Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 01-15-02IUU °F C =y oi�� C ity of CARMEUCLAY PLAN COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel /Clay Plan Commission met at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana on January 15, 2002. Members present: Marilyn Anderson; Jerry Chomanczuk;, Leo Dierckman; Linda Flanders; Wayne Haney; Ron Houck; Nick Kestner; Dianna Knoll; Norma Meighen; Pat Rice (late arrival;) Paul Spranger; and Wayne Wilson, thereby constituting a quorum. The Department of Community Services was represented by Mike Hollibaugh, Director; Jon Dobosiewicz, Laurence Lillig. Also present was Jeff Kendall, Building Commissioner; Adrienne Keeling and Jim Blanchard, Building Code and Enforcement. John Molitor, legal counsel, was also present. Minutes from the 5:00 PM Special Meeting in December, 2001 were approved as submitted. Legal Counsel Report: John Molitor reported that an Executive Session was held prior to the meeting this evening to discuss litigation. Regarding the Bonbar case, a Motion for Judgment has been filed; in addition, a response has been filed to a petitioner's request to be allowed to submit additional testimony at trial and this has been opposed by us. The trial is scheduled for a time in April. Regarding the Leeper Electric case, the City decided to bring the State in as another defendant in the law suit. We will be negotiating with the State as to whether or not we can get the State to pick up some of the obligations the City may have as a result of the judge's ruling of a taking of the property at 131 and US 31. Department Announcements, Jon Dobosiewicz reported the following: Docket No. 128 -01 Z, has been scheduled for public hearing in February. Item 5j has requested to return to the Special Study Committee for further discussion. In addition, item 7i. regarding Ordinance Amendments —there is additional information for the Commission Members to review before these are forwarded to the City Council. Items li. and ij- -under Old Business are requested to be re- ordered for hearing following the public hearing Subdivision Waiver requests. An identical request is made in regard to item 2i. Ridge at Hayden Run, paired with item 31 Also, as previously discussed in Executive Session, Pat Rice will remain as the Plan Commission appointment to the Board of Zoning Appeals. S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anConimmissionMunutes \PCMinutes2002 1 H. Swearing -In of New Memhers Mayor Brainard introduced and administered the Oath of Office to appointments Jerry Chomanczuk and Dianna Knoll. Marilyn Anderson was elected president by Unanimous Consent. Paul Spranger was elected vice president by Unanimous Consent. Pat Rice will continue to serve as Plan Commission appointment to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Jerry Chomanczuk accepted the appointment to serve as Plan Commission representative to the Hamilton County Plan Commission. Nick Kestner was elected Member -at -Large by Unanimous Consent. For the benefit of the public in attendance, Marilyn Anderson reviewed the Conduct of Public Hearing. L Pnhlic Hear*nvc Ii. Docket No. 122 -01 PP; Fecitt Subdivision (Primary Plat Subdivision Waiver Only) The applicant seeks approval to plat a two lot residential subdivision on 4.41 acres. The site is located at 14415 Cherry Tree Road. The site is zoned S- 1 /Residence. The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waiver: 122 -01a SW SCO 6.2 Suitability of Land Filed by Adam DeHart of Keeler -Webb Associates for Robert Fecitt. Note: This item paired with Item Ij under Old Business. Note: This item was heard concurrently with item Ij., Docket No 122 -01 PP, Fecitt Subdivision Primary Plat Subdivision Waiver. Adam DeHart of Keeler -Webb Associates, 486 Gradle Drive, Carmel appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Robert Fecitt, owner, was also in attendance. The petitioner is requesting approval to plat a two lot, residential subdivision on 4.41 acres. The plan has been reviewed by the DOCS Staff and legal counsel, and a subdivision waiver is required through the public hearing process. The rear lot line of the subdivision follows the Vestal Ditch. A two -lot subdivision is being proposed by creating a lot line across the floodway. In reviewing the Ordinance, the intent was S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCo i ssionMunutes \PCMinutes2002 2 provided in the case of a lake or a multi -lot subdivision. If there were a homeowners association caring for the area in a floodway, it would generally be used in open space design. In this particular case, there are two individuals involved who are not going to create a homeowners association. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. Department Report, Jon Dobosiewicz said this applicant was heard by the Subdivision Committee on December 4 th At that time, it had not been determined that a Subdivision Waiver was necessary. The requirement for Subdivision Waiver was subsequently determined, and notice could not be made for the December 18 meeting for public hearing. Hence, the applicant is appearing this evening. The Department is recommending that the Commission suspend the Rules of Procedure and act on the Subdivision Waiver request and subsequent approval of the Primary Plat as presented. Ron Houck reported that the Subdivision Committee heard this item January 8 th and had voted unanimous approval. Ron Houck moved for the suspension of the Rules of Procedure. The motion was seconded by Paul Spranger and approved 11 -0. Ron Houck moved for approval of Docket No. 122 -01a SW, SCO 6.2, Suitability of Land. This motion was seconded by Paul Spranger and APPROVED 11 -0. Ron Houck moved for approval of Docket No. 122 -01 PP, Primary Plat for Fecitt Subdivision. The motion was seconded by Paul Spranger and APPROVED 11 -0. 2i. Docket No. 139 -01 PP; The Ridge at Hayden Run (Primary Plat Subdivision Waivers Only) The applicant seeks approval to plat a 105 -lot residential subdivision on 74.347± acres. The site is located on the south side of West 141 Street approximately one half mile west of Towne Road. The site is zoned S -1 /Residential. The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waivers: 139 -01a SW SCO 5.1.7 extension of facilities included in the master plan 139 -01b SW SCO 6.1.1 conformance with the comprehensive plan 139 -01c SW SCO 6.3 provision of north -south collector road Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Associates, Inc. for Centex Homes. Note: This item paired with Item 3j under Old Business. David Warshauer, attorney, 11 South Meridian Street, Indianapolis, appeared before the Commission representing Centex Homes. Also in attendance: Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Associates; and Tom Kutz, land development manager for Centex Homes. S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCo i ssionMunutes \PCMinutes2002 3 Note: This item is being heard concurrently with item 3j., Docket No. 139 -01PP, The Ridge at Hayden Run (Primary Plat). The public hearing remains open on the Primary Plat. The petitioner is seeking Primary Plat approval for the Ridge at Hayden Run. The public hearing was held in December and further reviewed by the Subdivision Committee. The Committee has recommended favorable action on this petition and the Department has also recommended approval based on the Committee's recommendation and subject to the recording of commitments concerning use and development of the real estate regarding required roadway improvements. The Commitments have been submitted to DOCS and approved; the sign commitments have been delivered to DOCS for recording prior to recording the first Secondary Plat. The commitments are similar to the ones approved last month for the Claybourne Subdivision. The commitments impose upon Centex an obligation to either improve perimeter streets (141 Street) to the maximum required by the Subdivision Control Ordinance, or to make the standard improvements: a three -foot pavement widening and a three -foot stone shoulder; and to pay the difference in that amount to the DOCS to hold in a fund for roadway improvements within Clay Township. Dave Warshauer displayed a diagram showing the Lakes at Hayden Run, (heard later this evening) The Ridge at Hayden Run, The Hamptons, and Shelbourne Park. These are four developments within the same area being reviewed by the Plan Commission at one time. This has allowed the developers to work with the Staff to determine the best method for providing connectivity among the various subdivisions. The petitioner has requested three waivers that all relate to one item. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 36 foot wide collector as approved in the original Hayden Run, to connect with a collector and continue through The Hamptons up to 141 Street. This is being done in order to avoid putting the collector street down the township one -half section line through the wetlands. In order to accomplish this, the road must swing to the east through The Hamptons rather than through The Ridge at Hayden Run. In lieu of the north /south collector through Hayden Run, Centex has agreed to construct a leg of an east/west collector, not shown on the Thoroughfare Plan, but one that would improve connectivity. Centex has also agreed to construct the road that runs through The Ridge at Hayden Run to the north of a 30 foot wide street and to pay the difference between a 30 foot wide street and a 36 foot wide collector to DOGS, to be used in the fund for other improvements. Jon Dobosiewicz and Kate Weese, Engineer, will be meeting with Centex to determine the actual dollar amount. The petitioner is requesting Suspension of the Rules and a vote this evening on the Waivers, rather than forwarding to Committee. There are three waivers because there are three sections of the Subdivision Control Ordinance that would impose upon the developer the obligation to build a collector street. DOCS felt it was important to have a separate waiver for each item, but they all deal with the collector street. Organized remonstrance in opposition was invited at this time; no one appeared. S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCo i ssionMunutes \PCMinutes2002 4 Individual members of the public were invited to offer comments in opposition; the following appeared: Andy Crook 2288 West 136 Street, stated concern with the configuration of the road and opposition by reason of access /traffic /public safety. Mr. Crook said it was not in the best interest of the public to have another road coming in to Towne Road off of the proposed subdivision because it is a major safety hazard. Also, 136 is to be extended at some point and Mr. Crook requested that the plan for extension be considered and understood as far as how the traffic will move through this area before any of the three developments is approved. Mr. Crook requested that this item be referred back to Committee for further study. The public hearing was then closed. Rebuttal, Dave Warshauer said the item being dealt with is a Primary Plat, not a rezone. The question is whether or not the proposal conforms to the Subdivision Control Ordinance for The Ridge at Hayden Run. With the exception of the waivers that deal with a collector street, the petitioner believes he does conform to the Subdivision Control Ordinance. The petitioner is responding to recommendations of the staff and trying to accommodate the Thoroughfare Plan and take into account the extension of an east/west road and other external factors. Jon Dobosiewicz, DOCS is recommending the Plan Commission act upon the three waiver requests this evening; this requires a suspension of the Rules of Procedure. It would be appropriate to make a single motion, and separate findings of fact. If approval of the waivers is forthcoming, it would also be appropriate to act upon the Primary Plat this evening. Ron Houck, Subdivision Committee, said the Primary Plat was discussed and the Committee was also aware of the Subdivision Waiver request. Jon Dobosiewicz explained thoroughly the reason for the waivers at the time the Primary Plat was discussed. The Committee favorably recommended the Subdivision Waivers and the Primary Plat 4 -0. Marilyn Anderson commented she did not see Shelbourne Road and 116 Street intersection included in the traffic study. Jon Dobosiewicz said this intersection could be asked for consideration. In 2000, the Commission had considered the Long Branch Subdivision and with the development of that Subdivision, right -of -way is being dedicated to provide for the ability of realignment of Shelbourne Road. A response will be solicited from the County as far as timing for the roadway improvements, since they are moving forward on that particular intersection. The County Highway's timetable needs to be factored in. Pat Rice asked if the remonstrator's concern was addressed at committee. Ron Houck said a unified traffic analysis for the entire area was discussed at Committee; the results have not been completed. The reasoning was that with the dedication of funds from all of the developments for off -site improvements, the results of the traffic survey would not bear upon the impact of this individual, primary plat approval. The results of the traffic study are to be presented in mid February. In terms of overall traffic movement, the goals of the Thoroughfare Plan are being S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCo i ssionMunutes \PCMinutes2002 5 met in terms of providing north /south, east/west connectivity in this portion of the township through the development of these subdivisions and their commitment to providing those segments as well as off -site improvements. The movement of traffic and safety will only be improved by the proposed developments. Paul Spranger asked about the anticipated time of build -out for these developments. Tom Kutz responded the Ridge at Hayden Run has an anticipated build -out in three years plus one year to finish construction of the homes. Construction will commence in 2003. Subdivisions to the south, Hayden Run and The Lakes at Hayden Run, will commence as sewers are in place. Marilyn Anderson again expressed concern if there would be inadequate funds that would not meet the traffic analysis. Ms. Anderson said she would feel better with the traffic study before her and if she knew where 116 and Shelbourne was on the County's list of priorities. Ron Houck responded that without knowing the results of the traffic study, the contribution by this particular development and the other developments that will be contributing to that study will not change. Ron Houck moved for the suspension of the Rules of Procedure. The motion was seconded by Norma Meighen and unanimously approved 12 -0. Ron Houck moved for the approval of Docket Nos. 139 -01a SW; 139 -01b SW; 139 -01c SW; Subdivision Waivers for The Ridge at Hayden Run. The motion was seconded by Leo Dierckman and APPROVED 12 -0. Ron Houck moved for the approval of Docket No. 139 -01 PP, The Ridge at Hayden Run, seconded by Norma Meighen. The motion was APPROVED 12 in favor, none opposed, conditioned upon the recording of the commitment for use and development of the real estate regarding roadway improvements; and also conditioned upon the inclusion of 116 Street and Shelbourne Road in the traffic study. 3i. 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 141 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, 4983 St. Charles Place, Carmel, attorney, appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Also in attendance was Ray Roehling, developer. The petitioner is requesting primary plat approval for The Hamptons located on the southwest corner of West 141 Street and Towne Road. S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anConimmissionMunutes \PCMinutes2002 6 The Hamptons comprises a 192 lot residential subdivision on 154.8 acres, representing a gross density of 1.27 homes per acre. To the east and south of The Hamptons will be The Ridge at Hayden Run and The Lakes at Hayden Run, respectively; southwest of The Hamptons will be Shelbourne Park. When the Primary Plat was prepared, it was thought that a small portion of the real estate presented compaction difficulties. It has since been determined that these difficulties do not exist and therefore, the Primary Plat has been revised. As a result of the revision to the Primary Plat, the northwest corner of the subdivision has been improved, obviating the need for a variance regarding the length of the street, concluding in a cul -de -sac. The Primary Plat contains 42.1 acres of open space and 51.35 acres is required under the Residential Open Space Ordinance; the difference of 9.25 acres, or 18 per cent and a variance is therefore being requested from the open space requirement under the Residential Open Space Ordinance. A variance is needed in order to permit lots that are sufficient in number to justify the development of custom lots and also sufficiently large to attract custom home builders and purchasers. The landscaping will be meaningful. Rolling landscape berms will create an aesthetically pleasing entrance into the community; throughout the neighborhood, numerous shade trees will line streets and accentuate front yards. Dense evergreens will give a sense of privacy to those in the neighborhood and existing wooded areas and trails will provide a park -like setting for all to enjoy. The petitioner is prepared to make commitments ensuring the custom nature of these homes. The commitments will include: 1) The expected, minimum sales price is $550,000 for the 120 -foot lot and residence, and $475,000 for each of the 100 -foot lots and residences to be constructed thereon. The minimum square footage of first and second floors will be 3500 square feet per residences on 120 foot lots; 2600 square feet for residences on 100 foot lots. The average finish area is expected to be 5500 square feet for residences on 120 foot lots, and 4,000 square feet for residences on 100 foot lots. Exteriors will be masonry or dryvit on the first floor except for accent areas. There will be a minimum of three -car, attached garage. All windows will be wood-clad—no aluminum. Yards will be automatically irrigated with sprinkler systems. An amenity area will include a playground; tennis courts and hard court activity areas; soccer practice area; and a pool area beautifully landscaped with over 60 trees. The pool area will also include a full size pool and baby pool, both heated; multi -level deck areas with substantial landscaping; a bathhouse with ceramic and marble floors; a ceramic bath area; showers; Corian vanities; and a wrought -iron style fence. The petitioner believes this to be one of the first, truly custom communities to be proposed under the Residential Open Space Ordinance west of Meridian. The petitioner is requesting this item be sent to the Subdivision Committee for further review. Organized remonstrance was invited, and no one appeared. Individual remonstrance was invited and the following persons appeared: Debbie Winchester, 13881 Shelbourne Road, (property backs up to The Ridge) states three main concerns. This area of the township is supposed to maintain a rural flavor in any development. S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCo i ssionMunutes \PCMinutes2002 7 The proposal is a nice development, but does not retain the rural flavor of the area. The development could be a more creative plan. The fact that the amenities are in the center is good; the fact that there is green space to the outside is good, however, it just looks like another subdivision. Somewhere in this area, there is a mature Sycamore Tree —will this be left intact and worked into the landscaping or will it be bulldozed? Also, the lighting is a concern. Lighting tends to take away the rural flavor. Please consider minimal street lighting— shielded. Will the tennis courts and amenity areas be lighted at night? Andy Crook, 3288 East 136 Street, requests the Commission take a close look at the requirements for drainage from this property. It primarily drains to the east onto Towne Road. If it increases drainage onto Towne Road, it will make a bad situation even worse. SaddleCreek plans to expand, there are other properties to be developed in this area, and there will be further pressure on the infrastructure. To Mr. Crook's understanding, the petitioner refused to sell ground to Cinergy for a substation; SaddleCreek also refused. Consequently, a piece of property was purchased by Cinergy in the middle of a rural, residential area that abuts Mr. Crook's property. The substation will have a negative effect on property values in the area. Rebuttal: Charlie Frankenberger responded those concerns will be addressed at Subdivision Committee. The public hearing was then closed. DOGS, Jon Dobosiewicz has reviewed the layout for the primary plat—there are no concerns above and beyond those expressed in the Department Report. The applicant has been addressing drainage issues on site with the County, and the petitioner should be prepared to make an extended report to the Subdivision Committee. Typically, when subdivisions are developed, they improve the drainage situations where there are problems. In addition, the Department recommendation is that this item be forwarded to the Subdivision Committee on February 5 th The developer should bring written commitments in draft form to be reviewed by the Committee in respect to Waiver requests. Comments from Commission members: Pat Rice considering the size of this development, the petitioner should provide more open space than required rather than less. Ron Houck—requests number of each type of lot and minimum and maximum square footage and average. Marilyn Anderson—requests details of the landscaping plan be made available to Committee. Also, the intersection at 116 and Shelbourne should be included in the traffic study. Linda Flanders —how does the proposed development fit in with the other two being planned? Town Road is a rural road and there will be a lot of traffic dumped onto this road; also a concern is the entrance off Towne Road. S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCo i ssionMunutes \PCMinutes2002 8 Nick Kestner —asks the petitioner to provide lighting details. Docket No. 141 -01 PP, The Hamptons (Primary Plat) was forwarded to Subdivision Committee for further review on February 5, 2002 at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. 4i. Docket No. 159 -01 PP; The Townhomes at Hazel Dell (Primary Plat) 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 159 -Ole 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, attorney, appeared before the Commission representing Platinum Properties and its president, Paul Rioux, also present. The 24 -acre parcel of real estate to become known as the Townhomes at Hazel Dell exists north and west of the intersection of East 116 Street and Hazel Dell Parkway. Over the past 12 months, Mark Stout has presented to this Commission several plans providing for the development of this parcel of real estate. None of those plans has received approval of this Commission or has satisfied the express concerns of the Department as well as the neighbors of Lake Forest and Brookfield. Platinum Properties is now the contract purchaser of the real estate and has had several meetings with the neighbors and the Department. Platinum Properties is offering a fresh approach to the development of this parcel of real estatean approach that addresses the two prior primary concerns of the neighbors and the Department. The concerns were the use (or non -use) of the six, western-most acres of the real estate or that part of the real estate wedged between Lake Forest and Brookfield. The second main concern was a view of the development from Hazel Dell Parkway. The plans for the Townhomes at Hazel Dell addresses these concerns thusly: In respect to the six, western-most acres, by way of commitments tendered to the Department, these six acres will be preserved in its naturally occurring state, a phrase taken directly from the Open Space Ordinance. The ground will be disturbed only to provide for the necessary drainage and utility easements as well as a cul -de -sac discussed later. With respect to the view from Hazel Dell Parkway, the view will be of the front elevation of townhomes by Ryland Homes; townhomes S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCo i ssionMunutes \PCMinutes2002 9 that are exactly like those approved for the City Center project. The townhomes will provide an attractive and unified appearance from Hazel Dell Parkway. There will be 99 townhomes allocated throughout a series of buildings with 4 to 6 homes per building. These townhomes can also be referenced as attached, single- family homes. The living area will be between 1800 and 2100 square feet and priced between $140,000 to 200,000. The front elevation of the buildings adjacent and nearest Hazel Dell Parkway was shown; the garage entry area is to the rear of the home. A second elevation shows placement of the homes around the lake —the same building with the garage entry from the front. A site plan provides the orientation of the townhomes as well as the other infrastructure. The parcel is "L" shaped and has a 5 -acre existing lake to be retained in its existing shape. Two entrances are provided to the development from Hazel Dell Parkway; one at the southern-most entrance opposite the planned entrance to Founders Park to the east, and the other The six -acre, western-most part of the real estate is designated as common area, open space, and by way of commitment, will be preserved in its natural occurring state, and will be deeded to the homeowners association for ownership and maintenance purposes. There is a stub street serving a few homes in Lake Forest. Lake Point Drive was stubbed to the property line. The petitioner has provided for the extension of a cul -de -sac onto his property providing for residents who choose to drive Lake Point Drive the opportunity to turn around and reverse direction on Lake Point Drive. Again, the goal was to address the view from Hazel Dell Parkway and provide for the non development for the shorter part of the "L" that lies between Lake Forest and Brookfield. Certain waivers have been requested. Those waivers are a result of 1) the fact that we are asking for a private street to run north /south 2) the fact that these are townhomes, they are attached, single- family homes, not detached homes, and 3) the unusual shape of the site. It is a challenge with the 5 acre lake and the "L" shaped parcel, the substantial road frontage, and the narrowness of the site as it nears 116 Street. Following public comments, the petitioner is requesting review by the Subdivision Committee. Individual remonstrance was invited in favor of the proposed development; the following appeared: Dan Kane, 12419 Springbrook Run, represents all residents of Brookfield and they are in support of the proposed development. The developer has met the area residents' concerns for safety and property value. Bill Marshall, 5246 Lake Point Drive, Lake Forest, said there are at least 33 residents between Brookfield and Lake Forest that have opposed the prior plan over the last year. The residents are pleased with the revised plan that has addressed specific issues of double frontage lots, quality of life, safety —these issues have been resolved. The construction traffic that would have gone through Lake Forest and Brookfield has been eliminated with the revised plan, and there will be no construction traffic or vehicle access after the development. The development is separated S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCo i ssionMunutes \PCMinutes2002 10 from the adjoining neighborhood by adequate landscaping and buffering addressed in the new plan. The neighbors are also pleased that the six acres are committed to non -use similar to a conservation area. Mr. Marshall submitted a letter with 17 signatures in support of the development. Organized remonstrance against the proposal: Bryan Hynes, 5168 Clear Lake Court, president of Lake Forest HOA Board of Directors, asked to be heard before being labeled opposition. Lake Forest is the community to the south and west of the proposed development. Any HOA Board of Directors duty is to act in the interest of the entire community. We have heard the history of this land and different proposals, all of which is an attempt to "shoehorn" into a very odd shaped parcel, a development. The Lake Forest Board believes that any development in this odd shaped parcel would be inappropriate and in conflict with the quality of life Carmel has to offer. However, if it is the City of Carmel's and this Plan Commission's viewpoint that this land will inevitably be developed, the Lake Forest Board view the proposed development with much less objection than it has any previous development. We have had an initial meeting with Paul Rioux just last week and found it to be very productive and encouraging and were able to express our concerns. We are pleased with Paul Rioux's willingness to work with us. We are not to a complete resolution of all of our issues. We had three main concerns. 1) What would the development do to the water level in our lakes; 2) make sure there is an appropriate buffer along the southern edge of the development; and 3) commitment from the developer that the land at the top of the "7" between Lake Forest and Brookfield is not developed. Individual Opposition: Bill Doron, 11761 Lake Forest Parkway, expressed concern with concentration of development in the southern portion of the property and three story apartment buildings that will dominate the area directly behind it as opposed to one -story homes. Another concern is the people living in the Lake Forest area will get a view of the "plastic backside" of the buildings rather than the brick front facing Hazel Dell. Ed Pursel, 5250 East 116 Street, property owner to the west and south of the proposed development, expressed concern with the narrow portion of the ground to be developed. The main objection is the density and the fact that the townhomes are connected rather than individual, single family homes in keeping with the area. Micky Martin, 5700 East 116 Street, is opposed by reason of aesthetics and the fact that three stories will look like a wall across Hazel Dell Parkway and the back of her property. There is no buffer high enough to block a three -story building. Also, the density in the lower portion computes to approximately 12 units per acre and green space will go to space that is paved and roof top. Also concerned with runoff issues. Also wants to know what kind of reassurance there will be as to no interruption of her water service. Is there adequate access for fire and emergency vehicles? S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCo i ssionMunutes \PCMinutes2002 11 Charles Mullinax, 5198 Pursel Lane, Lake Forest, wanted more general information such as the number of bedrooms per unit; population of the area; construction materials —all brick? Family type community with children and if so, where will the children play? Rebuttal, Jim Nelson said the real estate is zoned R -2 /Residence District and what is being presented is in the form of a primary plat that provides for over 50% open space. A reference was made to apartments -these are not apartments, they are homes for sale, they will be sold, owned, and individually maintained by the homeowner. The developer will formulate specific guidelines for those homes facing Hazel Dell and those being located around the lake. A definitive landscape plan has been submitted to Scott Brewer for review. Mr. Brewer has recommended more landscaping adjacent to Hazel Dell as well as more landscaping between our property and the adjacent property. The matter proceeds to Technical Advisory Committee tomorrow so that issues with respect to adequate ingress /egress for safety vehicles as well as the water level of the adjacent lakes and other technical matters will be addressed. Over the next few weeks prior to Subdivision Committee, there will be sufficient answers to questions asked. Most of the units are two to three bedrooms. Paul Rioux, Platinum Properties, addressed the Commission regarding the demographics of the development. Primarily, the development will be marketed to singles, empty- nesters, with very limited number of children. The target would be young professionals, first time home buyers and empty nesters. All units will have three bedrooms, 1800 to 2100 square feet with 2 car attached garages. The community would build -out in 18 months to two years. The public hearing was then closed. DOCS, Jon Dobosiewicz said the Department's written report has addressed the four subdivision waiver requests. The property is zoned appropriately for the proposed use. The Department has also reviewed with the developer certain commitments in regard to architectural style of the development that would provide assurances regarding the facade of the buildings. In addition, the Department has reviewed the landscape plan for the development as well as access issues reviewed tomorrow by the Technical Advisory Committee. There will not be a standard connection between this development and the cul -de -sac within Lake Forest. However, the Department is recommending that emergency access be provided with break -away ballards at that location as well as brick pavers that will appear as grass and be maintained as lawn area. Mr. Haney asked to see some sections through the site in order to assess the impact on Lake Forest Parkway, the view, and whether or not there will be a berm or landscaping. Pat Rice asked how emergency vehicles would turn around, where would guests park, and how to break up the backside of the homes. Ron Houck reminded the applicant of issues raised regarding lighting, parking, and maintenance of the open space. S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCo i ssionMunutes \PCMinutes2002 12 Docket No. 159 -01 PP, The Townhomes at Hazel Dell, will be reviewed further at Subdivision Committee on February 5, 2002 in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall at 7:00 PM. 5i. Docket No. 145 -01 PP; CMC Properties Subdivision (Primary Plat) The applicant seeks approval to plat a 3 -lot commercial subdivision on 11.29± acres. The site is located at the northwest corner of West 131 Street and North Meridian Street. The site is zoned B5 /Business and a portion is within the US 31 Overlay Zone. Filed by E. Davis Coots of Coots Henke Wheeler for CH Land LLC and CMC. Dave Coots, attorney, Coots Henke Wheeler, 255 East Carmel Drive, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. This Docket is a commercial subdivision; lot 1 has been approved for a dental office, lot 2 has not yet been designated for any development, and lot three is the CMC parcel before the Commission for ADLS approval for a three building office complex. In order to comply with setback requirements and convey individual ownership of lots from a prior parcel, the petitioner is seeking primary plat approval. Individual and Organized remonstrance was invited; no one appeared. The following members of the public had questions of the petitioner: Meredith Mars, 13456 Clifty Falls Drive, Carmel, president of Parks at Springmill HOA appeared before the Commission and reported that Greg Land had addressed their homeowners' association meeting last April and gave an overview of the project. The number one concern expressed was increased traffic and the safety of the children in the area. Since the main entrance to the project is directly across from the entrance to the Parks at Springmill Subdivision, (the corner of Meridian Corners Boulevard and Shakamak Drive) traffic may funnel northbound through the subdivision. Mr. Land presented a solution of a "slotted left turn" that would discourage traffic from coming out of the project and making it difficult for traffic to go through the Parks at Springmill Subdivision. The HOA Board and Greg Land met with Kate Weese, City Engineer, on June 6, 2001 to discuss the slotted left turn in further detail. Mr. Mars asked that this project not be approved without some strong consideration given to the "slotted left turn." Secondly, Mr. Mars wanted to thank Mr. Land for his openness and willingness to work with the neighbors. John Combs, 13440 Shakamak Drive, Parks at Spring Mill, echoed Mr. Mars' comments regarding traffic and endorses the "slotted left turn." Secondly, Mr. Combs requested a berm running the entire length to the pool area, as well as additional landscaping. Rebuttal: Dave Coots said the rezone of all of the pieces of the project was conditioned upon the redesign of the exit of the parcel onto Meridian Corners Boulevard a/k/a Illinois Street, with a slotted left turn. The design has been approved by the City Engineer and it was a condition of the rezone. Until such time as Meridian Corners Boulevard is connected to the property to the S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCo i ssionMunutes \PCMinutes2002 13 north or whatever is to develop in terms of a round about, tying into Pennsylvania Street, etc., the limited access to this tract encouraging traffic to flow south will remain in place. As to the landscape issue, the petitioner did make a commitment to work with the neighborhood to landscape property on the northwest side of Meridian Corners Boulevard--off of CMC property and on the other side of Meridian Corners Boulevard. The public hearing was then closed. DOCS report, Jon Dobosiewicz said he had met with the petitioner this morning and some minor revisions are to be made to the plat—the revisions can be made by the Subdivision Committee. In regard to the Development Plan for this property, the Department has not been provided information regarding any commitment between the applicant and the homeowners' group to the north. There should be further discussion regarding landscaping at the February 5 Committee. Docket No. 145 -01 PP, CMC Properties, will be reviewed by the Special Study Committee on February 5, 2002 at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. 6i. Docket No. 01 -02 Z; Brookshire Golf Course The petitioner seeks to rezone the real estate more commonly know as the Brookshire Golf Course from R -1 (Residential) to P -1 (Parks and Recreation). Filed by the Department of Community Services. Michael Hollibaugh, Director of the Department of Community Services, appeared before the Commission on behalf of the applicant. The Department met the Statutory public notice provisions; however, notice under the Rules of Procedure was not met and a suspension of the rules would be required in order to hear this item. Leo Dierckman moved to suspend the Rules of Procedure as they apply to public notice. The motion to suspend was seconded by Pat Rice and Approved 12 -0. Michael Hollibaugh reported that in late November 2001, a Foreclosure Petition was filed in Hamilton County Superior Court for the Brookshire Golf Course. The City learned of the foreclosure "through the grapevine," and possibilities were discussed by the Mayor and some City Council members. It was unanimously agreed that it was in the Community's best interest to consider a proposal for rezone to the newly enacted P -1 (Parks and Recreation) District. It would be of particular interest to those persons whose property adjoin the golf course. Even if this is a temporary situation, should the golf course change hands, any possibility of redevelopment of the golf course would have to go through a public process rather than a simple platting process. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the proposed rezone; the following appeared: Tom Kendall, 11818 Gray Road, commended the City for taking a pro- active and pre emptive view to protect the residents of Brookshire Subdivision. It was Mr. Kendall's understanding that S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCo i ssionMunutes \PCMinutes2002 14 the property is now in the hands of an out -of -state bank. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the proposed rezone; the following appeared: Allen Oak, 9000 Max Court, head golf pro at Brookshire Golf Course, read a letter from the attorney for the owner of the golf course into the record. E -Z Golf Club of Indiana, LLC objected to the proposed zoning as "spot zoning." A change in zoning to P -1 Parks and Recreation will adversely affect the value of the property and will impact the owner's ability to obtain commercial financing thereon. Further, the attempted rezone violates the taking clause of the United States Constitution. At this time, local counsel has not been retained and a response cannot be made to procedural matters. Should the Commission proceed with the rezone, there will be no alternative other than to pursue vigorous legal action against the City and the Commission to the maximum extent provided by law. ...etc., etc., etc. signed Albert N. Remler, P.C., attorney, for the firm. Questions from the public: Chuck Weinkauf, 12818 Brookshire Parkway. Has Bayview sold the Note.....does A -Z retain ownership of the property and if so, is the letter a true representation of the owner or who? Is there any representation by the new note holder? Vince McGuiria, 3765 East Carmel Drive (4 fairway of Brookshire Golf Course) said at the time he purchase his property, he was told the golf course was in a flood plain and would never be considered for residential development. Glenn Roberts, 11929 Forest Drive, lot 24, questions if there is any way to protect property that has been undeveloped and is a part of this proposal, to ensure it is not developed for any purpose. Does the designation Parks Recreation automatically qualify all of the land involved in Brookshire Golf Course for some form of development? There is a lot of the property that borders Cool Creek and is pristine forest with a lot of wildlife in residence. Currently there are fox, deer and owls in residence, and Mr. Roberts would like to conserve this property. Kelly Quaiser, 12207 Windsor Drive, asked if the City is intending to acquire the subject property with the rezone? Wade Bordon, 11616 Forest Drive, commended the City for being pro- active; however questions a "temporary" rezone to P -1 until another plan can be put into place and would like that explained. Robert Vetalins, 11634 Woodbrook Lane, formerly 4404 East 116 Street, formerly Rural Route 1, Box 608A, said his property has been in his family since 1959 and is located behind the 15 tee at Brookshire. Mr. Vetalins has been in residence long enough to witness the 100 year flood as well as the 50 year flood, and agrees that the property is not suitable for residential development. There is also a concern with the current owner and his intentions for the property. S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCo i ssionMunutes \PCMinutes2002 15 What will happen to the property under P -1 Zoning? Rebuttal: Mike Hollibaugh, Department Director, responded to the letter from attorney Albert M. Remler and the "spot zoning" comments. The proposed course of action is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and policies within the plan that suggests protection of natural areas and preservation of significant natural features; it is also consistent with the intent of the P -1 District. Any suggestion that this is a taking or reduction in property value will be addressed by John Molitor, Plan Commission attorney. This course of action is in the community's best interest, and the Department is comfortable taking this to the City Council. John Molitor noted the distinction between a taking and a reduction in value. Virtually any regulation of property or land use will, at least theoretically, result in some reduction of value, yet the City does not owe money to everyone just because the City imposes an additional regulation on the use of land. Any reduction of value does not equal a taking. A taking under both Indiana and Federal law is when the owner is deprived of reasonable, economic use of the land and any opportunity to realize any value from the land. The current proposal does not even restrict continued use of the land—in fact, it makes the current use, the golf course, a permitted use. The land could continue to be used as is without any reduction in the owner's opportunity to use as it has been for 20 -30 years. In Mr. Molitor's opinion, the Court is not very likely to view this as a taking. Mr. Hollibaugh went on to say that the ownership of the golf course is uncertain at this point. Regarding the issue of the flood plain, Mr. Hollibaugh said even though the ground has always been zoned residential, approximately 124 acres of golf course, the area surrounding the clubhouse is approximately 25 acres and out of the floodway and floodplain area and has development potential. There are some fringe areas that also have development potential for townhomes or other types of residential use. At this particular time, the City does not have any intent to purchase the ground; of course, that could change if the Council felt the need. If the future owner would decide that portion of the tract be set aside in a conservation easement or some type of contract, there is always that potential and the City cannot prevent it from being totally undeveloped. The area where the 100 -year flood is located is covered under strict rules of the City and the State of Indiana. Before any changes could occur in the floodway that would allow encroachment, there would be a long process to go through. Any rezone action by the City is temporary. The City cannot prevent a future landowner from requesting a rezone to another classification for another use. There are a number of permitted uses that are consistent with the intent of P -1 and the Parks Recreation district. Briefly, those permitted uses are: an antennae; a cemetery, church, temple or other place of worship; a country club; golf course; historic site; museum; park or recreational development; private club or lodge; religious or charitable facility; and tennis or racquetball facility. Jon Dobosiewicz commented there are 30 additional copies of the information the Plan Commission members received, and those are available to members of the public. If this item is forwarded to the City Council, the first available date it could be heard is February 4 th S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCo i ssionMunutes \PCMinutes2002 16 Wayne Wilson offered comments regarding spot zoning, and the intent of the Council to bring the P -1 Designation to all of the country club areas in order to protect greenspace. Leo Dierckman commented that this is a very positive step for the City to take this measure. The P -1 District will preserve the value of all homeowners in the area. Leo Dierckman moved to suspend the Rules of Procedure in regard to public notice. This motion was seconded by Pat Rice and APPROVED 12 -0. Leo Dierckman moved to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council on Docket No. 01 -02 Z, Brookshire Golf Course. The motion was seconded by Paul Spranger and APPROVED 12 -0. Following a short recess, the Commission resumed with the business at hand. Note: Items 7i. and 8i. were heard together 7i. Docket No. 160 -01 OA; Amendments to the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance The petitioner seeks to add new provisions and make several corrective amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Filed by the Department of Community Services. 8i. Docket No. 132 -01 OA; Amendment to the Subdivision Control Ordinance The petitioner seeks to make corrective amendments to two section of the Subdivision Control Ordinance. Filed by the Department of Community Services. Ron Houck moved to suspend the Rules of Procedure in regard to public notice. This motion was seconded by Pat Rice and APPROVED 12 -0. Laurence Lillig presented the petition to Amend the Subdivision Control Ordinance that changes language to provide for right -of -way and pavement width for thoroughfare improvements would be subject to the standards stated in the Thoroughfare Plan rather than the standards noted in the table. The Table was prepared for the 1980 version of the Subdivision Regulations and has not been amended since that time. The standards are very much out -of -date and the Amendment would allow the Department to utilize the Thoroughfare Plan as the standard for determining what the rights -of -way and pavement widths should be without needing to amend this section every time the Thoroughfare Plan is amended. Section 8.9, Sidewalks, will be titled "Alternative Transportation," and accomplishes a similar change in 6.36 in that it makes the provisions of paths subject to what is shown in the Alternative Transportation Plan aspect of the Thoroughfare Plan. Regarding Docket No. 160 -01 OA, Amendments to the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance, accomplishes a variety of things. Firstly, it accomplishes setbacks and other improvements with respect to requirements of the Thoroughfare Plan— placement and requirement for dedication, S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCo i ssionMunutes \PCMinutes2002 17 etc. A number of sub sections of the ordinance address items related to this goal. The second goal of this Amendment is to re- organize certain sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Examples: Most of the Developmental Standards associated with home occupation will be removed from the definition section of the ordinance and puts them in the additional use section in Chapter 25. Another is that residential and business accessory uses and buildings have been removed from Chapter 5, S -1 Residence District, and from various other chapters of the ordinance, mostly Chapters 25 and 26, and groups them together in Section 25.1 of the Ordinance for a single point of reference. The third example is to take the B -3 District that currently requires a Special Use for all uses, and make it DP /ADLS instead. This would reorganize certain aspects of the B -3 Chapter to accomplish that. The next related item is that this Ordinance would introduce ADLS requirements to those business districts that do not already have it (B -1, B -2 or B -6). The fourth goal is to address certain problems with State Road 431 Overlay with respect to residential property. Currently, the Overlay requires ADLS approval and there is nothing in the State Road 431 Overlay language that exempts residential property from this requirement. Over the years, residential building permits have been issued and development has occurred without adherence to this Chapter being pursued; this would become explicit in the language of the ordinance. The fifth item, and this is new: Certain amendments being worked on with the Land Use and Annexation committee of the Common Council on Ordinance No. Z- 366 -01, the second half of the patch one Ordinance, need to be rolled into this Ordinance because the 90 days expired on Z- 366 and that has actually been enacted as an Ordinance. In order to make the changes, the Ordinance needs to be brought back in this forum rather than having the Council refer them back to the Commission for action. The other aims of this Ordinance Amendment are to introduce the changes with parallelism in various Chapters of the Ordinance so that the structure of the Business Districts reflects one another and the Residential in respect to these changes. The next is to introduce appropriate cross references into these Chapters so that persons using the Ordinances are guided to the appropriate section to find information based on the changes being made. The last is to affect the structure of the Ordinance, specifically in the way certain subsections are dealt with, introducing and clarifying titles to certain sections, etc. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of opposition to the petitions; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. Paul Spranger moved for the suspension of the Rules of Procedure on Docket No. 132 -01 OA, Amendments to the Subdivision Control Ordinance. This motion was seconded by Pat Rice and APPROVED 12 -0. Paul Spranger moved to forward Docket No. 132 -01 OA to the City Council with a positive recomendation. This motion was seconded by Ron Houck and APPROVED 12 -0. Docket No. 160 -01 OA, Amendments to the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance, was forwarded to the Special Study Committee for further review on Tuesday, February 5 th at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCo i ssionMunutes \PCMinutes2002 18 1j. Docket No. 122 -01 PP; Fecitt Subdivision Primary Plat The applicant seeks approval to plat a two lot residential subdivision on 4.41 acres. The site is located at 14415 Cherry Tree Road. The site is zoned S- 1 /Residence. The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waiver: 122 -01a SW SCO 6.2 Suitability of Land Filed by Adam DeHart of Keeler -Webb Associates for Robert Fecitt. Note: This item paired with Item I i under Public Hearings. See item Ii. under Public Hearings. 2j. Docket No. 138 -01 PP; The Lakes at Hayden Run (Primary Plat) The applicant seeks approval to plat a 111 -lot residential subdivision on 80.742± acres. The site is located on the north side of West 131 Street approximately one quarter mile west of Towne Road. The site is zoned S -1 /Residential. Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Associates, Inc. for Centex Homes and Trinity Homes. Dave Warshauer, attorney, 1 I South Meridian Street, Indianapolis, 46204, appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Also present were Tom Kutz of Centex Homes, and Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Associates. This petition was heard by the Commission in December and referred to the Subdivision Committee January 8 The Committee voted for favorable approval. The Department is recommending approval based upon the submission of a commitment regarding improvements to be made to the thoroughfare or in lieu thereof, a monetary contribution to the Department's fund. The petitioner has signed and submitted the commitment to the Department. There are no waivers and no outstanding issues. Ron Houck reported the Committee discussed this Docket and unanimously recommended approval. Jon Dobosiewicz commented the Department's recommendation of approval is for the primary plat subject to the recording of the required commitment regarding roadway improvements. Marilyn Anderson asked that the intersection of 116 and Shelborne Road be included in the traffic study. Paul Spranger moved for approval of Docket No. 138 -01 PP, The Lakes at Hayden Run (Primary Plat) conditioned upon recording of commitments for roadway improvements as recommended by DOCS and inclusion of 116 and Shelborne Road in the traffic study. The motion was seconded by Ron Houck and APPROVED 12 -0 3j. Docket No. 139 -01 PP; The Ridge at Hayden Run (Primary Plat) S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCo i ssionMunutes \PCMinutes2002 19 The applicant seeks approval to plat a 105 -lot residential subdivision on 74.347± acres. The site is located on the south side of West 141 Street approximately one half mile west of Towne Road. The site is zoned S -1 /Residential. The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waivers: 139 -01a SW SCO 5.1.7 extension of facilities included in the master plan 139 -01b SW SCO 6.1.1 conformance with the comprehensive plan 139 -01c SW SCO 6.3 provision of north -south collector road Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Associates, Inc. for Centex Homes. Note: This item paired with Item 3i under Public Hearings. 4j. Docket No. 140 -01 PP; Shelborne Park (Primary Plat) The applicant seeks approval to plat a 54 -lot subdivision on 39.91± acres. The site is located on the north side of West 131 Street approximately one quarter mile east of Shelborne Road. The site is zoned S -1 /Residential. Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Associates, Inc. for Roger L. Kessler. Roger Kessler, attorney representing Logan Limited, appeared before the Commission requesting primary plat approval for Shelborne Park. Also present was Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Associates. The peititoner has been to the Subdivision Committee for review on January 8 th and a recommendation was made for favorable approval conditioned upon a commitment for roadway improvements. The petitioner is also participating in the traffic study and is agreeable to adding the intersection of 116 and Shelborne Road. Ron Houck reported the Committee findings. The preservation of greenspace and setback from the road were to the Committee's liking. However, this application also has an option on adjacent land that makes the project more rectangular than linear. It is unfortunate that the two projects could not have been combined for development, but that may be an issue of timing. The committee voted unanimously to recommend approval. Department Report, Jon Dobosiewicz asked if this is approved, written findings of fact include the same two conditions as the previous petition. Ron Houck moved for approval of Docket No. 140 -01 PP, Shelborne Park Primary Plat, with conditions as aforesaid. The motion was seconded by Pat Rice and APPROVED 12 -0 with conditions of roadway improvements as recommended by DOCS and the inclusion of 116 and Shelborne Road in the traffic study 5j. Docket No. 148 -01 CA (Commitment Amendment) Hazel Dell Corner Petitioner seeks Commitment Amendment approval to revise the list of special uses permitted on Lots 2, 3, and 4 within the Hazel Dell Corner Subdivision. The site is located at the northwest corner of East 131 Street and Hazel Dell S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCo \PCMinutes2002 20 Parkway. The site is zoned B -3 /Business. Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for Plum Creek Partners, LLC. The petitioner has requested to be returned to Committee for further review. The Commission allowed the petitioner's request and this item will be reviewed at the February 5 Special Study Committee. 6j. Docket No. 150 -01 DP Amend ADLS Amend Stewart Stewart Office Building Petitioner seeks to amend their Development Plan and Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping Signage approval for a building addition. The site is located at 931 South Range Line Road. The site is zoned B -7. Filed by Phillip Stewart. Note: Ron Houck recused himself from discussion and voting on this item. David Stewart, attorney, appeared before the Commission representing Philip Stewart for the firm of Stewart Stewart, Range Line Road, Carmel. The petitioner appeared before the Special Study Committee for review January 8'. The petitioner has agreed to lower the pole lights in the parking lot from 20 feet to 12/13 feet. There was also an issue regarding the parking and it was suggested that the petitioner consider landbanking. Currently, the petitioner meets the requirements set forth in the Ordinance for parking, and the Department of DOCS would not support the landbanking. The petitioner is requesting that the parking stand as originally submitted on December 18'. Leo Dierckman reported for the Committee. One of the issues was lighting, and a cutsheet on the lighting fixture was requested. Mr. Stewart responded a cutsheet was submitted to the Department, however, it had a scalloped cover. A shoebox with a flat cover is being used, and the cutsheet did not depict that particular light. Leo also said landscape revisions were to be reviewed by the City's Urban Forester, and landbanking for parking was felt to be a good alternative by the Committee. Mr. Dierckman suggested the petitioner seek a variance from the BZA for the landbanking. Dave Stewart said he was willing to seek a variance through the BZA, however, the Department does not support that course of action. Comments from the Special Study Committee members revolved around the issue of parking and landbanking. This item should be return to Committee for further review of that issue in depth. Paul Spranger moved for approval of Docket No. 150 -01 DP /Amend /ADLS Amend, Stewart Stewart, conditioned upon the pettioner filing for landbanking through the Board of Zoning Appeals. Following a second by Linda Flanders, there was discussion by members and Counsel regarding the condition attached to the motion and whether or not it was feasible. S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCo i ssionMunutes \PCMinutes2002 21 After further discussion, the motion for approval was abandoned. President Marilyn Anderson returned Docket No. 150 -01 DP Amend ADLS Amend, Stewart Stewart Office Building to the Special Study Committee on February 5 th at 7:00 PM for further review. K. New Business 1k. Docket No. 155 -01 ADLS Parkwood Crossing East (College Hills PUD) Petitioner seeks Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping Signage for an office complex. The site is located northwest of East 96 Street and North College Avenue. The site is zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development). Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for Duke Realty Corporation. Kurt Daner, senior vice president in charge of Indiana operations for Duke Realty Corporation, appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Also in attendance were Blair Carmisino of Duke Weeks; Alan Tucker with CSO Architects, and Charles Frankenberger, attorney with Nelson Frankenberger. Kurt Daner commented that approval for this 20 -acre site was received last year from the Plan Commission and City Council. There are a number of changes surrounding this site which brought about the rezone, namely the construction and increased intensity of I -465, the addition of varying types of commercial property, particularly along College Avenue, construction of Five Seasons facility just to the east of the site, and construction of the 1500 apartment units across 96 Street and immediately south of the proposed project. Blair Carmisino displayed the site plan of the approved PUD consisting of two buildings, 210,000 square feet each. The landscaping plan has been submitted and we are working through the final details with Scott Brewer, Urban Forester. 59 trees are being saved and the commitment for mitigation is being honored. The entry signage was displayed as well as the complete sign package for the development, designed to mimic the building's architecture and dovetail off of the existing Parkwood Crossing signage. DOGS, Jon Dobosiewicz is recommending this item be sent to the Special Study Committee for further review. There are two items the Committee should address in detail. 1) The Ordinance addresses signage as approved by the Commission under ADLS. The only sign of concern is the one directed toward I -465 and the petitioner is being asked to provide an example of the sign in practice, perhaps a photograph. 2) The second item is in regard to the final Development Plan for this site. The petitioner has filed an application and as prescribed by the PUD Ordinance, the Final Development Plan is to be reviewed by the Department for Administrative Review and approval. The Department is currently working through this process and the petitioner has been asked to provide additional detail regarding the timing and extent of the roadway improvements. S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCo i ssionMunutes \PCMinutes2002 22 Ron Houck asked that the Committee address the lighting issue regarding lighting within the building at night that continues to be a problem in Parkwood West. The area to the south is residential, and it is incumbent upon the Commission to do what is safe and reasonable to protect the residential area to the south from undue intrusion from after -hours lighting. Docket No. 155 -01 ADLS Parkwood Crossing East (College Hills PUD) was referred to the Special Study Committee for further review on February 5, 2002 at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. 2k. Docket No. 162 -01 ADLS Amend; Dan Young Chevrolet Petitioner seeks Amendment to the Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping Signage approval granted under 46 -01 ADLS for an auto dealership. The site is located northeast of East 96 Street and Keystone Avenue. The site is zoned B- 3/Business and is located partially within the SR 43 I/Keystone Overlay Zone. Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for D. Young Chevrolet, LLC. Charles Frankenberger, 4983 St. Charles Place, Carmel, attorney with Nelson Frankenberger, appeared before the Commission representing Penske Chevrolet, formerly Dan Young Chevrolet. The petitioner is requesting an amendment to a prior ADLS approval. The site is located on the northeast corner of 96 Street and Keystone Avenue. The approved changes were two -fold: first, an area was allowed to be added to the north building; secondly, a reduction was permitted in the south building closest to 96 Street. Since those approvals, it has been decided to reduce and relocate the enlargement of the north building; and the south building is to be increased by 3,000 square feet. Previously, the north building was the site of both new car sales and service and administration and the south building was the site of certified, pre -owned vehicle sales. All sales have been moved to the south building, and all administrative and service have been moved to the north building. Chuck Kotterman, architect, displayed the revised site plan. As mentioned, the south building has already been reduced, and it has been decided to add 3,000 square feet to the south side of the south building. These changes also resulted in changes in lighting, landscaping and signage. The changes in lighting resulted from building additions and subtractions and the consequent re- alignment of parking. However, the changes in the lighting will not affect the intensity of the lighting or the foot candle at the perimeter boundaries. The lighting changes are insignificant. Regarding signage, all signage will remain within the framework of what was previously approved. In other words, the number of signs will not change, and there will be no change in the area of any sign or the color of any sign. Regarding landscaping, the plan has been reviewed by Scott Brewer, Urban Forester, and has determined that the landscaping was less in quantity than originally approved. As a result, the plan was revised to ensure that the same amount of landscaping is on the site as was originally S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCo i ssionMunutes \PCMinutes2002 23 approved. The landscape plan has been approved by Scott Brewer, subject to some minor changes, and the plan will be submitted to the Special Study Committee for review. An elevation was shown of the north building illustrating architectural and design changes. The extension on the east -end of the building is being deleted. The changes reflect no 19,500 square foot extension on the east -end of the building; the area previously occupied by the canopy on the west -side of the building will become enclosed space. The architecture and design will remain consistent with what has been approved. The original south building will have a 6,000 square foot addition on the north end, but the architecture and design will remain consistent with what has been approved as shown. The petitioner is requesting Committee review. Jon Dobosiewicz said typically, an ADLS amendment would automatically be sent to Special Study Committee for review. However, because of the significant number of changes, not necessarily the extent, the Department felt it was appropriate for the petitioner to make a full presentation to the full Commission so there would be an opportunity for comment before committee review. Again, the Department is recommending forwarding to Committee. Nick Kestner thought the west elevation was broken -up and approved—it looks as if the petitioner has gone back to the original warehouse design. To Mr. Kestner's knowledge, the blue light around the entire buildings was not approved and this should be specifically reviewed at Committee. Marilyn Anderson asked that the petitioner provide the Committee with drawings of the original, approved design as well as the proposed design and changes. The petitioner stated a willingness to comply with this request. Leo Dierckman recalled the blue light was agreed to in exchange for having the pole lights eliminated. Docket No. 162 -01 ADLS Amend, Dan Young Chevrolet, was forwarded to the Special Study Committee for further review on February 5, 2002 at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 PM. Marilyn Anderson, President S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCo i ssionMunutes \PCMinutes2002 24 Ramona Hancock, Secretary S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\PlanCo 25