HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 04-20-93 PLAN COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 20, 1993
The meeting was called to order by Ron Houck, president, in Council Chambers at approximately
7:00 PM with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Members present were as follows: Hank Blackwell; Sue Dillon; Jay Dorman; Jeff Kennelly;
Dick Klar; Alan Klineman; Max Moore; Barbara Myers; Salim Najjar; James T. O'Neal; Jeanne
Reid; and Sharon Clark.
A quorum was declared.
Also present were 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 meeting of March 16, 1993, seconded by Max
Moore, motion unanimously approved.
G. Ron Houck announced that the May Committee meetings would be held on May 11 rather
than the 4th due to the fact that some members of the commission and staff would be in Chicago
for a regional Planning Meeting.
H. PUBLIC HEARINGS
lh. Commission to consider Docket No. 5-93 CP, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
Update, City of Carmel/Clay Township, 1991. Due to the fact that incorrect notice had been
given to one of the newspapers, this item has been continued to the May 18th meeting.
2h. Commission to consider Docket No. 32-93 PP, a primary plat application for Springmill
Lakes Subdivision. The primary plat consists of 44 lots on 25 acres of land located on the east
side of Springmill Road at 12121 North Springmill Road, Clay Township. The site is zoned S-2
residence district.
The petitioner is also requesting the following Subdivision Regulation variance: 6.3.3 - stub
street to undeveloped property; and 6.3.7 - length of a cul-de-sac to exceed 600 feet. Filed by
James J. Nelson.
Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, appeared before the Commission and represented the
applicants and owners of the real estate, Donald Bottamiller and Dennis Bottamiller. Also
present was Mike Little, engineer for Springmill Lakes. Jim Nelson displayed an aerial
photograph depicting the location of the project site. The rectangular parcel of real estate
consists of 25 acres and is zoned S-2 Residence District. At present, there are two homes on the
1
property occupied by Donald Bottamiller and Dennis Bottamiller, both of which will remain on
the real estate following its development, and will be included in the lots to be created as part
of the platting process. The existing lake on the real estate will be preserved and will serve as
an amenity area as well as a source for on-site storm water retention. It is the owners intention
to preserve as many trees on site as possible. The plan, as presented, is in compliance with the
S-2 development standards.
There are two points of ingress and egress to the development from Springmill Road. The
internal street system consists of a single street running parallel to Springmill Road, and two cul-
de-sacs, each being opposite the two primary entrances, which form a U-shaped area. The lake
will become part of the common area which will be owned and under the control of the
homeowners association. Sidewalks will be provided parallel with Springmill Road and on both
sides of all internal streets. Landscaping provides for three street trees per lot as well as a 20
foot common area along Springmill Road to be owned and controlled by the homeowners
association. Two to three foot high mounding along Springmill Road is provided with a variety
of deciduous and coniferous trees. Each entrance will be accented by a brick and wrought iron
wall and will contain a limestone insert identifying the development.
Sufficient right-of-way does not exist for the installation of passing blisters on the west side of
Springmill Road, or installation of a decel lane taper to full length. The cul-de-sac length slightly
exceeds the allowed 600 feet in length. Also, a street stub has not been provided to the south;
it is felt that to do so would not provide a public benefit and a street stub would have a
significant impact on the development. Accel and decel lanes have been provided at both
entrances and an agreement has been entered into with the county for the resurfacing of
Springmill Road in front of the project site. Commitment has been made that if the right of way
does become available, the decel lane taper will be installed and the passing blisters at the
owners' expense within the following five years. The name of the development may change due
to the closeness or conflict with other project names.
Mr. Nelson asked that the public hearing remain open; notice for the passing blister variance and
the decel taper has been given for the May meeting.
Members of the Public in favor of the project were invited to speak. None Appeared.
Members of the Public opposed to the project or who wished to ask questions were invited to
speak.
Judy Hagan, 10946 Springmill Lane, Carmel, expressed concern regarding the depth of the lots
that back up to Springmill. In regard to the landscaping, Ms. Hagan felt the White Pines have
been over-planted in the community and that the trees will be so small for 5 to 10 years, that
residents will be tempted to install the running lengths of board fences.
Marty Gregor, 12380 Creekwood Lane, Carmel, expressed concerns regarding drainage; safety
and traffic flow; and aesthetics, i.e. the lot sizes and developments backing up to main roads. Mr.
2
Gregor cited the Springmill Road Corridor Amendment as a means to preserve Springmill Road
in its natural beauty as a residential corridor, and was concerned about those lots backing up to
Springmill Road in particular.
Joseph Richter, 12340 Creekwood Lane, Carmel, also expressed concerns regarding drainage.
Jim Nelson responded that the lots that back up to Springmill are 140 feet including the 20 foot
common area. The drainage was reviewed by both the County Surveyor and the Department of
Soils and Conservation. At primary plat stage, it is believed that all drainage matters have been
properly addressed. The owner has agreed to install the passing blisters and decel lanes, when
and if the right of way becomes available, at the owner's expense. The aesthetics of the lots
adjacent to Springmill Road is the primary reason for establishing the common area next to
Springmill Road. The common area will be owned, maintained, and landscaped by the
homeowners' association and fencing will not be permitted in the common area other than the
entry treatment.
Mr. Blackwell asked about stub streets. Mr. Nelson responded in the negative as far as stubs
from Williams Creek Subdivision and the Ritz Charles.
Mr. Klar asked about the design of the mounding. Mr. Klar also asked about the design, depth,
and drainage of the lake, and expressed a mistrust of the County Surveyor's office. Mr. Nelson
responded that the mounds would not look like a wall. Michael Little of Earthscape Engineering
responded to drainage concerns; there is an existing 24 inch submerged, concrete pipe from the
Ritz Charles parking lot into the lake , and the lake has 24 acre feet of available storage -- the
requirement is 5.12 acre feet. There is adequate capacity in the lake, but the County Surveyor and
Soil Conservation requested an outfall for the lake in case of emergency storm. There are
perimeter swells to keep the water from going into Williams Creek Farms.
Barbara Myers asked how much area was involved in runoff into Williams Creek. Mr. Little
responded that it was half of nine lots plus 300 feet of street, and demonstrated with the use of
the overhead projector.
Sue Dillon expressed some confusion in regard to the drainage.
Gordon Byers then stated that certainly the Commission had the right to make inquiry in respect
to drainage, but that the objectives, standards, and criteria are regulated through the technical
review of the Surveyor's office. The general principle is that the property, after development,
may not runoff at a rate greater than its natural state.
Sue Dillon also expressed concern regarding the existing power lines and potential height of the
Linden trees; and access points into the common area. Mr. Nelson responded that he would
inquire as to the trees. Mr. Little responded that the access points were from those lots closest
to the common area.
3
Sue Dillon asked if a pedestrian access could be made across the easements so that people could
circle the lake and it would provide a recreational amenity for all residents. Mr. Little responded
that this definitely could be done.
Sharon Clark asked what sort of right of way is being dedicated for later development of
Springmill Road. Jim Nelson responded that 28 and one-half feet from Springmill Lakes plus
16 1/2 existing provides a 45 foot one-half right-of-way on the east side of Springmill Road. (plus
the additional 20 feet of common area) Sharon Clark stated that passing blisters were critical to
traffic flow and that the petitioner should request the land be made available. Apparently the
only way the land can be made available is through condemnation and Mrs. Clark felt that the
Plan Commission should stand firm in requesting that the County Commissioners accommodate
the ordinance.
Mr. Nelson responded that this matter had been addressed previously and that the County
Commissioners have no desire to condemn private land for roadway improvements limited to a
single development.
Jim O'Neal suggested that the safety of the children be brought up relative to the passing blister
and perhaps the County Commissioners would be more willing to move to condemn.
Ron Houck stated that it seemed logical that this matter could be addressed with the Department
and the Mayor in communication with the County Commissioners and Les Locke, and asked that
the Department comply.
Mr. Byers stated that he would put this on the agenda to get a face-to-face discussion, although
Mr. Byers was sure one main concern would be monetary.
Mr. Houck said his understanding was that the petitioner was willing to pay for the passing
blister if the ground can be acquired.
Mr. Nelson stated that installation of passing blisters would be at Springmill Lakes' expense, but
that land acquisition costs for the passing blister had not been discussed.
Jeanne Reid suggested citing to the County Commissioners the number of cases the Plan
Commission has heard in the past few months where the Petitioners have offered to work with
neighboring areas to acquire the land.
Mr. Klineman asked that some action in the form of a resolution from the Plan Commission be
adopted. This was done by formal motion and unanimous consent. Mr. Blackwell recommended
that the formal resolution contain the Plan Commission's concern regarding safety hazard.
Gordon Byers responded that he will be sure the item of passing blisters be placed on the
Agenda.
4
CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
May 18, 1993
Minutes
The meeting was called to order by Ron Houck, President, in Council Chambers at approximately
7:00 PM with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Members present were as follows: Hank Blackwell; Sue Dillon; Jeff Kennelly; Dick Klar; Alan
Klineman; Norma Meighen; Max Moore; Barbara Myers; Salim Najjar; James T. O'Neal, Sr.;
Jeanne Reid; and Paul Spranger.
A quorum was declared.
Also present were Dave Cunningham; Mike Hollibaugh; and Terry Jones of Staff, as well as
Gordon Byers, City Attorney, and Bob Hepler, Special Counsel.
Salim Najjar moved to approve the minutes of the April 20, 1993 meeting, seconded by Dick
Klar, unanimously approved.
G. REPORTS. Gordon Byers reported that he had met with the Hamilton County
Commissioners concerning passing blisters. Mr. Byers had recommended that a committee be
formed with the Commissioners and the Highway Department to discuss the issue of acquisition
of extra road right-of-way in regard to cost, and recognizing that the County was the only entity
that had authority to condemn. Present at that meeting were Commissioners Karns; Dillinger;
and Holt. By unanimous vote, concern was acknowledged. A committee will be formed to
include Mr. Stephens and Mr. Locke of the Highway Department. Mr. Byers suggested that the
Plan Commission elect a delegate or a committee to meet with the Commissioners and Highway
Department. Mr. Byers stated that he would be glad to schedule the meeting when a delegate
or committee was selected by the Plan Commission.
H. PUBLIC HEARINGS
lh. Commission to consider Docket No. 5-93 CP, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
Update, City of Carmel/Clay Township, 1991. The amendment for review is presently captioned
as the "Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Update, City of Carmel/ClayTownship, 1993,"
filed by the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission.
Mr. Robert Hepler, Special Counsel, addressed the Plan Commission and members of the
audience. The initial draft of the amendment designated certain real estate by specific
boundaries; it attempted to amend the Comprehensive Plan by amending the text of the ordinance
to permit a new zoning classification, and rezone certain land all at one time. Mr. Hepler felt
that it was inappropriate under the law as written to approach the amendment in this manner, i.e.
one attempt to address three sections of the enabling law.
1
The Executive Board has recommended three phases of activity in the amendment process. Phase
I will be to address a change in the Comprehensive Plan by resolution. Phase II will be a
presentation of a text change in the ordinance to allow a new zone which will impose the
standards in the new zone of one unit per gross acre. Neither Phase I nor Phase II will affect any
real estate specifically in any part of the jurisdiction. Both phases enable the Commission to
address that at a later time. Phase III will look at a specific area of real estate; it is only at that
time that anyone's land will be actually affected, and how much will be determined by what the
proposal for rezone would be in Phase III after covering Phases I and II. It is recommended that
the Commission adopt the resolution before you to allow for a low density residential district to
be known as "S-1 ORD" which could later be enacted in an ordinance. This would be the basis
for enacting the creation of a new zone. The proposal before you answers the request of both
the proponents and opponents of the matter before you which has been argued at length.
Under the Phase I proposal before you, a change will be made in the Comprehensive Plan by way
of resolution for forwarding to the City Council. Phase II would involve a text change to the
Ordinance wherein specific land would be designated to have the density of no more than one
unit per gross acre.
Max Moore asked if the proposal discussed was for the entire township. Mr. Hepler's response
was that the proposal specifies all S-1 land in the entire jurisdiction of Carmel/Clay Township
that carries the designation of Low Density Residential (LDR).
Mr. Houck then explained that the previous proposal was to blanket rezone the western part of
the township that was geographically designated as west of Springmill Road, north of 96th Street,
south of 146th Street, and east of 421, so that the entire area, wherever S-1 LDR (the
predominant portion of that township) would carry the designation of one unit per gross acre.
Under the current proposal, no geographic limits are defined; this can be applied to any area of
the township in which S-1 LDR designation occurs and it does not have to encompass the entire
S-1 LDR area.
Mr. Hepler was very specific that the proposal before the Commission allows for the later
enactment of an ordinance; this is merely the text change to the Comprehensive Plan which forms
the foundation for the formation of an ordinance. The current proposal is the foundation for
future action and has no legal effect on current zoning ordinance or on rezone of anyone's land.
Mr. Hepler then read the proposal to the Commission which had been originally drafted by Steve
Brown and edited by Mr. Hepler.
Mr. Houck then invited members of the public to speak.
Ron Wright, attorney, Wright & Craig, 9000 Keystone Crossing, complimented both Bob Hepler
and Gordon Byers in drafting the document and stated that he was basically in support of the
amendment; however, Mr. Wright wanted to comment on Part One, Concept Plan, III
Development Patterns, F. Land Use/Development Issues, Paragraph 1. Mr. Wright felt the
2
following wording would be more appropriate: "1. In defined areas of the community where
special "LDR" plan designation is determined to be advisable or necessary, based upon a
thorough review of the land use characteristics of the designated area, and the land uses,
characteristics, and density of adjacent areas, a special Low Density Zone should be established
as S-1 SLDR, and development density in such defined areas should average no more than 1.0
units per gross acre." Mr. Wright stated that the essence of what he was pointing out was that
the determination of what is necessary or advisable must be done on a case-by-case basis by
looking at the land use characteristics and the use of the adjoining land to the piece of property
in question. Mr. Wright also felt that it was a misnomer to call the area an Overlay Zone and
it perhaps created a misconception of what is intended. In fact, what is being done is creating
a new zoning classification under the S-1 Low Density Residential heading which would allow
for some of the parcels to be declared a density of 1.0 units per gross acre.
John Holton, 10098 Cedar Point Drive, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing
the Cedar Point Homeowner's Association. Mr. Holton expressed the Clay West Information
Council's support in regard to the original S-1 proposal of one home per gross acre and Mr.
Hepler's proposed language.
Will Wright, 12 Rolling Springs Court, Carmel, appeared before the Commission and expressed
concern that Mr. Hepler's proposed language only appears to create more vagueness and more
opportunity to generate billable attorney hours in an attempt to interpret what is meant. Mr.
Wright felt that the current proposal would only prolong discussions, confuse property owners,
and looked like an administrative nightmare. A fear has been set up of the Constitution of the
United States on the basis that the original S-1 zoning could be interpreted as being illegal. Mr.
Wright felt that the current proposal was not the solution to the S-1 and a different approach
needed to be found to show compassion for everyone's point of view. Mr. Wright proposed
forming a committee to create a balance so that the community's views are adequately
represented. Mr. Wright asked that the Commission vote no on both proposals.
Allison Brown, 600 West 106th Street, Carmel, agreed with Mr. Wright in that she was opposed
to the current proposal and urged the Commission to vote in favor of the initial proposal. Ms.
Brown felt that the S-1 issue was being dragged out for a long period of time and costing the
community a lot of money; wording that was available for a vote has already been presented.
The people who initiated the super low density wanted a timely decision for the welfare of their
families who are in current residence.
Public Hearing Closed.
Mr. Robert Hepler responded to comments raised. The question of constitutionality was already
spoken to prior to engaging Mr. Hepler's services. It was reasonable to believe that S-1 would
have been appealed and tied up in the courts for one or two years before the constitutional issue
was resolved. The Plan Commission is only an advisory board to the City Council; the action
of the Commission is not final. Until the City Council responds and also affirmatively passes a
resolution, an ordinance should not be presented for public hearing based on the assumption that
3
the City Council would pass a resolution. In like manner, when a text change in the ordinance
is presented, the change does not occur with the vote of the Plan Commission; only when the
City Council passes it. It would be very presumptuous to start rezoning land under the
assumption that the City Council will enact an ordinance. Mr. Hepler's understanding was that
the Commission was responding to 700 signatures presented to the City Council. The specific
request is to look at specific pieces of property involved together with adjoining properties which
would only apply to this special district and not to the 1.5 or 1.8 or any other district. By
enacting this resolution, the Commission will be able to move ahead into the ordinance phase.
Mr. Hepler's recommendation was for the Plan Commission to reject the prior proposal submitted
in December and enact the current resolution and pass it on to the City Council for purposes of
enactment.
Alan Klineman asked for clarification of the term "ORD". Mr. Hepler responded that "ORD"
signified Overlay Residential District.
Mr. Klineman stated he was much more comfortable with considering the creation of a new zone
rather than an overlay. Mr. Hepler responded that there were no real magic words--that the
Overlay concept indicates the creation of a zone that will be superimposed on all existing
conditions of the S-1 district beneath it. A new zone is not being created; something is merely
being added to the S-1 Low Density Residential beneath--that is the concept of Overlay.
Ron Houck asked if this was analogous to the commercial overlay zones of U.S. 31 and 421 only
in a residential setting. Gordon Byers responded in the affirmative but that Mr. Hepler was
correct in that the nomenclature was not that important, it could be called whatever is deemed
appropriate.
Mr. Houck asked if there was any distinctive difference between a new category as opposed to
an overlay. Mr. Hepler responded that this was the same process as if it were a rezone from R-1
to R-2. Instead of moving from R-1 to R-2, the S-1 standards will continue but a new set of
standards will be imposed on geographically defined ground that is designated S-1 ORD which
will then be subject to the additional standards, plus all existing standards of S-1.
Mr. Houck explained that what is being done is merely the proposal of a text change in the
Comprehensive Plan. The proposal does not affect any certain piece of property, but forms the
foundation for the creation of an enabling ordinance that would then be used to create the overlay
districts. A formal proposal dealt solely with the western part of the township, and did not
recognize that certain parcels of land, although not developed, would not be appropriate for the
one unit per acre designation. The current proposal gives the Plan Commission the flexibility
to recognize that not all portions of the western part of the township may be appropriate to have
the designation of one unit per acre, and to tailor those areas to the land and criteria that the
Commission develops to determine what is appropriate.
Mr. Houck then stated that both sides of the current proposal have now been heard and the public
hearing is officially closed.
4
ppV
After some discussion, Alan Klineman moved to withdraw the previously proposed resolution for
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan dated December 15, 1992, seconded by Max Moore,
unanimously approved.
Sue Dillon moved to adopt Docket No. 5-93 CP, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
Update, as drafted by Robert Hepler, seconded by Hank Blackwell, 10 in favor, Jim O'Neal, Jeff
Kennelly, and Barbara Myers opposed, motion carried. The amendment will be prepared as a
resolution to send to City Council.
At this point, Mr. Hepler stated that it was appropriate to address item 4j., Rules of Procedure
change regarding the public notice for Public Hearings before the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission.
Changes have been proposed for Section 7, Section 8, and Section 9. As it now stands, when
a rezone is requested and someone's land is to be affected, notice must be given by way of
certified mail, publish by way of newspaper, and notice by mail in adjoining counties if the land
touches a county line. The present rule implies that a certified letter would have to be sent to
everyone in the juris-diction as well as everyone along both borders of the township.
It is currently being proposed that in the case of a text change, notice would be required by
publishing both locally and in the adjoining county newspapers, no certified mailing would be
required. In section 7., paragraph (2) and Section 8., paragraph (2) the notice by publication in
a newspaper of general circulation should be in the municipality rather than county. In theory,
the Commission could have been required to give certified mail to everyone in the township and
adjoining counties under the same interpretation of the rules for an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan because the Ordinance presently says, under the rules, any notice required
must be given through mailings. It is being suggested that in the future, publishing would only
have to be within the Carmel Plan Commission's jurisdiction, in the two newspapers (Noblesville
Daily Ledger and Noblesville Times.) In regard to the text change, publication would be by local
newspapers and neighboring counties, and in any rezone, total notice such as is currently being
given.
Mr. Hepler stated that Section 7 refers to the Comprehensive Plan; Section 8 refers to the zoning
ordinance.
Salim Najjar moved to make the following changes in the Rules of Procedure: in regard to
paragraph 3 of Section 7, the word "municipality" shall be substituted for the word "county;" in
regard to Section 8: A., second sentence, the word "Zoning" shall be inserted before the word
"Ordinance;" in regard to Section 8: Paragraph (3), the word "municipality" shall be substituted
for the word "county;" Section 9 will be changed as to position only, not wording; seconded by
Norma Meighen, unanimously approved.
2h. Commission to consider Docket No. 32-93 PP, a primary plat application for Springmill
Lakes subdivision. The primary plat consists of 44 lots on 25 acres of land located on the east
side of Springmill Road at 12121 North Springmill Road, Clay Township. The site is zoned S-2
residence district. The petitioner is also requesting the following Subdivision Regulation
5
variance:
6.3.3 - Stub street to undeveloped property
6.3.7 - Length of a cul-de-sac to exceed 600 feet
6.3.22- Decel lane and passing blister.
Filed by James J. Nelson.
Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel appeared before the Commission representing co-
applicants Donald Bottamiller and Dennis Bottamiller. The public hearing was conducted on the
primary plat last month; this was referred to Subdivision Committee on May 11.
Due to the unavailability of Right-of-Way on the opposite side of the road, the required passing
blisters cannot be installed. Because of the unavailability of right-of-way on Springmill to the
south, the decel taper lane cannot be installed. The co-applicants are providing accel/decel lanes,
but not the taper lane. A commitment has been filed with the Department to install the taper lanes
at such time as the right-of-way becomes available.
Hank Blackwell, chairman of the Subdivision Committee, reported that the committee
recommended the approval of the variances and approval of the Docket.
Marty Gregor, 12380 Creekwood Lane, Carmel, voiced concern regarding the elimination of the
passing blister and decel lane based on safety due to the increased traffic on Springmill, i.e. cars,
schoolbuses, joggers, bikers, etc. Also, due to the growth in this area, it is important to keep in
mind the need for infrastructure. Mr. Gregor reiterated the need for passing blisters and said he
would like to see the Commission stand firm in this regard with the County authorities. Mr.
Gregor requested that the variance not be approved; if the land is not available, it should be made
available through condemnation.
Mr. Nelson again stated that a written commitment in recordable form had been filed with the
Department of Community Development stating that within five years from primary plat approval,
if the right-of-way is made available, the roadway improvements will be made at the petitioner's
cost and expense.
As a point of interest, Sue Dillon stated that with the amount of auto trips generated by
household per day, traffic on Springmill Road will be increased by approximately 440 cars, and
that passing blisters will become increasingly important for traffic flow.
Dave Cunningham reported the recommendations of Staff which were: denial of variance 6.3.3,
stub street; approval of the primary plat and approval of variances 6.3.7 and 6.3.22.
Ron Houck stated that he had attended the Subdivision Committee meeting and now wished to
make the following comments regarding stub streets. The Plan Commission, through Ordinance
and design, has promoted the use of stub streets in subdivisions. The origin for request in stub
streets came from a report from Purdue University which dealt with requirements for
improvements, reservations, and design standards for subdivisions, which proposed that streets
6
be extended to boundary lines wherever possible. A further report generated by the Department
of Community Development dealing with cul-de-sacs and recommendations as to why stub streets
were required or necessary, was to promote orderly future growth of areas, reduce the number
of vehicle trips onto collection system of roadway, to promote community feeling in development
and additional accessibility for fire, police, and safety vehicles and service delivery vehicles. Mr.
Houck expressed the importance of consistency in the concept of all subdivisions, and the desire
for conformance in what is currently expected in subdivision design.
Max Moore expressed concern regarding drainage. Mr. Nelson responded that the drainage plan
had again been presented to Kent Ward. Kent Ward again gave a letter of approval to the
petitioner but in doing so determined that the drainage system should become a regulated drain
under the jurisdiction of the Hamilton County Drainage Board.
Mr. Klineman asked for clarification regarding access easements to the lake and certain open
items.
Mr. Nelson stated that the Communications Department has approved a change in name to
"Spring Lake Estates." An area has been provided at the east end of the lake to provide access
for all residents of the community through an access easement off the cul-de-sacs between lots
27/28 and 11/12. The commitments were amended to stipulate that no fencing will be permitted
in the 20 foot wide common area that runs parallel and adjacent to Springmill Road; and that
any lot owners adjacent to Springmill Road require approval of the homeowner's association in
regard to the installation of fencing, compatibility with architectural design, style, and building
materials. Due to the growth of the Linden trees which reach a height of 100 feet, this species
will be replaced. The petitioner has committed to mounds of no taller than three feet in height
to be placed next to Springmill Road; the slope will not exceed three to one and the mounds will
be undulating from north to south.
The findings of fact sheets were not readily available; Mr. Nelson offered to have the next item
on the agenda heard in the interim.
Salim Najjar moved to momentarily postpone the vote on Docket No. 32-93 PP and proceed to
hear the next item on the Agenda (3h) while awaiting for the findings of fact sheets, seconded
by Dick Klar, unanimously approved.
3h. Commission to consider Docket No. 36-93 Z, a rezone application for Steven Weaver. The
petitioner is requesting to rezone approximately 3/4 acre located at 755 East 106th Street. The
petitioner is requesting a rezone of the property from R-3 Residential to B-2 Business. Filed by
Steven Weaver.
Steven Weaver, 721 Eden Woods Place, Carmel, appeared before the Commission and requested
a rezone of land on the south side of 106th Street bordered by Jessup. The corner property is
currently zoned multi-family residential and occupied as a rental. The area residents are in
support of the rezone to B-2 Business as opposed to multi-family units.
7
Cheryl Giannuzzi, 10824 Ruckle Street, Carmel, questioned the type of business to be located
in the area. Mr. Weaver's response was that there are no immediate plans at present other than
to rezone to B-2 Business classification.
Max Moore moved to suspend the rules and vote on this item this evening, seconded by Paul
Spranger, 10 in favor, Jeanne Reid, Sue Dillon and Ron Houck opposed, motion carried.
Ron Houck expressed concern that members of the Commission might not be totally familiar with
the parcel being voted on due to the lack of display material for review. Mr. Houck felt that
there were issues in regard to the size of the property, adjacent uses, and neighboring residences.
Barbara Myers moved to approve Docket No. 36-93 Z, seconded by Dick Klar, 10 in favor,
Jeanne Reid, Sue Dillon and Ron Houck opposed, motion carried.
2h. Alan Klineman moved to suspend the rules and vote on Docket No. 32-93 PP, seconded by
Dick Klar, motion unanimously approved.
Findings of Fact were as follows:
6.3.3 - Stub Street to undeveloped property, 9 in favor, 4 opposed; 6.3.7 - Length of cul-de-sac
to exceed 600 feet, 13 in favor, 0 opposed; 6.3.22 - Decel lane and passing blister, 12 in favor,
Jeanne Reid opposed. Docket No. 32-93 PP was approved 13-0, subject to the commitments and
requirements of record as filed with the Department of Community Development.
4h. Commission to consider Docket No. 37-93 PP, a primary plat application for Cornerstone
Place Section 2. The primary plat consists of 4 lots on 2.57 acres of land located on the north
west corner of Central Avenue and 106th Street, Clay Township. Filed by Mike Keen.
Mike Keen of Cornerstone Place appeared before the Commission as well as Stan Neal of Weihe
Engineers, and displayed an overview of the subject site. The property is serviced by Indianapolis
Water along Central and Clay West Regional. The zoning is R-1 single family homes, and R-3,
multi-family (one lot deep). There is an existing house on one of the lots; at present, the intent
is to subdivide the 2.57 acres in order to build two doubles facing Central.
Marcella West, 506 East 108th Street, Carmel, expressed concern regarding the distance between
the existing home and the proposed doubles.
Mike Keen responded there is at least 40 feet between because of the setback; the doubles will
face Central and be serviced by driveways coming off Central. A fence was considered, but will
not be determined until a later date. Mr. Keen stated that these will be up-scale doubles renting
at approximately $850/month.
Dick Klar asked the petitioner about the depth of the lots. Stan Neal responded that the double
lots fronting on Central are approximately 80 feet deep; the northern double is 94 feet wide and
8