Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 03-21-00CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2000 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel /Clay Plan Commission was called to order with the Pledge of Allegiance at approximately 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. Members present were: Marilyn Anderson; Kent Broach; David Cremeans; Leo Dierckman; Madeline Fitzgerald; Wayne Haney; Ron Houck; Nick Kestner; Kevin Kirby; Norma Meighen; Bob Modisett; Jim O'Neal; Pat Rice; John Sharpe; and Paul Spranger. Steve Engelking, Director, Terry Jones; Michael Hollibaugh; and Laurence Lillig were present representing the Department of Community Services. John Molitor, counsel, was also present. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as submitted. G. Reports, Announcements, Department Concerns: lg. John Schuler appeared before the Commission and gave a brief up -date on the Old Meridian Task Force. The Commission referred this item to the April 11 Special Study Committee. 2g. Item 3h. on the Agenda is TABLED to the April meeting due to faulty Notice of Publication. Item 3i. under Old Business has been TABLED to the April meeting. Item lj. under New Business, McDonald's, has been WITHDRAWN. 3g. The Agenda was then re- ordered to hear items 6h. and 7h. concurrently as the first item of business. H. Public Hearings: 6h. Docket No. 62 -00 Z, Rezone application for the Carmel Redevelopment Commission to change the official Zoning Map. The petitioner requests a favorable recommendation for a rezone of 17.677 acres from I -1 /Industrial to C- 1 /City Center. The site is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of City Center Drive and 3 rd Avenue Southwest. The site is zoned I -1 /Industrial. Filed by Rick Roesch, President, Carmel Redevelopment Commission. 7h. Docket No. 63 -00 OA, Petition to amend the Carmel /Clay Zonng Ordinance, creating the C -1 Zone District. The proposed amendment would create a new zone district, the C -1. The purpose of the C -1 District (City Center) is to create and protect land areas for the development of the Carmel City Center project, a s:\PlanCommission\Minutes\2000mar central mixed -use complex of retail, residential, office, and community facilities designed to meet the cultural and economic needs of the Carmel community. Filed by the Department of Community Services. Mayor James Brainard appeared before the Commission together with Rick Roesch to present the C -1 Zone District (City Center). Representatives of Amli Company, one of the Redevelopment Commission's bids, were also in attendance. The City Center project was originally announced in May 1997 as a means of providing a cultural and business center to the City of Carmel and a focal point for the City. The location of the City Center is easily accessible from the Meridian corridor and Keystone Avenue, and provides a business amenity hub as well as a City center with public buildings for cultural events, performing arts, and a museum. The City is partnering with the private sector. At the time the Economic Redevelopment Commission was created, the Plan Commission voted to approve the economic development district that allowed the City to purchase the land utilizing bond funds. The City entered the Master Plan and will bidding off various components of the development. The project will include residential, office buildings, townehomes, and a parking deck. The buildings will be at street level rather than much lower. The Monon Trail will cut through the middle of the public area; there will also be a performing arts center and a museum building. The Tax Incremental Financing district may allow the City to proceed with the construction of the performing arts and museum building sooner than originally anticipated. None of the district affects the tax dollars; the money will be coming from the growth in the immediate and adjacent areas. The required style of architecture will be Georgian, Colonial or Federal that fits in with the current City Hall buildings. The green areas are extended so that it becomes one complex overall. The corner at 126 and Rangeline Road will become the main corner in Carmel. The City is also revitalizing Olde Towne Carmel to make sure that that area remains vibrant and healthy. The area is currently zoned I -1 /Industrial. The wetlands areas will be maintained; those wetlands that have been disturbed were mitigated at a 5 to 1 ratio. The Hamilton County Parks Board granted approval to mitigate two of their park sites: one at the Cox Hall site; one at Strawtown in northern Hamilton County. There will be educational features connected with the wetlands working through the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. In the C -I Zone District Ordinance, the City would be the applicant in each instance; no private developer would be allowed as an applicant. Upon obtaining a successful bid, the City would apply for development approval. Prior to the Redevelopment Commission awarding a bid, the Redevelopment Commission would have entered into a detailed project agreement, and the bids would require minimum ADLS standards. The City is s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \2000mar 2 asking for an abbreviated procedure whereby the Director of the Department of Community Services can hold a public hearing in accordance with State law to handle the ADLS matter. NOTE: Commissioner Nick Kestner abstained from discussion and voting, since he is a property owner in the subject area. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the Rezone and the Amendment; the following appeared: Fred (last name president of the Carmel Station Homeowners Association, stated that he had met with the Mayor but there were some small concerns. Trash dumpster locations seemed to be at a minimum and may not be adequate to service the area. The ten foot green belt buffer between the proposed development and the Subdivision was not deemed to be adequate for screening and maximum privacy, especially on Carmel Garden. The apartments are upscale and high -end rent and the residents are in favor of the project. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petition; the following appeared: Dave Coots, attorney, 255 East Carmel Drive, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing adjacent property owners in the Industrial area, Ralph Petty, 3 rd Avenue SW. The major concern is the property rights of the adjacent property owners, residential properties as well as industrial properties, and that their rights are not, at some point in the future, impinged by the City. For instance, if the City were to say "You are in an industrial zone, you are adjacent to the new Civic Center Zone, and before industrial use is expanded, the property owners must buffer against the newly developed Arts Garden to the tune of $4 million or whatever the price tag would be, and bulldozers and pipes stored on site will not be permitted...." Obviously, the property owners would have an interest in seeing that the businesses can be expanded from time -to -time or as the need requires without having to come back before the Plan Commission and /or the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance or some architectural approval to do what the industrial uses have been doing from the beginning of the industrial park. Any expansion at a future date of the industrial use should not require the businesses to do something over and above what the present ordinance requires. Dan Moriarity of CSO Architects responded to the trash concern. It has been the policy of AMLI to have one large dumpster with a compactor at one central collection point. Laurence Lillig reported that the Department is recommending that the Commission suspend the rules on Docket Nos. 62 -00 Z and 63 -00 OA and that they be forwarded to the City Council with a favorable recommendation. In response to questions regarding the C -1 Zoning, Laurence Lillig stated that the only entity that can petition for a rezone to C -1 is the City of Carmel. s:\PlanCommission\Minutes\2000mar Ron Houck had some specific concerns regarding the 10 foot landscape buffer and an accessory building that is allowed to encroach 5 feet into the landscape buffer. Relegating ADLS approval to the Department Director who is a direct report of the Mayor is an inherent conflict and this is a concern. Light spillage at the adjacent property lines is also a concern. Michael Hollibaugh responded that the Department Staff would deal with lighting issues on the ADLS; the design calls for a typical down lighting, shoebox style light that does not have the spillage of an angle type fixture. Madeline Fitzgerald expressed some concerns with the timing and opportunity for review. Leo Dierckman commented that the same Department Staff is responsible for reviewing the ADLS package and if the City is going to try to sell the balance of the parcels, it is critical that the first piece be done properly. Leo stated that he is comfortable with the proposal. Michael Hollibaugh reported that the existing wetlands on the property caused some re- design by AMLI and the City. Pat Rice referred to the 10 foot landscape buffer and asked if there could be some commitments made as to the kind of landscaping and what exactly is proposed. Also, Pat Rice did not feel that Mr. Coots' concern was adequately addressed. Mayor Brainard responded that no city official is able to predict what the Council will pass in terms of future Ordinances and requiring adjoining landowners to act. However, the City is sensitive to the adjoining land owners and their land value is increasing as a result of the proposed project. Even if there were covenants running with the land, it would not control what a Council could do with an Ordinance 10 or 20 years in the future. In regard to the landscape buffer strip, an AMLI representative will meet with the adjoining property owners and work out some solution. Kevin Kirby stated that the City can develop this center without going through Plan Commission. The hybrid of public /private partnership is relatively new to the City; the specifications for the project have been developed by the City. The property would not have to be rezoned were it not for a small technicality. It is the City's project; it is the City's plans and specifications; AMLI cannot deviate from the plans. John Molitor commented that after initial approval of ADLS by the Department, the plan cannot be changed or altered without prior approval of the Plan Commission. s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \2000mar 4 Bob Modisett moved for the suspension of the rules in order to vote on these Dockets this evening. Bob Modisett moved for the approval of Docket No. 62 -00 Z and Docket No. 63 -00 OA. APPROVED 14 in favor, none opposed, Nick Kestner abstaining. lh. Docket No. 44 -00 PP, Primary Plat application for the Richard Carriger Company. The petitioner seeks approval to plat 21 lots on 39.360 acres to be known as Treesdale Subdivision. The site is located northeast of West 96 Street and Towne Road. The site is zoned S -1 /Residential (Very Low Intensity) and is being developed as a Qualifying Subdivision under ROSO. Filed by Adam L. DeHart of Keeler -Webb Associates for the Richard Carriger Company. Adam DeHart, 486 Gradle Drive, Carmel, appeared before the Plan Commission along with Richard Carriger, custom homebuilder, and Gary Aletto, one of the owners of Lucky LLC, landowner of ground being presented for primary plat approval. The petitioner is seeking primary plat approval for 21 lots on 39.36 acres. Windemere Subdivision lies to the northeast, Bob Altum's to the north, Camden Walk opposite the subject site on Towne Road, and Summer Lakes to the southeast. The property is zoned S -1 /Residential (Very Low Intensity) and is being developed as a Qualifying Subdivision under the Residential Open Space Ordinance. The Secondary Plat has set aside 10 lots on 27 acres for large lot, estate homes. The Ordinance requires 30% open space -this has been provided by the developer in the form of a five -acre lake at the northeast portion of the property. In the center of the property is an additional lake that covers just over two acres. The Thoroughfare Plan requires a 50 foot common area buffer along the 70 foot one -half right -of -way of Towne Road. Around the perimeter of the project, a landscape berm serves as linkage to the common areas along Towne Road and the large lake areas. The development is served by a single, "U" shaped road, with two entrances on Towne Road approximately 900 feet apart. Construction in the near future would be for Section I; modifications and updates to the existing horse stables will also be done. The berm area in the Subdivision will probably be used by the stable owners for riding. The two lakes make up approximately 7.7 acres. The lakes provide a wrap- around effect for lots 9 and 10 and also provide lake frontage to as many homes as possible. The common area along Towne Road comprises approximately 1.5 acres and the linkages between the common area along Towne Road and the lakes comprise approximately 3 acres. The signage on the project is cut -face limestone with country- style, coach lights. The entry detail incorporates cut stone and rough limestone finish with limestone cap stone; individual columns with wrought -iron between will be along the frontage on s:\PlanCommission\Minutes\2000mar Towne Road. There will be landscaping at the entrance and in those areas where fencing is involved. There are existing landscape trees on the property that will remain after being thinned out. The landscaped berms will provide privacy to the estate home lots and will also provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance to the open pastureland. The lots vary from eight tenths of an acre to 2.8 acres; the homes vary from 6,000 to 18,000 square feet. The streets will be constructed to Hamilton County specifications. The development will be served by domestic water and sanitary sewer currently not available to the area. The petitioner has met with the surrounding homeowners to introduce the proposed development. The petitioner has also filed a petition with the Hamilton County Drainage Board to obtain approval to reconstruct the legal drain that passes through the property. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the proposed development; no one appeared. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the proposed development; the following appeared: Robert McKinney, legal owner of 10 acres of ground immediately south of and adjacent to the subject site. Mr. McKinney stated that approximately 900 feet of the legal drain runs through his property. Mr. McKinney stated that his daughter and son -in -law occupy the premises and have a lease and option to purchase the property. Mr. McKinney reported that it was his understanding that the lakes would be changed in size and raised, the berm would be increased, and the entire drainage plan would be changed. The drainage plan, as presented to Mr. McKinney, was a ditch through his property- -this has now changed and there will be no activity on Mr. McKinney's property. Mr. McKinney stated that he did not have a copy of current plans for the drainage and respectfully requested that this Docket be deferred until all information is available. Mr. McKinney referred to a letter from Adam DeHart regarding the drainage and a letter from Steve Cash of the County Surveyor's office regarding requirements for the Fitch Jessup regulated drain. According to Kent Ward, this project or any other project that might be located at this site would be required to reconstruct the drain based upon the reconstruction plan. Mr. McKinney stated that there is currently a flooding problem, and putting in 21 homes, 6,000 to 18,000 square feet with driveways, will cause serious, additional waterflow problems. Mr. McKinney felt that this development was premature, in view of the drainage. Lisa McKinney Goldner appeared before the Commission and stated that she has lived on the property along with her family since 1996. There are numerous concerns with the proposed development. Craig Dobbs (part owner with Gary Aletto) had explained that the berm will be decreased to 8 feet; Mr. DeHart stated the berm would be 4 to 6 feet. Ms. Goldner referred to her letter to the Commission dated 3/16 stating her concerns. The runoff from the tall berm will make the McKinney property very wet and the water will not run to the Fitch Jessup drain. Ms. Goldner asked for clarification on the s:\PlanCommission\Minutes\2000mar drainage plans. There are safety and health concerns with the quantity of water over Ms. Goldner's property. Ms. Goldner stated that there are show animals on her property and she does not want them drinking the standing water. The runoff from the ponds will contain contaminants, pesticides, etc. that will leech into the ground. The drainage will have a negative impact, both present and future, for riding purposes. The McKinney's are on well water; the proposed development will be placing hydrants next to the ponds and they may or may not fill the ponds utilizing the hydrants. If the developer does use the hydrants, the same aquifer would be utilized as the McKinneys at 100 feet. It is cost prohibitive to bring in water from 106 Street to 96 Street. Kathy Betalak, 9765 Towne Road, just south of the McKinneys, stated that she and her family are not opposed to the development but rather are opposed to the drainage plan and the release of water over the southeast corner of the Betalak's property. There is also a ground water issue related to the construction of the two large retention ponds. Ms. Betalak stated that her concerns were expressed in a letter dated March 15 and sent to each Commission member. Ms. Betalak stated that drainage plans regarding the reconstruction of the Fitch Jessup drain have been changed by the developer and engineers. It is Ms. Betalak's understanding that the most recent plans are that the developer does not intend to make any changes to the McKinney property or the Betalak property. The construction of 21 homes and driveways, sidewalks and roadways, will eliminate the important function of soil and absorbing water, and the Treesdale Subdivision will increase the total volume of surface water flowing across the southeast corner of the Betalak property. It is reasonable to expect that the Treesdale Subdivision be responsible for proper drainage through the Betalak property and into the Bramblewood Subdivision. The elevation drop is minimal between the Treesdale Subdivision and the Bramblewood Subdivision, and since pipes must be set two feet below grade, multiple, circular or oval pipes are required to resolve the drainage issue. The cost of the alternative has complicated the resolution of the drainage issue, not the lack of cooperation of the surrounding property owners. If Treesdale is not held financially responsible for making improvements to the Fitch Jessup drain now, as Hamilton County requires, they will not have to deal with the future impact of their Subdivision on the Betalak and McKinney properties. Ms. Betalak stated that the other major concern is the ground water issue. The current source of water for the Betalak home and horse barn is a well. Municipal sources have been looked into and the cost of connecting is relatively high, since there is no hook -up nearby. The concern is that the ground water could be used to maintain the water level in the two ponds and this will affect the water table and the function of the well in dry periods. Well records in the area indicate that a deep, high capacity well is already in place on the Treesdale Subdivision property. Mark Basch from the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water in the State of Indiana, has expertise in the area of water rights and monitors water levels in the area. Mr. Basch is very aware of concerns of homeowners with wells, since there are many golf courses, large estates, and new developments in the area. In 1991 during the PGA Tournament at Crooked Stick, nearby homeowners experienced problems with their wells because ground water was being used to maintain the golf course. Mr. Basch stated that in 1999, the number of calls his s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \2000mar 7 department received from homeowners in the area was significantly higher than in previous years. Mr. Basch also verified the legitimacy of the homeowners concerns that pumping ground water into the two Treesdale retention ponds could impact the water level in the area and consequently, the neighboring wells. Ms. Betalak asked that the homeowners concerns be addressed and that this project not be approved until further review and resolution can be determined. Dave Cremeans reported that the Plan Commission had received letters from Kathleen and Christopher Betalak, Lisa Goldner and Robert McKinney stating drainage concerns. Rebuttal: Adam DeHart stated that there had been a meeting with the Hamilton County Surveyor this week. There are drainage issues involved with this project. A petition has been filed by Lucky LLC for the reconstruction of the legal drain within Treesdale's 36 acres and Treesdale is required to do the reconstruction. The construction documents and drainage calculations were modified and the McKinney's and the Betalak's have seen those calculations. Modifications were requested of the petitioner Monday and these will be turned in tomorrow- -these modifications will take care of issues only concerning lakes, storm sewers, and drainage on the Treesdale site only. The revisions include the pool elevation of both of the ponds, the connector outlet between the ponds, and the outlet connector pipe. The drainage issue and reconstruction of the drain, be it on site or off site, is under the jurisdiction of the Hamilton County Drainage Board and the petitioner has been actively working with the Board and the Surveyor's Office. The design of the berm on the south side of the property allows for a swale to be installed between the berm and the property line to pick up the drainage. As a matter of note, the land owner prior to the McKinneys had petitioned the County Drainage Board in 1994 to reconstruct the entire drain, about 2600 feet, and the fee was determined to be $500,000. to install a storm sewer. The problem with the storm sewer design at that time was that it provided for a cut through an 18 inch, high pressure Indiana Gas Pipeline. Pipes cannot cut through pipes, and ongoing negotiations with Indiana Gas have allowed the petitioner to come up with a design that stays away from the pipe and also takes care of the on -site drainage. The petitioner is accepting a 10 year storm from the north of all properties in a 76 acre drainage collection area. The petitioner is reducing and oversizing the ponds to the point that only a 2 year storm is being released. Any new design of the proposed revision -the open ditch -has not been revised to date. Any revisions and signatures for off -site drainage will be forwarded and signed and applied to the Drainage Board by all property owners involved. To date, the only signature on the petition is the owners of Lucky, LLC. The item as to how the ponds are to be filled the ponds will be dug by normal, earth moving procedures. The area has a low water table and the ponds will fill by themselves of storm water, probably less than a year, and the maintenance will be taken care of by fountains maintained by the Homeowners Association. The fountains and the level of the ponds will need to stay fresh to maintain the fish and animal activity that keeps the pond alive. Any filling of the ponds would not be done by ground water wells. A fire hydrant is strategically placed for use in filling the ponds; there are two other hydrants for fire s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \2000mar 8 protection. The issue of changing the existing water table or aquifer on site -these properties will have fire protection from the domestic water line and each home will have domestic service provided by Indianapolis Water Co. There will be no new wells drilled on this site. Adam DeHart stated that what is before the Drainage Board deals solely with the storm drainage facilities and the maintenance of storm drainage on the Treesdale site and accepting off -site water from the north as the water flows from north to south. The McKinneys and the Betalaks will be kept apprised of the continuing issue of off -site drainage and any new plans that may evolve. The petitioner is willing to work with the neighbors, the Drainage Board, and the County Surveyor's Office for an acceptable resolution. Laurence Lillig gave the Department's recommendation that this item be forwarded to the April 11 Subdivision Committee for further review. Secondly, lots 9 and 10 do not have any frontage on a public road; access is via the common area. There are two remedies. The description of the two lots could be changed so that they would have 50 feet of frontage by extending them, or a request could be filed for Subdivision Waivers to grant access off the common area. If the petitioner elects to file for waivers, the Department recommends that the Plan Commission suspend the Rules of Procedure for the 25 day notice. It is impossible to make that deadline between now and the April Plan Commission meeting; however, it is possible to be within the State Statute's 10 days notice deadline. In regard to the drainage issue, the County Surveyor has not yet seen a revised drainage plan and are concerned that this issue be addressed before any approval. Dave Cremeans questioned the sanitary sewer availability in the area and asked that this be explored by the Subdivision Committee. Docket No. 44 -00 PP, Treesdale Subdivision, was referred to the Subdivision Committee that will meet April 11 at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms. Ron Houck moved to suspend the 25 day Notice requirement and allow the petitioner to seek Subdivision Waivers for lots 9 and 10. APPROVED 14 in favor, one opposed (Leo Dierckman.) 2h. Docket No. 47 -00 OA, A proposal to amend Chapter 3: Definitions of the Zoning Ordinance by adding the following definitions: Alteration, Material Alteration, Minor Alteration, Substantial Diameter at Breast Height (dbh) Dwelling, Multiple- Family Dwelling, Single- Family Family Group Home Sexually- Oriented Business Through Road Filed by the Department of Community Services. Mike Hollibaugh of the Department of Community Services appeared before the Commission to explain the update in the definitions to Chapter 3 of the Zoning s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \2000mar 9 Ordinance. As a part of the process, the definitions come closer in compliance with the Indiana Code. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the proposed Amendment, the following appeared: Rebecca Mortel, Sycamore Farms Subdivision in Carmel, appeared before the Commission in support of the amendment to the definitions in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Mortel spoke from an experience of a group home that had proposed to locate in her subdivision. There was some question as to the definition of a "group home" and what it entailed. After thoroughly researching a "group home" license application, Ms. Mortel, as spokesperson for her Subdivision, was in support of the definition of Group Home. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the proposed Amendment; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. John Molitor explained the editing of the definitions in the Zoning Ordinance. Jim O'Neal moved for the suspension of the rules in order to vote on Docket No. 47 -00 OA. APPROVED 14 in favor, one opposed (Ron Houck.) Jim O'Neal moved for the APPROVAL of Docket No. 47 -00 OA, Chapter 3: Definitions of the Zoning Ordinance. APPROVED 14 in favor, one opposed (Ron Houck) 3h. Docket No. 57 -00 PP, Hazel Dell Pond Subdivision TABLED due to faulty notice 4h. Docket No. 59 -00 PP Amend, Primary Plat Amendment application for Centex Homes. The petitioner requests approval to plat 67 lots on 23.323 acres within the Haverstick Subdivision. The site is located northwest of the intersection of East 131 Street and River Road. The site is zoned S -1 /Residential (Low Intensity) and was originally granted Primary Plat (11 -94 PP) approval under the old Cluster Ordinance. Filed by Thomas L. Kutz of Centex Homes. Philip A. Nicely, attorney, 8888 Keystone Crossing, Indianapolis appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. A minor change is being requested in the Primary Plat that was originally approved in 1994 to provide Centex with the ability to upgrade a portion of the development that will include Executive Home Series, a more elegant home than is currently being built in the area. In order to accomplish this goal, the Primary Plat will need to be amended. At the time Haverstick was platted in 1994, the development was to include both garden series homes and the designer series homes. At the time the Executive Home Series was developed, it was deemed appropriate to replace some of the garden series homes and some of the designer series with the Executive Homes. In order to accomplish this, the s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \2000mar 10 proposed change provides for a separate entrance from the main boulevard to the Executive Homes to create a separate identity. The sizes of some of lots will also be increased for the Executive Homes. The end result is three fewer lots, the same amount of open space, and the introduction of an up -scale series of homes. The separate entrance will denote the Executive Homes. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. Laurence Lillig reported that the Department offers no objection to a vote this evening. Marilyn Anderson asked for clarification of the wooded space and access. Tom Kutz responded that the property Marilyn is questioning is owned by the City and is a well site. The Subdivision does not have access to the area. Ron Houck moved for the suspension of the rules. APPROVED 15 -0. Ron Houck moved for the approval of Docket No. 59 -00 PP Amend, Haverstick Subdivision. APPROVED 15 in favor, none opposed. 5h. Docket No. 61 -00 DP /ADLS, Development Plan and Architectural Design, Lighting Signage applications for REI Investments. The petitioner requests approval for two hotels totaling 166,000 square feet on 8.070 acres to be known as Residence Inn and Spring Hill Suites. The site is located northwest of the intersection of East 116 Street and Pennsylvania Street. The site is zoned B- 6 /Business and is located within the US 31 Overlay Zone. Filed by Elizabeth Hobbs of REI Investments, Inc. Bob Modisett recused himself from discussion and voting on this Docket due to a conflict of interest. Gene Valanzano, land use consultant for Baker Daniels, 300 North Meridian Street, Indianapolis, appeared before the Commission representing the petitioner, REI Investments, Inc; Meridian Mile Associates LP is the owner of the property. Also in attendance were Mike Wells, Liz Hobbs and Drew Sasnick. Approval is being sought to develop two hotel suites at 11811 North Meridian Street. Both hotels are proposed as Marriott franchises. The Residence Inn would be an extended -stay facility; the second would be Spring Hill Suites, a medium -stay facility. Both facilities would be developed by REI Investments. The Residence Inn is proposed on the northern part of the site. The units are all suites and are 50% larger than the typical hotel rooms found in the market. They are constructed with a residential atmosphere with apartment -style units. The units would feature one bedroom suites, two bedroom suites, studio suites, and two -level penthouse suites. s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \2000mar 11 The amenities would include a gatehouse that would house the hotel's front desk, hearth room and public space, complimentary breakfast buffet, hospitality hours every evening, weekly dinner themes, complimentary newspapers for the guests, complimentary grocery shopping service, swimming pools, heated sauna, a sport courts for volleyball and basketball. Each guest room would feature a fully equipped kitchen with appliances (sinks, stoves and refrigerators), and separate living and sleeping quarters. The customer base for the Residence Inn is largely business travel, and a typical stay averages 12 nights per stay. The average income of a guest is in the upper $60,000. range; the average age of an occupant is 40 years; and the business background is that 66% of the persons that stay at a Residence Inn are at managerial or professional levels and 18% are at technical sales or administration levels. "Business Travelers News" in 1997 ranked the Marriott Residence Inn as the Number One extended stay facility. The Spring Hill Suites is slightly different than the Residence Inn. It is an all suites project, the rooms are approximately 25% larger than the standard hotel room, and separate eating areas, separate working areas, and separate sleeping areas are featured within the units. The amenities also include complimentary continental breakfast, swimming pools and spas, exercise rooms, business center, and complimentary daily newspaper. In terms of room amenities, the rooms are slightly scaled down; they do include a small microwave, mini refrigerator, in -room coffee makers, two telephone lines for voice and data communication are provided, ironing boards, and enclosed closets. Up -scale from a typical hotel room. The customer base is more a 50150 mix between traveling business customers and leisure travelers. The typical stay at a Spring Hill Suites is 2 to 4 nights. The average household income of Spring Hill Suites clients is between $65,000/$72,000; the average age is between 41 and 46 years. REI filed a Use Variance with the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow for units with individual kitchen facilities; the Variance was approved by the BZA on February 28. The site is located on the east side of Meridian Street, north of 116 on Pennsylvania Street; Conseco office building is to the northeast of the site on the opposite side of Pennsylvania. Primary access to the site is via Pennsylvania Street and would align with College Drive. One parking space per room is allotted, a total of 256 spaces have been provided on site. Trash enclosures in a material to match the brick in the buildings are provided; the gates are cedar covered. The Ordinance requires a minimum of 15% landscaping; the petitioner has provided 17 Six percent of the surface area of the parking lot is required to be landscaped, the petitioner is excess of that requirement. There is a total of 164 trees on site and 718 shrubs. There is landscaping around the perimeter and in the parking lot; trees include White Ash, flowering pears, crabapples and redbuds. The lighting is a shoebox style fixture, down lighting. The petitioner is aware that the Department has some concerns with the levels of illumination at a few points along the property line; the petitioner is willing to make some adjustments. As yet, there are no definitive plans for wall lighting s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \2000mar 12 fixtures; however, if there were lights on the building, they would be either low mounted on the building or ground mounted and would wash up on the building. Mr. Valanzano presented samples of the brick to be used on the buildings and stone accent pieces. There will be standing seam metal roof features. The main portion of the Residence Inn roof line is at 50.3 feet. The gatehouse, attached to the main building, is one -story with a roof peak height of 25.3 feet. The Springhill Suites building is 68.5 feet at its highest point. The sign package includes a ground sign and wall signs. The sign package is incomplete at this point. It is hopeful that the signage can be presented in detail at the Committee level. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to this petition; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. Laurence Lillig reported that the Department is recommending that this item be forwarded to the April 11 Special Study Committee meeting. John Sharpe asked that the petitioner be prepared to answer questions regarding traffic impact on Pennsylvania and the widening of Pennsylvania. Mr. Sharpe wanted to be sure that the public is aware that College Drive (Street) that runs through the Conseco campus will be closed off and will not be a thoroughfare. Kevin Kirby commented that College will be closed, torn up, and will not connect with any other street, outside the Conseco campus. Laurence Lillig stated that the center one third of College that passes through the Conseco campus will be converted to a mini park -like setting connecting the Conseco campus. At the point where College Drive connects with Pennsylvania Street on the east/west and from Congressional Blvd. on the east side, there will be two cul -de -sacs; the only connection between them will be via the Conseco parking lots on the north and south. John Molitor clarified that the street is not College Avenue that becomes Congressional Boulevard as it goes north, it is the east/west street called College Drive that connects Congressional and Pennsylvania. Docket No. 61 -00 DP /ADLS, Residence Inn and Spring Hill Suites, was forwarded to Special Study Committee that will meet on April 11 at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. 3h. Docket No. 64 -00 CPA, Comprehensive Plan Amendment application for the Carmel /Clay Plan Commission. This proposal would add to the Carmel /Clay Township Comprehensive Plan (2020 Vision) a series of specific recommendations resulting from a multi jurisdictional transportation and land use study titled the 96 th Street Corridor Study. s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \2000mar 13 Filed by the Department of Community Services. Michael Hollibaugh of the Department of Community Services appeared before the Commission. This particular petition would amend the Carmel /Clay 2020 Comprehensive Plan by establishing specific policies and recommendations for land use along, and improvements to the 96 Street Corridor between College Avenue and the Hamilton /Boone County Line. Mike Hollibaugh introduced John Meyers to explain further. John Meyers of Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quaid and Douglas, 47 South Pennsylvania Street, Indianapolis, appeared before the Commission and explained the purpose of the project, described the process and reviewed findings and recommendations. The DOCS was directly involved in the planning process that has resulted in the Study Report. A combination technical discussion and public input supported this process. The purpose of the study was to look at land use and transportation along 96 Street between Michigan Road and Keystone Avenue. The study was sponsored by the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization who represents the City of Indianapolis, Marion County, and the major urbanized parts of Hamilton County and Johnson County. This was a regional planning study and included Carmel, the City of Indianapolis, Hamilton County, INDOT, and representatives in the transportation working group from Nora Community Council, Deerfield Neighborhood Assoc., Cedar Knolls Neighborhood Assoc., and Clay West Information Council. The group met monthly for approximately 10 months. There were three public meetings during the study period: February, September, and October. These meetings were well attended and there was a lot of involvement from the public. The study area had three major interchanges: one on each end at Michigan and Keystone, and one in the middle at Meridian. These interchanges affected transportation patterns and land use greatly. The land use is essentially a residential corridor until the "nodes" where the interchanges are -at that point, there are strong commercial areas. The traffic patterns show that the three nodes tend to suck traffic from around them; in between are much lower traffic volumes. The function of 96 Street is a conduit to those interchanges and in that way, it is very different from 86 Street, from 106 Street, and from 116 because it is not serving cross county traffic of any distance. This is a significant point in respect to the findings of the study group. Usually, improved capacity on roadways improves access on the other end which causes development which causes an increase in traffic- -that is not the case here. If 96 were widened to 4 lanes, it would draw traffic from 86 Street, 106 Street, and in effect, would begin to serve a different function. It would no longer be a collector serving the major nodes where the interchanges area, it would, in fact, because of the capacity of a four lane road, serve more as a through roadway. INDOT saw this as an advantage and advocated four lanes. INDOT has an issue with interstate highways and sees these as having a purpose for long distance travel. It was difficult for committee members to s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \2000mar 14 think of a residential street, such as 96th Street, serving as a reliever to I465. It 96 Street were made 4 lanes, it would carry a significant increase in traffic. The findings and recommendations: 96 Street is residential in character for most of its length, with the exception of the nodes mentioned earlier. There are quality of life issues in addition to the traffic movement issues. Comprehensive Plans of all of the agencies involved on both side of the county line recommend preserving the existing neighborhoods and protecting them from "commercial creep" that might come from these nodes. As long as development occurs within existing residential zoning categories, there would be a minimum impact on the need for additional lanes on 96 Street. Public comments were very strong in advocating the retention of the residential land uses and residential character of the area. The interchanges have a very significant effect locally in the immediate vicinity, such as the Meridian interchange has a significant impact from Springmill to College, and beyond that, very little impact. This is true at the other interchanges as well. The findings of the study were based on land use assumptions made that if the land use assumptions change significantly, such as significant rezones of land currently zoned residential, that would affect the recommendations; this is also true if the capacity is not there at those interchanges. The study group did find that accommodating the traffic levels outside of the commercial nodes is feasible with a two -lane road if it is a well designed two -lane road with auxiliary lanes at intersections and major entry points. Citizens opposed the widening of 96 Street outside the commercial areas. There is a need to improve all of the intersections along 96 Street because they are really "key" in terms of what can be done with the lanes along the entire route. Certainly there is a need to improve four way stops that exist in western Clay Township; depending on development, similar statements could be made at College, Springmill and Westfield Boulevard. Either round abouts or traffic signals could be used at the various intersections along the route. If signalization were used, the addition of a left turn lane would be needed at every approach; so every approach to a signal should have at least two lanes. At Towne, Ditch, Springmill and College, based on the forecast of traffic signal installation, there would also be a need in at least one direction of an additional through lane. The intersections would have to be widened to accommodate two through lanes through the intersection, and then narrow down on the other side. This is a compromise in safety and a discomfort in having to merge on the other side of every intersection -this is one of the disadvantages of traffic signals. If round abouts are designed properly, they can operate well with a two lane road with a higher capacity without having to have the need for an additional through lane and having to merge on the other side. Round abouts improve traffic flow during non -peak periods, they are compatible with a four lane roadway design if the road is widened later, and there is an opportunity for aesthetic treatment that is consistent in a residential setting. Over time, the round abouts are less expensive to maintain and they do not use electricity. Public input showed the likelihood of acceptance of round abouts. s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \2000mar 15 Since 86 Street and 116 Street are primary arterials, and since I465 is intended to serve longer distance travel, these routes should be the focus in addressing long term, regional travel needs. Any improvements to 96 Street should be designed to minimize right -of- way impact, support residential neighborhoods, and advance overall residential character, and where feasible, consideration should be given to residential parkway techniques that provide for safe and efficient flow of traffic in a neighborhood setting. Where feasible, improvements along the corridor should incorporate multi -use paths and a special effort should be made to connect the Monon Trail to multi -use paths on Michigan Road. It is the recommendation of the study group that adjoining jurisdictions should continue to cooperate and coordinate when making land use and transportation decisions in the corridor. In terms of intersections and roadways, subject to final engineering, round- abouts should receive primary consideration for design and implementation at Springmill Road, Ditch Road, Towne Road, and Shelborne Road. Since improvements are already warranted, these engineering studies should commence as soon as feasible. These studies should consider and address potential back -ups from proposed or potential signalized intersections or entry points to ensure that back -ups will not occur through the round- abouts. Round abouts should be constructed only if the engineering studies show that blockages will not occur. The 96 Street/Meridian Street intersection should be improved to accommodate localized, commercialized traffic in a manner that does not encourage development traffic in residential areas. A right turn lane should be considered at 96 and Westfield Boulevard. The main problem at this intersection on the Hamilton County side is that there is only one lane northbound; half the traffic turns right toward Keystone, the other half goes north. If there were a right turn lane, it would provide a significant amount of signal time for the other movements. The reason there is no right turn lane now is that it would have to be built over a bridge. The bridge over I465 would have to be widened to accommodate a right turn lane; it is still a recommendation because of the impact it would have. This is in lieu of building a bridge extending 96 Street across I465. In regard to roadways, 96 Street should be widened to four lanes with a center left turn or 5 lanes between Michigan Road and Shelborne, and between Springmill and College, subject to specific studies of development in these areas, and between Haverstick and Keystone Avenue. In other words, those sections that are a part of or adjacent to the commercial areas will need additional lanes and that should be done depending upon the development itself. 96 Street should be up- graded to an improved, two -lane roadway between Shelborne and Springmill, between College and Real Street, and between Westfield and Haverstick. The improved roadway should provide adequate intersection treatments, standard lane widths, and auxiliary lanes at major entry points. Where possible, right -of -way for widening should be taken from undeveloped land. As development and land use changes occur, right -of -way should be dedicated consistent with the functional classification of secondary arterial or higher, depending on location, and right -of -way from property already developed should not be taken until the need is specifically identified in the corridor design study. s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \2000mar 16 Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition that would amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan and incorporate the 96 Street Corridor Study; the following appeared: Sharon Clark, 11932 Pebblebrook Lane, County Commissioner who participated in the 96 Street study, commented that there was good representation from all segments of the community and the County has already begun design for the intersection at 96 and Towne Road that will incorporate a round about. There is also a TIF District set up between Shelborne Road and 96 Street (county line) to widen and again support the study results. Mark Rattermann, 11257 St. Andrews Lane, representing the Original Clay West Information Council, appeared before the Commission and stated that Brian Shapiro had represented the Clay West Council. There were several meetings and a lot of citizen participation. Mr. Rattermann was complimentary of the MPO and all organizations that participated in the corridor study. Mr. Rattermann was definitely in favor of the findings and recommendations in the 96 Street study. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petition; no one appeared. Laurence Lillig reported that the Department is recommending suspension of the Rules in order to come to a vote this evening. The Department further recommends that this item be forwarded to the City Council with a favorable recommendation. The public hearing was then closed. In response to questions from Ron Houck, John Meyers stated that there is not sufficient right -of -way along the 96 Corridor to accommodate the enhanced treatment talked about. Where newer developments are in place, there may be opportunities to do some things where setbacks are less; a detailed Corridor Study should occur that would specifically look at the entire route. Marilyn Anderson questioned the levels of service at a number of signalized intersections in the study. John Meyers responsed that levels E and F are unacceptable; D may not be the most desirable, but it is generally deemed to be acceptable in urbanized areas. "D" is the standard used in Indianapolis Carmel /Clay looks for a "C" level of service. Kevin Kirby moved for the suspension of the Rules in order to vote on this petition. APPROVED 15 -0. Kevin Kirby moved for the approval of Docket No. 64 -00 CPA, 96 th Street Corridor Study. APPROVED 15 -0. Pat Rice moved that the Corridor Design Study be initiated by MPO using Federal Funds. APPROVED 15 -0. s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \2000mar 17 I. Old Business: Docket No. 98 -99 Z, Rezone application for Kite Real Estate, Inc. The petitioner seeks approval of a rezone to PUD /planned unit development in order to construct two retail buildings on 37.076 acres. The site is located southeast of East 146 Street and US 31. The site is zoned B -2 /Business, R -1 /Residential and R -4 /Residential within the US 31 Overlay Zone and the SR 431 Overlay Zone. Filed by Paul G. Reis of the Reis Law Firm. Paul Reis, attorney, 12358 Hancock Street, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing Kite Real Estate, Inc. Paul Kite of the Kite Companies was in attendance as well as County Commissioner Sharon Clark; Michael Howard, County Attorney; David Roush of Ratio Architects; and Steve Fehribach of A &F Engineering. Mr. Reis reported that the petitioner had met with the Special Study Committee 4 times in order to review and modify the PUD Ordinance and to further refine the Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping, and Signage for this project. The petitioner has also met with the president of Danbury Homeowners Association, subdivision immediately to the east, and an agreement has been reached with the homeowners for the construction of a screening wall and related landscaping for the benefit of the Danbury Estates neighborhood. Significant development, design, and signage requirements have been added to the proposed Ordinance, plans, and renderings. The renderings were described; the design shown includes the sign package. The sign for the garden center is 25.5 square feet, the lumberyard sign is 22.5 square feet, the main Lowe's sign is 144 square feet; all signage is in accordance with the PUD Ordinance. The north facade faces 146 Street. A limestone colored cap as opposed to the blue trim has been incorporated into the design; the glass is a dark, green /grey color and samples are available for inspection. There is no signage on the east facade; the west facade will have one Lowe's sign, approximately 100 square feet as provided for in the Ordinance. There are all brick materials used in the building, the roof is metal, dark grey in color. The south building has changed substantially. The glass tower has been eliminated. If this building goes to a multi tenant building and steel access doors or overhead doors are included on the south facade, the petitioner will add an 8 foot masonry screening wall so that it cannot be seen from the northbound ramp coming onto the property. If there is more than one tenant, the signage is defined and sized as per the Ordinance -it is measured perpendicular to the right -of -way of Keystone Avenue. The signage consists of white letters with white returns, and will be consistent on all of the buildings within the center itself. The landscape plan is two -phase because there is no tenant thus far for the second building. There is a possibility that the second building may not be built initially; in that s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \2000mar 18 event, the area will be seeded, and retention ponds with landscaping will be installed. There is also perimeter landscaping. As discussed at the committee level, there are aerator jets in the two retention ponds and also in the larger retention pond to the south so that the ponds are maintained and there is no stagnant, standing water in the ponds. There is also up- lighting around both buildings -no wall packs. The car corral has been designed so that it is the same materials and compatible with the buildings themselves so that there is a consistent look throughout. There is a center identification sign on Greyhound Pass extension, 10 feet high and 75 feet in sign area; this sign will reflect Lowe's and additional signage depending on how the second building develops. The wall proposed between Danbury Estates and the Lowe's project was approved by the Danbury Homeowners and involves evergreen trees being planted along the east side of the wall. The east side of the wall will be irrigated so that the trees will have water and the area will be maintained. The strip will be kept by the developer and maintained by the owner of the center. The petitioner has discussed at length with the Special Study Committee the potential re- use of the Lowe's building should Lowe's no longer occupy the space. The same development standards have been provided in the second building as far as size of the retail space, the users, etc. so that it is all compatible and consistent throughout. Mr. Reis was complimentary of the Special Study Committee for exercising extreme patience and consideration and were very helpful in putting together a very attractive plan and project for the community. Paul Spranger reported that the Committee had worked diligently with the petitioner in making changes to the project because of its location. There were a number of concessions made by the applicant and a number of different approaches were looked at. It is a use in the 31 corridor that is non conforming, however it is an isolated parcel because of what will happen with the interchange. The Committee voted to recommend approval, four in favor, Jim O'Neal opposed. One area that was not scrutinized as carefully as it could have been is the HVAC tower and the screening. Jim O'Neal was complimentary of the petitioner for working well with the Committee. Jim O'Neal stated that his reason for the negative vote is that the north Meridian Task Force had been working for four years to keep North Meridian, from 146 to 96th Street, as attractive as possible from the standpoint of landscaping, architectural and types of businesses. The Lowe's store in the Glendale area has goods spread over a vast area. It is difficult to see how the Lowe's at 146 and Meridian could keep everything under cover, in fact, it would seem impossible for Lowe's to keep all of the promises made to the Special Study Committee once Lowe's opens for business. It is the feeling that if this project is built, it will be a continuation of development north of 146 Street to the south and east side of Meridian. If the project is eventually approved by City Council, Jim O'Neal challenged the City and the developer to keep this project as neat and clean as the developers have promised because Carmel deserves the best. s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \2000mar 19 Ron Houck commented that given the area north of 146' Street and how it has developed, the Lowe's project is probably not unreasonable. Pat Rice questioned the screening of the HVAC unit atop the building. Paul Reis responded that there was a specific item in the PUD Ordinance that deals with the HVAC screening. It specifically states that any rooftop mechanical equipment visible from an adjoining street or highway shall be screened with suitable walls or fencing, subject to the approval of the Plan Commission or committee of the Plan Commission. Pat Rice specifically questioned the material used for the screening of the HVAC. Dave Roush of Ratio Architects submitted a sample of the metal, standing seam, roofing material and stated that this would not enclose any mechanical. Any mechanical equipment located on the roof would be concealed by a high parapet. Typically, an eifus material or materials consistent with the building would be used. However, at this point, it is not anticipated that any equipment will be visible. Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of Docket No. 98 -99 Z, Kite Real Estate, Inc., subject to this project being taken out of the U.S. 31 corridor pursuant to City Council's amendment to the Overlay Zone on March 20, 2000. Laurence Lillig reported for the Department that the character and use proposed by this petition are disparate with the planning policies for the US 31 corridor as well as fundamentally inconsistent with the deliberate limitation of pure retail in the corridor. It is with this in mind that the Department recommends this item be forwarded to the City Council with a negative recommendation. John Molitor, Counsel, commented that the Ordinance incorporates defnitions as they are in effect on October 22, 1999. Some additional definitions were forwarded earlier tonight. John Molitor suggested that the petitioner might want to wait to go before Council until April 17 because of the addition of the definition of Sexually- Oriented Business. Also, towards the end of the PUD, there are some provisions as to ADLS and Development Plans that refer to re- submissions to the Committee of the Plan Commission -this is generally dealt with in the Rules of Procedure. John suggested that procedures or amendments to ADLS and Development Plans be in accordance with the Plan Commission's Rules of Procedure. Also, the PUD has the effect of automatically removing the project from the 31 corridor. Leo Dierckman then amended his motion to provide that any re- submission or appeal of this project would be in accordance with the Plan Commission's Rules of Procedure and to eliminate the condition in the original motion that this project be taken out of the U.S. 31 Corridor. The motion was then restated: s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \2000mar 20 Docket No. 98 -99 Z, Rezone application for Kite Real Estate, Inc. was recommended for APPROVAL, AS AMENDED to provide that any re- submission or appeal of the project would be in accordance with the Plan Commission's Rules of Procedure, and also, to eliminate the language that would take this project out of the US 31 Corridor. APPROVED 9 in favor, 6 opposed (Dave Cremeans; Wayne Haney; Nick Kestner; Norma Meighen; Jim O'Neal; and John Sharpe.) 2i. Docket No. 5 -00 PP, Primary Plat application for SCM Development. The petitioner seeks approval to plat 6 residential lots on 13.13 acres to be known as Springwood Subdivision. The site is located northwest of the intersection of West 106 Street and Spring Mill Road. The site is zoned S -2 /Residential and is being developed as a Non Qualifying Subdivision under ROSO. The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waivers: 6 -00 SW SCO 6.3.20 to plat a private street 7 -00 SW SCO 6.2.1 to subdivide land within a floodway 8 -00 SW SCO 6.3.19(4) to plat lots within 50 feet of Springmill Road 9 -00 SW SCO 6.3.22 to alter accel /decel /passing blister design 10 -00 SW SCO 8.9.1 to terminate internal sidewalks 60 feet short of the Springmill Road right -of -way 11 -00 SW SCO 8.9.2 to install a 4 foot wide, meandering sidewalk instead of an 8 foot wide multi -use path 18 -00 SW SCO 7.4 to plat 4.0% open space 19 -00 SW SCO 7.6(F) to forego submittal of an Open Space Plan 20 -00 SW SCO 7.7(A) to circumvent minimum design standards 21 -00 SW SCO 7.7(B) to alter existing natural open space 22 -00 SW SCO 7.7(C) to exclude Primary Secondary areas 23 -00 SW SCO 7.7(D) to forego protection of Primary areas 24 -00 SW SCO 7.7(F) to forego protection of Secondary areas 25 -00 SW SCO 7.7(J) to forego protection of Woodlands 26 -00 SW SCO 7.7(K) to forego submittal of a Woodlands Evaluation 27 -00 SW SCO 7.7(L) to forego protection of vegetation Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson Frankenberger for SCM Development Jim Nelson, attorney, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing SCM Development. Also in attendance was Mike Klein of SCM Development. As a result of the review process, there were some changes made to the plan at the Subdivision Committee level. The real estate will be developed as Springwood Subdivision and is located northwest of the intersection of West 106 Street and Springmill Road. The primary plat was presented to the Commission for public hearing on February 15, 2000. The plan for Springwood is to create a residential community consisting of 6, large, residential homesites with the lots ranging in size from 1 1/2 acres up to 3 acres. From the inception, the plan was to provide for a small enclave of estate homesites, providing for up -scale home, with the emphasis on intimacy, and privacy. s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \2000mar 21 At the time this development had public hearing, four of the six lots had been sold; as of this evening, all six lots have been spoken for. During the review process at the Committee level, the following changes were made. The plan was amended to include sidewalks internal to the development that began at the entrance gate and proceeded on all sides of the internal roadway. A variance is still required because the sidewalks do not extend from the entry gate eastward to Springmill Road. In order to accommodate schoolchildren, sidewalks have been provided internal to the development and a pedestrian gate that would permit schoolchildren to walk through the entry to arrive at the bus. In lieu of the alternate transportation pathway, a four foot wide, concrete sidewalk has been provided adjacent and parallel to Springmill Road, consistent with the type of perimeter sidewalk treatment that now exists on developed portions of Springmill Road. The next change involves lot 93. Lot #3 is 3 acres in size, adjacent to the floodway of Williams Creek, and heavily wooded. The developer has created an area 1.3 acres in size that is designated as a conservation easement. Within the conservation area, the developer has precluded any removal of trees of any kind or nature except as may need to be removed as part of any drainage work along Williams Creek. To the west is a 15 to 20 acre parcel of real estate that is now and has been for many years, designated as a conservancy district. The Primary Plat application does provide for a number of variances from the Residential Open Space. These variances arise from the private nature of Springwood and the fact that the open space and tree preservation areas occur on individual lots rather than in a separate area to be owned by the association or accessible by all members of the community. At the Subdivision Committee, the questions was asked if the Commission was able to reduce the amount of required open space from 12.5% to 4 Under Section 7.14, the Commission is given the opportunity to do that, however, it cannot exceed 35 In considering 18 -00 SW, it would be in the form of a variance as opposed to a Subdivision Waiver. Ron Houck reported that the Subdivision Committee did examine each of the waivers, or requests, and what necessitated each one. The Committee felt that community standards dictated that sidewalks were something that should be provided in every subdivision to allow for safe passage and the petitioner did agree. Also, deferring the installation of a multi -use, external path was not totally in keeping with the philosophy of inter- connecting subdivisions and parcels of land; with that, the petitioner agreed to install a four foot wide sidewalk consistent with the subdivision to the north. The sidewalk is appropriate, will meet community standards, and will not impose an undue burden on the developer. The Committee voted unanimously to approve the proposed subdivision with the waivers requested and the petitioner's agreement to install the sidewalk. Laurence Lillig reported the Department's position that the Subdivision could be constructed without the requested Waiver. Further, the Department has concluded that this petition is not in harmony with the purposes of the open space chapter, nor has the s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \2000mar 22 petitioner demonstrated that the Waivers will produce equal or better results than a plan without the Waivers. The Department does not support the Waiver requests and suggests that this item be forwarded to the April 11, 2000 Subdivision Committee for additional review. In respect to Docket 6 -00 SW, the Committee requested that a private inspection be done on the streets. The petitioner agreed to provide the Department with a private inspection demonstrating that the streets are built to County standards; this is further spelled out in a formal letter from the petitioner dated March 8, 2000. John Molitor recommended that the Commission suspend its Rules and consider the Waiver in batch rather than individually. If the Waivers are not granted, it would be in order to send it back to Committee for further review. In response to questions from Madeline Fitzgerald, Ron Houck stated that given the nature and design of this small subdivision, the Committee felt that it was not inappropriate to allow private streets in this instance. The 6 lot owners have spoken up to say that they are willing to maintain the private streets and they understand the terms up front. Jim O'Neal moved for the suspension of the rules. APPROVED. Jim O'Neal moved for the approval of all of the Waivers and one Variance, APPROVED 13 in favor, none opposed. Jim O'Neal moved for the approval of Docket No. 5 -00 PP, Springwood Subdivision. APPROVED 13 in favor, none opposed. 3i. Docket No. 12 -00 PP, Maebeck Commons Subdivision. TABLED to the April 18 meeting. 4i. Docket No. 36 -00 ADLS, Architectural Design, Lighting Signage application for Equicor Development. The petitioner requests approval of two multi- tenant, multi -level general office buildings on two parcels totaling 4.386 acres to be known as Fidelity Keystone Office Park. The site is located northwest of the intersection of East Carmel Drive and Keystone Way. The site is zoned B- 8 /Business. Filed by David B. Huffman of CSO Engineers for Equicor Development. Gordon Byers, attorney, appeared before the Commission representing Equicor. Mr. Byers deferred to the Special Study Committee report. Paul Spranger, chairman of the Special Study Committee, reported that the committee granted "Limited Approval" of the project due to the issue of access. There is no street frontage on this parcel of real estate and the petitioner was allowed time to work this out with the City. Steak N' Shake submitted a letter agreeing to workout access via a curb s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \2000mar 23 cut in conjunction with the City Streetscape renovation. Additionally, a FAX was received by Steve Engelking from Gordon Byers stating that the Carmel Board of Public Works had approved ingress /egress from Carmel Drive to the site. Gordon Byers responded to questions from the Commission in regard to traffic. Gordon stated that a sign package was not submitted and the applicant understands that he will have to come back to the Plan Commission for signage approval. With respect to the ingress /egress, the petitioner has been working with the City on this point. At the time the City renovates the Carmel Drive Streetscape, the Keystone Way access will be limited to right in /right out. As a solution, the petitioner has proposed two lanes out and one lane in to the property. The reason Steak N' Shake is relevant is that the City put the burden on the petitioner to align the intersection with Steak N' Shake and Steak N' Shake has agreed, as evidenced by the letter. The petitioner will have ability to stack traffic on site and have access out, both to the west and the east as well as access into the site. The plan for ingress /egress was approved by the Board of Public Works and Safety. The petitioner also owns the bank property and the legal descriptions will be consolidated and frontage will not be an issue, as it relates to signage and building permits. An attempt will be made to time the construction of the project with the Carmel Drive Streetscape improvement. Ron Houck moved for the approval of Docket No. 36 -00 ADLS, Fidelity Keystone Office Park. APPROVED 13 in favor, none opposed. 5i. Docket No. 38 -00 PP, Primary Plat application for Kosene Kosene. The petitioner requests approval to plat 24 lots on 10.65 acres to be known as Fairgreen Trace Subdivision, Phase II. The site is located northwest of the intersection of East 116 Street and South Range Line Road. The site is zoned R -1 /Residential and is being developed as a Qualifying Subdivision under ROSO. The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waivers. 39 -00 SW SCO 6.5.1 to plat lots with less than 50 feet of road frontage 40 -00 SW SCO 6.3.6 to plat a residential street with 40 feet of right -of -way 41 -00 SW SCO 6.3.6 to construct a residential street 24 feet in width 42 -00 SW SCO 6.3.15(3) to plat a residential street with radius less than 150' 43 -00 SW SCO 7.7 (D)(7) to clear more than 50% of the scrub woodlands Filed by Roger C. Ward, Jr. of Roger Ward Engineering for Kosene Kosene. Gary Weaver, 50 East 91 Street, Indianapolis, appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. The petitioner has been working to eliminate the number of variances. Changes have been made in the street configurations- -the street extensions now terminate in cul -de -sacs; this allowed the petitioner to preserve the trees in the center of the site. The variance to reduce 50 feet of road frontage is only for the largest lots within the development at the curb line. At the building line, the lot width is the same as all other lots. Mr. Weaver stated the petitioner's case for the variances being requested. s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \2000mar 24 The petitioner has met with the City Engineer who agrees with the plan as presented. The traffic patterns are workable and acceptable. Fairgreen Trace I is being extended, and the open space in the original plan is being extended and connected. The petitioner is eliminating the request for Variances 40 -00 SW and 42 -00 SW. Ron Houck reported that the Committee was concerned about on- street parking and had asked that the street width be increased from 24 feet to 26 feet. Also, there was a concern regarding the path leading to the east via an access between two lots. The petitioner stated that they have allowed for a larger lot adjacent to the existing pond to accommodate the path. Ron Houck stated that the Committee had requested that the path be put into place as a part of the development. The Committee had also requested decorative signage posted that would allow parking on one side of the street. Laurence Lillig reported that the Department only received revised drawings today. The drawings reflect the need for 42 -00 SW. The Engineering Department still has concerns with the proposed layout and is willing to work with the petitioner. Ron Houck moved to TABLE Docket No. 38 -00 PP to the April meeting. APPROVED 12 favor, Jim O'Neal opposed. New Business 1j. Docket No. 37 -00 ADLS, McDonald's, OFFICIALLY WITHDRAWN There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 PM. David A. Cremeans, President Ramona Hancock, Secretary s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \2000mar 25 s: \P1anCommission\Minutes \2000mar 26