HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Sub 02-05-021,1`I y G`'`y of Cq,9y C o
CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2002
Committee members present: Dave Cremeans; Linda Flanders; Wayne Haney; Ron Houck;
Norma Meighen; and Maureen Pearson.
Department of Community Services Staff in attendance: Jon C. Dobosiewicz.
Dave Cremeans was elected chairperson for the coming year by UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
1. Docket No. 124 -01 PP; The Sanctuary Subdivision
The applicant seeks approval to plat a twenty -three lot residential subdivision on 28.35
acres. The site is generally located at the northeast corner of West 106 Street and
Crooked Stick Lane. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence.
The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waivers:
124 -01a SW SCO 6.3.3 elimination of stub street
124 -01b SW SCO 6.3.7 cul -de -sac to exceed 600' in length
124 -01c SW SCO 6.5.7 orientation of homes toward cul -de -sac
124 -01d SW SCO 6.5.21 two points of access for more than 15 lots
Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Associates for Glenn E. Christian.
TABLED to March 5 th Committee
2. Docket No. 151 -01 PP Amend; Spring Run Estates, Section 1
The applicant seeks approval to amend Spring Run Estates, Section 1 Subdivision to
exclude Block A as identified on the plat. The site is generally located at the northeast
corner of West 106 Street and Crooked Stick Lane. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence.
Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Associates for Glenn E. Christian.
TABLED to March 5 th Committee
3. Docket No. 127 -01 Z; U.S. Highway 31 146 Street PUD (Rezone)
Petitioner seeks favorable recommendation of a rezone from the B -3 (Business) and R -1
(Residence) districts to a PUD /planned unit development district on 56.79 acres. The site
is located at the southwest corner of US Highway 31 and East 146 Street.
Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for the Lauth Property Group.
Page 1
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
FEBRUARY 5, 2002
Carmel /Clay Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
Paul Reis, attorney, 12358 Hancock Street, Carmel, appeared before the Committee representing
the applicant. Joe Downs of Lauth Property Group; Fred Simmons of Simmons Assoc.,
landscape architects; and Steve Fehribach of A F Engineering were also present.
The petitioner is proposing to rezone the land to a PUD; the parcel is located within a TIF district
adopted by Hamilton County and approved by the Carmel City Council.
The purpose of the TIF is for improvement of the roads in the area, including the bridge.
Currently, there is construction of a road south of 146 Street by the Lowe's store, and this
project will incorporate roadway improvements on the west side of US 31 which will be an
extension of Rangeline Road proceeding north.
The Lauth Property Group is proposing a "Lifestyle Retail Center" that involves upscale retail and
fashion oriented tenants together with restaurants. The tenants for this development have not yet
been identified; therefore, the site plan presented is conceptual with details thus far. The actual
Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping, and Signage for the buildings will be brought back
to the Plan Commission for approval following the rezone.
The issue of stacking for traffic has been identified as blocking the northbound ramp onto US 31.
A F Engineering has put together a proposed plan to show how Rangeline Road could be
improved by adding an additional lane that would allow traffic to turn left into the gas station and
strip center. Roadway improvements can be made following final approval by the Engineering
firms of the City and the County, and as a part of the Rangeline Road extension.
Circle Drive currently has an intersection with US 31. The concern of the Department has been
some type of access in the case Circle Drive was closed. If the County goes forward with the
project, new access must be provided for Eagle Creek Nursery. An access road would then be
installed. Under the Ordinance as proposed, the large, single- tenant building could not be moved
to the west side; it must remain between US 31 and Rangeline Road.
The size of the signs would be dictated by the Sign Ordinance based upon the distance of the
tenants' frontage and the size of the frontage to Rangeline Road.
Jon Dobosiewicz reported that the applicant has addressed many of the issues regarding the traffic
situation and will meet with John Myers to review the traffic proposal between now and March
15 and submit a letter to the Department for review. Regarding the ADLS approval, the
applicant has stated that this project, as proposed, would require individual tenants to come back
before the Committee for ADLS approval. This was a specific issue that came up at the Plan
Commission meeting. Regarding signage, the specific concern was identification signage 75
square feet in size, and located at individual entrances to the development. There is no restriction
that would disallow a single tenant to occupy the entire 75 square feet. It is not required that a
portion of the 75 square feet be dedicated toward advertising, the idea being that all tenants will
not have signage and this should be restricted to perhaps some percentage of the sign area.
Page 2
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
FEBRUARY 5, 2002
Carmel /Clay Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
There were members of the public in attendance that asked questions regarding the traffic; the
wisdom of locating three home improvement stores in such a small area; landscape buffer; the
pipeline in the vicinity; and property values.
Steve Fehribach, A F Engineering, gave an overview of the traffic situation.
The petitioner will return to the Committee on March 5 th with additional information. The
Department will have more information available regarding traffic.
4. Docket No. 141 -01 PP; The Hamptons (Primary Plat)
The applicant seeks approval to plat a 192 -lot residential subdivision on 154.806± acres.
The site is located on the southwest corner of West 141S Street and Towne Road. The
site is zoned S -1 /Residential.
The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waivers:
141 -01a SW SCO 6.3.7 cul -de -sac to exceed 600' in length
141 -01b SW SCO 7.1 15% Standard Open Space Requirement
Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson and Frankenberger for Raymond Roehling.
Charlie Frankenberger, attorney, 4983 St. Charles Place, Carmel, appeared before the Committee
representing the applicant. Also present were Ray Roehling, and Dennis Olmstead of
Stoeppelwerth Associates, engineers.
Other approved developments in the area are The Ridge at Hayden Run to the west, Lakes at
Hayden Run to the south, and Shelborne Park and Hayden Run to the south. There are 197 homes
on 154.8 acres with a density of 1.27 units per acre. The open space is 42.1 acres; the required
open space under the Ordinance is 51.35 acres. The difference of 9.25 acres or 18% necessitates
the Subdivision Waiver from the Residential Open Space Requirement.
Questions raised at Plan Commission pertain to lot statistics, blighting, and traffic. The traffic
study will include the intersection of 116 Street and Shelborne Road.
Jon Dobosiewicz requested information such as square footage of the homes, 3 car garages,
exterior materials, things that are sufficient to guarantee to the Plan Commission that the
petitioner's representations are accurate.
Also, Scott Brewer has reviewed the landscape plan and determined that it meets the requirements
of the Open Space Ordinance. Regarding roadway improvements, at the secondary platting stage,
the petitioner will spell out the improvements so that no question can be left unanswered.
Marilyn Anderson had questions regarding species of trees —White Pines do not do well—the
petitioner is willing to reduce the number of White Pines.
Materials: Dryvit is being used for accents primarily around the entry ways, fireplaces, wherever
there is no masonry. Windows are vinyl clad or aluminum casement type.
Page 3
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
FEBRUARY 5, 2002
Carmel /Clay Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
Mr. Roehling commented about roadway improvements and what the developer's contribution
would be. It seems an inequitable burden to require dollars for roadway improvements to be used
elsewhere or for intersection improvements used by everyone. Jon Dobosiewicz responded that
the Ordinance does not provide flexibility—it is a bigger burden to produce the improvements on
"frontage intensive developments." Developers should be treated equally in this respect, but it is
very difficult.
Mr. Roehling did not endorse enlarging connector streets to collector size.
The discussion was opened to members of the public in attendance.
Debbie Winchester, 13881 Shelborne Road, expressed concerns with the reduction of open space
and the lighting.
The remonstrators in attendance were encouraged to meet with the petitioner on the first floor for
open dialogue following Committee discussion. Mr. Roehling said he was willing to add the use
of "Hardy Plank" materials on the second floor to the list of commitments(no aluminum or
vinyl siding or fiber cement). Drives will be concrete or pavers, no asphalt.
Jon Dobosiewicz commented that commitment 3 should be removed.
There was a question as to the trail and connectivity (Marilyn Anderson)
Mr. Roehling said some type of pole or pedestal lighting will be utilized at the main entrance.
The tennis courts will not be lighted; there will be some lights around the pool area for safety
purposes. Otherwise, there will be typical dusk -to -dawn lighting in the front yards.
Charlie Frankenberger undertook to submit formal commitments to the Department within the
next few days.
Norma Meighen moved to recommend approval of Docket No. 141 -01 PP, The Hamptons
Primary Plat, subject to acceptable commitments being received. The motion was seconded by
Ron Houck and approved 6 -0.
5. Docket No. 159 -01 PP; The Townhomes at Hazel Dell (Information Item Only)
Petitioner seeks approval to plat a ninety nine -lot subdivision on 23.95± acres. The site is
located northwest of East 116th Street and Hazel Dell Parkway. The site is zoned R-
2 /Residence.
The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waivers:
159 -01a SW
SCO 7. 0.1
Minimum distance between units of 6'
159 -01b SW
SCO 7.6.3
Minimum width of 75' for Open Space
159 -01c SW
SCO 6.3.20
Every Residential subdivided property shall be served from
a public street
159 -Old SW
SCO 6.3.24
Frontage Place exceeds 600' and does not terminate at
street
Page 4
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
FEBRUARY 5, 2002
Carmel /Clay Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
159 -01e SW SCO 6.5.1 Minimum lot frontage of 50' at right -of -way line.
Filed by Paul Rioux of Platinum Properties.
Jim Nelson, 12481 Medalist Parkway, Carmel appeared before the Committee representing the
petitioner. Also present were Paul Rioux of Platinum Properties, and Keith Lash with Schneider
Engineering. This item had public hearing on January 15, 2002.
Prior to the filing of this application, Mr. Rioux met with the neighbors and the Department in an
attempt to address comments and concerns that had surfaced with a previous developer, Mark
Stout. Since the public hearing, additional meetings have been held with the Department and
Scott Brewer, Urban Forester, to provide further definition to the site landscape plan as well as
the architectural design and building materials.
The Department report is thorough and complete.
Mr. Nelson referred to a previous discussion regarding the alignment of the southern most
entrance with Founders Park on the east side of Hazel Dell Parkway. The Parks Department is
not now in a position to identify the exact location of their entrance and the agreement is that the
Founders Park entrance will align with the Townhomes at Hazel Dell. The site plan also provides
for the extension of the cul -de -sac and a stub street that etends northward from Lake Forest. In
addition, the petitioner has agreed to provide brick pavers extending northeast from the cul -de -sac
that will provide another opportunity for access to the site in the event of fire.
The petitioner has also identified the orientation of the Townhomes on the site, basically the
homes that are on the east side of the main drive. The homes will face Hazel Dell Parkway, the
garage entrance will be from the rear. The homes oriented around the lake area will be accessible
from the docks /garage entry from the front. The primary concern of the neighbors from previous
applications, was the use (or non -use) of the western-most lake of the parcel that exists from
Brookfield and Lake Forest. The petitioner has provided 6 acres as open space or common area,
owned by the association. Except for necessary infrastructure in the form of drainage and utility
easements, it will remain in its current, natural state and will be subject to maintenance by the
Homeowners Association. There will be some forestation occuring in addition to existing trees.
The six acre lake will not be developed—it will be platted as open space and will remain that way
unless the Plan Commission, under another plat application or an amendment to the primary plat,
approves of its use for development.
There was discussion at public hearing regarding the number of on -site parking spaces. The
number has been increased by 30 to provide for 85 off -site parking spaces that will serve the
needs of this community. With respect to landscaping, a definitive landscape plan is on file with
the Department of Community Services and has been reviewed and approved by Scott Brewer,
Urban Forester.
The Townhomes are "For Sale;" they will be owned and not leased. The Townhomes mirror
those being built in the City Center project and the Village of WestClay. The twnhomes are
1800 to 2100 square feet in size, they are all 3 bedrooms, and priced from $140,000.
Page 5
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
FEBRUARY 5, 2002
Carmel /Clay Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
Paul Rioux addressed the Committee and reviewed three aspects of the development. Pictures of
the existing buffer between the development and the Lake Forest property were distributed. The
buffer is large and effective with 8 to 10 feet of mounding, and a 10 foot shadow -box fence at the
top. The buffer ranges from 14 feet at its lowest point to 21 feet at its highest point between the
existing property and the neighborhood.
The design of the buildings was discussed; there will be brick on any exposed ends of the
buildings, at entrance points adjoining the neighboring property, 40% of all sides will be brick.
The only area where brick does not appear is where buildings are adjacent, and on the interior.
There are 5 units per building, each home is slightly off -set and has the feel of an individual home
that is attached. It is not an apartment building, or one large box —there is architectural detail.
The areas that are not brick will be vinyl and up- graded.
Jon Dobosiewicz said the petitioner is to address commitments on architectural design as well as
sense of place. No resident on the west side of the fence will see garage doors or vehicles on the
drives at the front of the buildings. The revised drawings provide for emergency access from the
cul -de -sac on the north side as well as working with the Engineering Department on where the
second driveway cut would be located. At some point in the future, the driveway will be a full cut
onto Hazel Dell. The expectation is that when the Park goes in, the drive will not serve as a full
cut on the east side of the street. The Plan Commission has the ability to approve the waivers
necessary to allow this development to move forward. The critical issue is the concern about
density. The applicant is not requesting a boost from the amount of open space provided. The
applicant meets the minimum, permitted, density in the R -2 Zoning Classification, 3.9 units per
acre.
Ron Houck talked about the units currently in place at the Village of WestClay and that the
facade in that development is preferable to what is proposed. The brick facade is better than the
proposed vinyl. Ron was interested in knowing the difference in the highest grade of vinyl and
fiber cement.
Paul Rioux said the homeowners association maintains the exterior of the specific buildings. The
maintenance agreement is signed over to the homeowners association and a portion of the
monthly HOA dues maintains the exterior.
Wayne Haney expressed concern with the wall along Hazel Dell that will show over the top of the
screen wall from Lake Forest. The buildings are 35 feet high and are on higher ground than Lake
Forest. Lake Forest homeowners will be subjected to 1,000 feet of vinyl siding blocking their
entire view to the east. It is a radical departure from a one -story community to a "City Center
Development" that is urban in character. There are also 200 automobiles, there is a very dense
concentration of people, 3 bedrooms, and there will probably be facilities with no park facility, no
lawn. All of the open space is in the area to the northwest, plus the pond area. All of the
greenspace is in one area, and where the homes are located, there is no greenspace. The
development is too dense in one area, even though it meets the basic requirements, but it is not
Page 6
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
FEBRUARY 5, 2002
Carmel /Clay Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
good planning for the people that live there and those people that will be impacted by the
development.
Ron Houck commented that the demographics of the proposed development would probably be
first time homebuyers and young families because of the stairs —older couples would probably not
want to deal with two stories. The units to the south do not have much in terms of yards, and
there would be limited space for children to play.
Members of the public were invited to speak.
Bryan Hynes, 5168 Clear Lake Court, president of the Lake Forest HOA, submitted a letter of
position to the committee. At the January 15 Plan Commission meeting, Mr. Hynes spoke on
behalf of the Board of Directors. The HOA Board did have a preliminary meeting with Paul
Rioux and Platinum Properties. Since the January 15 Plan Commission meeting, the HOA
Board has received substantial feedback from additional homeowners and it is clear that there is
opposition to the proposed development. Given the physical layout of the land, there is not a
clear consensus for support or opposition to the proposed development. As a point of
clarification, Mr. Hynes referred to comments made by Jim Nelson at public hearing that Platinum
Properties had met with homeowners who had opposed the previous development and their
concerns have now been addressed. Please keep in mind that the previous development was
concentrated in a different area on the parcel. Given the difference of opinion, the Lake Forest
Board at this time is not taking a stand.
Bob Estes, 1243 Springbrooke, has been a part of the HOA Board at Waterstone since the
inception of the proposed plat by Mark Stout Development. Basically, Waterstone was opposed
to the previous development layout with double frontage lots. Waterstone actually financially
backed a part of the lawsuit that was brewing against Stout Development. The Waterstone Board
members were contacted regarding the current proposal, and they were all in favor of the current
proposal as opposed to the previous proposal. The Board does not want to see the middle
section of the parcel developed because it is felt to be a devaluation of property values. Some
issues being raised were raised at the time of the first proposal; some issues being raised were not
raised at the time of the first proposal, i.e. places for children to play, homes over the fence line,
or above the fence line. The bigger issue was the double frontage lots and the financial impact
upon the Waterstone community. The current proposal is not the same at all, and the Waterstone
HOA supports this project as long as the middle section of the parcel is not developed.
John Deruntz, 11695 Forest Park Lane, Lake Forest Subdivision, distributed a presentation of
analysis to the Committee. The HOA has concerns with the development specifically in the area
of the major portions of development of the townhomes. The HOA Board took a pole and
knocked on every door in the Subdivision to get a sampling of opinion. The results of the pole
show 148 lots in the Lake Forest Subdivision; 98 homeowners were opposed (62 9
homeowners were in favor of the development; 41 homeowners were no answer /no contact. The
ratio was 10 to 1 opposed to the currently proposed development. During the poll, every
homeowner was given a packet showing the layout of the proposed development and the frontage
of the townhomes so they could make an informed decision. Four concerns came out of the poll
Page 7
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
FEBRUARY 5, 2002
Carmel /Clay Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
of the homeowners: 1) The high density of the townhomes 2) Uneven distribution of open space
3) Light pollution from the street lights 4) Impact on property values. For purpose of discussion
and information, the parcel has been broken down into three sections: the north section, the lake
section, and the southern tract. The north section comprises 28% of the parcel, contains 57% of
the open space, and zero of the townhomes. The lake section makes up 55% of the land, 43%
of the open space, and 39% of the townhomes. The southern tract makes up 17% of the land, 1%
of the open space, and 61 of the townhomes. The density is the issue at hand. The southern
tract of land is significantly disproportionate to the density and data on the previous chart shows
that. Negligible open space in the southern tract exists1% of the total. Three story buildings
with this density create an aesthetic wall effect, actually 1307 feet of vinyl, 34 feet in the air, and
these areas are closest to the Lake Forest homes. From the census bureau, year 2000, the
following data appears: Hamilton County density is .3 units per acre; Carmel is 1.2; Indianapolis
(city) is 1.52; and the Lake Forest Subdivision is 2.1. The southern tract of the proposed
development is 11.3 units per acre (platting out the square footage compared to acres with the
number of units proposed.) The data, in effect, says the southern portion of the tract is 538%
more dense than Lake Forest Subdivision.
Regarding the waivers. The wall is one quarter mile long, 8% brick, 4 feet high, and the Lake
Forest residents view the less attractive vinyl back of the buildings, same distance, and is a distinct
lack of consideration for the Lake Forest residents. Minimum lot frontage of 50 feet all 99 units
require this waiver. This is an average of a 26 foot variance. The minimum width for open space,
75 feet, is related to the property line —7 of 12 buildings are affected by this waiver 58% of the
land in the dense half must have this waiver. The average variance to the waiver is not 2 feet, 5
feet, it is an average of 22 feet or 29% variance to the waiver. Basically, there is density on
multiple units going in multiple directions. A single floor is going to three, compression from six
foot and 50 foot frontage, and the depth in the back, and the cumulative effect of multiple
waivers, span across multiple buildings, results in an exponential increase in density, not a linear.
In summary, the southern tract is much too dense. The percentages are the basis of the request to
look at the waivers.
Chuck Voght, 5160 Clear Lake Court, Lake Forest. Will there be two different neighborhood
associations trying to take care of the same body of water? Are there fire walls between the
units? With the installation of the lights for the parking, the geese, ducks, beaver, muskrat, etc.
will not know day from night —how will this affect their habitat? If this project must go forward,
we suggest the foundation for one of the three levels be sunken and made a garden walkout; brick
four sides, and make the parking to the front to alleviate the bright lights and avoid upsetting the
habitat.
Micky Martin, 5700 East 116 Street, also concerned with lighting, environmental impact, and
well water protection area. How close will the homes be to the street, and how wide are the
streets?
Bill Marshall, 5246 Lake Point Drive, Lake Forest Subdivision. 26 homeowners out of 29 fully
support this project; we directly border the property. We acknowledge the opposition to this
project, but after reviewing alternate plans, this is the best option for the entire neighborhood.
Page 8
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
FEBRUARY 5, 2002
Carmel /Clay Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
Since 1999 when the land was actively listed for sale, the homeowners have inquired, researched
and analyzed proposed alternatives, and organized remonstrance. We have spent thousands of
dollars of our own money, funded an attorney and professional engineer. For these reasons, we
believe we understand the history of this property; the issues, both positive and negative of this
plan, and the prior plan. The idea that this land should not be developed is a common idea and an
ideal response. However, we realistically believe that development is inevitable on this site. This
project has minimal overall impact, but not as much as compared to the previous plan that would
have had a significant impact. We support this project for the following reasons: There will not
be construction traffic or interference as in prior plans; there will be little to no impact of the lakes
that are inter- connected; there is no safety concern for additional traffic; no through streets; the
proposal will not bring double- frontage lots; the landscape provides open space consistent with
homes in the neighborhood as well as Carmel; and the turn- around negates a safety hazard.
Changes will occur, however, the changes will be minim compared to what it could have been
with the previous development. We recommend that the project be approved.
Ed Pursel, 5250 East 116 Street, will there ever be a need to lengthen the turn lane or widen
Hazel Dell?
Name? 12409 Springbrooke Run, said that in 2 t/2 years, we have found out that there is literally
zero chance of getting the property to where it would not be developed. That was our main goal.
We found out that at some point, it will be developed and in going over all of the plans, the
current one by far is the best plan. The two -story homes Mr. Stout was going to develop are 5 to
6 feet shorter than those proposed. There would have been a big long line of vinyl there anyway,
even with two -story homes. The placement of the buildings would have been different, but it still
would have been there. By far, especially from Waterstone's point of view, this is the most viable
plan we have seen.
Norman Mathieu, 5277 Edward Court, closest to the proposed development. Mr. Mathieu's
dining room, breakfast room, and kitchen windows will have the view of the vinyl back of the
townhomes, not the front of dwellings. Also visible will be the wheels of passing cars. Mr.
Mathieu is opposed to the development-3 stories are too tall and no fence can possibly screen.
Bill Doron, 11761 Lake Forest Parkway, opposed to the development, especially the
concentration of development at the southern end.
Leonard Brazus 5251 Pursel, opposed to the development, but asked about access for service
vehicles, emergency, trash, and school buses (also drop off and pick -up). Where will guests park
their vehicles?
Dave Cremeans commented he has had a lot of input from area residents and remonstrance has
been well organized and thorough. There should be a way to develop the property with little
impact on the surrounding area. No tree is tall enough to screen a three -story building.
Jim Nelson's response: From the outset, the petitioner's goal was to address two issues from past
presentations —the use or non -use of the western lake, and the appearance of the development
Page 9
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
FEBRUARY 5, 2002
Carmel /Clay Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
from Hazeldell Parkway. The additional time has given birth to a lot of additional issues, some
relevant. It is understood that there are a number of people that are pleased with the
development, others who are not. The petitioner's goal is to address the issues as they pertain to
the plat. The petitioner will work with the Committee in addressing those issues that are relevant
to the plat. This land is zoned and can be developed —this is not a rezone. We are here to work
with the Committee and find a solution to those issues pertaining to the plat. As far as the
waivers are concerned, each of the waivers is a direct consequence that this is an attached
product —these homes are attached. The Subdivision Control Ordinance primarily addresses
detached, single family lots. They are attached homes and will be closer than six feet because they
are attached.
To the back of the development is a private street. Because of the constraints of the site, the
petitioner would be unable to provide the required right -of -way associated with local streets. Mr.
Nelson asked for direction from the Committee as to how they should proceed.
Mr. Rioux said the site is a difficult one to work with, but it will be developed. It is zoned and
ready to be platted. The site has a buffer on 50% of the exposed property that is unlike anything
that could be asked of a developer. There is a 20 -foot wall along the property. There is almost
NO HOUSE in Lake Forest that backs up to this property. No one will be sitting on their deck
having lemonade and looking at a wall of townhomes. There are roads that separate the buffer
from the houses that back up to each other on the majority of this property. The issue is one of
aesthetics. The product, one piece of one of the buildings, these people are paying $150 to
$200,000 this is not some downtown HUD project —these are significant buildings. People
with children are not going to want to live here. It is close to Hazel Dell Parkway, no place for
children to play, families will not want to live here. It would be more for singles, empty- nesters,
young professionals, divorcees, people who want to live in Carmel will live in these homes.
To present this as a 1300 foot wall of vinyl is inaccurate by virtue of the buffer that exists. To
mitigate the buffer that doesn't exist, where the property line stops and Mr. Pursel's home and
another is, the fence stops. When Lake Forest built the buffer ten years ago, the buffer was built
for their own protection. You can see Hazel Dell, so we proposed an additional ten feet of fence
along the southern boundary of the property. As a requirement of the Open Space Ordinance,
almost 500 trees will be added. For every so many feet of perimeter, so many trees are to be
added. We have calculated 1,000 shrubs, 450 trees to be installed. The southern portion gets a
10 foot fence and additional landscaping, and the fence continues to run the length. There is a
buffer of trees remaining between the two lakes. The proposed development will not devalue any
property.
Wayne Haney said everyone is concerned about the best option for this property. From one end
of Hazel Dell to the other are nice, single family homes. There are 20 buildings shown on the
plan —why couldn't 16 to 20, two -story homes be developed. This would also lower the number
of cars from 200 to 40; it would not be visible from Lake Forest; and it would produce a
harmonious appearance to Hazel Dell in keeping with Carmel's neighborhood view in lieu of
something that is high density, urban development.
Page 10
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
FEBRUARY 5, 2002
Carmel /Clay Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
Linda Flanders asked if there were any way the developer could make the building brick on all
four sides. Mr. Rioux responded he would have to talk with Ryland Homes.
Ron Houck said he had driven Hazel Dell Parkway, and agreed with Wayne Haney as to the
character of the area which is single- family homes, generous set backs, and separation between
the roadway and any building structure. What is proposed will be a definite change for this
portion of Hazel Dell and will stand out. The concern is that it will be a radical departure —the
development south of the lake appears too dense; there is also a realistic concern of quality of
homes. Certainly, the appearance needs to be brick. The look presented may not be the most
appealing. Also, between buildings, there should be more architectural variation so there is not
the uniformity typically associated with apartments. Some mitigation for this would be lesser
density to the south and more architectural variation and perhaps less use of vinyl materials. The
neighbors are objecting to the continuous wall of homes, and brick may not necessarily lessen that
effect.
Mr. Rioux said that each individual home has a different setback and gives it a different look. We
are committing to brick the sides of 14 of 20 buildings.
Dave Cremeans suggested spreading out the buildings a little bit in the southern part of the
development. Mr. Rioux said he is looking for direction from the Committee as far as what it
takes to make the development palatable.
Regarding the southern portion of the development, Jon Dobosiewicz suggested losing a building
south of the roadway, losing a building north of the roadway, and widening the open space
between buildings to diminish the wall effect. Mr. Rioux said he would look at that, but could not
commit this evening.
Dave Cremeans was in favor of utilizing more space between the buildings, perhaps going to two
stories rather than three, and using brick on all four sides. There should be some mitigation from
density to the southern part. The wall effect would create a shadow effect. Perhaps the petitioner
should consider a walk -out on the first floor.
Ron Houck asked the Committee to consider Jon Dobosiewicz' suggestion as to losing two of the
buildings in the southern portion (one on either side of the road) and widening the open space.
The petitioner said he would look at the plan again and work with Jon Dobosiewicz.
The petitioner will return to Committee on March 5, 2002 for further review.
There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at
10:15 PM.
David Cremeans, Chairperson
Page 11
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
FEBRUARY 5, 2002
Carmel /Clay Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
Ramona Hancock, Secretary
Page 12
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417