HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 08-19-031,1`I y G`'`y of Cq,9y C o
CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
AUGUST 19, 2003
MINUTES
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission met at 7:00 PM in the
Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. The meeting opened with the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Members present were Marilyn Anderson; Jerry Chomanczuk; Leo Dierckman; Dan Dutcher; Ron
Houck; Nick Kestner; Dianna Knoll; Maureen Pearson, late arrival; Pat Rice; and Wayne Wilson,
thereby establishing a quorum.
The minutes were approved for July 8 th and 15 and June 17, as submitted.
Legal Counsel Report: John Molitor reported that Earlham College, through William Wendling
attorney, has tendered written commitments regarding the property on the west bank of White
River, and an agreement has been reached. The agreement provides that this item be TABLED
until March 2004. At that time, if the Commission so chooses, this item could be forwarded to
the City Council for action.
John Molitor formally recommended tabling this item indefinitely until formal motion in March to
take it off the table.
Ron Houck then moved to TABLE Docket No. 105 -03 Z (03060022) Earlham Rezone S -1 to
P -2, to an indefinite time, seconded by Leo Dierckman and APPROVED 10 -0.
John Molitor distributed copies of a Memorandum describing the proposal for terminating the
planning /zoning Joinder Agreement between the City of Carmel and Clay Township. The
proposal came out of the Land Use and Annexation Committee of the City Council. Questions,
comments, and further discussion will take place at the conclusion of regular business this
evenmg.
F. Reports, Announcements, Department Concerns
Jon Dobosiewicz referred to item li. on the Agenda. The Department is asking that this item be
removed from the Agenda and returned to Special Study Committee on September 2 nd This item
would then be returned to the full Commission for action.
In addition, item lg., Ratification of City Council Adoption of Z- 411 -03 (Docket No. 95 -03 OA; I-
1/Industrial Amendment) was adopted by the City Council with two amendments. Development
S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes\PC2003aug
Plan and ADLS approval applied to properties zoned both I -1 and within the corporate limits of the
City of Carmel requirs that the Plan Commission do one of two things—ratify the Ordinance as
amended and approved by the Council, or send a new recommendation of the Council. The Council
would then take final action on the amendment at its next meeting.
Dianna Knoll moved to accept the two amendments adopted by the City Council of the I-
1/Industrial Amendment. The motion was seconded by Ron Houck and APPROVED 10 -0.
H. Public Hearings
1h. Docket No. 110 -03 DP Amend /ADLS; (03070007);
West Carmel Center, Block B, Lot 1 Union Federal Bank of Indianapolis
The applicant seeks Development Plan Amendment and Architectural Design,
Lighting, Landscaping Signage approval to construct a financial institution. The
site is located on the southeast corner of Commerce Drive and West 106 Street.
The site is zoned B -5 /Business and is subject to the US 421 Overlay requirements.
Filed by E. Davis Coots of Coots, Henke Wheeler, PC.
Dave Coots, attorney with Coots, Henke Wheeler, 255 East Carmel Drive, appeared before the
Commission representing the applicant. Also in attendance: Debbie Rittenhaur, Union Federal;
Sandy Griffith, Hokanson Companies; Diana Brenner of Brenner Design, Architects; Neyla Sapia,
Mid- States Engineering; Meg Starro, Landscape Architect.
The petitioner is requesting approval of a Development Plan Amendment as well as ADLS review
and approval. This particular piece of property is outside of the 421 Overlay Zone but is
encumbered by the 421 Overlay Zone requirements when the Plan Commission approved the plat
for this commerial development several years ago. The tract is located on the south side of 106
Street, immediately east of Commerce Drive, and north of an existing office building at this
location. To the west of the subject real estate is a commercial center facing 421, to the north is
106 Street, to the east is undeveloped real estate.
The property is zoned B -5. The petitioner is seeking approval to construct a single story financial
office for operation by Union Federal Bank of Indianapolis. The building is 3,537 square feet, its
dimensions are 75 feet by 45 feet, and the site plan shows 18 parking spaces —the ordinance
requires 11. The entrance to this site will be off of Commerce Drive
The architecture consists of a split face block for the lower wainscot and reddish marble for the
accent around the entryway. The contrast material in the front will be porcelain tile and the
finishing colors in the EFIS, molding /crown or accent pieces will be of similar color. The
windows are bronze glass, and the paint coloring matches the limestone effect. The brick material
is colored to coordinate with the tile and the accents selected by the architect.
The landscape plan was submitted to the Urban Forester at Technical Advisory Committee on
July 16 and the materials comply with the 421 requirements. The materials, spacing, and number
are in accordance with the 421 Overlay Zone.
S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes\PC2003aug 2
There are two signs contemplated on the project, one on the north elevation and one on the west
elevation. Each sign is 29 square feet —the ordinance allows 45 square feet on the north
elevation, and 30 square feet on the west elevation. The signs are within the ordinance.
There will be three light standards and four, ground mounted fixtures to floodlight the elevations
of the building. The drive -thru located on the east side of the building is anticipated to utilize the
inside lane —the lane closest to the building itself —for an ATM machine, similar to the drawings
submitted. There will be no free standing kiosk in the parking lot for ATM purposes.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to this petition; no one
appeared and the public hearing was closed.
Department Comments, Jon Doboiewicz. The site plan contains a sign at the northwest corner of
the site. As indicated in the Department Report, this sign needs to be addressed by this petition
on how it will identify the site. The individual bank would not be permitted three signs and due to
the subdivision on the lot, the center identification ground sign would be limited to the name of
the complex. It should be identified for the Commission how that sign will be utilized by these
three lots within Block B.
The project architect should present and explain how this building conforms to the requirements
of the 421 Overlay that require red brick for buildings. In addition, the petitioner did provide a
copy of the ATM and that should be included as an exhibit and attached for the Committee's
review.
Regarding the landscaping, the site plan will require modifications on the area to the south. The
Development Plan Amendment and ADLS needs to address what modifications are being made to
accommodate a new drive that would service the future area to be developed directly to the east
on lot 2. The landscape plan needs to be amended to address those areas being modified
regarding site circulation.
The Department is recommending that this item be forwarded to the Special Study Committee on
September 2, 2003 for further review and discussion.
Nick Kestner commented he would like to see the drive -thru located to the rear rather than the
front. Traveling west on 106 Street, the view is the back of a building —the building to the west
is the rear view, and it is quite ugly. Mr. Kestner would like to see the building turned 90
degrees.
Pat Rice questioned the brick—it looks more orange than red.
Marilyn Anderson commented that a lot of the building looks contemporary with some traditional.
Ms. Anderson recommended the Committee look at the design of the building.
Diana Brenner, architect, explained the style and design of the building. Early Georgian, smaller
windows, arched openings; late Georgian is represented by semi circular arches in the side
elevation and elliptical arch; last elements are the fluted columns and keystone elements that occur
S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes \PlanCommissionMinutes\PC2003aug 3
at the corners.
Pat Rice agreed with Ms. Anderson that there was not one specific style of architecture but rather
a mixture in one building —the building cannot make up its mind what design it wants to be.
Marilyn Anderson agreed with Nick Kestner that the drive -thru should be moved to screen
visibility from 106 Street.
Ron Houck commented that the brick tends to be under weighted in terms of presence relative to
the EFIS and other materials. It might be better to have more brick on the building as opposed to
a wainscot -type. In comparison to other buildings in the area, brick represents more presence on
the building. This particular building has a lot of facade changes, and that detracts from the
architectural style and not in keeping with the architectural style. Mr. Houck also asked about the
logo on the sign, the stars around the "U" and how that is calculated as a percentage of the sign
this will be addressed at Committee.
Leo Dierckman suggested breaking up the large window in the front with a band of brick across
the middle to give it division. There is a lot of glass with the Georgian concept.
Docket No. 110 -03 DP Amend /ADLS, (03070007) Union Federal Bank of Indianapolis, was
forwarded to the Special Study Committee for further review at 7:00 PM on September 2, 2003
in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall.
2h. Docket No. 116 -03 Z; (03070012);
Fee Schedule Ordinance Amendment
Petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation on proposed changes to the Fee
section of the Ordinance.
Filed by the Department of Community Services.
Mike Hollibaugh, Director of the Department of Community Services, appeared before the
Commission representing the applicant. Presented this evening are the proposed updates of
Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. Basically, the proposed amendments deal more with the
filing fees and could better be described as an overall of the filing fees rather than amendments.
Even though the structure of the Ordinance has remained relatively the same, additional fees have
been added based on some of the changing practices such as the Old Towne Site Plan Review,
and adjustments for the PUD rezone review that have taken much more Staff time than a
traditional rezone. Some flexibility has been added to some of the fees such as Development
Standards Variance to which several levels have been added.
Part of the adjustment also has to do with increasing the "bottom line" for the Department.
Historically, it has been suggested that the Department be revenue neutral or as close to that as
possible. Some calculations have been done with the new fees that show if applied, we would
have been far in excess of the $1.7 million budget—we would have been over $2 million. This
year, we have been fairly consistent at around $1.4 million.
S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes\PC2003aug 4
Mike Hollibaugh thought it would make more sense to send this item to Committee for review
rather than trying to push it ahead.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to this petition; no one
appeared and the public hearing was closed.
Mike Hollibaugh responded to questions from Commission members. The proposed fee schedule
is commensurate with adjoining communities. In some ways, the fee schedule will be higher. The
last major increase in fees was the year 2000. As a part of that increase, there was an amendment
that allowed for the Director to calculate cost of living increase so that the fees could be gradually
adjusted annually, consistent with the Consumer Price Index. Regarding mining, Ron Houck
asked if the fees would be used to offset outside consulting. These questions will be delved into at
the Committee level.
Docket No. 116 -03 Z, (03070012) Fee Schedule, Ordinance Amendment was referred to the
Subdivision Committee for further review at 7:00 PM on September 2, 2003 in the Caucus
Rooms of City Hall.
I. Old Business
li. Docket No. 162 -02 OA; (PC3447); 163 -02 CPA; (PC3448) (Tentative)
Amendment to the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance Agricultural District
Amendment to the Carmel/Clay Comprehensive Plan Agricultural District
The petitioner seeks to add a new zoning district to the Zoning Ordinance.
Filed by the Department of Community Services.
Returned to Special Study Committee
2i. Docket No. 11 -03a Z; Danbury Common Area [only] (P -1 Rezone)
Petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation of a rezone from R -1 /Residential to
P -1 /Parks and Recreation on 7.8± 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 appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. This item was
again looked at by the Committee on August 5 th and is being returned to the full Commission with
a 4 -2 unfavorable recommendation.
The Department is asking the Commission to forward this item to City Council after all concerns
have been addressed.
Pat Rice reported for the Subdivision Committee. The main reason this came back to the
Commission with an unfavorable recommendation has to do with the rezoning of property already
owned by residents. It is a big question whether or not this is an appropriate way to go about
providing for what it anticipated in the future.
S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes\PC2003aug 5
Dan Dutcher asked if the Committee had identified other ways this land could be protected, from
an aesthetic and development standpoint, other than the rezone.
Pat Rice said there was discussion as to whether or not this land would go commercial. There are
other things in place that would keep this area from being built on—namely the flood plain. This
just came down to, "Is the rezone an appropriate way to affect the land owned by residents
In response to questions from Leo Dierckman, Jon Dobosiewicz said the land is actually owned
by the HomeOwners Association.
Ron Houck commented that the constraints provided, i.e. the flood plain, buffering, etc. ensure
that a project that is well thought out and would meet the needs will be brought before the
Commission.
Maureen Pearson said the clearest way to make sure this is rezoned to P -1 is to do that now. The
concern was historical knowledge. Everyone agreed that this ground should be protected and
earmarked; it was a question of how to send out that message.
Marilyn Anderson remarked that this was a difficult one to decide. Changing the zoning on all
common areas would not change anything —the intent of the common area would still be what it
is today. It does not change the reality of how the land is used. It is a concern —flood plains are
filled in, and this area is flood plain. The message needs to be sent to potential developers that
this is not an area that is open for development. Homeowners are not giving up anything because
the use stays exactly the same. The message is —this floodplain is not up for grabs.
Jon Dobosiewicz responded to comments from Marilyn Anderson. At the time the Parks Zoning
went through Committee review, there was a list of potential properties, but it was not a part of
the Ordinance, but rather a policy. It was a working instrument the Department prepared for
review. It was clear, however, that the Plan Commission did not want to see the flood plain at
this location encroached upon. One of the things that can be done with the P -1 District is protect
and secure those areas identified on the Comp Plan as environmentally sensitive. One thing that
was discussed was how far does commercial need to be from the creek if commercial should exist
there in the future. We are looking at this from two different perspectives. If the Plan
Commission desires to protect the flood plain area at a great cost, we should perhaps start the
discussion with how much we could encroach into the P -1 District where the flood plain is
located, or how much setback distance we should negotiate from the creek in a commercial zone.
Nick Kestner agreed with Jon Dobosiewicz' comments. We just went through a summer of
floods and the studies came back that they were all "filled in" flood plains— places that have never
flooded. This is an area that we really need to look at. The only way this particular piece of
ground could ever be viable for development would be to fill it in. Somehow, we have to specify
that these areas are flood plain and will not be developed. We must stand firm in our position that
these flood plains will not be filled in and developed.
Wayne Wilson felt that protections are already in place, not only at City level but also State level
S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes\PC2003aug
and DNR. In this particular case, we are talking about 39 homeowners who jointly own a piece
of land that is directly between their homes—common area. It is very dangerous when we start
going out as a government entity and rezoning private owner's homes. No one has shown any
cause for alarm here that there is any impending danger of anything being proposed for this
ground. The homeowners feel they are better off if they retain the current zoning for this land in
the hope that will help them market their homes so they can get out of this situation. If this
ground were marketed to a commercial developer, he would need to file with the Plan
Commission. The message has already been sent and it is not our job as a commission to think of
messages to send. However, anyone in the development community knows what they will face
with this area and the process and protections are in place for the City, the citizens, etc. We do
not have to accomplish this on the backs of the people currently in residence at Danbury that are
looking for a way to get out of their homes.
Marilyn Anderson had trouble seeing that it was on the backs of the residents, when the
Commission is saying they will not let the flood plain be filled in—nothing changes for them.
There will be no developer to say he will take half of the ground and offer the residents more if
the Plan Commission will not allow that.
Wayne Wilson said the R -1 is residentialP -1 is Parks, and there is a difference. The
connotation is that there is a residential neighborhood that a lot of residents would like to sell
their property and get out. The City is not going to do anything—it will not become a park in a
flood plain either, it will just sit there with a different designation. At some time in the future, if
the designation is warranted, it could be brought forth at the time of an impending crisis, just as
the original P- I when the City saw the potential for a golf course to be sold. But, to spring this
on people who have made an investment in their home, it is unfair to the property owner. The big
difference is there doesn't need to be any difference now. The homeowners have responded to us
only because the City chose to go after this and rezone it P -1.
In response to questions from Ron Houck, Jon Dobosiewicz said approximately 75 to 80% of this
area is within the 100 year flood elevation.
Ron Houck thought a potential concern would be if development flexibility could be added by
having the 20 to 25% to work with. If this is rezoned to P -1, there would not be the 20 -25% to
work with as development flexibility.
Jon Dobosiewicz commented that any owner of the property could bring the request in to the
Commission tomorrow. In essence, Danbury Estates Subdivision would be vacated, a parcel to
be maintained would be re- described to R -1 or P -1 designation, and everything outside that would
be submitted in a proposal for development. It would get back to the issue of how much area and
where are we starting? How far away from the creek do we need to be? How much can we
encroach into an environmentally sensitive area?
Pat Rice said the message she has heard clearly is that if the ground is zoned P -1, do not come in
and talk to us about doing anything on this ground. There is a concern that if we can't split this
ground, we are putting it all in Park or P -1, and this is a dilemma. The flood plain should be
preserved, but for that portion that isn't, we are in a sense taking away from the homeowners in
S:AP1anCommission\ Minutes \P1anCommissionMinutes\PC2003aug 7
terms of the future.
Pam Williams asked for clarification from John Molitor as to the initial request for rezone. This is
not something the homeowners are requesting but rather the City, and how does that relate to a
taking and any legal ramifications, if any?
John Molitor responded that there are two separate questions here. One is "Who has the power
to initiate a rezone Under our State Statute, 50% of the landowners can do that, City Council
can do that, or the Plan Commission. This proposal comes from the staff of DOCS, so essentially,
it is asking that the Plan Commission initiate the rezone. It is lawful to pursue this rezone. The
issue on the taking has to do with Federal Constitutional provisions that say you cannot take
private property without giving the owner just compensation. The Courts in most states,
including Indiana, have read that to mean that if you take all reasonable, economic use of the land,
then you have taken the property. It is what the interpretation would be, and in regard to the
flood plain, it is questionable whether or not there is any reasonable, economic use other than
recreational. A rezone itself would not be a taking unless the City or Board of Zoning Appeals
refused to grant any relief from the regulations. Before a landowner can claim that there is a
taking, he must go before the BZA and ask for some relief from regulations, usually in the form of
a variance.
Dianna Knoll asked if the lines of the flood plain could be taken—in other words, rezone the flood
plain to P -1, and anything outside the flood plain would remain with the homeowners association.
Jon Dobosiewicz responded that it would create a split -zone on a parcel and under the Ordinance,
would create a conflict and the P -1 zone being the more restrictive would apply to the entire
parcel. We do not split -zone parcels because it is a distinction without a difference.
John Molitor added that the Ordinance does not allow a tax parcel to be split between two zoning
districts. For that to work as discussed, we would have to survey off the part that is and is not
within the flood plain. The problem there is who will pay for that survey?
Leo Dierckman moved to forward Docket No. 11 -03a Z, Danbury Common Area (only) (P -1
Rezone) to the City Council with a favorable recommendation. Jerry Chomanczuk seconded the
motion the vote was 8 in favor, 3 opposed (Wayne Wilson, Ron Houck, Pat Rice.) MOTION
APPROVED
3i. 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- I /Residence Very Low Intensity.
The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waiver:
79 -03a SW (03050041) SCO 6.3.20 private streets
Filed by Paul G. Reis of Drewry Simmons Pitts Vornehm for Lucky, LLC.
Mark Monroe of Drewry, Simmons, Pitts Vornehm appeared before the Commission
S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes \P1anCommissionMinutes\PC2003aug 8
representing the applicant. Also in attendance was Craig Dobbs, owner and developer of this
subdivision as well as the adjoining property.
The Subdivision Committee reviewed the Primary Plat Amendment and the Subdivision Waiver
on August 5 The Committee voted unanimously, 6 -0, to forward a favorable recommendation
to the full Commission.
Pat Rice was asked to report for the Committee in Dave Cremeans's absence. Before reporting
the Committee findings, Pat Rice asked that Craig Dobbs describe the use of the adjoining real
estate, "Theraplay."
Craig Dobbs then addressed the Commission and explained the children's "Theraplay" program of
Indiana. Hospital bound children are taken out of the hospital atmosphere and brought into a
facility where they are still getting the needed therapy and care, only in a more relaxed, fun
atmosphere. There are approximately 115 children per week that participate in this facility; St.
Vincent also uses this facility. The south lots of Treesdale will not be sold and will be utilized for
Theraplay programs.
Mr. Dobbs said the facility is "double- fenced," and this keeps the horses within the facility and off
of Towne Road. All around Treesdale is an existing, 10 -foot high fence. There are only two
ways out; one of which is setup for a gate. One problem is that the children cannot jump out of
the way of a horse and the setup must be very controlled. There are holding pens for the horses,
and the kids can be outside in small, controlled groups. This particular facility had three children
that participated in the Special Olympics this year. To have the desired atmosphere and utilize the
property, it is necessary to gate the facility. There are approximately 35 -45 persons that are
enrolled in the program.
Mark Monroe stated that the property currently used for the Theraplay facility sits on ground that
could long term be sectioned to Treesdale Subdivision, and Craig Dobbs, the developer, has no
intention of developing the Theraplay operation. However, in the event that the road is looped
around to Towne Road, there could be another privacy gate at that entrance and that request has
been included for efficiency.
Pat Rice moved to approve Docket No. 79 -03 PP Amend, Treesdale Subdivision. The motion
was seconded by Maureen Pearson and APPROVED 11 -0.
Pat Rice moved to approve Docket No. 79 -03a Subdivision Waiver for private streets. The
motion was seconded by Maureen Pearson and APPROVED 11 -0.
4i. Docket No. 93 -03 Z; (03060010);
Lockerbie Townhomes at Hunters Creek PUD (Rezone)
The applicant seeks to rezone a 5 -acre parcel from R -1 /Residence and B-
3 /Business to a PUD (Planned Unit Development) District designation. The
property is located at the southwest corner of Rohrer Road and Marana Drive.
Filed by James E. Shinaver of Nelson and Frankenberger for Estridge
Development Company.
S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes\PC2003aug 9
Jim Shinaver of Nelson Frankenberger appeared before the Commission representing the
applicant. Also in attendance: Mark Webber, Director of Townehome Development for Estridge
Companies; Cort Crobsy of Schneider Engineering.
The petitioner is requesting a change in zone classification for a townehome development located
on a 5 -acre parcel on the southwest corner of Marana Drive and Rohrer Road. This petition was
reviewed by the Subdivision Committee on August 5, 2003. At that time, the Committee made a
unanimous favorable recommendation to forward this matter to the full Commission for final
consideration.
This property was previously the home of the Carmel Brethern Church. The Church no longer
owns this property and the building is vacant. The real estate was the subject of a prior rezone
request by Hunters Creek Office Park LLC. Hunters Creek was unsuccessful in seeking a change
in zoning classification to an office park development. Since that time, the Estridge Companies
has purchased the property from Hunters Creek on contract.
Due to the uses surrounding this property, the property can and should serve as an important
buffer and transition from the heavy commercial uses to the south and residential uses to the
north, east, and west. With this in mind, the Estridge Companies has designed a Townehome
Project believed to achieve the important buffering and transitional purpose to the surrounding
land uses. The Estridge Companies has worked very hard to involve the neighbors of Hunters
Creek South in its planning process.
Some revisions have been made to the plan since public hearing on July 15, 2003. Building 9 has
been eliminated in the north section of the site; there are now a total of 8 buildings. With the
elimination of building 9, there is a decrease in the number of living units from 34 to 31. Even
though the landscape plan met the Ordinance, the petitioner met again with Scott Brewer, Urban
Forester, and 5 additional shade trees have been added as well as 237 ornamental trees around the
perimeter of the site. The net result of these changes is that the density has been decreased,
additional greenspace has been created, and more landscaping has been added.
The living units will be sold to purchasers in fee simple conveyance. These units are not rentals or
apartments. The anticipated base price range is between $170, $220,000. Estridge sales data
suggests that a typical buyer will spend approximately $5, to $15,000 on improvements and
upgrades. The square footage of the units ranges from 1,460 square feet, excluding the garage, to
approximately 2,245 square feet, excluding garage.
Estridge has proposed a residential buffer for transition from heavy commercial uses to the south
and residential uses to the north, east, and west. This development proposes qualities that are
superior to the type of transition that may be achieved under the current zoning. Approval is
being requested at this time.
Pat Rice reported for the Committee. The developer worked with the adjacent homeowners to
their satisfaction. The Committee believes this project to be of high quality and a win/win for
both the residents and the developer and the City as well.
S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes\PC2003aug 10
The Department is recommending this item for forwarding to the City Council with a favorable
recommendation. From a technical standpoint, this proposal is not supported by the
Comprehensive Plan. However, this plan does provide transition and the Plan Commission has
taken into consideration reasonable regard for the Comprehensive Plan.
Ron Hock commented on the height of the trees in the landscape plan that should be "DBH,"
(diameter breast height.) Jim Shinaver responded that Estridge would be willing to change the
language in this portion of the PUD to comply.
Wayne Wilson commented on the previous proposal for this property. Mr. Wilson was
complimentary of the petitioner in working with the area residents to resolve all issues.
Jerry Chomanczuk asked for the ratio breakdown between the brick facade and the siding.
Mark Webber with Estridge Companies displayed a typical floor plan. The brick does go around
the perimeter of the building with one exception. The brick continues around the garage line and
on to the next floor plan. The only exception of the brick wrap is in one corner.
Jon Dobosiewicz pinpointed the display in the informational booklet as Exhibit F -2. This is
attached to the Ordinance and Exhibit F -1 shows the side of the proposed building showing the
brick and siding.
Wayne Wilson moved to forward Docket No. 93 -03 Z, Lockerbie Townhomes at Hunters
Creek PUD Rezone to the City Council with a favorable recommendation. The motion was
seconded by Ron Houck and APPROVED 11 -0.
5i. Docket No. 94 -03 DP Amend /ADLS; (03060011);
Three Meridian Plaza First Indiana Bank (Amended Development Plan)
The applicant seeks approval to construct a drive -thru banking facility. The site is
located at 10333 North Meridian Street. The site is zoned B -5 Business and is
within the US 31 Overlay Zone.
Filed by Steven B. Granner of Bose McKinney Evans for First Indiana Bank.
Steve Granner, Zoning Consultant with Bose McKinney Evans, 600 East 96 Street, appeared
before the Commission representing the applicant. Ken Tershe, Senior Vice President of First
Indiana Bank was also in attendance.
First Indiana Bank has purchased Metro Bank and taken over their tenant space in the building
located at 10333 North Meridian Street. The petition is for approval to construct a drive -thru
facility to increase their facilities.
The site plan reflects a new access point on Pennsylvania Street. Prior to Committee review, the
petitioner determined to amend the site plan and remove the curb cut request from the petition.
As was discussed with the Committee, the additional curb cut has been removed. The net result
of the elimination of the curb cut is an increased landscape area; there is a net loss in the number
S:APlanCommission\ Minutes \P1anCommissionMinutes\PC2003aug 11
of parking spaces (9), however the number is still three above the required spaces. There was
also discussion at Committee regarding the sconce lighting, and the sconce light with a 90- degree
cut -off has been included.
Upon deletion of the access point on Pennsylvania, one of the directional signs was eliminated.
With only one directional sign, it is logical to have it located at the existing cut on Pennsylvania
Street rather than on 103r Street. Contrary to what was stated at Committee, the petitioner is
requesting approval of the direction sign on Pennsylvania Street rather than 103r Street. These
types of signs are exempt and do not require permits.
The Findings of Fact reflect the wall- mounted, 90- degree cutoff sconce lighting, and the location
of the proposed directional sign.
Also, the elevation on the ATM shows the ATM attached to the building. The problem with that
location is that it conflicts with one of the two lanes for the two tellers. Mr. Tershe had instructed
the plans be changed to locate the ATM on the island. The layout does not change. Mr. Granner
said they were willing to return to Committee for ADLS final approval, and are asking for
approval of the Development Plan this evening.
Dianna Knoll reported for the Committee. Once the plan was adjusted for the second access
point, there was no problem with the overall plan. Also, the Committee was agreeable with the
change in the ATM location.
Jon Dobosiewicz rendered the Department Report. There is no problem with the location of the
directional sign. However, moving the ATM out to the island creates some site circulation
concerns. The Department is requesting approval of this petition as indicated on the existing
drawings. The petitioner should then file an amended petition for the Committee's benefit only.
The Commission should approve as presented and the petitioner should file an amendment to be
reviewed in detail. There is more issue here than just ADLSit is a site circulation issue that is
addressed through the Development Plan Amendment.
Ron Houck moved to return Docket No. 94 -03 DP Amend /ADLS, First Indiana Bank, to the
Special Study Committee with right of final approval. The motion was seconded by Dianna
Knoll and APPROVED 11 -0.
6i. Docket No. 105 -03 Z (03060022); Earlham Rezone Sl P2
The petitioner seeks to rezone approximately 646.80± acres located along the
south side of 146 Street east and west of River Road.
Filed by the Department of Community Services.
TABLED
The Commission then took a short recess. Leo Dierckman exited the meeting at this time and did
not return.
J. New Business
S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes\PC2003aug 12
lj. Docket No. 111 -03 ADLS; (03070009);
Meridian Technology Center, AmeriCenters Carmel
The applicant seeks Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping Signage
approval to construct an office building. The site is located at the southeast corner
of College Avenue and Pennsylvania Street. The site is zoned B -2 /Business.
Filed by Blair D. Carmosino of Duke Construction LP.
Blair Carmosino of Duke Construction appeared before the Commission representing the
applicant. Also in attendance: Ken Davis of the Blaine Group, eventual owner of the
AmeriCenters facility; Greg Snelling with Woolpert Associates, engineers; Lorrie Morris, CSO,
architect of record.
Ken Davis explained that the AmeriCenters are fully furnished, staffed, executive office space
developed for clients who have small office space needs that do not fit in traditional office
buildings but yet require all of the amenities and services found in a normal office building. The
Centers are equipped with multiple conference rooms, high -speed internet connections, kitchens,
copy machines, fax machines, all those things that are difficult for a small business person to
acquire on their own when either starting a business or operating from an area that does not
require a lot of space.
The typical AmeriCenters client ranges from entrepeneuers moving out of home -based offices into
more professional space or Fortune 500 Companies that may have a project in a specific
geographic area that would necessitate only a handful of people. AmeriCenters leases single and
multiple offices to users and has done so for approximately 20 years. There are seven (7) centers
throughout Michigan and Ohio. AmeriCenters is in the process of developing four additional
facilities this year and 6 to 8 in 2004. AmeriCenters has done a lot of research on the Carmel
area and feels very positive about this community. Carmel is a perfect fit for AmeriCenters and
appropriate services will be offered to the community.
Blair Carmosino noted that Duke Construction has partnered with AmeriCenters.
Mr. Carmosino identified the site as the southeast corner of College Avenue and Pennsylvania
Street with an address of 11805 North Pennsylvania. The site is currently zoned B -2 and is not
subject to the US 31 Overlay Zone and the Development Plan approval process.
The proposed facility consists of 19,000 square foot initial construction facility. The construction
is proposed as brick, glass and veneer cast limestone, 21 feet 6 inches in height, one story office.
The initial tenant capacity is 66 tenants depending upon how they devise their office space. The
ultimate construction would house 104 maximum tenants. The elevations are as depicted in the
informational booklets.
The mechanical equipment is screened 360 degrees, and in all elevations, the center parapet wall is
high enough to encompass the mechanical units and effectively screen them from all views. The
elevations translate to a rendering prepared with a view from the southwest looking to the
northeast, as if traveling north -bound on Pennsylvania. The site plan shows both Phase I and
S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes\PC2003aug 13
Phase II construction. One item not shown is the dumpster location and this will be addressed at
Committee review. An asphalt path is incorporated into the plan paralleling College and
Pennsylvania Street; the path was requested by the Department. Another request by the
Department is a dedicated right and dedicated left out of the site so that stacking movement will
not be hindered.
The access onto College is proposed as right in/right out. A full movement access was initially
proposed, but that would involve a median cut when one is already existing perhaps 200 feet east
of the proposed location. Discussions with the Department involved access through the land
immediately to the east to access the median cut. The petitioner is agreeable, but it is not known
what the plans are for the property to the east. Therefore, the petitioner is now in a position to
request the right in/right out on College. Then, once the property to the east is developed, we
would re- evaluate the access point. The landscape plan has been submitted to the Urban Forester,
and the plan will be revised before Committee review.
There are no signs proposed for the exterior of the building. The only signs proposed are ground
mounted, located along the frontage of Pennsylvania and one on College. The signs will be
ground lit, up -lit, no internal lighting, and 4 feet in height to the top of the sign-9 feet 2 inches
wide.
The light fixture immediately to the south will be replicated and carried throughout this project.
The informational materials include the cut -sheet for the lighting of the ground sign as well as the
photo- metric plans that show conformance with the photo- metric requirements for this site.
There is a mix of architecture in the area, and the AmeriCenters as proposed fits in well with the
community and complies with the B -2 requirements.
Department Report, Jon Dobosoiewicz. The petitioner has addressed most all concerns of the
Department. A revised landscaping plan is to be forwarded to the Department with adequate time
for comments prior to the Committee meeting on September 2n The only other issue was the
access onto College Avenue and those discussions are on- going; there will be more clarity
brought forth at the Committee level.
In response to questions from Ron Houck regarding parking requirements, Blair Carmosino said
the requirement is one space per 300 square feet; total spaces provided number 73, total required
is 69.
Greg Snelling with Woolpert stated that the parking spaces number 73 in Phase I, 68 required.
Phase II, 103 are shown, 95 are required based on one per 300 square feet.
The first phase of the building will have 66 individual office spaces. A number of those will be
combined in suite configurations.
Dianna Knoll asked if there were individual tenant signage proposed. The response was there are
two monument signs, one located on College, near the proposed entry, the second located near
S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes\PC2003aug 14
the shared entry on Pennsylvania. Generally speaking, there is no signage on the exterior of the
building, except for the address.
Dianna Knoll asked that construction materials and color samples be displayed at the Committee
meeting.
Docket No. 111 -03 ADLS; Meridian Technology Center, AmeriCenters Carmel was
referred to the Special Study Committee for further review on September 2, 2003 at 7:00 PM in
the Caucus Rooms of City Hall.
2j. Docket No. 112 -03 ADLS; (03070014);
Merchants' Square Chipotle Mexican Grill
The applicant seeks approval to construct a restaurant. The site is located at 1422
Keystone Way. The site is zoned B -8 /Business and is located within the SR 431
Overlay Zone.
Filed by Jason Stults of Glavan-Feher Architects.
Jason Stults of Glavan -Feher Architects, Two Mernova Place, Columbus, Ohio appeared before
the Committee representing the applicant, Chipotle Mexican Grill. The petitioner is requesting
approval to construct a Mexican Grill at 1422 Keystone Way East. The site is zoned B -8 and is
within the 431 Overlay Zone.
The building will consist of 2,800 square, 18 feet high. The construction materials are primarily
brick with miscellaneous metal accents. Included on this site is a dumpster enclosure located to
the rear of the building and a patio area, approximately 540 square feet at the front of the building
on Keystone Way.
The existing building on site will be razed and existing site paving and lighting will be removed.
New paving, curbing, sidewalks, landscaping, and site lighting are included in the scope of work.
There are 46 parking spaces provided-35 are required. The amount of paved area on site will be
decreased and the amount of greenspace will be increased.
Department Report, Jon Dobosiewicz. The Department asked that if umbrellas are to be provided
for the outdoor tables, detail should be provided to the Commission. Also, the Department is
asking for confirmation that the wall height will screen any rooftop mounted equipment. The
petitioner has provided the Department with photos of existing facilities. Regarding signage, the
Department is requesting a cut -sheet that will show in detail the proposed elevation. The
Department is also requesting the petitioner provide additional information on the light fixture on
the building.
Pat Rice asked about screen wiring depicted. Mr. Stults responded that it is a mesh panel insert
below the railing.
Wayne Wilson asked about the type of restaurant.
Tim Buette, Operations Director for Chipotle in the midwest, said the restaurant is Gourmet
S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes\PC2003aug 15
Casual, high quality food at a reasonable price. The food is all fresh, all natural, prepared as
ordered, although it is a line -type of pick -up. The diner chooses the ingredients and it is prepared
in front of you—it is a sit -down scenario. There are only two items served in "a thousand
combinations."
Mr. Buette commented that Chipotle began in Denver; McDonald's became a minority investor in
Chipotle in the late 90's and is now a majority investor. However, Chipotle is completely self
managed and McDonald's has been a great partner. The restaurant is typically half luncheon and
half dinner clientele, and is a 250 unit national chain.
In response to questions from Maureen Pearson, Mr. Buette said there are similarities with Q-
Doba in the concept, but the differences are in the food —the freshness, the recipes, etc. Q -Doha
is a little more on the fast food end.
Jerry Chomanczuk asked if there were a sign package. Mr. Stults said the signs are in the process
of being prepared and will be available for Committee review on the 2n of September.
Jon Dobosiewicz commented the photos that were circulated show multiple signs. However, at
this location, the proposal is for one sign on the east elevation. The logo on the south elevation is
less than three square feet and the Plan Commission would have the ability to approve the logo or
insignia as part of the ADLS package because it would not be addressed or considered as a sign
under the ordinance.
Ron Houck asked to see the other proto -type of buildings at Committee.
Nick Kestner said he had some real problems with the dumpster and the walk -in cooler.
Marilyn Anderson commented that this design is different from what is normally seen, and that has
a certain appeal for her.
Docket No. 112 -03 ADLS, Merchants Square Chipotle Mexican Grill was referred to the
Special Study Committee on September 2, 2003 at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall.
At this time, John Molitor then re- visited the dissolution of the Joinder Agreement between the
City of Carmel and Clay Township. The complexity has to do with the fact that the City has
embarked on annexations, and the Council has set a goal of completing the annexations within the
next year or two. As annexation occurs and the unincorporated part of the Township declines
with respect to the population of the City as it increases, the proportional representation that the
Township is entitled to goes down. Traditionally, in this community, the Township population
has been roughly two thirds of the population of the City and as a result, the Township has been
entitled to have 6 members of the Plan Commission as opposed to the 9 that statute provides for
the City.
The Department has done research based on the more recent census estimates and has determined
that the population of the Township will be less than half that of the City, after the current
annexations take effect at the first of the coming year. As a result, the Township representation
S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes \PlanCommissionMinutes \PC2003aug 16
would decline to 4 members if the Joinder were to stay in effect to 2004. With other pending
annexations, that number would decline all the way down to 1 in January 2005 and the township
population would only be about 10 or 11% of the City.
The Council has looked at the Joinder and has not yet passed a Resolution. The Council does
have under consideration a resolution that would terminate the Joinder Agreement entirely
effective the end of 2003. The effect of the termination would be the elimination of the Township
representation. However, there could be a petition to have the City take over the fringe area
jurisdiction—lawful under State law —but would require several steps to be taken such as a
petition to go to the County Commissioners, initiated either by 50 residents of the Township or by
this Commission. Such a petition would also require public hearing before the Hamilton County
Plan Commission and requires adoption by the County Commissioners and then acceptance by the
Carmel Plan Commission if all of that occurs. If this were to occur by the end of the year, the
jurisdiction could then be extended, once again, throughout the township because the fringe area
would accommodate the Township. Under the latter scenario, the County Commissioners would
have the authority to appoint two members to this Plan Commission and that would be a
permanent appointment, set at two, and would not increase or decrease according to population,
so long as the City is exercising jurisdiction within the fringe area.
The other possibility would be that if Hamilton County decided it wanted to take over the zoning
in the Township, it would require the County planning officials to draft a plan or Ordinance
Amendment that would cover the unincorporated parts of the Township. If all of those steps
were followed, it would have the effect of having the Hamilton County Plan Commission take
over this Commission's current authority in the unincorporated part and the Hamilton County
Commissioners would make the zoning decisions. Again, this would only apply so long as those
parts are outside the City limits. Once all of the annexations are complete, then this Commission
would be reduced to 9 members and there would be no more Township representatives and this
Commission and City Council would once again control the entire Township.
Open Discussion, Comments, and Questions ensued.
Pat Rice asked the motivation for this proposal.
Marilyn Anderson asked Wayne Wilson to elaborate on the proposal, since it came from City
Council.
Wayne Wilson commented that he is not speaking for the entire Council. However, regarding the
motivation, this is the first time the City Council has ever had 8 sub committees. It is also the first
time that a City Council has come out with specific policies that have to do with economic
development. The Council re- visited the Parks Joinder Agreement and took similar heat, initially,
because there were all kinds of fears that something sinister was going on. The reality was that
the Council came up with a new Parks Joinder Agreement that has not had a single problem in the
almost year it has been in effect.
Wayne Wilson said the Land Use and Annexation Committee of the Council had voted 3 -0 to
recommend to the Council that the Joinder Agreement, as currently written, be discontinued. The
S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes \P1anCommissionMinutes\PC2003aug 17
Committee stated, unequivocally, there could be no negative impact whatsoever on Park Impact
Fees, or anything that had to do with Parks Recreation. Secondly, it could not leave any part
of the Township that was not within the City without planning. The Committee further said they
would schedule a meeting with Mike Howard and the County Commissioners to discuss the
process and gather their input.
Monday evening, several people representing the Township and the Parks Board came and spoke
and everyone is in a panic as to how this will end up. When all is said and done, the Council will
do what is in the best interests of all of the residents. If doing away with the Joinder Agreement
does not work —that is fine. If all of the annexations are completed by the end of this year, 86%
of the Township will be within the City. If those figures are correct, we are only about a year
away before this whole thing would be a moot point. The motivation or timing being followed
was on a normal timeline basis as a Committee and as a Council. We will have done 60
annexations in this four -year period, and we have changed forever the landscape of Carmel and
the net assessed valuations. If there is a motivation at all, it is not shared by all 7 Council
members, since we rarely agree on everything. The idea behind this is that it doesn't hurt to work
ahead. The new City Council coming in January first has said they will continue with annexations
and complete the Clay West annexations next year. If time allows, we will also be looking at
other Joinder Agreements. This is actually not a "Joinder" Agreement but a "Zoning" Agreement,
based on an original agreement done in 1960, but no one has ever been able to find a copy of that
agreement.
Pat Rice commented that it makes no sense at all to all of a sudden bring in the County
Commissioners and the County Plan Commission into the process and it would only add
confusion. It especially makes no sense to bring this in at this time, when, in a short period of
time, through annexations, the Township representation will be down to what the Land Use
Committee wanted in the first place.
Wayne Wilson responded that technically, this process does not automatically happen and releases
must be received as the City takes over various area of zoning jurisdiction —this is something
required by law and the Council has no say in that.
Marilyn Anderson commented that if this resolution does not go forward, by the time the
annexations are complete, the Plan Commission membership is down to 9 and it is not Township
appointees in any way. The question then is why are we doing a step that will go to County
Commissioners and then see what can happen. This proposal feels "very uncomfortable." If the
end result is going to be the same spot, why are we messing with it in between?
Mr. Wilson said that some of the initial support for dissolving the Joinder was based on the fact
that there was no remedy for reducing the number of representatives and bringing the balance
back to where the City had a higher population —the representation was different. This may all be
a moot point. There will be a meeting with Mike Howard and the County people to ascertain
what has been spoken before but never made official —that the County would not have an interest
in re- acquiring or in any way controlling the zoning in Carmel. The County would sign -off and let
control stay with the City. Another consideration is the idea of the 421 Overlay. If there were
changes in the zoning jurisdiction, we would want to make certain that the standards envisioned
S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes\PC2003aug 18
for 421 were maintained. From this standpoint, it would not be desirable to bring the County into
the mix. We are just going to have to let the process go. Wayne Wilson recommended perhaps
involving the Executive Committee of the Plan Commission in any future meetings, once all of the
information has been gathered. The horse may be out of the gate a little early on this. The timing
could have been better.
Ron Houck's impression was that those persons in western Clay Township have benefited by
having representation within this body as planning and zoning issues have surfaced. Obviously,
being outside the corporate City limits, the township does not have an opportunity to vote and
there has always been a "disenfranchised" feeling. The Joinder Agreement was a partial remedy
for that in the fact that they did have representation in the process. It sounds as if the Joinder will
have a self remedy as the population shifts —the representation will decline through a natural
process. By the end of next year, if plans for annexation continue according to schedule, it would
be a moot point, and the entire township would be within the City. Even if the process were to be
slowed, it would still make sense to have some representation from the non annexed portion. It
doesn't make sense to accelerate a process that will disenfranchise some portion of the township
when the natural evolution of the existing process will take care of that problem. It makes sense
just to continue as is and let the normal evolution of the joinder process play out on its own.
Nick Kestner felt the proposal had very negative effects. Mr. Kestner has no faith in the County
Commissioners. To have the Commissioners, who have not been supportive at all, appointing
persons to represent the Township and still not be able to vote, it is still a problem. A lot of the
township wants to be annexed so that we can vote. It has always been a problem that the City
Council has authority and the Township has no way to respond by going to the polls. If you live
in the area, this is a very negative approach.
Marilyn Anderson said one cannot live in the township without the sense of disenfranchisement,
left out, those kinds of words over and over. The people within the City limits do not understand
how strong that feeling is. Annexation is desirable.
Dan Dutcher concurred; Dan also has no faith in the County's ability to look after the best interest
of the Township. It is obvious on a number of fronts that Carmel is the better opportunity to
serve the collective best interest of the Township. Ultimately, this is a lot of pain with very little
gain. Dan Dutcher felt it would be best to let the current Joinder Agreement run its course and let
the membership of the Plan Commission naturally evolve with the growth of the City.
Maureen Pearson agreed with comments made by Ron Houck and Marilyn Anderson in terms of
"disenfranchisement" and hard feelings that would result if this proposal were pushed to a
premature conclusion. The people left out will be the ones whose areas are still being developed.
Ms. Pearson felt the proposal was premature, and no point. Annex, and be done with it!
Wayne Wilson responded that financially, the annexation could not be done at one time and
services provided. Carmel must be built in sections.
Marilyn Anderson then commented that the Plan Commission is an Advisory Body—it goes to
City Council and Township residents do not vote there and we are still disenfranchised in that
S:AP1anCommission\ Minutes \P1anCommissionMinutes\PC2003aug 19
respect, no matter what the composition of the Plan Commission.
Wayne Wilson said if the Council determines that they were wrong and this is a stupid idea, then
so be it —but that is part of the process. The recommendation to the Council from the Plan
Commission is just thata recommendation. This is still at the Council Committee level. Wayne
said he had no problem going back to the Committee and sharing the comments expressed this
evening by Commission members.
Pat Rice commented that representation from the Township has been great and even though the
Township does not vote, when petitioners came before the Commission, they knew they were
being heard because they were represented in some way by Township people. Allowing the
County Commissioners to appoint two members from the Township just boggles the mind. Why
would we want that to happen? We don't want remonstrance, but this is why we want to be
annexed. This proposal is so untimely.
Marilyn Anderson said the County would appoint the Plan Commission members, and that is an
issue —that is NOT good.
Nick Kestner asked for clarification. If this is approved, there is either no representation, or there
are two representatives from the County Commissioners. The Commission would look to John
Molitor for clarification.
Dan Dutcher asked for confirmation on some of the figures recited earlier. John Molitor said the
figures were accurate and if the annexations were moved up to January first, then the township
population is down to 14% and the there would only be one representative from the township.
Wayne said the Committee meets again mid- September and the they would have to report to the
full Council and either keep it at committee or pass it on to Council. There is no remedy spelled
out in the Annual Joinder for voiding the Agreement. There are a lot of issues here and mid
September we should know something. Then, again, this may be a whole lot about nothing!
Dianna Knoll suggested the Commission look at Parks, the P -1 Zone District, and take a pro-
active stand rather than reactive.
Wayne Wilson responded that Council agrees with Dianna Knoll's suggestion and shares those
concerns. There will be legislation coming out of Council soon that will take all of the Parkland
and put it into the P -1 designation.
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 PM.
Ramona Hancock, Secretary Marilyn Anderson, Vice President
S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes\PC2003aug 20