Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 11-16-99CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission met at 7:00 PM on November 16, 1999 in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. Members present were: Marilyn Anderson; Kent Broach; Dave Cremeans; Leo Dierckman; Ron Houck; Kevin Kirby; Norma Meighen; Bob Modisett; Jim O'Neal, Sr.; Pat Rice; Rick Sharp; Paul Spranger; Chris White; and Tom Yedlick. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as submitted. F. Communications, Bills, Expenditures, Legal Counsel Report Item 1. Sharon Clark, Hamilton County Commissioner, appeared before the Plan Commission and stated that the Carmel/Clay community has been trying to get the County to improve intersections in western Clay Township. Engineering was started last year on many intersections, but the County did not have adequate funds to implement improvements at all intersections. The western Clay Township residents determined it prudent to build one corridor- -Towne Road. There was considerable debate between the Commissioners and the Council regarding funding for Towne Road in the 2000 Budget, but the Hamilton County Council appropriated money to build all the intersections next year. Brad Beaver, president of the County Council, was also in attendance. The construction contract has been let for 116 and Towne Road and engineering for 106 and Towne Road is in the final stages. The dilemma is 96 Street and Towne Road. The preliminary design was funded and started last year; the process was interrupted pending recommendation from the 96 Corridor Study Review Committee. The draft study is ready and calls for the corridor to remain an improved, residential in character, roadway with specific, commercial nodes. The study recommends round -a -bouts at the intersections. One week ago, the County Commissioners unanimously accepted the study but were hesitant to go to preliminary design with round -a -bouts at 96 and Towne until Carmel and Indianapolis policy groups approved the round -a -bout concept. Although the intersection of 96 and Towne is only one part of an overall corridor study, the timing is critical. Due to time constraints for improvement of all Towne Road intersections, before INDOT begins construction on Michigan Road in 2001, and before the request from Commissioners Dillinger and Holt to obtain local approval, Sharon Clark is making a preliminary appeal for approval. At the Carmel City Council meeting last evening, Councilor Kirby proposed a resolution that the County Commissioners proceed as quickly as possible to improve the 96 Street intersection with the safest, most efficient, and least expensive design. Mayor Brainard has stated that round -a -bouts are safer, less expensive to construct, less expensive to maintain, very efficient, aesthetically pleasing, and traffic calming. Ms. Clark is s:\PlanCommission\Minutes\1999nov requesting that the Plan Commission pass a similar resolution to be brought before her fellow commissioners. There were comments from Rick Sharp, Paul Spranger, and Marilyn Anderson in support of Sharon Clark's request. Rick Sharp made formal motion that a resolution be issued by the Plan Commission in support of the improvements to 96 Street and Towne Road as expeditiously as possible, with the strongest endorsement that the round -a -bout concept be fully explored and implemented, seconded by Norma Meighen. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED 14 -0. Item 2. Counsel John Molitor reported that the Courts have recently upheld the notion that you can amortize non conforming uses over a period of years in order to do away with them in a community eventually. The drawback of non- conforming uses is that they sit in an area where no one else can do that kind of thing and there is no competition, thus becoming more ingrained and harder to dislodge. The Commission may want to consider this as a potential change in the Ordinance. Item 3. Dave Cremeans stated that he, Rick Sharp, Paul Spranger and Mike Hollibaugh from the Department had attended last night's City Council meeting and presented the Thoroughfare Plan. The City Council approved the Thoroughfare Plan as presented.nts, Department Concerns Item 1. Steve Engelking clarified that the petitioner for Agenda item Ih. has shown the Department that public hearing notice was properly made by a necessary date and this item will proceed with a Public Hearing this evening, contrary to the Department Report. Item 2. A letter was received by the Department regarding Docket No. 14- 99Z, a Rezone for Duke -Weeks Realty Limited Partnership, requesting that this item be continued until December, 1999. Rick Sharp commented that this particular Docket has been on the Agenda for several months and a number of factors have changed from the first public hearing. The December meeting is four days before Christmas and there is a good chance that there would be few remonstrators at that time with diminished capacity -the public hearing remains open. The first of the year, there will be several seats that will change on the Commission. The new Commissioners will be unfamiliar with the issues and the public testimony to this point. In view of the fact that this Docket has sat for so long with no action on the part of the petitioner, (other than tabling) Rick Sharp moved to dismiss this Docket (14 -99Z) for lack of prosecution; the petitioner may re -file at a later date, if he is ready to move forward at that time; seconded by Ron Houck. s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \1999nov 2 Paul Spranger's comments: Due to the fact there is a hardship rule working, i.e. the freeway -to- freeway intersection, it may not be advisable to dismiss at this time. It may be useful to ask the petitioner what their plans are at this point; it has mostly been continued because of the State of Indiana. This is not just a simple intersection, it is a freeway -to- freeway intersection that is now finally in its environmental phase. Paul Spranger was in favor of hearing from the petitioner before moving to a vote. Rick Sharp asked if the petitioner had indeed filed for an economic hardship. Mr. Sharp stated that at the committee level, it was suggested to the petitioner numerous times that they should file for an economic hardship. Not only did the petitioner resist that, they are on record as stating it was their judgment that they were not even subject to that provision. Paul Spranger clarified his remarks, that the petitioner had notified the State and that was the requirement. Mr. Spranger stated that this is a complicated issue because of the freeway -to- freeway and he would like to see what the State brings forth before this item is dismissed. Rick Sharp commented that if the petitioner had indeed filed a letter with the State and advised them that they intended to build something, that is fine but does not fulfill the requirements of an economic hardship. Again, the records of the minutes of the Special Study Committee reflect very clearly that the petitioner stated they did not feel they were even subject to an economic hardship and were very specific as to why. Mr. Sharp agreed that this is a very complex issue and all the more compelling reason why it should be dismissed. If the item is tabled now and comes before the Commission at its next meeting, it will be the December 21 meeting, and it is unfair to the public, the Commission and the petitioner because of the attendance factor at that time of year. Secondly, if the Commission failed to act at that time, or if the petitioner were to again ask for a tabling, there is the issue of a new Plan Commission. Again, the process would not be fairly served. Mr. Sharp thought it was very appropriate to dismiss and let the petitioner re -file and return to the Commission when all the questions have been answered, rather than cluttering the Docket and also keeping the public constantly guessing as to when or if a particular item will be heard. There was then discussion as to whether or not a meeting of the Plan Commission should be held on December 21 because of the holidays. Leo Dierckman was in favor of hearing the Petitioner's position and the Department's position on the matter of the Duke Rezone request. David Cremeans stated that the public hearing is still open on this item, and the public has not been informed that this item will be heard this evening; therefore, the petitioner will not be heard from this evening. Leo Dierckman then stated that he was in favor of leaving the item on the table. s:\PlanConu 3 Kevin Kirby's comments: The plan as presented, with the new information from INDOT, is not tenable. Either the petitioner wants to move ahead with the plan as it, and if that is the case, it should be taken from the table and acted upon, (or dismiss it) OR if there is a revised plan forthcoming, the case will have to go back to the Special Study Committee. If a revised plan is presented on the 21 of December, it would then start the new year with the new process and new program by going to the Special Study Committee in January. Either there is the same plan, or there is a revised plan. If the plan is the same, it should be moved along tonight. If there is a revised plan, it would be heard at the 21 of December meeting and then referred to Special Study in January to start the process over. Dave Cremeans' opinion: The least important item is December 21 This Docket has gone at least 4 or 5 months and delayed every time. This is stringing the public along and this is not a service. At this point, it is unsure whether or not this is a viable plan -there may not even be a plan. Mr. Cremeans agreed with Mr. Sharp that this item should be removed from the Docket for lack of prosecution. If, at some future date, Duke would like to re -file, that would be appropriate, perhaps even waiving the fee to re -file. There is no point dragging this on month after month, and stringing the public along, and having questions and phone calls as to whether or not this item will be heard. Because there has been so little effort by the petitioner to get this Docket moved forward, it should simply be removed. There has been a motion and a second, we should just call for the question. In response to questions from Norma Meighen, Steve Engelking stated that it is not within the Department's purview to suggest how the Commission should vote on this Docket. This particular application was filed on January 15, 1999 for a rezone of 3 parcels of land. Rick Sharp reminded the Commission that this item was initially tabled at the Commission's request, because the petitioner presented commitments that were substantially different that those commitments agreed to and voted on within the Special Study Committee. The petitioner was discharged from this Commission with instructions to return the following month with the commitments that had been voted on and approved and recommended to this body by the Special Study Committee. At that point on until this day, the petitioner has failed to prosecute. Ron Houck stated his concerns. Specifically, this is a matter of procedure -how this type of situation is handled in which a petitioner fails to move forward in a timely manner and continually requests tabling the item until the following meeting. Mr. Houck agreed that it is not fair to the public that the item appears on the Agenda month after month. The public is obliged to appear and sit through a sometimes lengthy agenda, only to find that an item is tabled. This should not be allowed to happen -a petitioner should not be allowed to seek consecutive tables while they work through their issues. If there are that many issues and it takes that much time, the petition is best withdrawn and re -filed at a time when those issues are in order. It is simply not fair to the public or the Commission to allow an item to remain on the Agenda as long as it has. s:\PlanConu 4 Jim O'Neal asked for an opinion from Counsel. John Molitor stated that the Rules of Procedure do state that the Commission may dismiss a case for lack of prosecution. In the same rule, it states, ..."When a petitioner has failed to appear at two consecutive meetings, the case may be dismissed for lack of prosecution." That is not the case here. The Commission is in charge of the interpretation, at least the initial interpretation, of its own rules. In response to questions from Pat Rice, John Molitor stated that it was not for (the Department) or Counsel to say whether or not this petitioner has failed to prosecute; the rule is for the Commission to interpret. Kevin Kirby reminded the Commission that the petitioner did have a major change in the available property with INDOT's design. It has also been to the benefit of the community to have this item tabled for several meetings. This is a very tough project with very tough decisions to be made on it. Mr. Kirby was not in favor of removing this item from the Agenda, but rather suspending the rules and allowing the petitioner an opportunity to speak. If we are not satisfied after hearing the petitioner, we could entertain a motion to remove the Docket from the Agenda. Mr. Cremeans reminded the Commission that there was already a motion and a second to that effect on the floor. Dave Cremeans then asked if there were a motion to suspend the rules to hear from legal counsel for the petitioner. Point of Order: Rick Sharp stated that this could not be done with a motion on the floor. Rick Sharp then called for the question on the floor. Dave Cremeans asked for a show of hands of those in favor of the motion on the floor. The count was seven. Those opposed to the motion were counted at six and the motion carried by a simple majority. (7 -6) A show of hands for opposing votes was called. Those persons opposed were: Kevin Kirby; Jim O'Neal; Paul Spranger; Kent Broach; Chris White; Leo Dierckman. Norma Meighen abstained from voting. Dave Cremeans then announced that Docket 14 -99 Z, Duke Realty Investments Rezone, had been formally removed from the Docket for lack of prosecution. H. Public Hearin lh. Docket No. 81 -99 ADLS, Meadowlark Office Park Petitioner seeks approval (Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping, and Signage) to construct three office buildings on 3.46 acres known as Meadowlark Office Park. The site is located at 698 Pro -Med Lane. The site is zoned B -6 /Business. Filed by Steve Dauby of Dauby O'Conner, LLC s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \1999nov 5 Jennifer Dorso, attorney, 127 East Michigan Street, Suite 600, Indianapolis, 46204. The petitioner is seeking ADLS approval to construct three office buildings within the Meadowlark Office Park. Steve Dauby and Sean O'Conner, owners, were in attendance as well as architect Todd Rottman, and Greg Snelling of Mid States Engineering. The property is located between 131 Street to the south, 136 Street to the north, Range Line Road to the east, and Guilford Avenue to the west. The site is accessible off of Pro Med Lane and is adjacent to Meadowlark Park. Currently, there are two office buildings on the site, occupied primarily by accounting firms. The architectural style was designed to fit in with the character of the neighborhood, i.e. the surrounding properties to the north and south that are residential in nature, and the park -like setting to continue the park that is to the east. There are five buildings in total, residential in scale, two stories, all brick facade, two colors of brick (dark red and beige), two story entry way with limited stucco and the balance in brick. The roof is sloped, with shingles. All four sides of the building are full brick facade so that the building is aesthetically pleasing as seen by other tenants or persons within the park. The proposed landscaping is simply a continuation of the existing landscaping. The owners have met with the Parks Department and the Mayor to pledge their willingness that the landscaping will complement the park. The lighting scheme also is designed with a continuation of existing in mind. The lighting was designed to minimize exposure to the neighbors. This particular project has been to Technicaal Advisory Committee in August and September, 1999. To the petitioner's knowledge, all TAC issues have been resolved and there are no outstanding issues. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the application. The following appeared: Norman John Kerr, 13595 Kensington Place, Carmel, (adjacent to the Meadowlark Office Park) stated that the petitioner had met with the neighbors on the initial 2 buildings, and also on the 3 proposed buildings with the same conditions of landscaping, lighting, and the architectural design to accommodate Kensington Place. The main concern is the buffer zone that resides on the west, to the south of Kensington Place, and this has been addressed. The petitioner has agreed to a mound with landscaping as a buffer zone adjacent to the recorded buffer zone in Kensington Place. The residents of Kensington Place are very supportive of the architectural design and feel that the proposal is a good use of the area and will complement the neighborhood. s:\PlanConu-nission\Minutes\1999nov Gary Dockstader, resident of Kensington Place, Carmel, stated that he is generally supportive of the project, but does have some concerns. Those concerns are intrusion into the environment. Kensington Place is a part of that intrusion, but through good planning, development and landscaping, Kensington fits in very well. The landscaping buffer is a major concern and asked that extra effort could be afforded the landscaping. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the proposed project; the following appeared: Denny Licht, 50 Wildwood Drive, Wildwood Estates, at the southern end of the property abutting the proposed area. The back of Mr. Licht's property is a natural woodland with 26 different species of birds in residence, including a great white owl and a blue heron, deer, beaver and fox. The neighborhood opposed building No. 1 in early 1997 for two reasons. The first objection was that it lacked adequate and appropriate landscaping; the second objection was that the lighting design would flood the woods with light at night, thereby disturbing the wildlife and the property of homeowners. That plan did not pass the Plan Commission. A new plan was presented at the February, 1997 meeting and was passed. A new parking lot lighting plan was presented that reduced the spread of illumination. Those changes are effective and appreciated. However, lights in the offices in the building continue to burn 24 hours per day. The neighbors have met with Mr. Dauby and some lights are extinguished at night. The newest building still has very bright lights that are not conducive to either nocturnal wildlife or the neighborhood's nocturnal sleeping habits. The prospect of three more buildings with lights burning all night is certainly an invasion to the neighborhood as well as the wildlife. A new landscaping plan designed by Diane Cox was proposed in February; this plan included native plants, trees, and plantings conducive to attracting wildlife. The landscaping plan approved in February was never properly implemented or maintained. A letter was written to the City stating the situation, and the City stated that they were working with the owner. Mr. Licht presented photographs of the existing landscaping that is a rapid departure from what was actually approved. The Maple grove does not exist, there is dying ground cover, and the junipers were never planted. There is no apparent maintenance of the area around the buildings. The lack of follow through by the owners does not speak well either of the approval process, follow up by the City of Carmel, or the intentions of the owners to execute a submitted proposal, once approved. Mr. Licht was concerned about the lack of landscaping to the rear of the buildings that face the park area. The plan does include a lot of brick and asphalt and does not provide a scenic backdrop for the pond and walking path nothing is shown to soften the impact of the buildings. The owners' past actions indicate that the proposed plan will not be followed. Fred Dickens, 13536 Kensington Place, (abuts the rear of the two story building) expressed concern with the owners' commitment regarding the landscaping. The owners are on record as stating that they plan only minimal landscaping. The owners have tried to join forces with the Carmel Parks Department in getting significant landscaping installed to the rear of the buildings. The Parks Department has apparently declined to s:\PlanConu-nission\Minutes\1999nov participate. There are no assurances from Mr. Dauby that he will create the type of barrier that is appropriate to the residential area adjoining his property. Mr. Dickens was very opposed to the project until Mr. Dauby meets with him and his neighbors and makes some financial commitments to do what is right. The residential area can be protected architecturally and enhanced, but Mr. Dauby will not commit unless the Plan Commission requires it and enforces it. Mr. Dickens suggested that Mr. Dauby meet with the homeowners association and create a standard that is acceptable to all parties. Rebecca Wheeler, Thornhurst Drive, cul -de -sac to the south of Wildwood, stated that there is very little structured greenspace in Carmel but lots of unoccupied office space and commercial space. The proposed site has inconvenient accessibility and no park -like feel to it. The landscaping is raw and slip- shod -there are dead trees, the sod has not been maintained, it is messy, and the owner has not lived up to his landscaping plan. The owner has already failed the people in the neighborhood by not following through with the initial landscaping plan and there is little hope that he will live up to more promises. Jennifer Dorso Rebuttal: The new building faces the park and not the neighbors. The petitioner has made a number of attempts to limit intrusions, as acknowledged by Mr. Licht, the lighting has been reduced as well as the impact to the residential area. The landscaping plan has been through 3 configurations to ensure that they fit into the residential and the park setting. There is a 50 foot non disturbance buffer in the form of a tree line between Kensington Place and the subject site -this area will not be disturbed. The petitioner is committed to following the landscape plan and all the plans presented this evening. The petitioner is always willing to meet with the neighbors and is a good neighbor. The public hearing was then closed. Terry Jones of the Department of Community Services reported that he had received a phone call from Randy Auler of the Parks Dept. but was not able to make connection. At this time, the Department is recommending that this Docket proceed to the Special Study Committee that will meet on Tuesday, December 7 th at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. In response to Ron Houck's questions about the lighting schematics, Terry Jones commented that it is uncertain how best to approach the matter. It would not be surprising if there were a violation with respect to the petitioner's commitment of point one foot candle. Ron Houck asked that a reading be taken just prior to the Committee meeting. There were also questions regarding the landscaping and the maintenance. The Department will also make available to the Committee a report on the landscaping situation. Leo Dierckman urged the Special Study Committee to look very closely at the landscape commitments, current condition, and any maintenance agreement. Perhaps extreme measures in the form of a bond may be necessary to secure the implementation of the landscape plan. Leo Dierckman moved to send this item to Special Study Committee. s:\PlanConu 8 Rick Sharp asked the petitioner if the photographs were an accurate representation of the landscaping at the site or had they been re- touched. Steve Dauby, 5151 Sioux Drive, Carmel, owner of the property, appeared before the Commission to respond to comments and questions regarding the landscaping. Mr. Dauby stated that the majority of the landscaping commitments had been met, however an audit had not been done. At the time the building was constructed, it was too late in the year to install landscaping- -this was not done until the following July or August by the time a landscaper could be contracted. The building does have landscaping. Mr. Dauby was not willing to make commitments on landscaping that could not be committed to by the nursery growers. Mr. Dauby reported that he had made a commitment to the neighbors regarding the landscape plan -the petitioner has looked at the plantings and is certain that he can obtain these plants from the growers. Mr. Dauby was not willing to make any further commitments regarding the landscaping. Mr. Dauby also stated that he had met with the neighbors, the Mayor of Carmel, and has tried to work with the Parks Dept. Mr. Dauby commented that what he is proposing to build is much more preferable than a glass building. Rick Sharp commented that the Commission had approved a specific plan that was submitted by the Petitioner in 1997. Mr. Sharp encouraged the Commission members to drive the area and look at the landscaping prior to Committee. Dave Cremeans asked that a landscaping audit and lighting check be done and results made known either at or prior to the Committee. There were further comments regarding the guidelines and standards on landscaping and maintenance agreements, lighting standards, ADLS requirements, and Overlay requirements. 2h. Docket No. 82 -99 CPA, A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation from the Commission to establish a specific Master Plan for an area to be called the Old Meridian District. Filed by the Old Meridian Task Force, Tom Thompson and John Schuler, co- chairmen. Tom Thompson, 2040 East 109 Street, Indianapolis 46280 appeared before the Commission representing the Old Meridian Task Force. The objective of the Task Force was to prepare an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to establish a Master Plan for the development and re- development of the Old Meridian District. The Task Force felt that there is an excellent opportunity at hand to facilitate the development of a truly unique and outstanding mixed use area to help fulfill the needs of both the community and its businesses; 328 acres is a large area to work with. If development is not coordinated, the multiple land ownership, many zoning s:\PlanConu 9 classifications, and diversified development interests are likely to result in a hodge -podge of uses, architecture, and traffic congestion. The Task Force began meeting in March of 1998 and has held 23 meetings open to the public. The owners of property within the area were invited to participate in the process. Commercial developers and brokers gave their input as well as multi family, residential developers, professional planners and designers. The needs and issues of the businesses in the US 31 corridor have been studied and as a result, the Task Force developed a vision for the area. The consultant has taken the vision and molded it into a viable, economic plan for the area. Upon completion of the plan, it was again reviewed not only by the land owners within the district, but also those in proximity to the district. The plan has been amended as best it could be, according to their suggestions, concerns and recommendations. Brenda Scheer of Scheer Scheer, Inc., Urban Design Consultants to the City, with offices at 116 West Sixth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio, reviewed the highlights of the Master Plan for the Old Meridian District. The area of the plan encompasses both sides of Old Meridian Road south and east of the US 31 corridor. The plan provides a dense area of street front, retail development, keying off of the Meijer store and utilizing some of their parking. The area also includes the Providence project being developed by the Buckingham Companies. North of Providence, along old Meridian, a boulevard is anticipated with round -a- bouts; also to be included is mixed use development. One major feature of the plan is to provide a new opportunity for single family, attached (townehomes) and multi family (apartment type) projects within the area of U.S. 31. The main intent is to provide a certain level of density, or urbanity, that would be a choice for persons who may want to live in Carmel but not in the same kind of single family housing generally seen in Carmel. This is seen primarily as an up -scale neighborhood, although some apartment housing may provide an opportunity for people to remain in Carmel who may not otherwise be able to afford a single family house. At the north end and south end of the Old Meridian Corridor, there are substantial areas for offices. In terms of significant changes, more bike paths and trails have been added into the plan so that there is greater opportunity for people are not forced to travel the roadway system; the bike paths connect into the schools. There is more land available for single family, attached housing that is felt to be more marketable and responsive to the persons living in single family housing developments surrounding the site. Additional changes respond to neighbors' concerns in terms of protecting their housing from adjacent uses; in particular, some of the configurations next to subdivisions such as Wildwood and Thornhurst have been changed. A mixed use district has been established rather than offices only, and will provide more flexibility to property owners when selling /marketing their real estate. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of this proposal; the following appeared: s:\PlanConu 10 Tom Laske, 11 Wildwood Drive, was complimentary of the process and at having been included in the plans for the corridor. In general, the neighbors are in favor of the proposal, however there were some concern with initial property types being proposed as well as the additional curb cuts onto Guilford Road and sidewalk issues. One continuing issue remains and that is possible restrictions on left turns onto Guilford from Old Meridian. Also, a commercial corridor is being created on Old Meridian and it would seem that the traffic should be diverted to the commercial corridor, thereby creating land values that will adapt to the retail and commercial development. Traffic should be kept flowing along the Old Meridian corridor. If the Plan Commission is not the proper body to address this concern, Mr. Laske asked for guidance. Richard Harkness, attorney, 215 West Main Street, Muncie, Indiana, representing the estate of Harry Ford which owns property on the east side of Old Meridian between Carmel Drive and Main Street. Mr. Harkness was complimentary of the Task Force that worked well with the neighbors and had thoroughly considered alternatives. The biggest problem is that the plan is not yet in effect. Mr. Harkness asked that the Commission approve the proposed plan and move forward as quickly as possible. Lenna Ransburg, owner of Twin Lakes Apartments, felt that the proposed plan would be an improvement in the development of the overall area. There is a concern with a proposed, radial boulevard that would take part of the entry to the apartments, garages, carports, and parking area. It would be difficult to rent apartments if no parking were available. Ms. Ransburg felt that this needed more study and planning. There is a swale between the school and the apartments that may be workable for a road above and drainage below. Otherwise, Ms. Ransburg was in favor of the proposal. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition; the following appeared: Anthony Andres, 1440 West Main Street, priest in charge of St. Christopher's Church, and Russ Baugman, 212 Red Oak Ridge, Carmel, senior warden at St. Christopher's, expressed concern with the proposed plan based on current plans for expansion for St. Christopher's. Overall, the Church was in favor of the proposal of the Task Force and felt it would bring new vitality and new presence to the area; however, the Task Force has added multi family and towne -homes and apartments. The Church recently purchased 19 acres and expects to build a $5 million complex surrounded by greeenspace and landscaping that will not only meet the Task Force's levels and standards, but will add to and enhance the proposal. The Church is asking that an amendment be made Jim Canull, AM Real Estate, 12774 North Meridian, stated that the proposed boulevard takes a corner of the Meijer loading dock behind their building, and proceeds north through his business. Mr. Canull requested that the Task Force take another look at the right leg of the boulevard as it encroaches on the north side of Twin Lakes Apartments. Mr. Canull wondered about the advisability of spending the extra money necessary to have a street passing beneath a forest preserve and behind a school, neither of which would be adding a tax base to the land to recoup the expense of the boulevard straight through. Mr. Canull asked that the Task Force consider "T "ing the road at Old Meridian s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \1999nov 11 and not cross Old Meridian with another street. In less than one mile, there are two proposed round -a -bouts and special attention should be paid to Meridian Street and persons who want to seek a southerly route towards Indianapolis. Also, going south on Old Meridian to Meridian Street, there is no south exit. At present, traffic going south from a northeasterly or southwesterly direction must proceed south on Old Meridian, turn onto Carmel Drive, and turn again south on Meridian at Carmel Drive. Mr. Canull asked that the plan take into consideration a change in direction at the southernmost intersection. Becky Feigh, 18 Thornhurst Drive, was generally complimentary of the plan, but a common thread is concern regarding traffic. Ms. Feigh asked that a traffic study be done before the Master Plan is implemented, taking into consideration the proposed limited access on US 31. Dr. Tom Mullens, 13100 Old Meridian, northeast corner of Old Meridian and Main Street, stated that 60% of the cars turn south onto Guilford and there is a reason for that. Dr. Mullens was in favor of the basic concept of the plan, but said that he had received a letter three days prior to the public hearing on the proposal -the first inclination he had had of the plan (Dr. Mullens lives in Westfield). According to Dr. Mullens, communication was very poor regarding the proposal and as a landowner, he was never approached by anyone in person. The Old Meridian right -of -way encroaches within 20 feet of his veterinary clinic. Dr. Mullens looked forward to working with the City and was hopeful that the veterinary hospital could be considered a special use. Dr. Mullens asked that communication be improved for the sake of neighborhood relations. Rebuttal: Tom Thompson responded to the objection and the request for a left turn restriction onto Guilford; this situation is not within Carmel's jurisdiction to address. The plan is not yet in effect and the property owner wanting to sell his property is in a state of limbo. If all issues are resolved this evening, the Plan Commission is urged to approve and forward to City Council. As drawn, the road appears to take part of the Twin Lakes Apartments' parking. The street configuration appears to go through the AM Real Estate business. At this point, the road is still somewhat conceptual and does need to be re -done when implemented so as not to interfere with existing businesses that's a given! Brenda Scheer stated that there is limitation with moving the street a lot, since it has already been negotiated with Providence. The position of the boulevard has already been changed as it pertains to the north side of the Twin Lakes Apartments property to ensure the viability of the parking area. AM Realty is affected unfortunately there are 2 or 3 properties where there are existing businesses that would be affected. It should be pointed out that this is a long range plan and will not be carried out until the Old Meridian Road itself has been improved, probably two years down the road. In the case of a taking, the property owner would be compensated. Tom Thompson noted that the Task Force just became aware of St. Christopher's plans for expansion this week. Everything should be done to allow the church to expand on their property and an amendment will be made to that effect without any question. s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \1999nov 12 In regard to a traffic study, traffic congestion on Old Meridian will increase as development occurs, whether the development is planned or not planned. With the appropriate infrastructure plan, the traffic will be controlled in a more orderly and safe fashion than if there is no organized plan. Brenda Scheer added that all existing major thoroughfares in the area, Main Street, Old Meridian, the new boulevards being created, will add to the general capacity of the area. Old Meridian will be adding capacity because it is being expanded from its current two lanes with no shoulders to four lanes -a significant addition to the capacity of the roadway. It is uncertain if we would be willing to go to three or four or five lanes on Old Meridian Road in each direction. To a certain extent, the traffic follows the capacity of the roadway system as it exists. There are a number of streets that do go through, all streets connect, there are very few cul -de -sacs, etc. The traffic will be dramatically improved in the entire area. In regard to Dr. Tom Mullens' comments, Tom Thompson was apologetic for having failed to communicate more effectively. Dr. Mullens' comments are appreciated and the committee is pleased that he is a part of the process. Michael Hollibaugh had the following comments regarding the traffic study. The City does have plans and some money to do some improvements to Old Meridian. Also, the City has plans to move forward on Pennsylvania Street improvements as well. There will be improvements to the intersections of Penn and Old Meridian, Carmel Drive and Old Meridian, Main Street and Old Meridian, and the State is doing some work to improve the traffic situation at Guilford and 136 Street area. Capacity will be drastically improved in that area over time and as this project hopefully builds out, traffic will not be a significant issue. Another contributing factor to improve circulation would be some sort of cross -over at Main Street and U.S. 31 and the City is pushing forward with this issue, perhaps faster than the State would like to move. The public hearing was then closed. In response to Pat Rice's questions, Tom Thompson stated that it was not the intention to interfere with existing businesses; in a real pinch, there could be the taking of land by eminent domain, but that would be an absolute last resort. The plan is still somewhat conceptual. The roads are needed in the area to facilitate traffic, but it is not carved in stone as to exactly where; the committee has tried to show the roads roughly where they think they should go. If there need to be changes, those will be addressed. Dave Cremeans commented that the plan is conceptual; a master plan is being created so that people can proceed with some certainty about the land and its uses. The area will be built out, the question is whether it will be done piece -meal or with some sort of plan. The goal of the Task Force has been to put together a master plan. The roads are a political decision. s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \1999nov 13 Rick Sharp commented that the Commission is being asked to amend the Comprehensive Plan. The 20/20 plan has never been anything but a concept. The plan is not necessarily for today, but the plan is to provide for the need and to let people be aware of what the eventual plan is for the area. There is still much more work to be done, for instance, looking at the Thoroughfare Plan again to refine the concepts, and a whole new set of Overlay Ordinances along with wholesale rezoning to make this all work. There will probably be 2 or 3 more years of hard, definitive work to lay down the blueprint of how it will be built out. Paul Spranger commented that there is a price to no planning; sometimes even a cost to major pre planning. There are examples in the Indianapolis area in not making some hard decisions and also examples in Carmel because no one was willing to make hard decisions. This is difficult because it is a combination of re- development and development. The consulting firm has gone way beyond in terms of effort and diligence. This master plan should be looked at from the role of planners. In order to keep the area from backsliding into blight, this is the kind of bold, aggressive action we need to take. At some point, we have to make some hard decisions and then move forward. Ron Houck was concerned about approving the concept and thereby endorsing the thoroughfares marked on the plan. It is not obvious why the boulevard that is in contention necessarily needs to exist in this configuration, or pass through Twin Lakes Apartments or the AM Real Estate property. We may not want an intersection as frequently as there are in the planned locations. From a design standpoint, it looks good, but it is unclear whether or not the thoroughfare analysis would bear out that this is the best design. Mr. Houck asked that a thoroughfare analysis be considered. Mr. Houck wanted assurance from this administration that they are fully aware and endorse the proposed plan, and that they are prepared to compensate these businesses today rather than leaving them in limbo and watch property values vacillate based on the indefinite nature of the plan. Dave Cremeans commented that this has been a long study process and the consensus is that this is the best plan. Whether or not the roads will actually be built is not known, and whether or not the area will be rezoned is not known for sure. At this point, it is simply a master plan to allow the process to begin. Jim O'Neal was complimentary of John Schuler and Tom Thompson in co- chairing the Task Force. Mr. O'Neal was concerned about Dr. Mullens' animal clinic and how the property would be zoned south of the Carmel St. Vincent Hospital in view of plans for future expansion of the hospital. At this point, Mr. O'Neal wanted more input as to the zoning relative to the Carmel St. Vincent Hospital. Tom Thompson responded that he had talked with Mr. Chittenden who had reviewed the plan. St. Vincent has some plans north of Old Meridian that the Task Force had shown as multi family residential. Mr. Thompson stated that land north of Old Meridian needs to be reserved for expansion of medical facilities, whether it be the hospital or medical offices, etc. Those changes will be made in the plan. s:\PlanConu 14 Pat Rice commented that she was concerned about unanswered questions such as Mr. O'Neal's that just surfaced. Ms. Rice wanted more time to address all the issues and answer all the questions. Dave Cremeans commented that the Plan Commission would have several chances to look at this again before anything is built -the first step would be to rezone the property. It has already been delayed too long and Dave Cremeans was comfortable with moving this forward. Kevin Kirby spoke as a member of the Old Meridian Task Force. Several members of the City Council have been involved in this process. There is a consensus that the City would like to move forward and build the "Grande Boulevard." The grand boulevard and the thoroughfares that are planned for this development are designed to serve the traffic in, around, and through the development -they are not just lines on paper, they are the infrastructure necessary for the development as the Task Force would like to see it proceed. Unfortunately, the animal hospital is impacted by Old Meridian itself- -not necessarily the proposed plan. There is an on- going, engineering up -grade that will include traffic studies on Old Meridian. It was started as a Federal Aid program long before the Task Force got started. The Church property changes would have been incorporated in the plan had the Task Force been aware earlier. The problems with St. Vincent's -there is time to fine tune and tweak -we are not yet to the rezone stage. It is not known what St. Vincent's long term plans are, but they should fit into whatever zoning is determined. The impact on the community will be huge, with or without a plan. Rick Sharp confirmed with Tom Thompson that the property to the south of St. Vincent's would be re- shaded on the map so as not to impede plans that the hospital or other such entity would have. In regard to St. Christopher's Church, Tom Thompson also confirmed that the map would be shaded so as not to preclude their expansion. Based on the strength of Tom Thompson's commitments on behalf of the Task Force, Rick Sharp moved for the suspension of the rules. The rules were suspended 11 in favor, Ron Houck, Bob Modisett, and Jim O'Neal opposed. Pat Rice commented that Kevin Kirby answered the question she had asked earlier. Pat wished that the presentation had been a little stronger, but she was in favor of the plan at this point. Rick Sharp moved to recommend approval to the City Council of Docket No. 82 -99 CPA, a Master Plan for an area to be called the Old Meridian District, seconded by Leo Dierckman. APPROVED I I in favor, Ron Houck, Bob Modisett, and Jim O'Neal opposed. Kevin Kirby announced that a new Task Force had been formed for the Range Line Road Overlay Zone -the first meeting is tentatively set for Friday, December 10 at 7:00 AM. The services of Scheer Scheer have been retained. The Task Force will be looking at s:\PlanConu 15 zoning and building types along Range Line from 136 Street to 116 Street. Mr. Kirby invited all interested parties to attend and become an active part of the Task Force. After a short recess, the Plan Commission resumed the business at hand. 3h. Docket No. 84 -99 OA, Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments to the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone Ordinance. Filed by U.S. 31 Task Force, Paul Spranger, chairman Paul Spranger, Six Shady Lane, Carmel, appeared before the Commission as chairman of the US 31 Overlay Zone Ordinance Amendments. The Task Force has looked at "loopholes" or gaps in the Ordinance and has reviewed the Ordinance for consistency with the vision for the 31 corridor. Primarily, the corridor is corporate office headquarters with some small retail nodes. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the proposed amendments; no one appeared. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the proposed amendments; the following appeared: Philip Nicely, attorney, 8888 Keystone Crossing, Indianapolis 46240 stated that he had read the amendments to the Overlay Ordinance. In response to the proposed amendments, Mr. Nicely distributed a letter to the Commission that details three points. The letter makes some comments regarding wording and language of the proposed amendments that provide greater clarify. The Amendment is somewhat confusing with respect to the Overlay Zone, and Mr. Nicely's letter suggests some changes so that future confusion is not created. Thirdly, there are comments relating to substantive matters with respect to changes that have been made. One item in the amendment gives the Commission the right to grant modifications to various rules and regulations to the extent of 35 Mr. Nicely felt that this percentage should be 100% rather than 35 As a whole, the Meridian corridor development has been good. It was Mr. Nicely's opinion that there is not one development in the corridor that could be built in accordance with the Overlay regulations as they currently exist and clearly not as proposed. Mr. Nicely felt the Commission was over regulating development in the entire corridor. Paul Spranger responded to Mr. Nicely's comments. Typically, the laws or regulations are "on the books" and only exist to prevent abuse of development, particularly within the Overlay District. There is a finite amount of undeveloped land in the corridor and the stewardship of the land is a long term project, 20 to 40 years. It may seem like micro managing, but the intent is to prevent anyone taking advantage of the area in an undesirable way. One change provides for hotels being more full service and less of a limited service in the permitted uses. Small hotels are not the issue -it is a matter of looking down the road to facilities that will provide meeting room services, restaurants internal to the hotel, and greater service in the corridor. The public hearing was then closed. s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \1999nov 16 Ron Houck pointed out a few minor changes that should be made in the document as well as changes in language for clarification. Paul Spranger reported that there is also new information available on the freeway to freeway interchange as presented to the U.S. 31 Corridor Task Force by INDOT, along with some aerials of overlays where the interchange would be. Bob Modisett questioned bicycle parking at office buildings. Mr. Modisett also agreed with comments made by Ron Houck as far as further clarification and boundaries. Based on the new definitions, the previously approved Hampton Inn would not qualify. Paul Spranger noted that the Illinois Street extension will create the western boundary for the corridor. Rick Sharp suggested language be inserted that would define a minimum boundary; this boundary would serve until Illinois Street becomes built. There must be a defined area that would serve prospective developers and petitioners. Paul Spranger offered to attach a map delineating the boundary. Kevin Kirby referred to the Illinois Street routing study (design location) that clearly defines where Illinois Street should go, and for purposes of the corridor, this line could be used, whether Illinois Street gets built or not. The study is pretty well defined. The design location for Illinois Street makes a much better western boundary of the corridor- functionally it makes sense. You can go with an imaginary 600 foot line or the Illinois Street study. There was further discussion regarding the amendments and the opportunity for review. It was felt that there were concerns and issues that needed to be addressed. Ron Houck recommended sending this item to committee. Kevin Kirby suggested a meeting of the Committee of the whole, and this was deemed to be workable. The Plan Commission will meet at 7:00 PM on November 30 to further discuss the proposed Amendments to the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone Ordinance. 4h. Docket No. 85 -99 PP, a Primary Plat application for Westchase LLC. The petitioner seeks approval to construct a 13 lot subdivision on 16.54 acres located south of and adjacent to 146 Street and east of Ditch Road. The site is zoned S -1. The project is being developed as a Non Qualifying Subdivision under the Residential Open Space Ordinance. Filed by Jerry Corbier of Corbier Traditions, Inc. Jim Nelson, attorney, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Stan Neal of Weihe Engineers was also in attendance. The primary plat being presented provides for a small residential community to be known as Westchase. Upon completion, Westchase will contain 13 lots at a density of less than s:\P1anCommission\Minutes\ 1999nov 17 one unit per acre; lot sizes are one -half to one plus acre; open space is calculated at 22 and custom homes by Jerry Corbier are priced at $425,000 and up. The plat is categorized as a Non Qualifying Subdivision under the Residential Open Space Ordinance -it could also be characterized as a traditional S -1 plat with large lots and open space. The real estate consists of 16.54 acres, located south of 146 Street between Ditch Road on the west and Spring Mill Road on the east. Adjacent developments include Ponds West, Kingsborough, and Brookstone Park of Carmel. The predominate, natural features of the real estate were established by its prior use- agricultural with few trees except that there is a small stand of trees in the northeast corner of the property, approximately 3 acres in size. Judson Scott, arborist, describes the area as containing a combination of scrub, young, and mature woodlands. The development plan provides for a primary entrance from 146 Street; a single street extends southward ending in a cul -de -sac in the southeast corner, and extending further south to a point along the south property line that connects to a street stub extending northward from Kingsborough. In effect, there will be two points of ingress /egress, one from 146 Street, and one from the south -the extension northward from Kingsborough. On -site, storm water retention is provided for by two lakes that exist in the southwest corner of the property in an area designated as common area. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the internal street, adjacent and parallel to 146 Street, except on the east side of the entrance roadway where a meandering sidewalk works its way through the existing trees that are worthy of preservation. A primary feature of the plan is a pathway system that meanders through common area, east /west through the central portion of the property, up the east property line, and connecting to the sidewalk adjacent and parallel to 146 Street. This trail system actually connects to a pathway stub in Brookstone Park. The pathway system is asphalt in the center section -where trees exist today, it is intended to be mulched. Judson Scott is assisting with tree preservation as well as supplemental landscaping. Along the east property line, there is a 50 foot band of common area that contains the trail; the trees within that area are to be preserved. Extending westward 97 feet, a tree conservation easement has been provided on lots 10, 11, 12, and 13, and none of the trees within those areas can be destroyed. Closer to the roadway, there will be some trees removed in the building area, however, the plan does identify some trees of sufficient quality that will be preserved. 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 appeared: Dwayne McDavitt, 947 West 146 Street, Westfield, resides on the eastern edge of the proposed development. Dr. McDavitt was not necessarily opposed to the development but was concerned with flooding. From the northwest corner of Dr McDavitt's property s:\PlanConu 18 to the southeast corner, diagonally, there is a 16 inch field tile (James Hinshaw, Barclay, Henley Drain) that was installed in 1908. The tile is broken in several places and the water runs above ground. Dr. McDavitt stated that he had applied to the County in 1968 to have the tile repaired and to date, nothing has been done. Dr. McDavitt's concern is whether or not there will be provision that will take care of surface water run -off so that he is not flooded. Dr. McDavitt was also concerned that other proposals stated that they had contacted the neighbors and explained the situation. Dr. McDavitt stated that he had only had a brief conversation with Mr. Corbier and no explanation of what was being proposed. Jim Nelson stated that in regard to the drainage, if further definition is required, Stan Neal would address that. In regard to the northeast corner of the property, Jim Nelson stated that a drainage plan is being created that will bring the drainage south and southwest into the petitioner's retention ponds. Stan Neal spoke to Dr. McDavitt's concerns, and it was determined that the drain Dr. McDavitt spoke of is not being maintained as a regulated drain. Laurence Lillig stated that this Docket would be returning to TAC on November 17. As far as the open space goes, the Department will meet with the petitioner to review the calculations on open space, and a report will be made at the Subdivision Committee meeting. The public hearing was then closed. Docket No. 85 -99 PP, Westchase LLC was referred to the Subdivision Committee that will meet December 7th at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. 5h. Docket No. 87 -99 Z, Rezone application for Jasneek Health Care, LLC. The petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation of a rezone from R -1 /Residential to B- 5 /Business in order to develop a medical office building. The site is located at the northwest corner of East 96 Street and the Monon. The site is zoned R -1 /Residential. Filed by Harvinder Dahni of Jasneek Health Care. James Townsend. 8051 Raymond Rock Drive, appeared before the Commission as an associate of Mr. Dahni's. The property is adjacent to 5 Seasons Sports Country Club and is being requested for rezoning. The facility will be an outpatient, rehabilitation, therapy center. Harvinder Danni, 14902 Shelbome Road, Westfield, Indiana appeared before the Commission and stated that currently, Jasneek Health Care operates within the 5 Seasons Country Club and has outgrown its space. The land adjacent to the Five Seasons is vacant and available for purchase, however, the price is not feasible. The other option is to build the health care center as a part of the Five Seasons Club. The building would not be affecting any residence in the area. A traffic study has been done which shows very s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \1999nov 19 little impact on the area. There are 106 parking spaces planned, although not more than 60 will be utilized. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the proposed petition; no one appeared. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the proposed petition; the following appeared: George Haerle, 502 Braeside Drive North, Indianapolis, land use chairman for the Nora Northside Community Council, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Haerle stated concern with the proposed project when it first became known. In May, 1999, the petitioner made his plans known and concerns were communicated to him. On May 17 Mr. Dahni wrote a letter to Mr. Haerle offering a copy of the traffic report when available, and acknowledging suggestions regarding the lighting and landscaping. There has been no further communication until this evening's Agenda was published. Mr. Haerle asked that this matter be tabled to the next meeting to allow time for their review and position. It was Mr. Haerle's opinion that at the time the 5 Seasons was built, it was done under a variance and not a rezone. It was an all- inconclusive project and no mention was made of selling off a part of the property to the Jasneek Health care. Mr. Haerle was questioning whether or not this ground could properly be re -zoned from the current variance. Barb Ring, president of the Sherwood Forest Homeowners' Association, stated that they had met with the petitioner in May and expressed concerns at that time. The size of the parking lot is a concern. Traffic on Real Street (96 Street), increased by 106 cars could be a definite concern. Also, the neighbors are concerned about the level of lighting generated by the proposed parking lot. The signage should be unobtrusive to the neighborhood. The closeness of the proposed building to the Monon Trail is also a concern. The Homeowners Association would like some time to review the petitioner's plans before the Commission moves forward. Harvinder Dahni stated that he had promised a traffic study to the neighbors and was apologetic that it had not been delivered. The petitioner is willing to work with the neighbors on the lighting issue. The petitioner is also willing to buffer the building and the Monon Trail, and will install a landscape barrier. In regard to signage, plans have not yet been finalized, but they will be along the lines of the 5 Seasons elegant signage. The public hearing was left open on this item. Laurence Lillig confirmed that the Department is recommending that this Docket be sent to Special Study Committee. The Five Seasons was granted a Special Use Approval. It is not yet known when the Jasneek Health Care was split off as a separate parcel. The property does not exactly abut the Monon Trail due to a right -of -way dedication made at the time the Five Seasons went through the process. Public right -of -way was dedicated at s:\PlanConu 20 the time Five Seasons went through the process. There is public right -of -way to 96 Street to divert it under 465. The proposed structure would be allowed two signs due to the fact that it has frontage on 465 and 96 Street. In regard to the lighting issue, the petitioner would be held to 0.1 foot candles because they are bounded by residential on all sides. Pat Rice clarified that the land is not vacant but rather a part of the special use granted to Five Seasons Sports and Country Club, Inc. Pat Rice reviewed the previous Findings of Fact as well as previous commitments made on the property. Pat felt that the petitioner was premature and the landowners should go before the BZA before any petition is brought before the Commission. Rick Sharp stated that the Five Seasons was granted a special use for a private country club with facilities solely for the use of its members. The petitioner has admitted to running a business within the Five Seasons; perhaps that business is in jeopardy of its zoning classification at this time. Rick Sharp asked that the petitioner be prepared to display signage, renderings, and materials at the Committee meeting. Rick questioned the traffic generated by a medical office as opposed to general office as to the level of trips. The possibility of land banking is to be explored for future parking. It would also be helpful to note when the instant parcel was subdivided from the original Five Seasons. Docket No. 87 -99 Z, Rezone application for Jasneek Health Care, LLC, was referred to Special Study Committee on December 7 th at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms; open to the public. Terry Jones clarified that the owners of the Five Seasons had signed the application requesting a rezone. There were certain conditions surrounding the BZA submission that induced them to grant the approval. At any time, the legislative body can over -ride what the BZA has done. Pat Rice asked the Department to research the use of the land to the east of the eastern- most driveway. The public hearing remains open on this case. I. Old Business li. Docket No. 14 -99 Z, a Rezone application for Duke Realty Investments. DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION 2i. Docket No. 83 -99 DP /ADLS, Development Plan and Architectural Design, Lighting Signage applications for Landmark Properties, Inc. The petitioner seeks approval for two professional office buildings known as Old Meridian s:\PlanConu 21 Professional Center on 2.53 acres. The site is located on Block 17, Lot 2 of the Carmel Science Technology Park. The site is zoned M- 3/Manufacturing. Filed by Brian Pahud of Landmark Properties, Inc. Murray Clark, attorney, One Indiana Square, Indianapolis, appeared before the Commission representing Landmark Properties, Inc. Brian Pahud of Landmark Properties, Greg Snelling, engineer with Mid States, and Jud Scott, arborist, were also in attendance. The petitioner is seeking approval for constructing two office buildings on Block 17, Lot 2 of the Carmel Science Technology Park. The petitioner appeared before the Special Study Committee on November 3 The primary issue of the Special Study Committee was a concern regarding the expansion area in the elbow of the proposed site. This was a major issue and was discussed at length by the Committee. The petitioner agreed that he would return to the Plan Commission at a future date if the balance of the site were built, expanded or altered in any way. This is in written, recordable form and on file with the Department, known as the "Statement of Commitment." The second issue was the alignment of the existing curb cut with the property to the north. The petitioner believes that the curb cut does align, and will serve both sites. The curb cut is consistent with the development plan and this issue is resolved. The third issue has to do with trees on site. The legal drain on the southern part of the property will remain a non disturbance area. All trees, shrubbery, thicket, wooded areas, etc. will be preserved. An analysis was done of the significant trees on site and the petitioner has submitted a tree preservation and grading plan to the Department. The petitioner will preserve the Ash and Elm along Carmel Drive, and the huge Oak tree on site. Rick Sharp, chairman of the Special Study Committee, concurred with Murray Clark's report. Rick added that the petitioner agreed to continue the wrought iron fencing along Carmel Drive consistent with parcel one, that is, wrought iron fencing as well as brick columns with limestone caps along Carmel Drive and continuing along the private streets. The Committee voted unanimously to approve this project. Rick Sharp moved for approval of Docket No. 83 -99 DP /ADLS, Landmark Properties, Inc., known as Old Meridian Professional Center. APPROVED 13 -0. J. New Business lj. Docket No. 86 -99 ADLS, Architectural Design, Landscaping, Lighting, Signage applications for Browning Investments, Inc. The petitioner seeks approval of the second phase corporate office building on 8.07 acres. The site is located in the 10900 block of North Pennsylvania Street. The site is zoned B- 6 /Business and is within the US 31 (Meridian Street) Overlay Zone. s:\PlanConu 22 Filed by Greg Snelling of Mid States Engineering, LLC. Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing Browning Investments, Inc. The petitioner is seeking approval for the second building located on the southern half of the site. The building will be three stories, consist of 54,000 square feet, and will be exactly like building one in building materials and design. The materials are pre -cast, concrete panels, buff and gray in color, and azure blue, tinted glass. The building is in accordance with the site plan presented last month. The petitioner will be appearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals on Monday for three developmental standards variances due to the Overlay Zone. Terry Jones reported that the Department is recommending approval of this petition upon suspension of the rules. Leo Dierckman questioned the storage building next to this property, actually on the Delta Faucet property. The building is an eye -sore. It was determined that the storage facility was built prior to the adoption of the Overlay Zone Ordinance. Paul Spranger moved to approve Docket No. 86 -99 ADLS, Browning Investments, Inc. APPROVED 13 -0. In response to questions from Ron Houck regarding the proposed changes in the Rules of Procedure, Dave Cremeans stated that these will be discussed at Executive Committee before they are brought before the full Commission. Terry Jones reported on the point one foot candle requirements in B -5, U.S. 31 Overlay, U.S. 421 Overlay, and all residentially zoned districts. Any other zone, business classification, the point one foot candle does not apply. Dave Cremeans recommended that the point one foot candle require to all zoning classifications, residential and business. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:55 PM. David A. Cremeans, President Ramona Hancock, Secretary s:\PlanConu 23