at the Old Monon Track in an S-2 zone piece of property. At that point it was determined that by reason of its Certificate of Authority GTE was not required to obtain public body approval but rather had the authority granted by the State through the Indiana Regulatory Commission to construct a tower absent local regulation . Yes , the public community should have the opportunity to be heard. The ordinance the board has before them CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 19, 1991 12 that totally prohibits in residential zoned pieces of property Cellular Towers or Communication Towers in their judgement is too encompassing when you consider the foundation of the zone classifications that exist in all of Clay Township. If it isn ' t zoned commercial it is zoned residential . He doesn ' t feel that the people have sufficient information for the Plan Commission to present to the City Council that no grid structure of Cellular Towers can be constructed in Clay Township anywhere that has an R or an S classification. GTE would like the opportunity to present that type of information to you . Mr. Coots requested to keep public hearing open until December meeting and permit them to be on the agenda and present additional information . Mr. Houck asked if we close the public hearing, would be construed as denying anyone due process . Mr. Wendling, Jr. stated no there has been proper public notice . The public hearing was closed at 9 : 52 P .M. Mr. Potasnik stated that he feels there has been ample opportunity before we have had at this meeting tonight in order to get any information in that would have warranted an enlargement of time to influence the decision here at this time . They gave the public ample time to come in with any feelings that they have regarding this petition. Mr. Potasnik moved that this Plan Commission suspend the rules and act on this tonight . Mr. Klar seconded. The vote was 12 for and 1 against . Mr. Potasnik moved for the approval that Section 25 . 0 additional use regulations of ordinance Z-160 be amended by adding a new subsection 25 . 13 reading as follows : Section 25 . 13 towers in all residentially zoned districts , that a mobile or cellular telephone tower is not allowed as a permitted use, a special use or accessory use . Mr. Houck seconded. Unanimously approved. This item will proceed to the City council . 5g. Commission to consider Docket No. 58-91 Z, a rezone application for Logan Limited. Site consists of . 6 acre of land located approx. 800 ' north of 103rd Street, on the east side of Pennsylvania. Site is currently zoned R-1(residence) . Rezone request to zone this property to R-3 (residence) for the construction of a three two-family dwellings . Filed by Craig and Marsha Longardner for Logan Limited. CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 19, 1991 13 The public hearing was opened at 9 : 57 P.M. Mr. Roger Kessler, President of Logan Limited, made the presentation, a copy of which is on file at the Carmel Department of Community Development . A packet was distributed to all board members . Ms . Kelly Jones , 10412 North Delaware, spoke not in opposition to this project but would have been nice if they would have received more information or a floor plan before coming in this evening. Mr. Craig Longardner, 10404 N. Delaware, in favor of this rezone . (copy of his comments which is a part of the official minutes and attached to the master copy) . He therefore requested the board to consider the rezone of the property described as the south 15 feet of lot 11, lots 12 and 13 , and the north 25 feet of vacated 104th St . Mr. John Fillenwarth, spoke in favor of this project . Ms . Betty Hawkins , 10240 N. Delaware, requested that this project be tabled until Mr. Kessler can come back and give us additional information and a plan and a firm commitment to what is going in . Ms . Bridgett Miles, 10407 N. Delaware, spoke in opposition to this project. it will change the makeup and the character of the neighborhood. She feels it will change it from family homes to multi-family housing. The housing will be subletted for rental property changing the profile of the residence . The public hearing was closed at 10 : 15 P.M. Mr. Houck stated that he feels this does represent probably the best use for this area . He questions the general design and assumes this would appeal to young married and dual career people . They only have allotted for a one car garage . It would be more suitable to have a two car garage . Mr. Kessler stated that they were considering some of those things and currently are prepared to make several of the firm commitments that Ms . Hawkins is requesting as far as the density, they will commit to two units as far as quality, they will commit to all brick and wood exterior of similar quality in pictures, at least a thousand square feet per side which complies with all the covenants of the neighborhood. They are prepared to comply with all the zoning ordinances . They are considering two car garages on each side . Mr. Potasnik stated that this is not an architectural design board, however, it is my understanding that you are not willing CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 19 , 1991 14 to put these commitments in prior to your coming in for a rezone then. Are they in writing at this point in time? Mr. Kessler stated that they can put all these commitments in writing and present at the committee meeting. This project will proceed to the Technical Advisory Committee on Thursday and then to Land Use Committee on December 3 , 1991 at 7 : 30 P.M. in the Caucus Rooms . H. OLD BUSINESS 1h. Commission to consider Docket No. 26-91 PP, a Primary Plat application for Hamilton Business Park, located at the southeast corner of 106th and US 421(Michigan Road) . The plat includes streets, easements, right-of- ways and 7 blocks for future commercial development on 84 . 83 acre of land. Site is zoned B-3 and B-5 and is partially located within the US 421 Overlay Corridor. Filed by James J. Nelson for Wurster Construction Company, Inc. The Subdivision Committee minutes were noted. The Subdivision committee does have concerns regarding the curb cuts . Mr. Nelson briefly reviewed this project . The petitioner has provided information that except for those access points along Michigan Road they have agreed to enter into an access control document which provides basically that except for those cuts shown there will be no other cuts from 421 . In addition they have entered into an agreement with the State of Indiana as a condition of receiving their permits that if signalization is ever required at any of those points of access to their property that they will participate in the cost of signalizing those intersections . Since the public hearing, our roadway improvements to Michigan Road and to 106th Street have changed considerably. They have been substantially magnified as a result of working with the state . Mr. Nelson is prepared to discuss the extent of those roadway improvements if the board would like . (The drawing was displayed) Mr. Jim Wurster with American Consulting Engineers , Indianapolis spoke regarding the roadway improvements that were going to be made and have been approved by the Indiana Department of Highways . The staff recommendations were noted (which is a part of the official minutes and attached to the Master Copy) . A letter received from Mr. Richard Knipstein speaking against this project, stating his concern with the traffic this will CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 19 , 1991 15 generate and also concerned with the connection of the road from the commercial area through the residential area (which is a part of the official minutes and attached to the Master Copy) . Mr. Blackwell stated that all these items were discussed at the committee level . Mr. Blackwell moved to approve Docket No. 26-91 as presented. Mrs . Lamb seconded. Findings of Facts were completed by all board members . Approved 10 in favor and 3 against . 2h. Commission to consider Docket No. 27-91 PP, a Primary Plat application for Hamilton Center, located at the southwest corner of 106th and US 421(Michigan Road) . The plat consists of one block for future commercial development on 16 . 89 acres of land. Site is zoned I-1 and is partially located within the US 421 Overlay Corridor. Filed by James J. Nelson for Wurster Construction Company, Inc. Mr. Blackwell moved to approve Docket No. 27-91 PP as presented. Mrs . Lamb seconded. Findings of Facts were completed by all board members . Approved 11 in favor and 2 against . 3h. Commission to consider Docket No. 43-91 Z, a Rezone Application for John and Margaret Fillenwarth. Site consists of . 41 acre of land located approx. 320 ' north of 103rd Street, on the east side of Pennsylvania. Site is currently zoned R-1(residence) . Rezone request is to zone this property to R-3 (residence) for the construction of a two-family dwelling. Filed by John & Margaret Fillenwarth. The Land Use Committee minutes were noted (which is a part of the official minutes and attached to the Master Copy) . Mr. Potasnik moved to approve Docket No. 43-91 Z with the stipulation that there be a total commitment to a plan. Mr. Houck seconded. The staff recommendations were noted (which is a part of the official minutes and attached to the Master Copy) . Mr. Terry Jones stated that the Hamilton County Highway Department did have one concern regarding the horseshoe shape drive . That would give it two access points on Pennsylvania at the time Pennsylvania would become a county right-of-way. They were not really in favor of a horseshoe drive giving two points of access . They would probably like to work with Mr. Fillenwarth 4111111111 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 19, 1991 16 in the future and maybe reduce that to one driveway and as discussed in the Land Use about committing to a particular development plan. Mr. Fillenwarth was concerned about the future changes if he went from two accesses down to one, if that would cause any problems with the Commission. The motion was approved 12-1 . This will then go to City Council for final approval . 4h. Commission to consider Docket No. 44-91 PP, a Primary Plat application for Rosemead Commons , located at the north side of 116th Street, approx. one quarter mile west of Rangeline Road. The plat includes 19 lots on 10 . 98 acres of land, that is zoned R-1(residence) . Filed by James J. Nelson for R.A.Dine Co. Inc. THIS ITEM WAS TABLED BY THE PETITIONER FOR ONE MONTH AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL. 5h. Commission to consider Docket No. 45-91 Z, a rezone application for P. I .A. Indianapolis . Site consists of 11 . 25 acres of land located approx. 700 ' south of 111th Street, on the east side of Pennsylvania. Site is currently zoned B-7 (business ) . Rezone request is to zone this property to B-6(business) . Filed by James J. Nelson for P. I .A. Indianapolis . Land Use Committee minutes were noted. Mr. Potasnik moved to approve Docket No. 45-91 Z with the commitments presented with regards to no building south of the gas line easement and any future addition or changes to the proposed development plan would receive Planning Commission approval . Mr. Moore seconded. Mr. Nelson stated that he did revise the commitments and they were signed. Revisions were submitted to all board members . The commitments were revised in this fashion: 1) They committed that no buildings would be constructed south of the existing gas line; 2) they committed that any modifications of the existing building or additions to the building that they are going to build on this site, namely the RTC or the Residential Treatment Center, had to be first approved by the Carmel Plan Commission . Once we build the facility, any modifications or additions to that building had to come back to the Plan Commission for ADLS approval . The staff recommendations were noted (which is a part of the official minutes and is attached to the Master Copy) . CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 19, 1991 17 This project was approved 12- 1 against . This will proceed to the City Council . 6h. Commission to consider Docket No . 53-91 ADLS, an Architectural Design, Lighting and Signage application for 160 Medical Drive . Site consists of 1 . 396 acres of land located approx. 500 ' east of Rangeline Road, on the north side of Medical Drive . Site is zoned B-8 (business ) . Petitioner requests approval to construct a 11, 760 square foot, single story office/warehouse/retail facility. Filed by Rex Weiper Industrial and Commercial committee minutes were noted (which is a part of the official minutes and attached to the Master Copy) . Mr. Moore moved to approve Docket No. 53-91 ADLS as presented. Mr. Klar seconded. Mr. Dave Coots, 255 E . Carmel Drive, stated that the question that the staff comments pointed out about signs , all the signage will comply with the ordinance as to size and it will all be of uniform design and color, similar to what has been implemented at Keystone Square . Unanimously approved. I . NEW BUSINESS 1i . Commission to consider Docket No. 54-91 ADLS/DP (amend) , an Architectural Design, Lighting & Signage and Development Plan amendment application for Duke Associates - Parkwood Building 2 . Site consists of 4 . 6 acres of land located approx. 500 ' east of the existing Building 1 within the Parkwood development at the northwest corner of 96th Street and College Avenue . Site is zoned B-6(business ) . Petitioner requests approval to construct a 97 , 800 square foot, four-story office building. Filed by Philip Nicely for Duke Associates . Mr. Philip Nicely, 8888 Keystone Crossing, Indianapolis, made the presentation, a copy of which is on file at the Carmel Department of Community Development . Kevin Cantley, Architect with Cooper Carey, Bob Fulk with Duke Associates and Steve Granier with Evans, McKinney and Bose . An overall site plan, picture of existing five story building, rendering of the Indiana Insurance Building and the elevations of CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 19 , 1991 18 the proposed new building, site plan and a lighting plan was displayed. Mr. Klar asked if there would be any additional signage . Mr. Nicely stated no only what has been approved. This will go to the Industrial and Commercial Committee on December 3 , 1991 at 7 : 30 P.M. at the Caucus Rooms . Mr. O'Neal moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Klar seconded The meeting was adjourned at 11 : 01 p.m. . Vice President Secretary