Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 06-17-031,1`I y G`'`y of Cq,9y C ity CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION June 17, 2003 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission met in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 7:00 PM on June 17, 2003. The meeting convened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Members present were: Marilyn Anderson; Stephanie Blackman; Jerry Chomanczuk; Dave Cremeans; Leo Dierckman; Wayne Haney; Ron Houck; Nick Kestner; Dianna Knoll; Pat Rice; Pam Williams; Wayne Wilson, thereby establishing a quorum. Mike Hollibaugh, Director of the Department of Community Services, and Jon Dobosiewicz attended the meeting on behalf of the Department. John Molitor, legal counsel, was also present. The minutes from the May meeting were approved as submitted. John Molitor reported that a letter was received from Councilors Ron Carter and Bob Battreall requesting the proposed ME Zone District Ordinance and proposed Comprehensive Plan policies for mining be removed from the Plan Commission Agenda and withdrawn from consideration. This has been a sensitive topic and Mr. Molitor recommended the Commission accept the letter in the form of a motion. In response to questions from Ron Houck, Mr. Molitor explained that the Department could withdraw these petitions, but it should be made clear that these items are being withdrawn and will not be reconsidered. These items should be formally dismissed from the Commission Docket Agenda permanently. Director Mike Hollibaugh addressed the Commission saying that the Ordinance process requires the Council have sponsorship of certain ordinances. Councilors Carter and Battreall were the intended sponsors of the ordinance as well as the Mining Ordinance, therefore they signed the letter. Ron Houck moved to remove Docket No. 177 -02 OA, the Mineral Extraction Ordinance, from the Plan Commission Agenda, seconded by Stephanie Blackman. The motion was unanimously approved. Ron Houck then moved to remove the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Docket No. 178 -02 CPA, and Docket No. 19 -03 ADLS petition from the Plan Commission Agenda, seconded by S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\PlanCommissioriMinutes\pc2003jun ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 Dave Cremeans. The motion was unanimously approved. Jon Dobosiewicz reported concerns from the Department. The information packets for the Ritz Charles Accessory Building were delivered this afternoon. The Department asks that the Plan Commission consider this item as it appears on the Agenda, however, it would require suspension of the Rules of Procedure. H. Public Hearings lh. Docket No. 09 -03 PP; Riverview Medical Park (Primary Plat) The applicant seeks approval to plat a three -lot subdivision on 11.09± acres. The site is located at the southeast corner of Hazel Dell Parkway and 146 Street. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence Low Density. Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for Plum Creek Partners. Charles Frankenberger, 5212 Carrington Circle, Carmel, attorney with Nelson Frankenberger, appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Last month, the Plan Commission, supported by the favorable recommendation of the Subdivision Committee, rendered a unanimous, favorable recommendation to the City Council of the PUD Ordinance. Plum Creek is currently proceeding before Council with respect to the zoning —first reading occurred last night. Pending consideration and deliberation by Council of the zoning, the applicant is seeking primary plat approval for a three -lot subdivision on 11.09 acres located at the southeast corner of Hazel Dell Parkway and 146 Street. This site will be divided into three parcels, lot 1, lot 2, and lot 3. The allocation of the site also shows the internal roadway. Inasmuch as this item has already been reviewed in detail, the applicant is requesting suspension of the Rules of Procedure and approval granted this evening without referring this item to Subdivision Committee. This request is consistent with the Department's recommendation. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. Jon Dobosiewicz commented for the Department. The proposal will split the real estate into three tracts —this information is consistent with the information discussed at the time of the Rezone. In essence, the petition is unrelated to the rezone. If the rezone were not approved by the City Council, we would be left with the petitioner's availability or option to create three lots under the existing zoning. If the absence of comments from the public or Commission that could be further addressed at Committee, the Department is recommending suspension of the Rules of Procedure and action S:\PlanCommission\ Minutes \PlanCommissionMinutes \pc2003jun 2 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 this evening on the petition. Ron Houck asked for a report from the Subdivision Committee. Dave Cremeans confirmed that this item was discussed several times and in reviewing this, it is exactly what was reviewed —there are no changes at all. At this time, it seems prudent to suspend the Rules of Procedure and take action. Dave Cremeans moved to suspend the Rules of Procedure in order to vote on Docket No. 09 -03 PP, Riverview Medical Park, this evening, seconded by Pat Rice and approved. Dave Cremeans moved for approval of Docket No. 09 -03, Riverview Medical Park Primary Plat, seconded by Pat Rice and APPROVED 11 -0. 2h. Docket No. 76 -03 DP Amend; (03050042); Ritz Charles Accessory Building The applicant seeks Development Plan Amendment approval to construct an 8,000 square foot accessory building. The site is located at 12156 North Meridian Street. The site is zoned B -6 /Business and is within the US 31 Overlay Zone. Filed by E. Davis Coots of Coots, Henke Wheeler for Ritz Charles. Pat Rice moved to suspend the Rules of Procedure in order to hear Docket No. 76 -03 DP Amend, Ritz Charles Accessory Building at this time; the motion was seconded by Wayne Haney. In response to questions from Ron Houck, Dave Coots stated that the only information that is new in the packets was Cripe's revision of the drainage plan—nothing else has changed. Dianna Knoll reported that the Special Study Committee had voted 5 -0 to approve this proposal. At this time, the vote was taken on Pat Rice's motion to suspend the Rules of Procedure. The vote was unanimous. Dave Coots, attorney with Coots, Henke Wheeler, 255 East Carmel Drive, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing the owner of the property, 12156 Meridian Associates LLC, of which Chuck Lazarra is the managing member and president of Ritz Charles, Inc. Mr. Coots stated that the petitioner went through the ADLS process and obtained approval. Because there was no change being made to the physical property itselfno parking was being added, the entryways were not being changed, traffic was not being added —the traditional development plan was not being affected. The applicant went through the ADLS process first and complied with all of the commitments required to produce the approval obtained two months ago from the Plan Commission, conditioned upon approval of the landscape plan. Since then, the landscape commitment has been submitted to the Department. Cripe Engineering then computed the drainage calculations for S:\PlanCommission\ Minutes \PlanCommissionMinutes \pc2003jun 3 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 handling the drainage generated by the 5100 square -foot roof structure that is proposed and the sidewalks, garden areas, etc. that will have an effect on the drainage. The calculations have been completed and submitted to the Department. As previously stated, the drainage is the only change that occurred from the initial approval by the Plan Commission of the ADLS petition. There is no change in the lighting, no change in the parking, and no change in the traditional development plan issues. At this time, the applicant is requesting approval of the development plan so that construction can proceed on the accessory building /meeting place that was approved as to its architecture, landscaping, etc. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to this petition; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. Department Report, Jon Dobosiewicz. This item was before the Committee as an ADLS Amendment, at which time the building elevations and landscaping were reviewed and approved 5 -0. The Department has not prepared a written report for this item, since the information packets were not distributed previously. The Department had no outstanding concerns other than the Commission members having the current information well in advance of the meeting and an opportunity for review. With the ADLS item already resolved at Committee, and based on their report, the Department is asking the Commission to take final action on the petitioner's request if there are no concerns outstanding or negative comments to be referred to Committee. Wayne Wilson commented that the changes on the drainage are a result of the proposed Illinois Street. The petitioner has gone beyond the norm in making allowances for future development that may or may not occur. Mr. Wilson encouraged the Commission to take final action this evenmg. Ron Houck asked about the drawing included in the packet and displayed on the overhead labeled the landscape plan. Mr. Coots said that in the event Illinois Street "takes out" the current stand of pine trees on the berm to the west of the parking area, the trees will be transplanted to the southern boundary to supplement the existing tree line committed to by the petitioner. Mr. Coots went on to say that the landscape plan shows what will occur if Illinois Street takes out what landscaping is on the west side of the parking area presently. Currently there is a stand of mature trees to the south along the fence -row. A written commitment was submitted to the Department for the retention of the trees. Ron Houck moved to suspend the Rules of Procedure in order to vote on Docket 76 -03 DP Amend, Ritz Charles Accessory Building, seconded by Wayne Haney, unanimously approved. Wayne Wilson moved for approval of Docket No. 76 -03 DP Amend, Ritz Charles Accessory Building, seconded by Dianna Knoll, and APPROVED 11 -0. S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes\pc2003jun El ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 3h. Docket No. 77 -03 Z; (03050030); Hearthview Residential PUD The applicant seeks to rezone a 6.5 acre parcel from R -1 /Residence to a PUD (Planned Unit Development) District designation. The property is generally located at the southeast corner of 116 Street and the Monon Trail. Filed by Filed by Joseph M. Scimia of Baker and Daniels for Hearthview Residential, LLC. Jim Thomas, 5111 Oriole Drive, Carmel, partner in Hearthview Residential, appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Joe Scimia of Baker and Daniels and Jim Curtis of Hearthview Residential were also in attendance. The proposal for Hearthview is for 28, For Sale, Attached Condominium Homes, located at the southeast corner of 116 Street and the Monon Trail. The construction will be handled by Sheehan Construction, an affiliate of Hearthview, with Jim Curtis at its head. The project is an up -scale development marketed to "empty- nesters." The homes will be priced between $200/250,000 with ground floor master bedrooms, and approximately 1800 to 2100 square feet. The homes will all have two -car, attached garages with direct access. This proposal is relatively unique within the Carmel area. The mature trees on the eastern side of the site will be preserved and the existing, single family home will also be retained. The property will be served by Carmel utilities. The exterior of the buildings is a combination of brick and siding, with both gabled and hip roofs to break up the facade. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the proposal; no one appeared. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the proposal, the following appeared: Jack McKown, 11525 Ralston Avenue, Carmel, Vice President of the Donnybrook Woods Homeowners Association addressed the Commission. Donnybrook consists of 30, single family residences and is contiguous to the subject property on the south end and parallels the site on the east. The Association wishes to go on record as opposing the rezone of the property adjoining the Monon Trail on the south side of 116 Street. Mr. McKown stated the following reasons for opposing the development: Density (4.4 units per acre;) Rezone to PUD; and the Character of the proposed housing that will not blend with existing homes. Ryan Mullens, 1218 Donnybrook Drive, stated opposition to the proposal by reason of traffic. The current proposal will add approximately 56 vehicles to an area and street that is already strained. There are also 18 lots in Guilford Park and at least one in Fairgreen Trace that will add additional traffic as well as new homes under construction in immediate area. Mr. Mullens said that when 116 Street is widened, the traffic and the speed of the vehicles would increase. On a personal note, Mr. Mullens view from his property would be the rear of two large buildings, 10 yards from his property that will add noise and lighting to a peaceful neighborhood. Mike Giauque, 1228 Donybrook Drive, stated concern with the negative impact the S:\PlanCommission\ Minutes \PlanCommissionMinutes \pc2003jun 5 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 development would have on property values of surrounding homes. Mr. Giauque referred to the zoning and density in place under the Comprehensive Plan and allows multi family and high density development in sections of the City where it makes sense such as buffer zones around commercial development or adjoining major highways. Speaking from experience in the real estate market, a very important consideration in purchasing a home is the probability that the home will appreciate over a period of time. Close proximity to multi family developments make a property much less desirable to potential homebuyers and results in lower sales /values. Also, the zoning of nearby, undeveloped property and the long -term integrity of the zoning are critical factors in home buying. Mr. Giauque was also concerned that the condominiums could become rental units and have a further negative impact. Allowing this proposal would set a dangerous precedent. Keith Epps, 1217 Donnybrook Drive, had several concerns. A Rezone from single family to multi family will change the feeling of community currently enjoyed by Donnybrook. The rezone will set a precedent and destroy the current, quiet lifestyle and turn it into a transient area. There is a lack of community pride seen in multi family users and higher density will increase security issues. Donnybrook Woods has already been impacted by the construction of the Monon Trail and will be further impacted by Central Park —both of which will allow direct pedestrian access to Donnybrook and compromise the security of the homes. Mr. Epps asked that the current zoning remain intact. Bruce Barker, 11575 Freeport Drive, resident on the west side of the Monon Trail, opposed by reason of negative impact on property values. Even though this project is targeted to "empty nesters," there could be purchasers with children and Orchard Park School is the poorest school and lower value housing is not needed. Mr. Barker subdivided his property and followed the rules and restrictions for single family housing —why should we let someone else change the rules? Scott Unger, 11618 Rosemeade, definitely opposed. Historically, have gone through this many times before—we don't want it! Rebuttal: Jim Thomas of Hearthview said the Comprehensive Plan was up -dated prior to the Monon Trail. Since then, the use has become more intense not less intense in this area. Mr. Thomas said they are consistent with the medium standards as have been stated. High density and rentals are inconsistent with the facts. Regarding traffic, it is not believable that 28 units would over burden the expanded 116 Street. Mr. Thomas addressed concerns regarding property values. Firstly, the developer is more than willing to work out a commitment mutually acceptable to the neighbors. It is not the intent of the developer to construct rentals —the developer is proposing a high -end, for sale, condominium community for empty nesters. Multi family housing is inconsistent with the quality and nature of what is being proposed. Medium density allows the development as attached, allows the preservation of the trees, and allows us to deal with the relatively intense manner of 116 Street and the Monon, which is why this proposal is an acceptable use. S:\PlanCommission\ Minutes \PlanCommissionMinutes \pc2003jun 6 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 The public hearing was then closed. Jon Dobosiewicz reported for the Department. Items for consideration by the Commission include transitions called for by the Comprehensive Plan between medium and low intensity uses as well as the Comp Plan's identification of the area north and west of this site as regional employment, low intensity. Other issues include buffering from the Monon as well as adjacent properties. Commitments mentioned by the petitioner should be expanded beyond ownership of property such as number of stories, setbacks, other buffers from adjoining properties. The Department has requested that the petitioner provide additional information regarding how this parcel would connect to the Monon Trail. Today, there is no proposed connection from this neighborhood to the Monon other than the sidewalk along 116 Street. The Department encourages connectivity and believes the pedestrian connections provide additional security to neighborhoods and not diminish the security. In response to questions from Dave Cremeans, Mr. Thomas said he had not yet met with the neighbors. Dave Cremeans urged the petitioner to meet with the neighbors prior to the Subdivision Committee meeting. Nick Kestner asked to see an aerial view of the site and adjacent properties to see how the surrounding properties are affected. Dianna Knoll cautioned the petitioner regarding use of the words "empty nester" and "up- scale," since they are ambiguous. Also, buffering is important. The impact from the Monon and Central Park can be seen as a huge amenity, but also can be seen as a "take away." Ron Houck asked the petitioner what elements of the proposed project require a PUD as opposed to the existing R -1 zoning. Joe Scimia, attorney with Baker Daniels, responded that the R -1 zoning has different density and setback requirements that would not allow for this type of development. The R -6 also had some concerns raised by the Department that would have been inconsistent with this project. Rather than file the plat and seek variances, the Department thought it would be better to develop as a PUD. This area was included in the Comprehensive Plan and in discussions with the Department, the feeling was that along the Monon, it called for a higher intensity or more dense use than typical single family housing. The development is positioned to back -up to the Monon to make it pedestrian friendly, consistent with the plan. With the development and changes to 116 Street into 4 lanes as well as the commercial character of the property located to the north of this site, it lent itself to the PUD. Wayne Wilson said the Donnybrook neighborhood has faced challenge after challenge, from the widening of 116 Street to the Central Park issue to the once talked -about Street Department installation. We need to look at this very carefully, especially with the change in Council after the first of the year. Pat Rice commented that there is only one access point and thought that was no longer acceptable for a development. S:\PlanCommission\ Minutes \PlanCommissionMinutes \pc2003jun 7 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 Jon Dobosiewicz said that if the Commission feels it is appropriate to have two access points into the site, that can be explored. The Department felt that two access points were not appropriate, based on its frontage of 116 Street and the adjoining neighborhoods. Regardless of the intended use, this is an in -fill site and if there isn't the opportunity to connect to adjacent sites, the issue the Department raises is connectivity. Also, the PUD will allow the petitioner the flexibility to present their package. The petitioner would not have to file with the BZA for special considerations. The Department in no way endorses the project, but it does endorse the filing of the PUD as a vehicle for the Plan Commission for review and forwarding on to the City Council for final decision. Pat Rice also asked about possible issues with the Fire Department and Police Department, and the status of the parcel next door to the subject site. Joe Scimia responded that the single access point was discussed at Technical Advisory Committee. The road design and actual layout of the subdivision were altered so that the Fire and Police Departments could adequately serve this area. With the changes made, it now meets the criteria of the Police and Fire. Regarding the adjoining property, it is the Overman parcel recently sold at Tax Sale. The petitioner has been pursuing this parcel; there has been discussion about a trailhead at this location. The project has been designed so that if the adjacent parcel were to be acquired by the petitioner for development, it would be consistent with the immediate, proposed development. To date, all efforts have been unsuccessful to acquire this property. Wayne Haney asked the rationale for the 12 -foot retaining wall near the entrance, adjacent to the parcel next door. Jim Thomas responded that the wall allows the petitioner to reverse the location of the roadway. It is required for grading so the retention pond can be installed and align the road farther away from the Monon Trail. Marilyn Anderson asked that if the petitioner had any other plans with a different architecture, please bring them to Committee. The drawings proposed show the bulk of the building to be the garage at street level. Therefore, there is an overwhelming mass of garages from the street view. If there is an alternative design, the petitioner is encouraged to bring it forth, including construction materials for display. Docket No. 77 -03 Z, Hearthview Residential PUD was referred to the Subdivision Committee for further review at 7:00 PM on July 1, 2003 in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. 4h. Docket No. 79 -03 PP Amend; (03050040); Treesdale Subdivision The applicant is requesting approval of an amended Primary Plat to allow a private street. The site is located on the east side of Towne Road, 1/2 mile south of 106th Street. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence Very Low Intensity. The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waiver: 79 -03a SW (03050041) SCO 6.3.20 private streets S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes\pc2003jun ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 Filed by Paul G. Reis of Drewry Simmons Pitts Vornehm for Lucky, LLC. Paul Reis, 5013 Buckeye Court, Carmel, attorney with Drewry, Simmons, Pitts Vornehm appeared before the Commission representing the petitioner. Craig Dobbs of Lucky, LLC, developer of Treesdale Subdivision was also in attendance. This Subdivision is located on the east side of Towne Road, just south of 106 Street, and north of 96 Street. The Subdivision is already in existence, and the developer and the lot owners are requesting that the Plan Commission approve an amendment to the Primary Plat. The amendment would grant a waiver from the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance to convert Treesdale Circle, the sole street into the subdivision, from a public street to a private street. This particular area is not within the corporate boundaries of the City of Carmel and is provided police protection through the Hamilton County Sheriffs Dept. The conversion of Treesdale Circle to a private street will allow the residents of the subdivision greater privacy and security for their homes and their property through the installation of a gate at the entrance to Treesdale Subdivision off of Towne Road. There have been a number of instances in the neighborhood that have caused the residents to seek this procedure. Upon considering the conversion of a public street to a private street, it should be noted that this street has been constructed in accordance with road standards established by the Hamilton County Highway Department. The petitioner further agrees that when and in the event the second phase of this subdivision occurs, they will construct the remainder of Treesdale Circle in accordance with road standards in existence either by the County or the City of Carmel, depending upon jurisdiction. Regarding the issue of maintenance, the covenants and restrictions of this subdivision have been amended to add the requirement that all lot owners will be responsible for the maintenance of the road. With that additional requirement, should this ever return to the public road system, it would be built according to standards. However, it is not contemplated at this time that it will return to public status. Thirdly, there is the issue of public safety access into the neighborhood, i.e. fire, sheriff, emergency access. There are access devices that have been discussed with the Fire Dept. and the Sheriffs Dept. that will allow emergency vehicles easy access into the subdivision. Those issues will be resolved. All other issues presented to the Technical Advisory Committee have been addressed and resolved by the petitioner. The final step will be the approval of the Hamilton County Commissioners as to the vacation of right -of -way from the Hamilton County road system. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to the petition; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. Jon Dobosiewicz reported for the Department. The Department is not in favor of private streets. If the Plan Commission believes that there is an appropriate process for the privatization of streets, this should be addressed in the Subdivision Control Ordinance. There are no known S:\PlanCommission\ Minutes \PlanCommissionMinutes \pc2003jun 9 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 unique or practical difficulties associated with this particular subdivision that may not be present in all other subdivisions within that area. The Department is asking that the Plan Commission seek out those issues and characteristics by which the Subdivision Control Ordinance would be amended to allow private streets or determine definitive standards by which public and private streets would be approved. The Department is in agreement with the petitioner that they are willing to construct the future portion of this street to public standards whether City or County. In the past few years, the Department has received requests from private streets that were not constructed to public standards to make their streets public. The issue is the streets were not built to public standards, neither were they maintained to public standards. The issue in this instance is that the petitioner has guaranteed the Department that the streets will be constructed to public standards and maintained. If, in the future, we accept those streets, they would meet public standards. Again, from a philosophical standpoint, the Department is not in a position to support private streets over public. Wayne Wilson spoke as a member of the City Council Land Use and Annexation Committee. The City has a clear annexation policy that will include, at some point in time, this particular area. Even though the petitioner is agreeable to completing the second phase of the road to whatever standards prevail at that time, sooner or later, the City would probably inherit this road at some point in the future, normally when it needs to be maintained or repaired. Wayne Wilson was not in favor of a private street. However, if the Commission is in favor, then, when the second part of the road is to be built, it should be built to City standards in anticipation of becoming a part of the corporate City limits. Dave Cremeans voice his concern that somewhere down the line, someone forgets to tell homeowners that it is a private street. Therefore, someone ends up buying a house or a lot and then the Mayor gets a call asking why the streets are not plowed —well, it is not a City street. Mr. Cremeans said he is against gated communities, but if it is, the people will have a clue that this may be a private street because the City does not allow gates to go up on public streets. Dave Cremeans also agreed with Wayne Wilson and the Department, that private streets are not supported. Ron Houck asked Mr. Reis about incidents that led to the request —what are they and how are they unique from any surrounding area? Mr. Reis responded that one personal residence has been burglarized three tunes and a recent theft of outdoor property. Nick Kestner spoke as a resident of the area and agreed that this is a real problem. Three neighbors, including himself, had been broken into within the last two years. Docket No. 79 -03 PP Amend Treesdale Subdivision and 79 -03a SW were referred to the Subdivision Committee for further review at 7:00 PM on July 1, 2003 in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. 5h. Docket No. 11 -03 Z; Danbury Common Area and other parcels (P -1 Rezone) S:\PlanCommission\ Minutes \PlanCommissionMinutes \pc2003jun 10 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 Petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation of a rezone from R -1 /Residential to P -1 /Parks and Recreation on 13.69± acres. The site is located generally south of 146 Street between Dublin Drive and Jason Street. The site is zoned R- 1 /Residence. Filed by the Department of Community Services. Jon Dobosiewicz of the Department of Community Services appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. The northern-most location is the water tower, the western -most parcel is the common area within Danbury Subdivision, and the eastern -most parcel is a wooded tract of ground adjacent to the Foster Estates Subdivision. The owner of the wooded tract of ground intends to put a private covenant on the ground that eliminates its potential for future development. This particular site was identified as one of several at the time the P -1 zone was created. There has been no opportunity to bring this before the Commission because of recent volume within the Department. However, the Department intends to re- initiate this process and bring before you on a regular basis petitions that continue the process of addressing the P -1 application in different areas of the community. 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: Organized Remonstrance: Carl Samson, 14485 Dublin Drive, Danbury Estates Subdivision and current president of the HOA spoke as being against rezoning their common area as P -1. The Homeowners of Danbury are requesting denial of this petition for the following reasons. 1) This petition came from the Mayor's office; however, it is believed to have originated by one or more persons from the Foster Estates Subdivision. The petition is a pre emptive move to block any potential, future development of this neighborhood, once it became known there was a developer currently interested in purchasing Danbury Estates and redeveloping it for commercial/retail purposes. Of the 400 homes in the Foster Estates Subdivision, it is estimated that only two or three can actually see the Danbury neighborhood during the summer and perhaps four or five during the winter with few leaves on the trees. The Danbury portion is roughly 9 acres; the other two parcels make up the balance. Mr. Samson questioned 8 acres of buffer, when other commercial/retail properties buffering residential have been approved at 50 feet. There is a natural buffer/barrier at the eastern edge of Danbury in the form of Cool Creek and trees —far in excess of 50 feet between the neighboring Foster Estates. 2) Danbury Estates is only 23 acres; if 8 of those acres are rezoned to P -1, it will definitely harm any possible interest in current or future development of Danbury. It is important because the overwhehning majority of homeowners see the re- development as their only viable option for salvaging their investment in their home. Danbury is now land-locked— what was to be Danbury has been sold for other development. Mr. Samson highlighted the surrounding businesses; the off -ramp is within 50 feet of Danbury. There are now at least 35% of the homes that have been converted to rentals, and two homes are empty, one of which has been empty for at least four years. 3) Consistency. The Docket following this item is petitioned S:\PlanCommission\ Minutes \PlanCommissionMinutes \pc2003jun 11 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 for rezone to R -4 from B -5 /Business. The site is between Dublin Drive and Jason Street and adjacent to the common area. Why would the City Rezone one portion of the land to R -4 and another portion to P -1? Danbury Estates is not a golf course or church or school—it is a neighborhood. Danbury owns the common area and did not request this rezone. 4) Danbury homeowners were not notified of the proposed rezone by regular mail or certified mail. It was happenstance that the former HOA president stopped at City Hall on another matter and learned of the proposed rezone. Currently, Danbury HOA has scheduled a meeting with the Mayor to discuss this petition. It is hoped that the outcome of the meeting will be a compromise to all parties that is agreeable. 5) This issue will come up again when the developer and homeowners have reached an agreement regarding a buy -out. Why not address this issue now rather than some point in the future? Homeowners of Danbury Estates in attendance stood in support of Mr. Samson's comments. Individual Remonstrance: Bob Zuniga, 14490 Dublin Drive, Danbury Estates. Mr. Zuniga said "This is stupid." You are taking our common land for the Monon Trail and it is presumptuous of the City to say on the website that the Monon Trail is going to be extended when, in this area, it has not been approved. "Stupid, stupid; this makes absolutely no sense." Mr. Zuniga said he intended to be at the Committee meeting. At this time, a member of the public was invited to speak in favor of the petition: Al Koeske, 14208 Joshua Drive, Foster Estates, spoke in favor of this petition. The Foster Estates homeowners are very concerned. Should the Danbury homeowners elect to sell their property to developers, there will be commercial development, including all common area currently in a flood plain. In the past, they have tried to build a wall along Cool Creek and that supposedly had something to do with flooding due to a shopping /commercial development going north of 146 Street. In fact, it was so that they could back -fill against this wall, fill the flood plain, and build more commercial development. In the process of building the wall, they wanted to take out a lot of trees. The DNR and Fish and Wildlife officials visited the site and they turned down this particular project. As soon as the land is in a position to be developed by any developer that would take over Danbury, there is no doubt that there will be retail space going in and it would be flush against Foster Estates and the homeowners don't want that. We are in favor of the rezone to Parks. The public hearing was then closed. Department Report, Jon Dobosiewicz. Many items brought up this evening will be addressed at the Committee level. There are three parcels intended for this rezone. One of the parcels is the common area for Danbury Estates; if the property were rezoned to P -1, there is absolutely nothing that will change in the use of that area. Today it is the common area for the subdivision—it cannot be developed free-standing—it is the common area for this subdivision. If it is rezoned to P -1, it does not restrict the property to any greater restriction than it is today. S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes\pc2003jun 12 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 The majority of the parcel, 80 is within the flood plain and nothing can be developed on it, regardless of the situation with regard to zoning. Currently, it is zoned R -4. The parcel to the north that is the subject of the following petition will be addressed when the next petition is heard. Would it be reasonable for a portion of the south end of the parcel to be included in the future redevelopment of this neighborhood, regardless of use? The answer to that question is "Yes." That determination would be made in conjunction with DNR, and future rezone request to the Plan Commission forwarded on to the City Council. What security does that provide adjacent owners? Between their property and a future use of the Danbury neighborhood, regardless of what that use might be, there is adjacent P -1 Parks Recreation. Approximately at the location of the Ritter's Frozen Custard along Range Line Road, the Cool Creek Trail would traverse east through the Danbury property along one or the other side of the existing Cool Creek. There is a plan in place for the implementation of the trail. However, there are not resources available today to implement that plan that has been adopted by both the Plan Commission and City Council. There is also an engineering plan that was finalized earlier this year and presented to the appropriate committee. The Department is requesting that this item be forwarded to Committee and at that time, perhaps we can go through some additional issues. Mr. Dobosiewciz said he had met with representatives of both neighborhoods and fielded their questions. The Department is available to meet during business hours at City Hall. There are many more positives to this request that address both concerns of the Danbury Estates and Foster Estates neighborhood. Commission Members' Comments and Questions: Pat Rice asked about the public notice of the rezone to homeowners in Danbury Estates, and whether or not there is a precedent for rezoning land that is already in a development. Jon Dobosiewicz reminded the Commission that the Rules of Procedure were amended with regard to P -1 Zoning. P -1 /Parks Recreation zoning was amended to require notice in the newspaper and that notice was delivered in accordance with the Plan Commission's Rules of Procedure. This item was scheduled for public hearing last month, and in discussions that occurred with Danbury Homeowners Association in April, they were uncomfortable with the level of preparedness and did not want to move forward at that time. After the petition was scheduled for public hearing in May, the Department received a request from Danbury HOA to delay the public hearing. The Department honored that request by delaying the public hearing on this item until this meeting, thereby providing an additional 30 to 45 days for Danbury HOA to research and explore the application before public hearing. Jon Dobosiewicz also stated there are properties around the Twin Lakes Golf Course that are contiguous common areas within that subdivision. Those areas were included with the petition for the rezone and were not a part of the golf course. Yes, there have been parcels that have been rezoned that have not been golf course related and owned by homeowners associations. S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes\pc2003jun 13 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 Wayne Wilson said he was bothered by this matter. This site was one of the sites initially identified for rezoning to the P -1 designation. The P -1 designation came out of the City Council and was motivated by the possibility of homeowners surrounding a golf course being faced with the development of the golf course because of the residential zoning of the golf course. The way it was written allowed for some other potentials to protect green space. Mr. Wilson said he never envisioned going into a neighborhood like this and utilizing the P -1 designation under this reason. This is a dangerous situation and we are getting ready to pit two quality neighborhoods against each other over a zoning matter. Mr. Wilson referred to a previous situation with College Hills. Danbury HOA worked with the developer of Lowes and finally agreed and went along with the development of the Lowes project. It didn't work out the way everyone had hoped. Danbury is now land locked by Lowes on one side and a traffic ramp system, a theatre and development by Westfield on the north side of 146 Street, land locked to the east by the water tower and other City property, and then Foster Ridge which looks down on this property. Wayne Wilson referred to comments by Jon Dobosiewicz that 80% of the property is in a flood plain and could not be built on no matter what the zoning designation. We are making a whole lot out of nothing here. When you have an entire neighborhood pleading their case and asking for the chance to get out of their neighborhood, this is never going to be a residential area. The people in Foster Ridge do not want to look down at commercial development, but that is their battle with the developer that strikes a deal with the Danbury homeowners and allows the Danbury residents to get out of their homes. This battle should not happen for the developer in advance. Mr. Wilson was definitely not in favor of the proposed rezone. Ron Houck said it was unclear on the map where the common area is located for Danbury Estates. What is the motivation for the landowner to commit to no development on the parcel to the east of Cool Creek? Jon Dobosiewicz responded that the largest parcel —the western-most parcel; the common area is the parcel to the west of Cool Creek, and pinpointed on the map for the benefit of Commission members. The area was originally platted with the Danbury Subdivision as open space. Approximately one year ago, as part of the Laura Vista Subdivision approval, they were required to stub a street to the north. Subsequently, in filing their Secondary Plat, they provided a cul -de- sac at that terminus due to correspondence they have had with the adjacent owner regarding their intention not to develop. However, the parcel could be developed into four or five single- family lots. The owner to the east has purchased the ground and has no intention of developing in the future. Apparently there is no one in the audience who has come forth as part of the public hearing, and it is the Department's understanding that they are not opposed to the request. At the committee level, we will be looking at continuing with the rezone on those two parcels and not rezone the Danbury common area. As pointed out by Wayne Wilson, it is a "whole lot about nothing." Today, that parcel cannot be developed. If, in the future, the neighbors would come in with a request similar to College Hills, they would negotiate all of those buffers at that time. Ron Houck commented that as a matter of procedure, this is probably the law of unintended consequence. The amendment to the Rules of Procedure as it applies to notice was probably S:\PlanCommission\ Minutes \PlanCommissionMinutes \pc2003jun 14 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 never envisioned to apply in this particular situation. Whenever common area in a subdivision is taken, Rules of Notice should not be by publication in the local newspaper. If this situation were to ever occur again, it should be by normal notice procedure rather than publication in a newspaper. Jon Dobosiewicz said he would bring the list of the remaining P -1 zoning classifications to the Committee. With the assistance of the Commission members, a determination could be made on those sites where it is appropriate to send notice, at a minimum, perhaps presidents of HOA's or adjoining owners by regular mail as opposed to certified. Wayne Wilson asked if the Commission could anticipate the withdrawal of the P -1 petition for the common area. Jon Dobosiewicz said that while he could not commit to that at this time, it would be a serious consideration. Jon Dobosiewicz said he would commit to meeting with the person who spoke on behalf of the Danbury HOA. Nick Kestner commented that it would not make much difference whether it is rezoned to P -1 or left alone at this time. The area is a beautiful, natural setting with the trees, Cool Creek, etc. As a Plan Commission, we would have to be careful with any future development that the natural area would be preserved. Docket No. 11 -03 Z, Danbury Common Area and other parcels (P -1 Rezone) was referred to the Subdivision Committee for further review on July 1, 2003 at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. 6h. Docket No. 12 -03 Z; 146th /just east of Danbury Subdivision (R -4 Rezone) Petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation of a rezone from B -5 /Business to R- 4 /Residence on 4.22± acres. The site is located generally south of East 146 Street between Dublin Drive and Jason Street. The site is zoned B -5 /Business. Filed by the Department of Community Services. Jon Dobosiewicz appeared before the Commission representing the Department of Community Services. The parcels previously lie to the south and east of the subject site. As was the case with the Danbury Common Area, there is a great deal of this site that is also in the flood plain and could not be developed without going through a considerable process with DNR and the Plan Commission. The B -5 zone would require DP /ADLS review by the Plan Commission and in the Department's analysis of the site, a little less than 80 perhaps between 60 and 70 -is encumbered by the flood hazard area. The thought was to make the zoning on this parcel consistent with the zoning in the Danbury Subdivision. It would be a further complication with the adjacent zoning if someone were to develop this site free standing as a business. If a plan is proposed in the future for commercial use in this area, we would contemplate that happening as a single unit and a collective presence filing S:\PlanCommission\ Minutes \PlanCommissionMinutes \pc2003jun 15 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 in front of the Commission and Council to rezone the entire area. Again, the process was to rezone the area consistent with Danbury. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of this petition; the following appeared: Al Koeske, 14208 Joshua Drive, president of the Foster Estates HOA, appeared before the Commission representing 258 residents. The Foster Estates homeowners would like to see this zoning carried through per Jon Dobosiewicz and the Department's recommendations. This is the best thing for the area and would like to keep a buffer zone between Foster Estates and any commercial development that might take place. The encroachment of business /commercial is becoming a real threat and the Foster Estates HOA is requesting that the Commission act favorably on this petition. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to this petition; the following appeared: Bob Zuniga, 14490 Dublin Drive, wanted to know where the 250 people were that Mr. Koeske represented from Foster Estates. Mr. Zuniga stated he did not realize that Danbury Estates is now a "situation." Same as before, this is nuts. Mr. Zuniga was in agreement with comments made by Nick Kestner regarding the Cool Creek natural buffer between Foster Estates and Danbury. Once again, this whole thing is "stupid." Jon Dobosiewicz reported for the Department. The Department is requesting that this item be forwarded to the Subdivision Committee for further discussion. The public hearing was then closed. In response to Ron Houck's question regarding notice to the homeowners, notice was sent in accordance with the standard Rules of Procedure of the Plan Commission. As a point of clarification, Jon Dobosiewicz said the other P -1 areas were rezoned without the owner filing a petition; the petition was filed by the Department. The State Statute does not require that a petitioner be the owner of the property. The City can rezone parcels of ground. Dave Cremeans commented that as a general rule of thumb, residential property is sold by the acre; commercial property is sold by the square foot; and retail property is sold by the square inch. Dave Cremeans said he was having trouble understanding why someone wants to "devalue" a piece of property to go from B -5 Business to R -4 Residence. Even the Old Meridian District had an anchor in Providence at Old Meridian that drove the rezone. There may be some precedent, but Dave said he was not aware of it. Jon Dobosiewicz responded that he did not recall a precedent, but the process of rezoning Old Meridian, there were several parcels zoned B -3 Business and at the time, the Plan Commission did not have even DP /ADLS control over those parcels in B -2 and B -1. Those parcels were rezoned and now have a great deal of standards. Some of those parcels were rezoned multi family and S:\PlanCommission\ Minutes \PlanCommissionMinutes \pc2003jun 16 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 there was concern expressed by owners that it limits their ability to develop the property. The Department's interest as well as the interest of the Plan Commission is not to look at a single parcel in itself, but to look at how a parcel relates to the parcels around it. It is the Department's intent to position this area to be addressed comprehensively as opposed to a piece- meal basis. The intent is to improve situations and not diminish them. If it is decided that the rezone is either premature or serves not to better position properties for future land uses and to preserve property values, the requests will be withdrawn until a later date or never. Hopefully we can come to a consensus before moving forward. Wayne Wilson reiterated that the only solution for the residents of Danbury, given what has taken place all around their community, is a commercial solution. The only way they are ever going to realize their investment in their residence is to have some sort of "business fix." This looks like a "gang -up" on the people of Danbury. In one term we are taking away a buffer that is a flood zone and changing the zone designation. Maybe you can't build on it, but there is a difference in the designation. When the Danbury residents purchased their homes, this was part of their neighborhood and there is no reason to change that. To then take this parcel of land out of commercial use and back to residential makes no sense. Pat Rice agreed that the proposal makes no sense. Docket No. 12 -03 Z, 146 /just east of Danbury Subdivision (R -4 Rezone) was referred to the Subdivision Committee for further review at 7:00 PM on July 1, 2003 in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. At this time, the Commission took a short recess. I. Old Business Ii. Docket No. 05 -03 DP /ADLS; Old Meridian Professional Building The applicant seeks approval to construct an office building. The site is located at the southwest corner of Old Meridian Street and Pennsylvania Street. The site is zoned 13-6 /13usiness within the US 31 Overlay Zone. Filed by James K. Wheeler of Coots, Henke Wheeler for John N. Kirk and Lowell Thomas Kirk. Jim Wheeler, attorney with Cooks Henke Wheeler, 255 East Carmel Drive, appeared before the Commission representing John and Tom Kirk. The applicant is seeking approval to construct a two -story office building at the intersection of Old Meridian and Pennsylvania Street. This Docket was reviewed by the Special Study Committee and the Committee voted unanimously to approve it. Dianna Knoll, chairperson of the Special Study Committee, confirmed that the Committee had voted 4 -0 to recommend approval of this item. S:\PlanCommission\ Minutes \PlanCommissionMinutes \pc2003jun 17 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 Jon Dobosiewicz reported for the Department. The Department is recommending this item be approved as amended and as recommended by the Committee, subject to four conditions. 1) Dedication of additional right -of -way pursuant to the Thoroughfare Plan and Carmel Engineering for the construction of the round -about at Meridian and Pennsylvania. 2) Final Drainage approval from Carmel Department of Engineering. 3) Light Fixtures are to have flat lens as opposed to angle lens. 4) Removal of the existing pole sign would occur prior to the issuance of a building permit. Mr. Wheeler stated that the petitioner is agreeable to all of the conditions. Dianna Knoll moved for approval of Docket No. 05 -03 DP /ADLS, Old Meridian Professional Building with the four (4) conditions as stated. The motion was seconded by Pat Rice and APPROVED 11 -0. 2i. Docket No. 28 -03 PP; Ballantrae Subdivision The site is located on the south side of West 146 Street 1/4 mile west of Spring Mill Road. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence Very Low Density. The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waivers: 183 -02a SW SCO 7.01 reduced open space 183 -02b SW SCO 7.05.07 clearing of woodland areas 183 -02c SW SCO 6.05.01 50' lot frontage at right -of -way Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for The Anderson Corporation. Charlie Frankenberger, 5212 Carrington Circle, Carmel, attorney with Nelson Frankenberger, appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. The Anderson Corporation is requesting Primary Plat approval under the Residential Open Space Ordinance. Also present on behalf of The Anderson Corporation were Jim Anderson and Darlene Berenz, and Dave Barnes of Weihe Engineers. The property is currently zoned S -1 /Residence and the petitioner would like to establish a truly unique and creative custom, empty- nester community to be known as Ballantrae. The open space computes to 41% and there will be 9 homes on 4.87 acres. The homes are expected to range in price from $325, to 375,000. The written commitments assure the custom nature of the residences and the devotion to tree preservation. During the review process by the Subdivision Committee the petitioner was asked to consider the feasibility of re- locating wildlife and to this end, contacted Judd Scott, a naturalist and member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists and the president of Vine and Branch. Mr. Scott has been relied upon to render opinions in similar circumstances. Charlie Frankenberger submitted a letter from Judd Scott indicating the animals on the site are raccoon, squirrels, woodchucks and deer. Mr. Scott characterized these as non conservative species and indicated that these animals have remained in areas such as this and adapted well to increased urbanization. Mr. Scott believes there are no conservative species on site such as fox, S:\PlanCommission\ Minutes \PlanCommissionMinutes \pc2003jun 18 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 turkey, quail or mink. The capture and re- location of the wildlife is not feasible and Mr. Scott's letter supports his position. The petitioner was also asked to consider the relocation of the trail around the perimeter of the proposed community. The trail approaches the southern boundary of the real estate, to the south of which is a residence in Ponds West occupied by the Reagans. The trail in the southeast section has been moved to the north, farther away from the southern boundary. In addition, Jim Anderson again conferred with the Reagans and offered to plant clusters of shrubs and junipers between the Osbourne Legal Drain and the path. The Reagans requested more landscaping in terms of trees as opposed to shrubs. Jim Anderson has agreed to plant the following: 8 Serbian Spruce Trees, 8 feet at planting; 3 Redbuds, 2 inch caliper at planting; 6 Northern Bayberry, 36 inches; and 5 leather -leaf Viburnum, 36 inches at planting. At the time of planting, input will be solicited from the Reagans regarding placement and location. This Docket was reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and received a favorable recommendation. Dave Cremeans, Chairperson of the Subdivision Committee, reported that relocation of wildlife on the site was requested as well as re- locating the trail on the southern portion of the site. The vote was 6 in favor, one opposed. Wayne Haney was the dissenting vote for this petition and stated he had objected to the "eyebrow" design. The petitioner explained that more trees would be saved using this design. Pat Rice disagreed with Judd Scott's assessment of the wildlife relocation situation. Yes, these animals do relocate themselves, but at great cost to the surrounding homeowners —they will probably have raccoons that will need to be relocated. The fee to relocate is $100 for the first trip and $50 for each animal taken out. Jon Dobosiewicz reported that the Department recommends acting on the waivers first as a package. Secondly, the primary plat as amended and forwarded by the Committee should be acted upon, with the added condition. The condition is based upon the discussion this evening that Scott Brewer will approve the final landscape plan as part of the Secondary Plan and construction plan process. Dave Cremeans moved for approval of Subdivision Waivers 183 -02a, SCO 7.01; 183 -02b, SCO 7.05.07; and 183 -02c, SCO 6.05.01, for Ballantrae Subdivision, seconded by Pat Rice. The motion was APPROVED 11 -0. Dve Cremeans moved for approval of Docket No. 28 -03 PP, Ballantrae Subdivision, conditioned upon additional plantings approved by Scott Brewer, Urban Forester,relocation of the trail in the southern portion farther to the north, and buffering. The motion was seconded by Pat Rice and APPROVED 11 -0. S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes\pc2003jun fu ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 3i. Docket No. 29 -03 Z; Clarian North Hospital Campus PUD The applicant seeks to rezone a 107.367 acre property from B -3, B -6, and S -2 subject to the US 31 Overlay Zone to a Planned Unit Development District. The site is located at the northwest corner of US 31 and 116 Street. Filed by Joseph M. Scimia of Baker and Daniels for Clarian Health Partners, Inc. Joe Scimia, attorney with Baker Daniels, 600 East 96 Street, Carmel, appeared before the Commission on behalf of Clarian Health Partners, Inc., petitioner in this proposed development. Joe Scimia gave an overview of the proposal for the benefit of the entire Commission. At the heart of the matter are two issues. One is the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and how this project fits within it. The second is the actual changes that have occurred in the PUD. Mr. Scimia was complimentary of the Subdivision Committee who sacrificed personal time and attended additional, special meetings in reviewing this item. Great debate was held at the Committee level from not only committee members but the public as well as to the initial intent of the Comprehensive Plan and how this proposed project fit within the Comprehensive Plan. The conclusion was reached that there are some areas within the Comprehensive Plan that may be contradictory and may lead people to come to different conclusions. However, that is why it is a Comprehensive Plan and not a zoning ordinance, because it constitutes guidelines that must be interpreted in how it is applied, or decide what it means. Mr. Scimia referred to Indiana State Law that says a governmental body such as this must give consideration to the general pulse, pattern, and development of the Comprehensive Plan in connection with decisions such as those being made this evening. Mr. Scimia noted use of the word "consideration" in following the Comprehensive Plan in making decisions such as the one before the Commission this evening. This means you cannot ignore the Comprehensive Plan. The 20/20 Vision document was adopted in 1996 and basically recommended certain areas that would require special study. One of those special areas was the US 31 corridor and the US 31 Overlay Zone was created and adopted. The uses to be accommodated in the corridor are listed in the Overlay Zone. One of those uses is "institutions," and that included hospitals. An important function of the corridor was to enhance the City's tax base and keep taxes at an acceptable level. The document also created a plan map that identified the Overlay corridor, generally described as a greater 600 feet or the distance between Highway 31 right -of -way and the parallel roadway that parallel roadway is commonly agreed to be Illinois Street. The Comprehensive Plan did have some discussion about special development provisions or special areas in the community where the Overlay District could be enlarged upon appropriate circumstances. Generally, the boundary of the maximum depth of the Overlay would be where non residential development would occur, and that is important as it applies to this case. There were two exceptions listed: Existing Zoning in place outside the Overlay, and the area where special development provisions of the Overlay District apply. S:\PlanCommission\ Minutes \PlanCommissionMinutes \pc2003jun 20 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 The plan recognized three areas of potential Overlay District expansions. One of those areas is exactly the parcel being dealt with today and that is the 107 acres located at 116 Street and Meridian. These three areas are recommended as possible sites where the Overlay District might be extended farther west than Illinois Street if the City is presented with well conceived development plans that meet the intent, special standards, guidelines, and criteria outlined in the plan and the US 31 Overlay District regulations. In the narrative, the plan says the commercial development depth should be amended to allow quality development in the three expansion areas. The Committee spent a lot of time discussing what "Overlay Boundary Expansion" meant and what was appropriate. The Comprehensive Plan lists five "expansion factors" that any consideration of expansion in this area should address. One of the five factors is a system of landscape buffering design components along Springmill Road and any other border adjacent to residential development. There was discussion as to what that meant and whether or not residential should go all of the way to Springmill of that there should be buffering along Springmill to buffer the residential on the east side of Springmill. If residential is on the west side of Springmill and residential on the east side of Springmill, it is uncertain how much buffering is needed because residential is being buffered from residential. This was never resolved but Clarian suggested developing residential on the east side of Springmill. If necessary, buffering could be done or it can be shown that residential is adequate since it is right across the street from residential. It may be a different intensity of residential, but the question of what buffering should be there was never really resolved. However, if that were the intent, it should be considered and implemented as part of the overall approval of an actual development plan for that parcel when submitted. There are no current plans to develop this area in the very near future. The second factor required a well- conceived, planned, single- family residential community, probably situated along the western portion of the Springmill Road site. The issue was the definition of "portion." Did that mean everything to the west of Illinois Street or anything along Springmill Road? Clarian provided for owner /occupied residential development along the entire portion of the site that has frontage on Springmill Road. Residential is required to abut all of the properties to the west and the north. In order to address the well conceived planned issue, any development will need Plan Commission approval to ensure that it is well conceived. There was discussion that the full plan should be brought forward today. Mr. Scimia did not feel that it would be appropriate, given the scope and magnitude of the project. This is a unique situation; there is residential as well as commercial components. The hospital would not develop residential. A conceptual master plan was submitted. The majority of PUD's brought in to the Commission in the past were done with conceptual drawings and at the time of development, actual plans were submitted. Several people felt that there should be a plan for the entire 107 acres of exactly what will be built, and it is not possible to satisfy that. The third factor listed is access from the new parallel, arterial road, rather than access from Springmill Road to the expansion. The plan actually showed an arterial street connecting Springmill and Illinois Street. Some people felt that when the Thoroughfare Plan was amended, the arterial was not called for or had been replaced. From Clarian's standpoint, we don't care S:\PlanCommission\ Minutes \PlanCommissionMinutes \pc2003jun 21 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 whether or not we have access directly to Springmill Road. In the evolvement of the plan, the Department felt that because it was shown on the Comprehensive Plan as well as the fact that it made sense, the Department wanted at least one through street from Springmill to Illinois Street. Clarian felt this was a planning issue and they were not affected by it. Any connection would have to be approved as part of the Development Plan approval when the actual plan would be submitted. If there were more than one Development Plan, it would require a rezone of the property. Commercial access is provided by a combined drive. A system of open spaces is also required for the west side of the property and again, this would be submitted at the time of Development Plan approval. The current project on the east side contains a number of lakes that serve as retention and is exactly what is referred to in the Comprehensive Plan as a system of open spaces. There are also landscape transition areas, walking trails and reflectionaries as part of the hospital project that basically allow people to get out of the immediate environment and "retreat" from the hospital. Point 4: If you are going to expand the area beyond Springmill to then say it could only be residential west of Illinois Streetif the Overlay District or commercial district is expanded beyond Illinois Street, and then said it could only be residential on the other side of Illinois, basically all expansion is precluded. The basis for this is a sentence in the Comprehensive Plan that talks about a new parallel arterial roadway (Illinois Street) that should be incorporated into the planned development in a meaningful way. This means that its alignment is shifted other than shown in the plan. This roadway will serve as a boulevard bisecting the office, hotel, specialty retail component to the east and the high intensity residential uses to the west. Previously, it talked about single family —now it talks about high intensity residential —there is not much explanation given for guidance, except perhaps improper drafting. Mr. Scimia felt this was somewhat inconsistent with the balance of the planning document. There was not a lot of talk about shifting Illinois Street to the west. In order to assure that all of the residential was on the west side and all of the commercial and office were on the east side, the road would be very skewed. We also need to be able to move a large volume of cars on this road. Steve Fehribach from A F Engineering said the design criteria for the road would not allow for smooth flow because of the speeds permitted to navigate the turn. Everyone felt the residential part of the project had to be a significant component. The residential component is on the west side of Springmill Road and on the east side with Illinois. It would also cut into developable ground because of the setback requirements. It also required a water slough through the trees. The Clarian development needs an area for professional offices for the physicians that is not part of the main Campus area. From a marketing standpoint, there needs to be a division between the campus area on the east side and those physicians and clinicians that are part of the hospital but do not want their offices on the actual campus. Clarian is proposing the use of development standards such as height, architectural standards, landscaping, open areas for retention, as well as the required development plan and ADLS approval. Transition from commercial to residential will be in the center of the PUDin other words, the commercial areas are encapsulated by residential and located on the interior of the PUD. This means there will be NO commercial abutting existing residential or future residential on the west side. Also, the transition from commercial to residential is totally on the Clarian site. S:\PlanCommission\ Minutes \PlanCommissionMinutes \pc2003jun 22 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 There was also discussion about the changing character of this node. Obviously, with limited access on US 31, and with the implementation of the 20 -year Thoroughfare Plan, the design criteria of 116 Street, as well as 146 Street, is to be the main routes for east /west traffic. There were questions about the propriety of the hospital in this corridor. Is this a resource that we want to use on the hospital? Part of the discussion was the factors that differentiate the hospital use from the corporate use. The proposed assessment of the Clarian project was prepared by the Hamilton County Assessor —the land and improvements consist of 561,000 plus square feet on 60 acres and resulted in a tax rate of $1.6 million plus. At the end of 5 years, 775 direct employees are anticipated, supplies and consumers, 386, for a total of 1,161. The medical office building is projected to be 300 total —the key is that these are employees. The physicians and clinicians that are making significant salaries are not included because they are independent contractors. In addition to bringing employees' salaries into the area, there will be the physicians and independent contractors' salaries as well. Following are comments regarding the PUD. The land use plan depicted two areas east and west of Illinois Street. Area 2 was broken up into a number of sub areas, roughly five of them, and the area east of the development was the hospital campus. A conceptual master plan was shown to the Subdivision —what the development would look like at build -out. The plans are the same areas identified in the land use plan. The key components are as follows: Area 2E was an 8 -9 acre commercial area that allowed commercial development. Area 2C was 5 -17 acres and primarily a residential area. Area 2A was roughly 2 t/z acres containing a 100 -foot tree conservation area to serve as a buffer. Area 2B consisted of approximately 2 -5 acres and was a commercial area primarily limited to professional office buildings and daycare facilities with height limitations. Area 2D was a commercial area, 10 -20 acres, and allows medical office buildings, hotels, conference centers, and restaurantsa pretty intense area. Area 1B was part of the expansion of the direct hospital complex for medical facilities. A lot of changes have occurred. The current plan responds to changes and comments from the Subdivision Committee. Area 2E is eliminated —there will be no commercial or retail located west of Illinois Street. Area 2A has been expanded and is now the residential parcel that only allows residential development in the form of single- family, two family, townehomes, and assisted living facilities containing approximately 13 acres. Basically the A -2 area is excluded because it remains S -2 zoning, residential, the same as the property to the north, for a total of 26 acres of developable property for residential. Area 2B has been reduced to 12 to 14 acres and is totally contained within the property located to the west of Illinois Street. The only permitted uses in this area are professional office buildings, medical office buildings, and daycare facility. This has been stripped of any hotel use, restaurant, conference center, etc., so that basically, this will remain primarily office and medical office related. The Development Standards for this area were also changed to limit any height to 40 feet-50 feet —and 60 feet, per exhibits submitted. Areas IA and 1B remain the same except for moving the restaurant and hotel/conference uses. There is now the main hospital complex and a small area, 12 -14 acres that would be used for professional office and medical office buildings for Clarian physicians. S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes\pc2003jun 23 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 Currently, there are now 4 areas. Area 1A is 55/60 acres where the main hospital is located. Area IB is the area located immediately to the north and also located to the east of Illinois Street, east of the Ritz Charles. It would be rare to ever plan to expand the hospital to the north. Area 2A is the residential area located along 116 Street and along Springmill Road. The uses in the A -2 area are limited to residential uses only and has a height limitation of 40 feet. Any non, single- family development requires DP /ADLS approval of the Plan Commission. Coupled with the excluded area, it computes to roughly 26 acres of 35 to 37 acres located on that side of Illinois Street. In addition to residential development, it allows for childcare center, a day nursery, medical office building, offices, and general service establishments limited to the ground floor and base of the primary building. A major concern in this corridor is whether or not there will be facilities to feed the employees and provide them with normal services. One of the ways to provide those services is on the ground floor or basement of a primary building as seen in the corridor presently. The height limitation on Springmill is a 35 -foot building representing a typical, two story, residential structure; area 2A height limitation is 40 feet; a limited 50 foot area; and an area along Illinois Street limited to 60 feet in height. Dave Cremeans reported for the Subdivision Committee. This is a large and important project and has been reviewed by the Committee over a number of hours. What is before you this evening is a totally different project than came before the Commission at the March meeting. The Committee was very divided and after many hours of work, still could not arrive at a consensus. The general feeling is that the project east of Illinois Street was acceptable to the Committee they liked the hospital project, the development standards, and the architectural designs. The DP /ADLS was approved 5 -0. The area of concern was Illinois Street and west of Illinois Street. Shifting Illinois Street to make it a compromise was suggested. It depends on how you read the Comprehensive Plan. Even though the area between Illinois and Springmill is on the Comprehensive Plan as a proposed expansion of commercial, the Committee could not quite agree that that is what it meant. Marilyn Anderson commented that the Comp Plan refers to high intensity residential west of Illinois Street, even though it is currently not zoned high intensity residential. One of the possible interpretations of the expansion is that you could put townehomes and structures other than single family residential west of Illinois Street as part of that expansion. Marilyn Anderson further commented that most everyone agrees there are ambiguities and contradictions in the US 31 Overlay document and it does create the possibility of expanding the Overlay Zone on this parcel. However, this PUD does not meet the intent of the possible expansion and does not warrant gaining the expansion. Page 14 of the Overlay document states there are 3 reasons that justify the expansion. 1) Some commercial zones currently exceed 600 feet. 2) The new frontage road will extend beyond 600 feet. 3) To create sufficient depth for a new mixed use node that incorporates something special that is a community asset. A hospital, although a community asset, is not inherently something special, neither are the other uses put forth by the petitioner. The document on page 15 clarifies that this parcel could accommodate a well- conceived, mixed use development and would have to create a special destination environment that helps differentiate Carmel and the corridor, not just another mixed -use center. Specifically mentioned are open spaces, unique open spaces, botanical gardens, sculpture gardens, or similar -type S:\PlanCommission\ Minutes \PlanCommissionMinutes \pc2003jun 24 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 features, OR an internal grid street system with the neo- traditional design that brings small shops to the street front might be one approach to create a special sense of place. Marilyn commented that she does not see the "specialness" in the Clarian proposal. The Overlay document on page 16 makes the possibility of expanding the Overlay Zone contingent upon specific criteria being met. It does not require just one criteria but for meeting each and every one of the five criteria. Number one is included in the plan, but 2, 3, and 4 are arguable and not clearly met. Criteria 5 references Illinois Street, and on page 18 in states "Unequivocally, no matter what ambiguities and contradictions might be implied elsewhere in the document, this roadway (Illinois Street) will serve as a boulevard bisecting the office, hotel, specialty retail component to the east and the high intensity, residential uses to the west." Marilyn said she understands that the documents seem to conflict and Clarian has done an excellent of taking the complaints raised and altering the proposal—it is more palatable. Clarian has spent a great deal of time and resources and the numerous changes deserve our acknowledgement and thanks. However, it almost seems as if we are saying that if a petitioner starts out with a proposal really far removed from that which is required for a site, and the petitioner keeps working with us and making changes, it doesn't matter if the final result isn't what our Plan calls for, we will approve it because of their good faith efforts —that is not right! Lastly, and very importantly, one of the areas of contradiction is the implication without ever being stated that the commercial/retail expansion could go west of Illinois Street. But, page 18 clearly states it cannot. Marilyn Anderson said she is quite familiar with several of the area residents who actively participated in the 20/20 Vision Plan, the Thoroughfare study, the Illinois Street study, and the US 31 Overlay Zone. These residents spent hours and hours of their time over the years because they greatly cared about development in their area and they were smart enough to know that planning documents could change and they could not let up their vigilance. They did everything they were supposed to do every time to ensure they were heard and have their concerns incorporated into the planning documents. I heard them worry each time a document looked at the area, and I heard them celebrate each they got what they believes to be a firm commitment that there would be only residential west of Illinois Street. No commitment was ever made to Clarian that they would be permitted to go west of Illinois Street with office retail. Where there is ambiguity and contraction within the document, if we must choose between the words of the developer and the area residents, we must honor the commitment made numerous times, verbally and in writing, to the area residents. There should be no commercial retail west of Illinois Street and we need to turn this proposal down. Pat Rice had the following comments but stated that in no way are the comments to be construed as derogatory to the petitioner. Pat Rice explained her reasoning for returning this item to the full Plan Commission with no recommendation. Pat Rice wanted to be perfectly clear about the reasoning or interpretation that the Department of Community Services has. There are three key issues that cannot be ignored. 1) Commercial west of Illinois Street; 2) Special Development Provisions of the Overlay Zone; and 3) The new parallel, arterial roadway should be incorporated into the planned development in a meaningful way. This roadway will serve as a boulevard bisecting the office/hotel/specialty retail to the east, and the high intensity residential uses to the west. The access road from Springmill was addressed, however, it does not show on the S:\PlanCommission\ Minutes \PlanCommissionMinutes \pc2003jun 25 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 Thoroughfare Plan map. Is this planning a well planned, conceptual master plan with commitments? The first plan did somewhat, but the final one certainly does not. Pat Rice further commented that with the stated needs of Clarian, this development is too large for this piece of land. Stephanie Blackman stated she voted in favor of the plan at Committee level. Ms. Blackman said she had interpreted the ambiguities and supports Clarian at this location. Ms. Blackman said the plan is not a commitment but something that should be taken into consideration —not something set in stone. Ms. Blackman referred to page 14 and the 3 reasons justifying the need to expand the corridor beyond the 600 feet is "something special." Something special means something different to everyone. Something special is a well- planned hospital community and Ms. Blackman said she had disagreed with other committee members on that point. Finally, another important point to make and one made by Joe Scimia several times during the Committee meetings is that there is no element of surprise here. Clarian has worked very hard to fit their needs and they have changed everything along Springmill to be residential. The people in that residential section would know exactly what they are getting into —they know there would be a hospital nearby. This site is a very busy area, and if not Clarian, something big is going to go in there. Pam Williams said that she too had voted for this plan at the Committee level. There was some ambiguity in the US 31 Overlay. Ms. Williams said she has not had the benefit of the history of this particular site and has not had the involvement that Marilyn Anderson and Pat Rice and some other members of the Committee have had. With that said, reading the Overlay document at face and understanding what the Overlay was intended to do, there is some ambiguity noted. With those conflicting statements, and applying those to this plan as ultimately revised in its current form, Ms. Williams deemed the proposal to be an appropriate use on this particular parcel. A good job was done trying to insulate Springmill Road as well as the subdivision to the north from the commercial in area 2B. The intensity of the commercial development in area 2B was also decreased to a comfortable level. For the reasons aforesaid, Ms. Williams voted in favor of this proposal at the Committee level. Department Report, Jon Dobosiewicz. The report was distributed earlier to the Commission members. All of the comments, reasons, and statements are pretty much covered in the Department Report. The Department duly notes the initial proposal, the modifications, and the relevance of the plans before the Commission this evening. The Department recommends this item, Docket No. 29 -03 Z, Clarian PUD be forwarded to City Council and if the Commission deems appropriate, include clarification of its recommendation to the Council in the form of a memorandum addressing their concerns related to the 10 -12 acres of non residential use along the west side of Illinois Street. Ron Houck commented that he took issue with the term "well- planned." Mr. Houck said he had difficulty, conceptionally, in listening to Mr. Scimia's presentation and reconciling that against some of the language of the PUD. On page 14 of the PUD, there are references to area 21), and that area no longer exists. Mr. Scimia mentioned concern with hospital growth and being land- locked, yet area 1B, although including the use "hospital" also includes many non hospital uses. There are no ancillary activities such as sit -down restaurants, retail, fitness center, etc. If those S:\PlanCommission\ Minutes \PlanCommissionMinutes \pc2003jun 26 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 activities were allowed to develop, it would produce a land locked situation they are seeking to avoid. Another concern is area 2A. Although conceptually they talked about the excluded area and wrapped that visually with area 2A, even though the zoning is S -2, practically speaking, with the development standards in place, those would develop as one development. What investigation has been done regarding 2A and the viability of development with the dimensions of that parcel? The fact that the east /west road bisects the already narrow parcel into two small parcels further compromises the viability of the residential component. Area 2B, according to the language, appeared to be slated for medical/professional office buildings, although the language in the PUD lists single- family and two family /multi family townehomes appears to be inconsistent with their intended use. It looks like a token gesture to the Committee or area residents that it would be an allowed use. However, it would never practically occur. It is assumed that Clarian will control all of these parcels and at some point, sold to other entities for development. 2B would undoubtedly be sold for the highest and best use, and that would be medical office. Again, this is totally inconsistent with permitted uses of residential nature. The excluded area may have been designed to be a safeguard for the residents to the north. However, there is a concern with misperceptions that the group may have about excluded uses. There were some comments about perhaps the excluded area could become a park. It is probably not the intent of Clarian to dedicate that to the City or the Park System, nor are they interested in it. It would probably be sold off to some other "high- intensity" or "high density" residential development, given the surrounding character. We would probably be looking at a rezone of the S -2 parcel. The neighbors to the north may not realize what protection, if any, the safeguard area affords. Ron Houck asked for confirmation of the location of the retention pond at 116 and Springmill Road. Joe Scimia addressed those remarks. Once again, this exemplifies his concern that the people ask for master plans and conceptual plans and when construction is to commence and the plan is different, the process is started all over again. The property located to the west of Illinois Street is a conceptual master plan; this is what could occur and what those standards require. The retention pond at Springmill and 116 Street could be located there, but it could also be a linear pond that runs the whole distance north/south and separates the residential from the office. This is not a commitment for a specific plan. When it is to be developed, the actual plan should come in and be approved by the Plan Commission. If not, it does not go on to the City Council. Whatever goes on to the west is going to have to meet the requirements of the Plan Commission or it doesn't get built. The conceptual shows what could happen, but not something proposed for development today. It does show the areas as appropriate sizes and massing. There have been inquiries from quality developers, but all of them have said they will not spend time and money to design until the zoning is granted. The only thing "set in stone" is the DP/ ADLS provided. Mr. Scimia said they have not committed to the road —they have said there can be no more than one road connecting the two. If the City doesn't want any, Clarian is comfortable with access directly off Illinois to this facility; it could be corridor with access to the residential only to Springmill. We believe residents will want some access to Illinois Street for S:\PlanCommission\ Minutes \PlanCommissionMinutes \pc2003jun 27 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 relief instead of the traffic stacking at one access point. Some flexibility has been allowed. There were typos in the document; Thursday evening, the draft document went out and over the weekend, those typos were corrected. With respect to the hospital growth and not being land locked, one of the biggest concerns about this area is the lack of corporate amenities in the area. There is no place to eat, no place to workout, no place to take laundry. In order to create the type of environment to entice the top workers, we need to create amenities—if we cannot, we should not make this kind of investment. The 2B area is to create flexibility, and that is why the uses were included if residential dropped below the straight line. At present, there is no intent to do anything with the excluded area. The reason it is excluded is because of the position of the homeowners who support this project-2A conforms with the current zoning. If something else were proposed at this location, it would have to go through this process and the adjacent homeowners would have a say in it the same way they have a say in the instant case. We could have made the entire area 2A under the PUD, but the adjacent homeowners were more comfortable with the area remaining S -2 zoning. Dave Cremeans moved for approval of Docket No. 29 -03 Z, Clarian North Hospital Campus PUD, seconded by Stephanie Blackman. The vote was 6 in favor, 5 opposed and the motion failed. Pat Rice then moved to forward Docket No. 29 -03 Z, Clarian North Hospital Campus PUD, to the City Council with "No Recommendation." The motion was seconded by Ron Houck and approved 10 -1. 4i. Docket No. 30 -03 DP /ADLS; Clarian North Hospital The applicant seeks Final Development Plan and Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping Signage approval for a hospital and medical office building. The 68.164± acre site is located at the northwest corner of US 31 and 116 Street. There is a proposal filed to rezone the site to a Planned Unit Development District. Filed by Joseph M. Scimia of Baker and Daniels for Clarian Health Partners, Inc. Joe Scimia, attorney with Baker Daniels, 600 East 96 Street, appeared before the Commission on behalf of Clarian Health Partners. Given the length of time spent on the prior Docket listing and with the discussion at Subdivision and the subsequent 5 -0 vote, further comments will be deferred until after the Committee report. Dave Cremeans reported that the Committee had forwarded this item to the full Commission with a 5 -0 favorable vote of the DP /ADLS. As stated in the previous report, discussions centered on the area west of the proposed Illinois Street, not east. The members of the Committee were comfortable with the hospital and with the development of that piece of the PUD. S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes\pc2003jun W ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 Jon Dobosiewicz, Department Report. As reported by Dave Cremeans, the Committee voted 5 -0 for favorable consideration by the full Commission. One note, the DP /ADLS can only be implemented upon approval of the appropriate zoning for this site. Ultimately, that final decisions rests with the City Council. Dave Cremeans moved for approval of Docket No. 30 -03 DP /ADLS, Clarian North Hospital, seconded by Pat Rice and APPROVED 11 -0. Point of Clarification: Joe Scimia clarified that the DP /ADLS excludes the excluded area. Music 5i. Docket No. 46 -03 ADLS;Providence at Old Meridian, Lot 1 Meridian The applicant seeks approval to construct a commercial building. The site is located at 100 Providence Boulevard. The site is zoned Old Meridian Village (OM -V). Filed by Frederick A. Simmons of Simmons Associates for JAM Musical Properties. Fred Simmons, Simmons Associates, appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. The rendering of the revised design was shown on the screen and questions and comments were invited. Dianna Knoll clarified that there is no awning signage. Jon Dobosiewicz reported for the Department. The Department is recommended approval of the ADLS as recommended by the Special Study Committee. Ron Houck moved for approval of Docket No. 46 -03 ADLS, Providence at Old Meridian, Lot 1 Meridian Music. The motion was seconded by Dianna Knoll and APPROVED 11 -0. 6i. Docket No. 66 -03 PP; The Trails at Hayden Run (Primary Plat) The applicant seeks Primary Plat approval of a 65 -lot subdivision on approximately 40 acres. The site is located on the north side of West 141 Street approximately one half mile west of Towne Road. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence Very Low Density. The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waivers: 66 -03a SW SCO 5.01.07 extension of facilities included in the master plan 66 -03b SW SCO 6.01.01 conformance with the comprehensive plan 66 -03c SW SCO 6.03 provision of north -south collector road Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Associates, Inc. for Centex Homes. NOTE: Stephanie Blackman recused herself from all discussion and voting. S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes\pc2003jun we, ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 David Warshauer, attorney with Barnes Thornburg, 11 South Meridian Street, Indianapolis, appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Also in attendance were Tom Kutz and Sean Sullivan of Centex Homes, and Gordon Crites of Stoeppelwwerth Associates. Approval is being requested for the Primary Plat and associated Subdivision Waivers for The Trails at Hayden Run. Previously, Hayden Run south of 131 st Street, and The Lakes at Hayden Run and The Ridge at Hayden located between Towne and Shelborne Roads were approved. The subject site is located on the north side of 141S Street across from The Ridge at Hayden Run. To the north are several larger properties, including the Kaufman Stables. To the east is a 30 -acre parcel that will likely be developed as a Subdivision in the future. To the west is property that was acquired by the Archdiocese of Lafayette for a church or church school. Discussion at public hearing last month questioned whether or not the stubstreet provided at the northeast corner would run to the north or west. Having confirmed that the site to the west will be church related, the petitioner is proposing to stub the street to the north in the event the property is developed. Last month, Ron Houck had asked questions about the design of the stub street as temporary cul- de -sac. The concern is that residents in the neighborhood do not understand that the streets are stubstreets and will one day connect. The proposal from Centex is to pave the stubstreet the entire distance to the property line and provide a temporary cul -de -sac with gravel. It is very clear that the street itself goes all the way to the property line and if ever extended, the gravel would be removed and the street would continue on. The Trails at Hayden Run is located in an S -1 District and platted under the Open Space Ordinance. At Committee, time was spent discussing the central common area: access to the common area and how it would be delineated. In response to comments from Committee members, the following changes have been made. Originally, there was a trail that led to a small sitting area at a portion of the lake. The petitioner has now continued the trail around the lake and provided a connection to the northeast corner of the property. It is now possible to access the common area from two sides, diagonally at both corners. Additional landscaping has also been provided in the common area along the property line throughout the common area in order to delineate the area as common area. The issue with the Subdivision Waivers is to develop the Subdivision without providing the collector road called for by the Thoroughfare Plan. The Thoroughfare Plan calls for a collector road to run on the half section line between Towne and Shelbourne Roads through the center of various subdivisions. At the time that Hayden Run came through, it was determined that this line where the connector would run is actually Long Branch Creek. As a result, the petitioner has worked with the Department and other developers to devise a system of streets to serve the function of the collector, but at the same time, to provide some traffic calming through the neighborhoods. In lieu of providing the collector road, the petitioner is making a cash deposit to the Department and commitments in that regard. The cash deposit would be the difference between widening S:\PlanCommission\ Minutes \PlanCommissionMinutes \pc2003jun 30 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 131S Street by three feet with stone shoulder and those plans called for by the Thoroughfare Plan. The bottom line is approximately $55,000 will be deposited with the Department of Community Services for roadway improvements. Dave Cremeans reported for the Committee. The common area was discussed at length as far as clear definition and access. Marilyn Anderson asked about the landscaping plan that looks as if it only provides one tree per lot —this was confirmed by Mr. Warshauer. There are also some trees scattered throughout and with the path, there is a pretty clear definition of the common area. Ron Houck referred to the temporary cul -de -sac and thought perhaps a better solution might be to asphalt and stripe it, and it will be understandable. Marilyn Anderson was in favor of gravel rather than striping; a sign will state that it is a stubstreet. The petitioner agreed to trees along the path. If the ones on the lots are different, and then different tree species along the path, there will be three different species. Dave Cremeans moved for approval of Docket No. 66 -03 PP, The Trails at Hayden Run Primary Plat. The motion was seconded by Pat Rice and APPROVED 11 -0. Dave Cremeans moved for approval of Subdivision Waivers 66 -03a; 66 -03b; and 66 -03c for The Trails at Hayden Run, subject to the recorded commitments, seconded by Pat Rice and APPROVED 10 -0. 7i. Docket No. 67 -03 DP /ADLS; North Augusta Subdivision, Lot 13 (part); Brinson Properties, LLC The applicant seeks development plan approval to allow the construction of an office building. The site is located a 3934 West 96 Street. The site is zoned B- 2 /Business within the US 421/Michigan Road Corridor Overlay Zone. Filed by Darrell Phillips of Weihe Engineers, Inc. for Jacob Brinson. Darrell Phillips, Engineer with Weihe Engineers, 10505 North College Avenue, Indianapolis appeared before the Commission on behalf of the applicant. Approval is being requested to construct a 4,600 square foot office building, one and one -half stories, at 3934 West 96 Street. Dianna Knoll reported that the Special Study Committee reviewed this proposal and all concerns have been addressed. The Committee voted favorably 4 -0. Jon Dobosiewicz reported for the Department. The recommendation is for the full Commission to approve the ADLS application as revised and forwarded by the Committee. Ron Houck moved for approval of Docket No. 57 -03 DP /ADLS, North Augusta Subdivision, Lot 13 (part), Brinson Properties, LLC as revised and forwarded by the Committee. The motion was seconded by Pat Rice and APPROVED 8 -0. S:\PlanCommission\ Minutes \PlanCommissionMinutes \pc2003jun 31 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 8i. Docket No. 68 -03 DP /ADLS; East 96th Street Auto Park, Lot 3; Tom Wood Jaguar The applicant seeks approval to construct an automobile dealership. The site is located at 4620 East 96 Street. The site is zoned B -3 /Business. Filed by Lawrence E. Lawhead for Tom Wood Jaguar, Inc. Tom Engle, attorney with Barnes Thornburg, 11 South Meridian Street, Indianapolis, appeared before the Commission representing Tom Wood Jaguar. This item received a favorable recommendation from the Special Study Committee with 7 stipulations /conditions. Those conditions are as follows: 1) The "Indianapolis" designation will be removed from the building. 2) The "leaping jaguar" statue will be removed. 3) All light fixtures will have flat lens. 4) A revised drawing of the lighting plan has been submitted to the Department. 5) Four, pole- mounted spotlights on the front are being replaced with ground- mounted, up- lighting. 6) The service bay overhead doors will remain closed. 7) Written commitments have been submitted to the Department. Ron Houck stated the petitioner has covered all points discussed at Committee. As a point of clarification, the service bay overhead doors at the service entrance, not on the south of the building but those on the east /west sides, are to remain closed unless a customer is approaching the "write -up" area. Larry Lawhead, attorney with Barnes Thornburg, said the adjacent property owners were concerned with the noise level. Tom Wood committed that the service doors on the east and west sides would remain closed, especially in the winter months. The doors may be left up in the summer —they may leave them up from the standpoint of wear and tear on the doors. Ron Houck commented the "hook for service" will not be utilized from the noise factor. Mr. Houck said he understood Mr. Lawhead's explanation, but that the representation was made that the doors will remain closed unless someone is approaching for service. It may not be a significant issue and it would be a "low noise" area. Ron Houck said he was comfortable with that and thought it was just a mis- understanding. Tom Engle reported that he had talked with the service manager and when a car approaches, the doors will open automatically. There will be no honking. Jon Dobosiewicz reported the Department is recommending the Commission adopt the Development Plan/ADLS as forwarded by the Committee, subject to those 7 conditions. It should be clarified that condition number 6 was further addressed. In addition to those 7 commitments, the commitment that the applicant intends to record incorporates those 7 commitments as well as some additional items relevant to previous commitments made at the time of the rezone. S:\PlanCommission\ Minutes \PlanCommissionMinutes \pc2003jun 32 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 Ron Houck moved for approval of Docket No. 68 -03 DP /ADLS, East 96 Street Auto Park, Lot 3, Tom Wood Jaguar, subject to the 7 conditions being recorded in written form. The motion was seconded by Dianna Knoll and APPROVED with an 8 -0 vote. 9i. Clay Terrace Docket No. 19 -03 ADLS; Clay Terrace All Except A -4, B -19, B -22, E -1 Docket No. 20 -03 ADLS, Clay Terrace Building A -4 Docket No. 21 -03 ADLS, Clay Terrace Building B -19 Docket No. 22 -03 ADLS, Clay Terrace Building B -22 Docket No. 23 -03 ADLS, Clay Terrace Building E -1 The applicant seeks approval of five ADLS applications for the overall site and various buildings within the Clay Terrace development. The site is located at the southwest corner of US Highway 31 and East 146 Street. Filed by Mark Jang of Lauth Property Group. Paul Reis, attorney, 5013 Buckeye Court, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Also is attendance was Fred Simmons, project architect, and Joe Downs of Lauth Property Group. Paul Reis stated that the signage portion has been removed from ADLS application and the petitioner is working with the Committee to finalize the sign package. As far as the Architectural Design, Lighting and Landscaping, the petitioner has worked through all of the issues with the Committee; kudos to the Committee for scheduling special meetings to work through the process. The final portion the Committee dealt with were those listed on the Department Report, plus one more item. The wall- mounted fixtures shown at Committee for the walkway are actually going to be utilized in the parking area —not the style to be used along Clay Terrace Boulevard. The four conditions have been reduced to writing, and the applicant is willing to commit to those conditions with the clarification that the buildings are B19 and B22 NOT B21 as shown on the staff report. Dianna Knoll thanked the Committee for attended special meetings on the application and also thanked the petitioner for working with the Committee. This item was forwarded to the full Commission with a 4 -0 favorable recommendation. Jon Dobosiewicz reported for the Department. The petitioner has now submitted a Memo that clarifies the recommendation of the Department and corrects B21 to B22. The Department is recommending approval of the ADLS by the full Plan Commission. This can be done in a single motion, but subject to the 4 conditions submitted this evening by the petitioner. Nick Kestner stated that item 4 was still unclear as to the wall mounted fixtures and the style used in the parking area as well as some other corridors —for example between anchor A4 and Block S:\PlanCommission\ Minutes \PlanCommissionMinutes \pc2003jun 33 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 Al, there is a corridor. Paul Reis responded that the condition will be revised to include those. The clear intent is the walkway between the buildings from the parking areas —these will be wall- mounted, not up- lighting. This condition will be corrected and a new Memorandum will be distributed. Dave Cremeans commented that he had served on the Committee that had initially approved the PUD. Mr. Cremeans questioned the name of the street from US 31 heading north to the first intersection—it is not delineated as to the name. North of the intersection, it is named Clay Terrace Boulevard. Paul Reis responded it is Clay Terrace Boulevard from US 31 all of the way to 146 Street. Dave Cremeans asked if there were any discussion as far as confusion that might bring. Westfield Boulevard becomes Rangeline Road and that is confusing to a lot of people. Are we just adding to the mix of confusion? Wayne Wilson said there was a move to have Westfield Boulevard to become Rangeline Road at 96 Street, since the City goes down to 96 Street. There is a lot of consensus for uniformity in names. If you look at 126 Street, technically it has four names—it is confusing and leads to a lot of expense in signage. Dave Cremeans said that in order to simplify this for the City Council, it should be specified that this street will be Rangeline Road from 146 Street south of US 31 to add continuity to the Thoroughfare Plan. Wayne Wilson responded that in earlier discussions, the road was always referred to as Rangeline Road and that it would be extended to 146 Street. Marilyn Anderson commented that since Rangeline Road is well known in the area, it would help clarify the location, whereas Clay Terrace—unless you knew the location of this shopping area you would not have an idea where to find it. Jon Dobosiewicz said there has been significant discussion with the Communications Department as well as the City Engineer regarding the name of the road. Typically, the Department does not get involved in situations of naming streets; however, the Department recommends that the Commission approve this item, subject to the name change of the road to Rangeline Road, conditioned upon whether or not the Department has the authority to apply that qualification. If not, Jon Dobosiewicz will put together a memorandum to forward to the appropriate, determining body the Commission's concern. Wayne Wilson commented that commitment No. 2 might need to be altered. Wall art and trellises will be provided generally and the distribution shown. The Committee talked about a formula. In addition to distribution, should the word "quantity" be included? S:\PlanCommission\ Minutes \PlanCommissionMinutes \pc2003jun 34 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 Paul Reis agreed and the word "quantity" will be included. John Molitor opined that generally, state law allows for the Mayor to name or re -name streets unless there is an ordinance allowing the Plan Commission to do that; such an ordinance is not known at present. The Plan Commission can, however, make a recommendation to the Mayor. Ron Houck moved for approval of Docket Nos. 19 -03 ADLS through 23 -03 ADLS, Clay Terrace, subject to the fourth condition, the memorandum from Mr. Reis, and the possible re- naming of Clay Terrace Blvd. to Rangeline Road. The motion was seconded by Dianna Knoll and APPROVED 8 -0. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:00 PM. Marilyn Anderson, Vice President Ramona Hancock, Secretary S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes\pc2003jun 35 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417