HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 07-16-02cq q
=y,«...� 11111�ii�
C ity of
CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel /Clay Plan Commission opened with the Pledge of
Allegiance at 7:00 PM on Tuesday, July 16, 2002, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel,
Indiana.
Members present were: Marilyn Anderson; Jerry Chomanczuk; Dave Cremeans; Leo Dierckman;
Dan Dutcher, (late arrival); Wayne Haney; Nick Kestner; Dianna Knoll; Norma Meighen; Pat Rice;
Paul Spranger; and Wayne Wilson, thereby establishing a quorum.
The minutes from the June meeting were approved as submitted.
Legal Counsel Report: John Molitor reported on the current status of Bonbar Development, now a
final judgment in favor of the action taken by the Plan Commission; and Leeper Electric, now
continued until November. Also, copies of a Memo sent to the Council by John Molitor regarding
Park Impact Fees and re- drafting the Joinder Agreement were distributed to Commission members.
Department of Community Services Staff in attendance: Michael Hollibaugh, Director; Jon
Dobosiewicz, Laurence Lillig and Adrienne Keeling. John Molitor, Legal Counsel, was also
present.
A "Dialogue Dinner" has been scheduled for July 30, 2002, 6:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms.
H. Puhlic Hearings
1h. Docket No. 70 -02 PP; Williams Ridge Subdivision
The applicant seeks approval toxlat a 6 -lot residential subdivision. The site is
located on the north side of 116 Street, 1 /2 mile west of Gray Road. The site is
zoned R -1 /Residence.
The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waivers:
70 -02a SW SCO 8.9.1 sidewalks
Filed by Max Mouser of Weihe Engineers.
Max Mouser of Weihe Engineers, 10505 North College Avenue, Indianapolis, and Steve Mollett
of Connelly Homes were present representing the applicant. Approval is being requested to plat
a 6 -lot residential subdivision on the north side of 116 Street, one -half mile west of Gray Road.
S: \P1anCommis Sion \Minutes \P1anCommis sionMinutes \PCMinutes \2002ju1
The site currently has an existing chapel and two residential structures —these will be removed.
The balance of the site is wooded, and the only trees to be removed will be for installing
infrastructure for roads, utilities, and the homes. There will be a formal commitment for tree
preservation.
The petitioner is requesting a waiver of the Sidewalk requirement along the east drive. There is
a common area from the cul -de -sac bulb to 116 Street. There will be sidewalks in front of all
lots, but not along the common area. A 7 -foot tall masonry wall is proposed for screening at the
entrance on 116 Street; signage will be located on the wall.
A variance is being requested for the home on lot 1 that is planned NOT to face 116 Street.
This will be discussed further at the Subdivision Committee.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of, or opposition to the petition; the
following person was not necessarily in favor or opposed, but did have questions and concerns.
Michael Kennett, 11641 Bradford Place, abuts proposed development. Comments and Kudos
for Dick Hill of City Engineering, and John South, Hamilton County Soil Water. Concerns:
surface and subsurface water /drainage. Mr. Kennett said there are dead trees on the adjoining
property and he has been concerned that they will cause damage if they fall.
Mr. Mouser said he had spoken with Mr. Kennett and there is an issue of a storm structure in the
low area between lots 2 and 3, and the casting has been lowered an additional foot to make up
for the extra slope, and a subsurface drain will be installed to tie into that structure, with 50 feet
in each direction to move the water faster. If there are dead trees in the area, they will be
removed.
The public hearing was then closed.
Comments and Questions from Commissioners:
Nick Kestner was somewhat confused by information submitted. The sidewalk issue was not
clear.
Mr. Kennett said that in front of every lot, a sidewalk would remain; there is a 4 -foot existing
walk that aligns with the existing sidewalks on either side of the property. There are currently
discussions with Kate Weese, City Engineer, to determine whether an asphalt path is preferable
or the sidewalk is sufficient at this time.
Ron Houck asked if there were a current trail system in this area; none is known to Mr. Mouser.
Docket No. 70 -02 PP, Williams Ridge Subdivision was forwarded to the Subdivision
Committee for further review on August 6, 2002 at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall.
S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes \2002ju1 2
2h. Docket No. 81 -02 PP; Laura Vista Subdivision (Primary Plat)
The applicant seeks approval to plat a 54 -lot residential subdivision on 34.94
acres. The site is generally located south of Danbury Estates subdivision between
SR 431 and the Foster Estates Subdivision. The site is zoned R -1 /Residence.
The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waivers:
81 -02a SW SCO 6.5.1 50' of frontage
81 -02b SW SCO 7.6.3 2 points of access to open space
81 -02c SW SCO 7.6.3 open space 75' in width
81 -02d SW SCO 6.3.7 cul -de -sac 600' in length
81 -02e SW SCO 6.2.1 subdividing within floodway
Filed by Brandon Burke of The Schneider Corporation for Primrose
Development, LLC.
Charlie Frankenberger, 5212 Carrington Circle, Carmel, attorney with Nelson Frankenberger,
Indianapolis, Indiana appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Also present
on behalf of Primrose Development were Will Wright, Steve Schutz, Jim White, and Brandon
Burke of The Schneider Corporation.
The real estate consists of 35 acres and was displayed on the overhead. The site is located south
of Danbury Estates Subdivision and west of the Foster Estates Subdivision. With the exception
of the Faust residence currently existing on the real estate, it is otherwise unoccupied. A
rendering was shown of the Primary Plat. There were two objectives in platting this
Subdivision: Firstly, the site is heavily wooded and tree preservation was a primary objective.
Second, there was a desire to be compatible with Foster Estates that was stubbed in anticipation
of development to the west. These two considerations led to the 55 lot community of custom,
empty nester homes; the density is 1.57 units per acre, significantly below the permitted base
density of 2.9 units per acre.
The open space required is 6.99 acres or 20% of the site, and the open space provided is 13.17
acres or 37.69% of the site. As suggested by the DOGS, the existing Faust home site has been
platted as lot 55 and incorporated into the community; this necessitated two of the waivers being
requested. A permanent, 24 -foot wide access easement to Vista Drive will be granted to the
Fausts. A trail system will be constructed, accessible either from Vista Drive or Rick's Port.
Primrose has agreed to dedicate a 30 foot wide perpetual easement on the north side of Cool
Creek so that an alternative transportation path may be constructed for public use. In this regard,
the Carmel Utilities Dept. provided their plans for the relocation of the sanitary sewer
interceptor. The actual routing and configuration of the alternative transportation path will
follow the re- located sewer interceptor; the exact location will be determined and approved by
the Alternative Transportation Committee.
Primrose is seeking the following waivers, briefly summarized: 1) A waiver of cul -de -sac length
is necessary for Faust Court, greater than 600 feet. 2) A waiver from the requirement of 50 feet
minimum lot frontage on a right -of -way. 3) A waiver to permit subdividing within a floodway.
Two waivers are required in respect to the common areas —two points of access to open space;
and a minimum of 75' width of open space.
S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes \2002ju1 3
The petitioner is committing to 2,000 square feet of finished space, exclusive of garages. The
petitioner feels the proposed community will merge the natural, heavily wooded features of the
site with an upscale, custom, empty nester community.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; the following appeared:
Remonstrance— Organized Opposition:
George Bell, 2902 Hazel Foster Drive, president of Foster Estates HOA, as well as numemns,
residents of Foster Estates. Presently, there are 248 homes, the prices range from the low
$300,000 to the high $700,000. Foster Estates is located immediately adjacent and to the east of
the proposed development. The proposed development would utilize the two entrances at Foster
Estates, specifically the Stephanie entrance off 146 Street, and Hazel Foster Drive off Carey.
The residents have very mixed feelings about the proposed development. The residential use is
supported as well as the type of community. However, there are still some concerns. The Foster
Estates HOA is requesting additional and adequate time to understand the project, its full
implications, and their options, and time to work with the Plan Commission and Primrose in
order to ensure that the development serves the best interest of all parties. Secondly, there is a
concern with increased traffic, both construction and on -going vehicular traffic. Thirdly, there is
a concern regarding property values, and the safety of the residents, especially the children, with
the increased traffic.
Richard Smith, 14343 Jeremy Drive, Foster Estates, asked that the residents of Foster Estates
have adequate time to review the plans for the proposed development and take any action
deemed necessary to protect their rights and interests as homeowners. Mr. Smith felt that the
developers had only given the bare minimum of notice required. The residents simply have not
had adequate time to decide how best to respond to the notification and what position the
residents wish to take in respect to the proposed development.
Al Koeske 14208 Joshua Drive, Foster Estates, secretary treasurer of Foster Estates HOA. Most
concerns center around home values of the residents, construction traffic, and the common
area/buffer. Mr. Koeske felt the home values of the proposed development would seriously
impact the home values of the Foster Estates development. Mr. Koeske requested that the values
of the homes, amount of brick, type of landscaping, and square footage of the homes be reflected
in the covenants and restrictions of the proposed development. Most construction traffic will
enter Foster Estates off 146 Street, onto Jason Drive, up Jeremy Drive to Laurel Drive, and into
the subdivision —this is unacceptable to the homeowners who live on the adjacent streets that
will carry the construction traffic. The residents are requesting a construction entrance. Also,
Foster Estates streets were repaired and resurfaced not too long ago, and the residents would like
a plan in place that would keep the streets clean and in good repair.
Kathy Judson, 14339 Jeremy Drive, Foster Estates, stated there are 284 children in the
neighborhood and the increased traffic, especially construction traffic increases the risk of
serious injury or death to the children and also increases the "stranger" traffic through the
neighborhood. Property can be replaced, roads can be replaced; children cannot be replaced.
S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes \2002ju1 4
George Bell summed up the concerns as traffic, both construction and ongoing, property values,
and lack of time to fully absorb the impact of the proposed development. The Foster Estates
residents are asking the developer for a commitment on minimum selling prices of the homes in
order to preserve property values. The HOA is also asking that the Plan Commission provide
adequate time for them to perform due diligence and time for comments be extended through
October.
Individual Opposition:
Alex Ochstra, 2709 Laura Lane, was mainly concerned with limited access--one way in /one
way out, for emergency vehicles as well as the residents and children in the area.
Rebuttal:
Charlie Frankenberger said he would respond in detail at the Subdivision Committee level.
However, at this time, some general observations are worthwhile. General information meetings
have been held with Foster Estates and others. Many who expressed apprehension are now
satisfied and there are letters of support from the neighbors. There was discussion regarding
time to respond, and there will be additional time at the Committee meeting. Construction traffic
is inevitable, and impossible to prevent. It is helpful to recognize that there are five times as
many homes in Foster Estates, all of which generated construction traffic at the time of
construction. Steve Schutz and Will Wright are the primary builders and will have the ability to
regulate the construction traffic. The City has recently passed a new construction ordinance
requiring streets to be maintained in a cleanly manner, and the petitioner intends to fully comply
with those requirements.
Charlie Frankenberger also said that per the requirements of the zoning ordinance, stub streets
have been provided. If this development had been brought in as part of the Foster Estates
Subdivision, this would not be an issue at all. Similarly, there are sections of Foster Estates to
the south that are accessed by only one internal roadway. There was no concern expressed at the
Technical Advisory Committee by either Fire or Police regarding public health, safety, or
welfare.
In closing, the development complies with the existing zoning, and density is significantly below
permitted base zoning. The homes are upscale, custom, empty nester residences, and developed
by written, architectural commitments.
Jon Dobosiewicz reported the Department is recommending the Public Hearing be left open on
this item until it returns to the full Commission from Committee.
Leo Dierckman was in favor of leaving the public hearing open.
Ron Houck was concerned about the standard set and that there should be a level playing field
and the Rules should be consistent. Leaving the public hearing open would be an exception to
the normal practice and it should be determined whether the Commission is going to handle the
cases consistently or on a case -by -case basis.
S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes \2002ju1 5
Pat Rice commented that this has been done on occasion; leaving the public hearing open is an
exception, but not something that isn't done from time -to -time.
Dave Cremeans had no problem with leaving the public hearing open. There certainly should be
a process, but it will not change any outcome whether the public hearing is left open or not.
Dave encouraged the petitioner to meet with the Homeowners Association and as many residents
as possible to resolve any issues prior to the Subdivision Committee meeting.
Charlie Frankenberger commented that the Public Notice on the Waivers was not 25 days in
advance of the public hearing; notice of the Primary Plat was 25 days in advance. This could be
a reason to distinguish the situation; the petitioner was either going to request a suspension of the
Rules of Procedure or leave the public hearing open.
Note: The public hearing will remain open on this item.
In response to questions from Leo Dierckman, Brandon Burke, engineer, pinpointed the flood
zone on the south side of the creek —the common area is not within the flood zone; the existing,
mature trees will be preserved.
Charlie Frankenberger said the access to the Faust residence is through an easement that runs
north to Danbury. The petitioner is providing a 24 -foot easement extending east into a street
internal to the community. Alternatives are being explored for construction access, but so far it
has been unfruitful.
Leo Dierckman expressed concern that almost 100% of the common area is of no real utility to
anyone; 50% is in a flood zone and the other 50% is forested. Overall, the lots are small and
there is a concern with the possible negative impact on property values; the density needs to be
looked at closely.
Pat Rice was concerned that the plan for the development appears to "wall off rather than
integrate in terms of the buffer. Stub streets are to be included in development in order to
integrate the community —there is no integration in this community other than using Foster
Estates for access to what appears to be a "land- locked" area. The design seems to be flawed.
The design of the adjacent streets does not appear to be designed for this one entrance to be a
"thoroughfare" which is what this effectively becomes rather than a feeder. In effect, this
development really has only one access. There should also be a commitment to preserve the
trees.
Department Report, Jon Dobosiewicz. The Department Report addresses many characteristics of
the adjacent subdivision. The following observations are offered. There is nothing that can be
done legally to commit to the Plan Commission or the public that there is a base value or sales
price that can be attached to this product. The petitioner may provide characteristics and criteria
by which these homes are going to follow, in addition to a minimum square footage, nearly twice
that which is required by the current Ordinance. The Plan Commission does not consist of
elected officials, but rather is an appointed, advisory body. In regard to the fire issue, the City
does have a mutual aid agreement with the Town of Westfield. Regarding the buffer, the Open
S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes \2002ju1
Space Ordinance establishes that the lots within a subdivision would be separated by a 75 -foot
buffer. The applicant has been advised that they can accommodate the 75 foot buffer, but the
Department's recommendation is that they leave it as proposed, because it would continue to
reduce the area and not make it more attractive for passive use. In addition, the two points of
access to the open area would deter individuals from using it as a passive use.
Also, the design and provision of the open space is according to the Residential Open Space
Ordinance that establishes both flood prone areas and woodlands as primary conservation areas
and the developer is doing, and providing in this design, exactly what the ordinance requires
them to provide.
Jon Dobosiewicz asked the Plan Commission to consider in its discussion other stub streets that
are provided within Foster Estates. This property is perhaps one of three that will develop in the
future. There are 4 stub streets within Foster Estates and at the time it was planned, the overall
layout included US 431 bordering to the west. Between Foster Estates Subdivision, 313 lots, and
the adjacent property, and a road with limited access, logically it would be developed in a
product equal to or less dense than the adjacent property.
Docket No. 81 -02 PP, Laura Vista Subdivision (Primary Plat,) was referred to the
Subdivision Committee for further review on August 6, 2002 at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms
of City Hall.
3h. Docket No. 82 -02 PP Amend; Windsor Grove Subdivision, Common Area #4
(Primary Plat Amendment)
The applicant seeks approval to replat Common Area #4 of the Windsor Grove
Subdivision into a new lot (Lot #36) within the existing subdivision. The site is located
within the Windsor Grove Subdivision at the southwest corner of West 106 Street and
Towne Road. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence Very Low Density.
Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Associates, Inc. for Jim Caito.
Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Associates, Inc., 9940 Allisonville Road, Fishers,
appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Jim Caito, Steve Wilson and
Richard Carriger were also present.
The petitioner is requesting a re -plat of the Common Area 94 in order to convert it to a
residential lot, number 36. The original intent was to construct a pool facility on this lot;
however, it has now been decided that 35 lots within the subdivision are not adequate to provide
maintenance necessary for perpetuating the pool facility.
The property is zoned S -1 with no Open Space requirement for this area. No extension of
infrastructure is required— everything is in place.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; no one appeared.
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petition; the following
individual appeared:
S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes \2002ju1 7
Remonstrance:
Yale Rice, 3105 West 106 Street, property owner directly to the west of the site, questioned
where, exactly, Common Area 94 is located. Mr. Rice was referred to the overhead display and
had no further questions.
Department Report, Jon Dobosiewicz. The parcel as it exists today conforms in every respect to
a lot that would be permitted within the S -1 zoning category. The parcel was platted as an S -1
subdivision and meets the less than one unit per acre minimum which exempts it from the Open
Space requirements. The Department is in favor of the request and at the discretion of the Plan
Commission, recommends suspension of its Rules of Procedure and voting this evening.
The public hearing was then closed
Leo Dierckman was puzzled as to why 35 homes could not support a pool when at the time this
was platted, the plan indicated a pool. The area could be utilized as a playground or some type
of recreational area for all of the residents to use. The proposal changes the economics of the
deal.
Pat Rice asked about definition, ownership and access of Common Area. Jon Dobosiewicz
responded that the Common Area is not owned by all, and the use would be established by the
Covenants and Restrictions within the subdivision and could be amended from time -to -time by
the controlling interest—that would be a private matter. The Department's position is that the
applicant has the right to exercise his request before the Plan Commission.
Dennis Olmstead said this particular parcel is currently owned by the developers and ultimately
would be deeded to the homeowners association.
Jim Caito, developer, said the covenants provide for the conversion of the common area to a
residential lot. If this lot were not converted to a residential lot, it would be deeded to the
homeowners association. Currently, lots have been sold to builders for spec homes, but no lots
have been sold to individuals; this is not an existing subdivision.
Mr. Caito also said that initially, they were hoping to purchase additional ground to the west for
more home sites, and the number of homes would have supported the construction of the pool
amenity.
Ron Houck moved for suspension of the Rules of Procedure. The motion was seconded by Dave
Cremeans and approved 11 in favor, one opposed (Leo Dierckman.)
Ron Houck moved for approval of Docket No. 82 -02 PP Amend, Windsor Grove Subdivision,
Common Area #4 (Primary Plat Amendment). The motion was seconded by Dave Cremeans
and APPROVED 8 in favor, 4 opposed (Jerry Chomanczuk, Leo Dierckman, Pat Rice, and Paul
Spranger.)
S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes \2002ju1 8
4h. Docket No. 84 -02 PP; Carey Lake Subdivision (Primary Plat)
The applicant seeks approval to plat a 10 -lot residential subdivision on 6.19 acres. The
site is located on the south side of 146` Street, 1/8 mile east of Carey Road. The site is
zoned R- I/Residence.
Filed by David Barns of Weihe Engineers, Inc. for Springmill Builders, Inc.
Kent Shipley and Marvin Taylor of Springmill Builders, Inc. appeared before the Commission
representing the applicant. David Barnes of Weihe Engineers was also in attendance.
The petitioner is seeking approval for a 10 lot residential subdivision that will be known as
Taylor Trace rather than Carey Lake. There were a few minor changes in the original design to
accommodate 11 lots, including an existing residence on the site. This property is being
developed under the Open Space Ordinance and all 11 residences will be included in the
covenants and restrictions.
Dave Barnes, 5634 Ridge Hill Way, Avon, Indiana appeared before the Commission and further
detailed the proposed plat. The tract of ground has wooded surroundings; the existing home has
a swimming pool to the rear, and the balance of the tract is vacant.
Signage will be brick columns with "Taylor Trace" on the side.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; no one appeared.
Members of the public were invited to speak in individual opposition; the following appeared:
Opposition:
Doug Allen, 4312 Worchester Court, Worthington Estates, asked the developer to be "up front"
with the residents of Worthington Estates and address their concerns with the preservation of the
tree line and the difference of 10 lots originally filed and the 11 being asked for approval.
Laurie Gordon, 4306 Worchester Court, Worthington Estates, questioned the width of the pond
that was proposed and wanted to know how closely it is located to the easement and will there be
a tree line or a fence. Drainage is also a concern.
Tony Trent, 14445 Carey Road, referred to tile drainage from his property to the existing field
(subject site) and stated a concern with surface drainage from his property and the square footage
of the proposed homes.
Don Dunkerly, Copperwood Drive, said his in -laws live in the immediate area and their
property was somewhat by- passed when Worthington Estates was developed as far as annexation
and bringing city sewer to the area. There are also two vacant lots in the area owned by Mr.
Dunkerly's in -laws. At the intersection of 146 and Cherry Tree Road, sewers were to be
installed when the road was improved, and the sewers were never installed in this corner. The
major concern is connection for utilities for this area. Mr. Dunkerly has already appeared at the
TAC Committee to state these concerns, and the utilities are still an open item.
S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes \2002ju1 9
Rebuttal:
Dave Barnes noted there is no mounding around the lake. There is surface drainage with
drainage swales around the entire tract to take care of storm water and surface drainage. There
are no plans to remove trees on the southern portion of the tract. The lake is 50 feet wide at the
bottom and 30 feet from water edge to property line. The plat was initially submitted under R -1
zoning, but was encouraged by the Department to develop under the Residential Open Space
Ordinance. The sewer will come from the eastern portion through lot 5 along the road to lot 1
and will serve the entire tract with a lateral over to the existing home. Mr. Dunklery's tract is to
the west and there are no intentions to provide sewer.
Kent Shipley commented they were more than happy to work with the owner to the south of the
proposed pond to meet their expectations in any way possible. The size of the lots and square
footage of the homes will be commensurate with the existing homes and will preserve property
values as well.
The public hearing was then closed.
Department Report, Jon Dobosiewicz said as originally presented, the proposal was 9 lots plus
the existing home site. The total acreage on the site is 6.19 acres and the applicant is required to
meet Chapter 7 of the Subdivision Control Ordinance —Open Space Requirements. The
petitioner then re- evaluated their proposal and redesigned the development. Regarding the
safety concerns about the pond, it is not recommended that approval would be conditioned upon
a fence —there is no specific requirement in the Ordinance to fence off the pond areas. The
Department is recommending this item be forwarded to the Subdivision Committee.
Comments from Commission Members:
Wayne Wilson said this area is presently in the first throws of being the next area to be annexed
into the City. The State Law requires that within a maximum of three years from the effective
date of annexation the City will have water and sewer utility services available.
Nick Kestner was concerned about "land- locked" parcels. The walk along the back yards is also
not very creative.
Pat Rice thought fencing around the lake itself was not the concern but rather fencing between
existing homes and the property. More detail /information was requested on the open space
being provided, and the "common area" should be clearly defined and addressed.
Ron Houck asked dimensions on lots 7, 8, and 9. Dave Barnes responded the frontage is 70 feet,
and probably 100 to 110 feet deep.
Docket No. 84 -02 PP, Carey Lake Subdivision (Primary Plat) was referred to the Subdivision
Committee for further review on August 6, 2002 at 7:00 PM for further review.
S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes \2002ju1 10
5h. Docket No. 86 -02 DP /ADLS; Keystone Office Park Amerivest Office Building
The site is located at 3077 East 98 Street (southeast corner of 98 Street and SR 431).
The site is zoned B-3/Business.
Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson Frankenberger for Sheridan Realty Partners, LP.
Present for petitioner: James Nelson, attorney, 12481 Medalist Parkway, Carmel appeared before
the Commission representing the applicant.
Keystone Office Park began in the mid- 1980's and today consists of four, two -story office
buildings of a contemporary design, all brick. Nelson Frankenberger was the first tenant in
the first building. The office park is a quiet and serene setting and is complemented by its
mature vegetation, several acre lake, and the low profile design of the office building.
The proposed Development Plan is for the fifth and final office building and represents the
continuation of an existing plan. The office building will be 18,000 square feet in size, single
story in height, and of the exact, same design, building materials and color as the existing
buildings.
The parcel for the fifth building is the eastern-most site, two acres in size; its nearest neighbors
are the self storage center in Bauer Commercial Park, to the south is a display lot for Ed Martin
Acura, and to the immediate south is Penske Chevrolet.
The proposed building is oriented west to east; there are two parking areas, one to the north, one
to the south; and there are two points of ingress /egress from the internal street system, not 98
Street. At the request of the City of Carmel, a 25 -foot, proposed public right -of -way has been set
aside along the eastern boundary. A written commitment has been provided to the Department
stating that the developer, at the request of the City of Carmel, will dedicate this strip of land to
the City of Carmel for public right -of -way purposes at such time as the possible extension of
LaSalle Street is within the planning agenda of Carmel.
The proposed Development Plan has been reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee, and
the written commitments have been filed with the Department of Community Services.
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 stated that approval of the plan is being recommended.
The Department has in its possession a copy of the recorded commitment regarding the
dedication of right -of -way upon request by the City. The Department is recommending
suspension of the Rules of Procedure and final action this evening.
Leo Dierckman moved to suspend the Rules of Procedure; seconded by Pat Rice, unanimously
approved.
Leo Dierckman moved for approval of Docket No. 86 -02 DP /ADLS, Keystone Office Park
Amerivest Office Building, seconded by Norma Meighen, APPROVED 12 -0.
S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes \2002ju1 11
At this point, the Commission took a ten minute recess. When the meeting resumed, Norma
Meighen had exited; Dan Dutcher was in attendance.
Note: Item 6h., Amendments to the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance, Use Table Adoption
Definitions Amendment, Text Amendments, was heard as the last item of business.
6h. Docket No. 39 -02 OA, 40 -02 OA
Amendments to the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance
Use Table Adoption Definitions Amendment (Text Amendments)
The petitioner seeks to make amendments to the structure of the Ordinance
relating to uses, add definitions and group all definitions into Chapter three of the
Ordinance.
Filed by the Department of Community Services.
Jon Dobosiewicz of the Department of Community Services presented the proposed amendments
to the Zoning Ordinance, Use Table Adoption and Definition Amendment. The amendments
will bring greater clarity to the existing uses, both permitted and special exceptions. The intent
of the Table is to reduce and remove redundancy. As Amendments have been made to the
Zoning Ordinance over the past years, they have been done with perhaps not a great sensitivity
to the context of the balance of the Ordinance. One example is that uses are listed in the
Ordinance as excluded from the US 31 Overlay, while those uses are not listed as permitted
anywhere else in the Ordinance.
At the Committee level, the Department would like to go through all of the definitions.
Members of the Commission who are not on the Subdivision Committee are encouraged to
submit comments in writing to the Subdivision Chairperson.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petitions; no one
appeared and the public hearing was closed.
Pat Rice asked that Common Area be included in the definitions. One area that specifically
should be addressed has to do with lakes and ponds, and open space. The definitions are not
clear.
Ron Houck asked that a zoning dictionary, development definitions, etc. be made available to the
Committee. Jon Dobosiewicz agreed to comply.
Docket No. 39 -02 OA and 40 -02 OA were sent to the Subdivision Committee for further review
on August 6, 2002 at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. Members of the Special Study
Committee were encouraged to submit comments to the Subdivision Committee Chairperson.
li. Docket No. 64 -02 Z; Rezone of Dixie Hi -Way Addition,
Lot 8 the west half of Lot 9
The petitioner seeks to rezone one lot from the R -3/ Residence District within the
S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes \2002ju1 12
Home Place District Overlay Zone to the B -1 /Business District within the Home
Place District Overlay Zone. The site is located at 10820 North College Avenue.
The site is zoned R -3 /Residence within the Home Place District Overlay Zone.
Filed by Leonard Voight.
Leonard Voight, 14928 Pacer Court, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing the
applicant. A rezone of the property located at 10820 North College Avenue is being requested.
This item was reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and a five -year deadline proposed on the
development of the property. Mr. Voight asked that the five -year deadline not be imposed.
Dave Cremeans reported for the Committee. The land is currently zoned to allow duplexes, and
the new Home Place Overlay Ordinance has changed the guidelines of the area and this site is
now considered prime, commercial real estate in the Home Place Overlay District. There was a
concern as to what would happen at the end of the five -year period.
John Molitor referred to the 5 -year period as a grant of a variance from the BZA that would last
for five years. That is not to say that at the end of the five years, the land owner could not come
back to the BZA and ask for an additional five years or a 6 month or one year extension. It isn't
a hard and fast deadline, it is just a grant of variance that would last a certain amount of time and
if still needed, it could again be requested. If nothing was done at the end of five years, the
property would not revert to the residential zoning, and development of the property would have
to conform to the Ordinance without the variance.
Jon Dobosiewicz commented that the property is already under the Home Place Overlay
Ordinance in the area identified for business. The five -year period would ensure the Department
that based upon the Home Place requirements today, the property could be subdivided and
developed for duplexes —the City does not want to see that happen. There is an existing
residence on the site and the petitioner has indicated they would like to use it as a business
operation; they would pave the driveway, provide the required parking spaces, etc. If the rezone
were approved, the Commission would receive the petition for DP /ADLS approval and have full
review. This petitioner fully expects to return to the Plan Commission with a DP /ADLS petition;
however, the petitioner also understands that he must appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals
for relief from the Ordinance requirements.
The Committee is suggesting to the Board of Zoning Appeals that they limit the request for relief
from the requirements of the Home Place Overlay Zone for a period of 5 years. The City will be
getting a guarantee that there will be no duplexes developed on the property. The petitioner can
operate in the existing home under the current conditions for 5 years; the Department would
recommend this to the BZA as a condition of approval. After the 5 years has run, the petitioner
could either cease operation of the business as approved under the variances, or redevelop the
site in full accordance and compliance with the Home Place Overlay. The City would get a
guarantee that there will not be residential development and duplexes on the site.
Ron Houck moved to forward Docket No. 64 -02 Z, Rezone of Dixie Hi -Way Addition, Lot 8
and the west half of Lot 9 to the City Council with a positive recommendation, conditioned
S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes \2002ju1 13
upon the 5 year time period to either cease operation of the business or redevelop under full
compliance with the Home Place Overlay Ordinance. Following a seconded by Dave Cremeans,
the motion was APPROVED 12 -0.
2i. Docket No. 72 -02 DP Amend; Old National Bank Carmel Banking Center
Petitioner seeks Development Plan Amendment approval to Remodel and expand
an existing building (Walden Bookstore) into a financial institution. The site is
located at 1430 South Rangeline Road. The site is zoned B -3 /Business.
Filed by J. William White of A.J. Armstrong, Inc.
Charlie Frankenberger, 5212 Carrington Circle, Carmel, of Nelson Frankenberger, attorneys,
appeared before the Commission representing the applicant.
The petitioner has received Developmental Standards Variances from the Board of Zoning
Appeals and Development Plan approval from the Carmel Plan Commission. The petitioner has
appeared before the Special Study Committee for ADLS approval and is now returning for
approval of the amendment to the Development Plan.
Leo Dierckman was complimentary of the petitioner in working with the Committee. The vote
was 6 in favor, none opposed, for approval of the Development Plan Amendment.
Department of Community Services, Jon Dobosiewicz reported the Department is
recommending approval of the petition subject to the following condition: The applicant dedicate
additional right -of -way illustrated on the plans submitted on both this and the adjacent parcel
prior to issuance of a building permit.
Leo Dierckman moved for approval of Docket No. 72 -02 DP Amend, Old National Bank,
Carmel Banking Center, subject to dedication of additional right -of -way on this parcel and the
adjacent parcel prior to the issuance of a building permit. Following a second by Paul Spranger,
the motion was APPROVED 12 -0.
3i. Docket No. 62 -02 DP /ADLS; West Carmel Center, Block B
Carmel Center West Office Buildings
The applicant seeks Development Plan and ADLS approval to construct an office
center. The site is located at the southeast corner of West 106 Street and
Commerce Drive. The site is zoned B -5 /Business and is subject to the
requirements of the US 421/Michigan Road Overlay Zone.
Filed by Paul G. Reis of the Reis Law Firm for West 106 Street Properties, LLC.
Paul Reis, attorney for the applicant, appeared before the Carmel Plan Commission.
The petitioner appeared before the Special Study Committee for review of monument signage at
the front of the building, and foundation plantings around the building. The lettering on the sign
will be the same as is on the building, individual letters, backlit. The foundation plantings
around the building will not interfere with the air conditioning units.
S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes \2002ju1 14
Leo Dierckman reported for the Committee. The issues were addressed satisfactorily and the
Committee voted 6 in favor, none opposed.
Department of Community Services, Jon Dobosiewicz reported the Department is
recommending approval, as amended, subject to the recommendation of the Committee.
Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of Docket No. 62 -02 DP /ADLS, West Carmel Center,
Block B, Carmel Center West Office Buildings; seconded by Pat Rice and APPROVED 12 -0.
None
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
9:40 PM.
Marilyn Anderson, President
Ramona Hancock, Secretary
S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCommissionMinutes \PCMinutes \2002ju1 15