HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 09-16-031,1`I y G`'`y of Cq,9y C ity
CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
SEPEMBER 16, 2003
MINUTES
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission opened with the Pledge of
Allegiance at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana.
Members present: Marilyn Anderson; Stephanie Blackman; Jerry Chomanczuk; Dave Cremeans;
Leo Dierckman; Wayne Haney; Ron Houck; Nick Kestner; Dianna Knoll; Maureen Pearson; Pat
Rice; Wayne Wilson, thereby establishing a quorum.
Department Staff Members Present: Michael Hollibaugh, Director; Jon Dobosiewicz, Angie
Butler. John Molitor, legal counsel, was also present.
The Minutes from the meeting of August 19, 2003 and the Special Meeting of September 2, 2003
were approved as submitted.
John Molitor reported that the proposed Ordinance that would have added the P -2 District to the
Zoning Ordinance was defeated last night by City Council. In addition, the proposal that would have
terminated the Joinder Agreement between the City and the Township on the Zoning was withdrawn
and there is an alternative proposal in the works.
Jon Dobosiewicz announced that Hearthview Residential was placed under Old Business for this
evening. The petitioner has made significant modifications to the language in the PUD and felt it was
necessary and appropriate to have additional comments from the entire Plan Commission before
returning to Subdivision Committee prior to receiving a recommendation.
Dianna Knoll asked for additional input from Wayne Wilson regarding the Council's decision on the P-
2 District proposal.
Wayne Wilson responded that Parks is contained in P -1; P -2 allowed for a living history museum. It
was the decision of the Council, rather than having a separate designation that was directed at the only,
living history museum in Carmel, that the proposal would come back as an Amendment to the P -1
District rather than creating a separate classification.
Marilyn Anderson highlighted the procedure for Public Hearings for the benefit of the public in
attendance.
S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\Memo\2003 Sept
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
H. Public Hearings
1h. Docket No. 78 -03 PP Amend; (03050038);
The Lakes at Hamilton Place (Formerly: Eagle Ridge Subdivision)
The applicant is requesting approval of an amended Primary Plat to allow a private
street. The site is located on the north side of West 116th Street, 1/4 mile east of
US 421. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence Estate. The petitioner also seeks
approval of the following Subdivision Waiver:
78 -03a SW (03050039) SCO 6.3.20 private streets
Filed by David Sexton of Schneider Engineering for Dura Development, Inc.
Charlie Frankenberger, attorney with Nelson Frankenberger, East 98 Street, Indianapolis,
appeared before the Commission representing Dura Builders in its request for private streets in a
portion of a residential subdivision known as Lakes at Hamilton Place.
Lakes at Hamilton Place is located in western Clay Township, west of Shelborne Road, one
quarter mile east of US 421 Michigan Road. The real estate is bordered on the north by 121 and
on the south by 116 Street. To the immediate east of the real estate is the Pule community,
Long Branch Estates.
Plat approval was previously obtained and the only change requested this evening is that a private
street be allowed to permit a gated entry. Mr. Frankenberger displayed a rendering of the
approved plat allocating the real estate into 214 lots, common areas, and internal streets. There
are essentially four sections: a section for 70 -foot lots; a section for 80 -foot lots; a section for 90-
foot lots; and an estate section for 24, 120 -foot lots. The estate section is in the southeastern
portion of the real estate. Dura Builders is requesting permission to make the 24 -lot estate
section a gated community. In order for this to happen, a waiver must be obtained to permit
private streets.
The 24 -lot section is unique —all lots will be estate size and the homes will be very expensive.
Currently, there is one home in this section, and it contains 24,000 square feet. It is hoped that
this particular site will host the 2005 Home -A -Rama.
The private street is only being requested as it applies to the 24 estate lots, not the entire 214 lots.
It is noteworthy that the estate section is secluded and that ingress /egress through the estate
section will not involve travel through the other three neighborhoods.
The petitioner has conferred with the Fire Department and Law Enforcement Officials, and they
have indicated no problem with a gated community. However, they have requested that a squelch
button be used for keypad, immediate emergency access and that the gates be "break- away;" the
petitioner is in agreement. The petitioner will be meeting with Police and Fire officials to learn
their preferred mechanisms and those will then be implemented. The only difference between the
approved plat and the request is that the streets within the estate section will be private streets.
Other than the gate enhancement, there will be no physical difference per the Subdivision Control
Ordinance and the streets will be built to public standards. Even though the streets will be
private, they will indistinguishable. However, they will be maintained by mandatory assessments
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\Memo \2003Sept 2
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
paid by the owners of the lots within the estate section. It is believed that the gates will establish
a grand entrance for the estate section as depicted in the informational booklets.
In conclusion, the petitioner is requesting private streets in the estate section only so as to
accomplish a gated entrance. Nothing about the approved plat will be changed, as per the
Ordinance.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to the proposal; the
following appeared:
Remonstrance: Individual Opposition
Kevin Sweeny, 4575 West 116 Street, was not notified of the approval of the plan presented
this evening which does not coincide with the plan approved in 1997. Mr. Sweeny was concerned
with the access cut onto 1 16 Streetit is different from the original proposal, and is too close to
US 421 Michigan Road. No one in Mr. Sweeny's neighborhood was notified of the change in
access onto 116 Street; it is definitely a change from the original plat that was filed
approximately 5 years ago.
Public Hearing was then closed.
Jon Dobosiewicz stated that the petitioner appeared before the Commission in 1997 for plat
approval —that plat was different than the one shown this evening. The Secondary Plat was filed,
but was never moved forward. Earlier this year, the petitioner revised his design based upon the
comments made by the Department and their desire to preserve the landscape perimeter as well as
maintain the existing lakes on the property. That plan is identical to the one shown this evening
and was submitted to the Executive Committee which functions as the Plat Committee for the
Plan Commission. The Plat Committee approved this conditional secondary plat and allowed the
Department to review the construction plans by section. The future Secondary Plat is consistent
with this plan and is a process outlined by Statute and covered in the Rules of Procedure.
Marilyn Anderson asked if the street was at this location when the initial plat was approved by the
Executive Committee.
Jon Dobosiewicz responded that the street location has shifted farther west —the original proposal
was 5/600 feet farther east than originally proposed. The plan the Executive Committee acted
upon went to the Technical Advisory Committee and was reviewed by the County. The location
for the access street or extension of West Road to 116 Street has been approved by the County
Engineer.
Charlie Frankenberger stated that the original plat was for 278 lots; the number of lots was
reduced to 214 lots. The plat that was approved complied with the Residential Open Space
Ordinance and provided substantial tree preservation. The entrance on the revised plat has been
shifted to the west for two reasons. One reason is that one of the adjoining parcels is owned by
the Chens and not controlled by Dura Builders. For the entrance to remain at its old location
would have necessitated dedication of right -of -way from the adjacent parcel, and that was not
forthcoming. Therefore, the entrance had to be shifted to the west and was aligned with the
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\Memo \2003Sept 3
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
driveway on the south side of the real estate. The Secondary Plat that was approved was
determined by the Executive Committee to be not only consistent with the Primary Plat but to be
a vast improvement to the Primary Plat.
Ron Houck questioned how substantial a change in the plat would have to be before adjoining
property owners were noticed and additional public hearing held.
Jon Dobosiewicz stated that the Executive Committee functions as the Plat Committee. The
Executive Committee could have denied this and suggested the petitioner file a Primary Plat
Amendment and return through the process again. The petitioner made the changes at the request
of the Department. The Department felt that there were substantial modifications that were being
made that were in furtherance of the goals of the Subdivision Control Ordinance. The Plat
Committee /Executive Committee had the authority to approve this change.
Ron Houck was concerned that this approval had by- passed the public process. This is a
substantial change, albeit a positive one.
Charlie Frankenberger explained that the access had to be shifted farther west due to right -of -way
acquisition considerations. The access aligns with the driveway on the opposite side of the street.
Jon Dobosiewicz further stated that the County Highway Department had reviewed this and
approved the change.
Pat Rice agreed that the change is a vast improvement in the plan, but Pat also echoed concern
about the public process.
Docket No. 78 -03 PP Amend, (03050038) The Lakes at Hamilton Place (formerly Eagle
Ridge Subdivision) was referred to the Subdivision Committee for further review at 7:00 PM
on October 7, 2003 in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall.
Note: Public input at the Committee level is at the discretion of the Committee Chair.
2h. Docket No. 118 -03 PV #03080004) Walter's Rolling Acres- Plat Vacation
The applicant seeks to vacate lots within this subdivision in order to develop the Clay
Terrace Development. The site is located at southwest of 146th Street and US 31. The
site is zoned PUD/Planned Use Development.
Filed by Joe Downs for Clay Terrace Partners, LLC.
Mike Cook, attorney, with offices at One Indiana Square, Suite 1800, Indianapolis, appeared
before the Commission representing the petitioner. The applicant seeks to vacate three lots and
two partial lots that are a part of the Rolling Acres Subdivision.
The vacation is sought in connection with the Clay Terrace development for two purposes. One
is to accommodate retention/detention facilities that are proposed as a part of that development.
The second purpose is to permit and facilitate the extension of Clay Terrace Boulevard from US
31 as it meanders through the Clay Terrace development west of US 31 and north to 146 Street.
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\Memo \2003Sept 4
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
The petitioner is also seeking part of vacation of the lot lines of lots 4 and 5, vacation of the
easements that currently extend along the north side of lots 1 and 2, and vacation of the
easements that exist along the south side of lots 4 and 5.
This property is generally located in the area southwest of 146 Street and US 31 and lies to the
north of the Eagle Creek Nursery Site. The site referenced this evening is the site of the former
Carmel Motel.
Mr. Cook stated that the only thing being sought this evening is to effect the lots being talked
about and no other part of the Rolling Acres Subdivision. There was an earlier proceeding with
respect to the subdivision immediately to the north, the Walters Re -plat Subdivision, tracts A and
B located closer to US 31; subsequently Walters Drive was vacated by City Council.
Mr. Cook commented that the conditions in the platted lots have changed so as to defeat the
original purpose of the plat. This probably happened at the time the Carmel Motel was built and
encroached on the existing lot lines in the area. It is felt to be in the best interest of the public to
vacate this plat and to permit the extension of Clay Terrace Boulevard and also permit the related
retention/detention facilities that will be constructed by the County. The value of that part of the
land within the plat that is contiguous to the lots is not going to be diminished by this vacation.
The property is zoned for a PUD and is being developed as a PUD. There is no request for a
change in zoning —the petitioner merely seeks to further the development.
Members of the public were invited to speak in support of the petition; no one appeared.
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petition; the following appeared:
Remonstrance: Individual Opposition
Ray Brining, 35 Circle Drive, Walters Rolling Acres -has not seen details of the changes and
would like to see what the proposed changes are.
Ann Ezrell, 12 Circle Drive, Walters Rolling Acres. Has not seen any engineered survey or
drawings of what will happen in her area. The proposed changes will drastically affect the values
of the homes in the neighborhood and change the makeup of the neighborhood of 30 single family
residence dwellings. The neighborhood has worked with the US 31 Overlay Committee and
helping plan for 5 years out. The current proposal is a sudden, unexpected change that does not
seem to take into consideration the 31 Overlay. The detention ponds are a major concern because
of the 14 children in the neighborhood.
Robert Borne, 7 Circle Drive, Walters Rolling Acres; also questioned the detention ponds and
the affect they may have on well water in the Subdivision and the high water level in the area.
Jim Chadow, 140 Ewing Plaza, Walters Plaza. Meetings have been scheduled with the Lauth
Development group, but the area has been a "war zone" to date. Prior to this major construction,
provisions should have been made for a barrier, the developer should have been made to follow
the City Ordinances, i.e. the Mud Ordinance; the noise from the construction equipment that runs
beginning at 6:00 AM 7 days per week does not follow the Noise Ordinance.
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\Memo \2003Sept 5
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
Jerry Conner, 36 Circle Drive, Walters Rolling Acres, said he did not receive any public notice
of the proposed changes.
Ann Ezrell, 12 Circle Drive, said Lauth Development is re- engineering the street south of Walter
Drive —How does this happen without notice and public hearing? How can we be sure we are
advised of the process?
Rebuttal: Mike Cook
The only question before the Commission this evening is the vacation of the indicated lots. There
are no plans to discuss any other portion of the Rolling Acres Subdivision. Circle Drive is the
drive located immediately off of US 31. One can see the construction under way on the east side
of US 31 and where the cross will be over to the west side for Clay Terrace Boulevard —that is
being done by the County —that will be a County road. The retention/detention facilities
discussed will be County owned and County maintained. To the extent there is any further
activity attempted or proposed, or any extension of this or any other commercial development in
this area, it would be subject to the considerable procedures that are in place and intended to
provide the pubic an opportunity to speak pursuant to the Ordinances. Along with the notice to
the homeowners was included a copy of a letter asking for a telephone call with comments and
concerns. The petitioner is still willing to meet and talk with the homeowners to address any
matters they are unclear about, how the proposed vacation will impact them and the balance of
the subdivision. There is a lot of construction traffic on site, and most of it is County road and
retention pond related.
Department Comments, Jon Dobosiewicz. The Department has indicated that this matter is
similar to one in which the Plan Commission reviewed several months ago regarding the two lots
in the subdivision to the north in addition to lots where Keystone Way was to traverse through the
platted portion of Danbury Estates. In the Department's view, this is really the conclusion to the
process started with the rezone and continued for the last 18 months with the Plan Commission
review and approval of a preliminary development plan for the PUD. It was the case where the
petitioner before us this evening did not have control over this section of the development and
could not file the necessary petition to vacate the lots.
With regard to any future modifications to the Development Plan or future commercial
development in the area, the surrounding residents would be notified and would have an
opportunity to participate in the process. Just to reiterate, this is a housekeeping measure. The
petitioner is correct —this should have been done prior to the Carmel Motel being constructed on
this site —the lots within Walters Rolling Acres should have been vacated at that time to allow the
Carmel Motel to be constructed.
Based upon public comments heard this evening, this may warrant forwarding to Committee for
further review and to address some of the issues related to the plat vacation.
Dave Cremeans commented that this process has been continuing for approximately two years.
The request this evening is simply to vacate lots within the platted subdivision. However, the
overall question heard this evening was "What is the plan Well, the plan has pretty much been
approved and has been through public hearing and a series of meetings in the Council Chambers
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\Memo \2003Sept 6
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
and Caucus Rooms as well. The plans are available at the Department of Community Services
and can be reviewed by the public during office hours.
Wayne Wilson was confident the Lauth Property Group would meet with the area residents and
come to some resolution. Wayne Wilson referred to the noise and mud ordinance problem in this
area. Mr. Wilson said he would meet with the Police Chief personally and see what could be done
in the way of enforcement.
Ron Houck said that most of the objections are not about the plat vacation, but only as it relates
to the Clay Terrace development. There was a legal requirement of notice, and all properties two
deep or 660 feet whichever is lesser, should have received notice. In addition, there was notice in
the newspaper regarding the development. If there are any doubts as to whether or not notice
procedure was followed, this can be confirmed by return receipt cards.
Docket No. 118 -03 PV #03080004) Walter's Rolling Acres -Plat Vacation was referred to the
Subdivision Committee for further review at 7:00 PM on October 7, 2003 in the Caucus Rooms
of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana.
Note: The Department is to provide proof of certified mail receipts for persons noticed. The
Lauth Group is to provide improved aerials showing surrounding property owners.
3h. Docket No. 123 -03 DP /ADLS; (03080009); 124 -03 PP; (03080010)
Townhomes of Range Line 340 Building
The applicant seeks Development Plan and Architectural Design, Lighting,
Landscaping Signage approval for an office building and Primary Plat approval
for a two lot subdivision. The site is located at 340 North Range Line Road.
Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson and Frankenberger for L.E. Investments, LLC.
Jim Nelson, 12481 Medalist Parkway, Carmel, attorney with Nelson and Frankenberger appeared
before the Commission representing the applicant. Steve Schutz was in attendance on behalf of
L.E. Investments, LLC. The proposed development involves an un- platted parcel of real estate in
the northwest quadrant of Old Carmel. This project represents a continuation of the revitalization
that is occurring in Old Towne Carmel. A very visible part of the revitalization is the Monon
Corridor and the improvements that include period -style light fixtures, street signage, new
sidewalks, new curbs, and brick inlays at inter- sections.
The plan presented this evening is for the 340 Building and represents repair, revitalization, and
re -use of an existing residence for office use. The plan also represents the new construction of 4,
two -story townehomes within a single building.
The photograph displayed is the former residence existing at the southwest corner of Fourth
Street and Range Line Road and has a common address of 340 North Range Line Road. This
former residence is being repaired and will be restored and re -used for office use. The site is
unique—it is 340 feet in length and runs from First Avenue eastward to Range Line Road. The
site is 66 feet wide and bears two zoning classifications, the part nearest Range Line Road is B -5
Business, and the part nearest to First Avenue is zoned R -4 Residence of multi family. Under the
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\Memo \2003Sept 7
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
Old Towne District Ordinance, the property lies within two different sub areas. The area nearest
Range Line Road is historic; the area nearest First Avenue is the character sub -area.
With respect to renovation of the existing home, when completed, it will have a new roof, new
windows, and of course, the necessary repairs will have been made. The finished product will be
painted light gray. The townehomes represent new construction on the undeveloped portion of
the site and will contain a one car garage, 1800 square feet in size, the front (facing Fourth Street)
will be all brick and will wrap the first floor of the remaining three sides. The other portion, the
ends and the back, will be hardi -plank siding. The construction materials and color samples were
displayed.
The applicant is requesting primary plat approval and that the property be divided into two lots,
one lot to contain the office building, the other to contain townehomes. The informational
booklet contains a landscape plan and a site plan showing the division of the real estate into two
lots as well as a rendering of the single sign located on Range Line Road identifying the 340
Building. The proposal being presented by the applicant is what was contemplated by the authors
of the Old Towne District Ordinance.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to the petition; no one
appeared. Questions and comments were then invited from the public.
Public Comments and Questions:
Laura Tassell, representing Robinson Enterprises, owner of Old Towne Apartments located
directly south of the proposed development. Ms. Tassell said the Townehomes look great.
However, Ms. Tassell questioned the close proximity of the development to Old Towne
Apartments. Ms. Tassell was concerned with the noise generated from the construction, the
appropriateness of the design as being in keeping with the Old Towne theme, and the closeness of
the buildings without adequate buffer.
Jim Nelson stated that the petitioner meets the setback requirements of the R -4 District. The rear
of the townehomes will contain a small patio area that will be enclosed by a wooden fence, again
with the setbacks as required under the R -4 zoning.
Department Report, Jon Dobosiewicz. This proposal is actually two petitions: one for a primary
plat that would create two lots. One lot is the existing home that will be converted to an office
building and parking lot; the other lot will contain the proposed townehome buildings.
The Department is requesting this item be sent to the Special Study. In addition to the
applications filed, there have been two other petitions filed. One petition is for site design review
by the Department to review characteristics of the townehomes with respect to the Ordinance
Requirements. The other petition is for a Variance application to be heard by the Board of
Zoning Appeals regarding a setback from First Avenue. The variance request will probably be on
the October Agenda for the BZA.
Nick Kestner was concerned about the garage doors on the townehomes facing the street —under
the Old Towne Ordinance, this is not allowed. Perhaps they could be disguised.
S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\Memo\2003 Sept
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
Docket Nos. 123 -03 DP /ADLS, and 124 -03 PP Townehomes of Range Line, 340 Building,
were referred to the Special Study Committee for further review at 7:00 PM on October 7,
2003 in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana.
4h. Docket Nos. 126 -03 Z (03080012); 127 -03 Z (03080013)
Burlingame Subdivision Rezone
The applicant seeks to Rezone 67.295 acres± from S- 1/Very Low Intensity
Residence to R -2 /Residence and also seeks to rezone 9.13 acres± from S- 1/Very
Low Intensity Residence to R -4 /Residence. The site is located at 13619 Shelborne
Road.
Filed by Steve Pittman on behalf of Shelburn Family Limited Trust.
Steve Pittman of Pittman Partners, 370 Sanner Court, appeared before the Commission
representing the applicant. Neal Smith of Pittman Partners was also in attendance as well as Bill
Fehribach and Joe Ringle of A &F Engineering, Traffic Consultants.
The applicant is seeking to rezone approximately 77 acres of land located at 13501 Shelborne
Road. The rezone request is for the entire property from S -1 Residential to R -2 Residential and
R -4 Residential. The site is located east of and adjacent to Shelborne Road and 5 individual lots
off of Shelborne Road. North of 131 Street and adjacent to a 32 acre parcel owned by the City
of Carmel, currently being developed as a Street Fleet Facility. South of 141 Street and adjacent
to properties zoned S -1. West of and adjacent to properties zoned S -1 —part of a development
known as Shelborne Park and The Ridge at Hayden Run.
Burlingame is owned by the Shelburn Family Limited Partnership.
The presentation included a map of the subject area, aerial photographs of the site and
surrounding land uses, the Thoroughfare Plan for the City of Carmel, a site development plan,
townehome and single family building elevations, and pictures and streetscapes. Also included
was a character illustration of the view looking across the Carmel Dad's Club fields at the front
elevations of the townehomes and a planning document prepared by the Carmel Dad's Club
utilizing their 2003 to 2008 Facility Strategic Plan.
The property is viewed as transitional in nature and requires a plan to minimi the impact of
heavy commercial and industrial use to the south with a higher density, townehome product.
Public and recreational uses are being integrated into a residential community and a collector
street is being extended. It is believed the proposed use will support and complement the
neighboring uses. To the east lies the Village of WestClay, and to the south are the new
elementary school and the new junior high school.
Based upon its unique properties, Burlingame is divided into three distinct areas. At the south
end of the site are 12.149 acres and the subject of the rezone request to R -4 /Residential. This site
will consist of three -story townehomes, similar to those seen at WestClay and Hazel Dell. The
average sale price of the townehomes will be approximately $175,000 and grouped into buildings
of 5 units, all-brick front elevation, and brick side on the south side of the southern -most building
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\Memo \2003Sept 9
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
and the north end of the northern-most building that faces Shelborne Road. The intention is to
place brick on the townehomes and have the closest proximity to the exterior roadways.
Wrapped inside the townehomes are three, full -size football fields being built by the Carmel Dad's
Club. These fields will be fully developed by Pittman Partners and will include properly crowning
the fields, all grading and seeding, a full irrigation system, goal posts, and a fully paved parking
lot. The area will be called Burlingame Fields and will be controlled and maintained by the
Carmel Dad's Club. When the fields are not in use by the Dad's Club, they will be available for
use by the Burlingame residents. Burlingame Fields will be owned by the Burlingame
Homeowners Association, who will then enter into a 99 -year lease with the Carmel Dad's Club
for $1.00 and other valuable considerations. The field will be maintained in a manner
commensurate with a first- class, residential neighborhood. The fields will not contain any
lighting.
The southern portion of the site has a setback from Shelborne Park of over 250 feet—similar to
the storage buildings on the Street Fleet facility, and separated by a water feature. On the eastern
border of Shelborne Park and Burlingame, Burlingame only backs up to 5 home sites and the
entire eastern border will be subject to buffer yard requirements.
The remaining 64.2 acres to the north are the subject of the rezone to R -2. This area will have
210 home sites. Along Shelborne Road can be seen the extension of 136 Street through the
property, and connecting with the Ridge at Hayden Run. The northern entry along Shelborne
Road would be eliminated per the request of the neighbors. The perimeter landscape treatments
in these areas would meet all buffer yard requirements. The last section of home sites is south of
136 Street and adjacent to Shelborne Park. These lots are "flex- lots," depending on the demand
in the market place.
The petitioner is willing to make the following commitments regarding the development of this
property. No pole- mounted street lights north of the exposed, 136 Street extension. All
townehome residential units will have their own deeded lot and limited to the property zoned R -4
as described in Exhibit A. All townehome residential units will have an all- brick, front elevation.
The townehome buildings that face Shelborne Road, the southern-most building adjacent to the
Carmel Transportation Facility will also have brick on the southern end of the building. The
townehome building closest to the 136 Street Road extension will also have brick on the
northern end of the building. All perimeter landscape treatments will meet the requirements of the
Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance, Section 26.4, Perimeter Buffering Requirements. The owner
will install 230 feet of 6 -foot, shadow -box fence on the southern property line, and 160 feet of 6-
foot shadow -box fence on the eastern property line, commonly known as 13535 Shelborne Road.
The owner will install 328 feet of chain -link fence on the north property line and 118 feet of
chain -link fence on the east property line known as 13549 Shelborne Road. This fencing will
replace the existing farm fence on the property that is in need of repair. The owner will submit an
acceptable landscape plan during the primary platting process. The landscape plan will include
trees that are balled and burlap, and transplant trees with a caliper size of 3 to 6 inches in the
buffer yard area adjacent to 13535 and 13549 Shelborne Road—positioned as agreed to by the
homeowners.
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\Memo \2003Sept 10
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
The owner will install new farm fencing on the north property line between the real estate and
13881 Shelborne Road, and any place where the fencing is missing or in disrepair. In addition,
the owner will install a bufferyard adjacent to 13881 Shelborne Road that is two times that which
is required by the bufferyard ordinance. Any time prior to May 1, 2005, the owner of 13881
Shelborne Road can request the owner /developer to install a wetlands habitat on the eastern -most
200 feet of 13881 Shelborne Road. The owner further commits that there will be only one curb
cut off of Shelborne Road and that would be the extension of 136 Street, located between 13535
Shelborne Road and the Carmel Transportation Facility.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of this petition; the following appeared:
Brad Little, Executive Director of the Carmel Dad's Club, 963 C1ayBay Circle, Cicero, Indiana
encouraged the Commission to support this proposal. The Dad's Club is thrilled to be a part of
this plan.
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to this petition; the following
appeared:
Debbie Winchester, 13881 Shelborne Road, wanted to clarify that they have not agreed to
wetlands on their property, inclusion of landscaping, or egress from public on her property —the
offer has been made and they are under consideration, but nothing in writing as yet. Ms.
Winchester has no problem with development if done with adequate buffer to preserve rural flavor
of the area. Ms. Winchester requested the Commission deny the rezone request, since the
property can be developed under current zoning with less impact on surrounding property
owners. There could definitely be a more creative approach for the greenspace/buffer that would
benefit the neighbors —this proposal only benefits the Dad's Club.
Marsha Henry, 13850 Shelborne Road, stated there is no organized remonstrance because the
zoning is all S -1 on Shelborne and no neighborhoods back up or are adjacent to this proposed
rezone. The rezone to smaller lot sizes was not noticed to property owners—notice was never
received as to the change in zoning. With this current proposal, traffic will increase; speed limits
have been raised to 50 mph, and there is no stop sign on Shelborne at 141S Street —the site of
numerous accidents and at least one fatality. Another concern is the view from Shelborne Road
traditionally a scenic, pleasant route into town; would like the view to remain rather than changed
to piles of dirt with sparsely planted trees. Greenspace along the road would be nice, however,
football fields with parking lots are not necessarily greenspace and only generate more noise and
traffic. Not opposed to development but requests continuity in the area that would improve the
surroundings.
Brian Miller, 13535 Shelborne Road, concerned with lot sizes /density, minimum green space,
minimum buffer area, and type of fencing.
Lee Raney, 13339 Beckwith Drive, in the adjacent Drees Community, agreed with comments
made regarding density.
Justin Kim, 13323 Beckwith Drive, said the proposed development is not consistent with
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\Memo \2003Sept 11
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
surrounding area. The developer should be prepared to install wrought iron fence in keeping with
present fencing rather than chain -link.
Deborah Pickett, 11668 Rosemeade Drive, Rosemeade Commons, does not live in the
immediate area, but agreed with the density comments —also does not like chain link fencing.
Would like to see more green space and biking/hiking paths incorporated into the plan. The
traffic volume and required parking for the three fields are a concern. It is questionable that the
noise and traffic generated by the football fields would be acceptable to "empty nesters."
Helen Stanley, 3361 West 141 Street, questioned the drainage situation in the area. If this
development were approved, would like the same type of covered lights used in the Centex
project —glad there are no plans for lighting the football field. Also, unfamiliar with the term
"wetlands habitat," and asked for definition/explanation. Noteworthy: There is a coyote den in
the immediate area. Will there be a swimming pool/recreational area with this development?
Currently, soccer starts early in the weekend mornings at Badger Field- -will this be the same time
schedule? Traffic is a major concern.
Questions for Committee Review: Explain the difference in density between the zones and the
application of requirements for greenspace in each zone; where will parking occur for football
fields, where for special events, and how much parking is allocated for regular practice? What are
the lot sizes on the perimeter and in the interior? There is no marked difference between
segments of the community at $175,000 or $200,000. Explain football fields as an amenity for
this type of development (empty nester.) What provisions are there on the Fleet Street property
for landscaping? Specific information to be submitted by Dad's Club regarding number of games,
number of events, number of players and practices, times of day, days of the week, etc. Explore a
possible commitment as to maximum use of the Dad's Club facility.
Rebuttal:
Steve Pittman said there are people that are threatened by change and development. The common
area is a different philosophy and putting the greenspace into one large, useable area is a way to
accommodate and provide an amenity for the Carmel Dad's Club. The "empty nester" is a niche
that is vastly under served in the Carmel community. There is a demand for this type of housing,
whether or not they choose to be close to the Dad's Club fields, this product will sell!
Locating all of the Dad's Club facilities at Badger Park promotes and increases cross -town traffic.
The chain -link fence was agreed to at the suggestion of that particular property owner; it is not
an area seen by the general public. There will be walking trails around the lakes and the 10 -foot
asphalt trails will be continued along Shelborne Road as well as match -up any trails from the
adjacent sites. There will be no swimming pool —the amenities and dollars are going into a first
class football complex that will be available for use by the homeowners when not being used by
the Dad's Club. Any questions regarding traffic should be directed to A &F Engineering. This
proposal is "thinking outside the box," but this is a workable plan next to the Fleet Street facility.
Department Report, Jon Dobosieiwicz. The petitioner initially showed a typical subdivision for
this area and an area to the north for the Dad's Club. The Department asked to see something
incorporated into the design of the neighborhood while also meeting the guidelines of the
Thoroughfare Plan and connectivity between subdivisions. The proposal is a transition of uses
from the Street Fleet facility to the north and to the east, adjacent to undeveloped areas as well as
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\Memo \2003Sept 12
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
developed communities. This project would come back to the Plan Commission after zoning as a
primary plat for the area where we would see definitive layout for the site. Commitments would
then be negotiated and forwarded on to the City Council with a site rendering in order to provide
better definition to the proposal.
The Department had asked the petitioner to move in this direction so we could begin to explore
other ways and more ways in which the Plan Commission could further the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan. One of the ways specifically identified in the Comp Plan was the support
and utilization of the Plan Commission's role to further the goals of the Dad's Club. The
Department felt it was important for this developer to come up with a plan that did not just set the
Dad's Club issues aside but rather try to incorporate them into the design. This was accomplished
by bringing the Dad's Club fields farther south on the property and surrounding them with a
higher intensity use —the townehomes adjacent to the Street Fleet facility. Another element of
commitment was to develop a portion of the site with ranch style homes.
The Department has received a copy of the commitments that were verbalized by Steve Pittman
tonight, and these commitments can be reviewed in depth at the Committee meeting on October
7 th
Ron Houck asked about the difference in the density between R -4 and R -2. Also, what is the
difference in the greenspace requirements between the two zoning districts? Ron asked for
clarification regarding the parking for the football fields and how much parking has been allocated
to serve the needs? What is the size of the lots on the perimeter? The selling price of the homes
does not seem like a marked difference ($175,000 and $200,000) and is this really serving two
different segments of the market? These questions should be explored at Committee.
Pat Rice questioned football fields in terms of an amenity for empty nesters.
Marilyn Anderson asked what provisions are in place for landscaping the Fleet Street property
and how that will fit in with the entire, overall development. Also, some specific information
should be provided regarding the Dad's Club. For instance, the number of games, number of
practices, number of events, number of players involved with each of those, times of practices and
days of the week. We need to look at the intensity of use. Perhaps a commitment as to the
maximum use could be tendered.
Docket Nos. 126 -03 Z and 127 -03 Z, Burlingame Subdivision Rezone were referred to
Subdivision Committee for further review at 7:00 PM, October 7, 2003 in the Caucus Rooms of
City Hall, Carmel, Indiana.
Following a short recess, the Commission continued with the business at hand.
I. Old Business
li. Docket No. 77 -03 Z; (03050030); Hearthview Residential PUD
S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\Memo\2003 Sept
13
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
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 1 16 Street and the Monon Trail.
Filed by Filed by Joseph M. Scimia of Baker and Daniels for Hearthview
Residential.
Joe Scimia, attorney with Baker Daniels, 600 East 96 Street, Indianapolis, appeared before
the Commission representing the applicant. Kelli Lawrence was also in attendance on behalf of
Hearthview Residential.
This item appears on the Plan Commission Agenda this evening, even though it has not had
referral from the Committee. This item has been continued several times in order to allow the
petitioner an opportunity to meet with adjacent homeowners and those persons entitled to public
notice of the proposal. The petitioner met with interested parties on July 15 to discuss this
proposal. The Donnybrook HOA did meet on this proposal and did move favorably on the
revised proposal.
The review this evening is not for public hearing but primarily for informational purposes; the
revised proposal will be reviewed by the Subdivision Committee on October 7 The petitioner
felt it was important for the entire Plan Commission to have an opportunity for comment. The
revised plan will also be reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee. For the members of the
public in attendance this evening, there will be an opportunity at the Committee level to provide
input. Mr. Scimia referred to a letter from Bruce Barker, area resident, that was received earlier
in the day.
Mr. Scimia pointed out the differences in the revised plan as compared to the initial proposal. The
original proposal included a total of 29 units-28 units in 7 buildings, townehouse structures in
groups of 3, 4, and 5, with the existing residence to remain. The density was computed to be 4.5
units per acre. The current proposal includes 21 units in total20 new units plus the existing
home site. The overall density is now computed to be 3.297 units per acre. The Comprehensive
Plan recommends both low and medium intensity for this particular site —low being I to 3 units
per acre, medium being 3 to 5 units per acre. The instant proposal fits within the average of the
recommended density.
Another change in the plan is all -brick exteriors except for the gables. The garages have also been
reconfigured so as not to protrude extensively from the building facade. The garages now only
extend 2 to 4 feet depending on the elevation.
The other significant change is in the size of the unit from 1400 square feet minim to 1800
square feet minimum. All of the homes have been redesigned along the Monon Trail to have
porches and more an appearance consistent with comments received from the Department and
area residents.
Due to the additional improvements in architecture and building materials, the price point has
been adjusted to between $275,000 and $325,000. The decrease in the number of units will have
a positive effect on the traffic on 1 16 Street. Again, all units will be "For Sale." The PUD also
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\Memo \2003Sept 14
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
specifies that no one can own more than one unit and that they are to be designed and used as a
permanent residence.
The current zoning of this particular site does not allow attached dwelling units. The buildings
are duplexes, for common terms, single family residences with one common wall. Currently that
is not allowed on the property. The R -1 zoning, under the Open Space Ordinance, would allow
20 units; the current proposal is for 21 units. The units would have to have a minimum square
footage of 1100 square feet; the proposal is for 1800 square feet. If developed under R -1, there
would be no requirements for architectural design or specific landscape or buffer requirements. A
developer could plat 20 units on this site, 1100 square foot homes, except they would not be
attached.
The current proposal is for 10 buildings located along a single cul -de -sac. The road configuration
was changed to comply with comments received from the TAC Committee and also to break up
the cul -de -sac so there is another turn around to the front. The southern property line now
contains a landscape berm, heavily wooded, with a series of shrubs and trees. Also, the view will
be the rear of a single unit that will match up with the homes in R -2 north of the project.
Comments from Commission members:
Ron Houck questioned base plantings for planting strips relocated? No reference for measuring
caliper of trees.
Pat Rice questioned use of the word "intended" for owner /occupied use rather than the initial
developer —does this leave it open for the developer to rent or lease these homes. Needs
clarification.
Nick Kestner was not in favor of a PUD at this location. However, we need to look at the
architectural design. With the amount of floor space, adjoined, they look at little "squat" like an
office park. There also needs to be a street cut to the property to the east.
Public Comments:
Bruce Barker, 11575 Freeport Drive, west of the Monon Trail, has reviewed the revised plan
and states that issues he brought up at the initial hearing have still not been addressed.
Preservation of property values is a concern. There has been little communication and no meeting
between him and the developer. Requests the Commission follow the Comprehensive Plan for
this area which shows low intensity development /single family dwellings.
Deborah Pickett, 11668 Rosemeade Drive, said there is no provision in the plan for landscaping
along the Monon Trail and that impacts people walking along the Monon Trail who would like to
escape from homes and houses.
Docket No. 77 -03 Z, Hearthview Residential PUD was referred to the Subdivision Committee
for further review at 7:00 PM on October 7, 2003 in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall, Carmel,
Indiana.
At this time, Maureen Pearson exited the meeting and did not return.
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\Memo \2003Sept 15
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
2i. 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.
Boyd Zoccola, Hokanson Companies, 107 North Pennsylvania Street, Indianapolis appeared
before the Commission representing the applicant. Also in attendance: Architect Diana Brenner;
Jim Wheeler, attorney with Coots, Henke Wheeler; Frank Swiss, property owner /seller.
Mr. Hokanson reported that the development sign for Carmel Center West is in the northwest
corner of the property —Union Federal will have no name recognition on the development sign.
The building is oriented with the drive thru on the east -end. At the committee level, the petitioner
had committed to plant mature trees that would screen the drive -thru from 106 Street.
A landscape architect will be participating in the selection of trees in order to screen the drive
thru.
Additional plantings in the development plan was also a concern expressed by the Department.
The seller of the property, Frank Swiss, has agreed to plant additional shade trees in order to
screen the dumpster. The remaining issues raised were architectural in nature or dealt with the
fagade and the materials on the fagade.
Diana Brenner of Brenner Design addressed the architectural issues. The sandstone has been
eliminated, a lot of EFIS has been eliminated, and the brick has been extended into the upper
areas and the columns up to the eaves on both sides. The front, main entrance window has been
broken -up and details added. The split -face block now shows as more red brick color than the
orange /salmon color previously, as well as the trim.
Department Report, Jon Dobosiewicz. The Department is recommending this item be approved
subject to two conditions: 1) Placement of two additional trees within the open area adjacent to
the existing building on lot one; and 2) Filing by the owner of the appropriate sign permit for the
center identification ground sign illustrated at the September 2 nd Committee meeting.
Dianna Knoll reported that the Committee had voted 7 -0 for a favorable recommendation. The
petitioner worked with the committee and has been responsive to committee suggestions. The
end product looks good.
Pat Rice asked for clarification on signage. Window signageis it allowed?
Jon Dobosiewicz responded that the property would be permitted two signs with frontage on
106 and Commerce Drive. One sign is illustrated on the north elevation, the other on the west
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\Memo \2003Sept 16
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
elevation —the sign interior to the window. The Department is considering the window sign as
the second sign on the property.
Ron Houck moved for approval of Docket No. 110 -03 DP /Amend ADLS, West Carmel
Center, Block B, Lot 1, Union Federal Bank of Indianapolis, subject to the following
conditions. 1) Placement of two additional trees within the open area adjacent to the existing
building on lot one; and 2) Filing by the owner of the appropriate sign permit for the center
identification ground sign illustrated at the September 2 nd Committee meeting. The motion was
seconded by Jerry Chomanczuk and APPROVED I 1 -0.
3i. 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.
Note: Jerry Chomanczuk and Leo Dierckman were recused from discussion and voting.
Blair Carmosino of Duke Construction, 600 East 96 Street, Indianapolis appeared before the
Commission representing the applicant. Also in attendance was Ken Davis of The Blaine Group,
eventual owners of AmeriCenters.
The petitioner appeared before the Special Study for review and per the Committee's request,
made appropriate changes. The sign color was changed, the color of the dumpster doors was
changed, and there were certain modifications along the walks of Pennsylvania Street.
Department Report, Jon Dobosiewicz. The applicant did make certain changes recommended by
the Committee. The current submission of the plan reflects those changes. The Department is
recommending that the Commission approve the plan as amended and forwarded by the
Committee.
Dianna Knoll reported for the Committee. The Committee had voted 7 -0 to recommend approval
of the plan as revised per suggestions of the Committee.
Ron Houck moved for approval of Docket No. 111 -03 ADLS, Meridian Technology Center,
AmeriCenters, Carmel, seconded by Dianna Knoll and APPROVED 9 -0.
Leo Dierckman exited the meeting and did not return.
4i. Docket No. 162 -02 OA; 163 -02 CPA
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.
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\Memo \2003Sept 17
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
Jon Dobosiewicz of the Department of Community Services appeared before the Commission
representing the petitioner. This item is being returned to the Commission with a favorable
recommendation after several months at the Committee level. Modifications were made to the
Ordinance at the Council level, and those changes were returned. At this time, the Department is
asking that you forward this item to the City Council with a favorable recommendation.
Dianna Knoll reported for the Special Study Committee that had voted 6 -1 in favor of this item.
Nick Kestner had not voted in favor of this item at the Committee level, saying he was unsure of
the purpose of the Amendment.
Jon Dobosiewicz then explained the reasoning for these Amendments. One is the fact that
preservation of agricultural lands provides open space and provides definitive reservation for
those properties for agricultural uses; those uses and concepts are identified in the Comp Plan
Amendment. There are several permitted uses within the agricultural zone and it allows an
opportunity for farm ground, as it becomes annexed into the City, to be taken into the City limits
as a transition. The taxes on the property would not change until such time as the property would
be rezoned or developed. There is a dual method to review.
To further clarify, the public hearing for this item was held last year, October/November, and the
Committee would have reviewed it last year; the Committee make -ups were different at that time.
If and when approved by Council, the only issue that would come into play at the legislative level
is the ability for Carmel to exercise the same discretion that other communities have been allowed
to exercise in properties that are agriculturally zoned.
Ron Houck moved to forward Docket Nos. 162 -02 OA and 163 -02 CPA, Amendment To the
Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance, Agricultural District, and Amendment to the Carmel/Clay
Comprehensive Plan, Agricultural District to the City Council with a favorable
recommendation, seconded by Wayne Wilson and APPROVED 10 -0.
5i. 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. The Fee Schedule, Ordinance Amendment would provide
additional services and would compensate the Department. There would be additions to the
Ordinance, such as the Mining Ordinance that would create more work for the Department, and
permit requirements. Thirdly, the goal is to bring the Department's revenues in line with the
Budget.
Dave Cremeans reported for the Subdivision Committee that had reviewed this proposal. There
was little conversation about the specifics of the fee totals. The goal is to have the Department
self supporting and ideally have the revenue generated offset the expenses. The Committee
S:\ P1anCommission \Minutes\Memo \2003Sept 18
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
agreed to forward this item to the Commission with a favorable recommendation.
Pat Rice moved to forward Docket No. 116 -03 Z, Fee Schedule Ordinance Amendment to the
City Council with a favorable recommendation, seconded by Dave Cremeans, APPROVED 10 -0.
J. New Business
None
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
10:40 PM.
Marilyn Anderson, Vice President
Ramona Hancock, Secretary
S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\Memo\2003 Sept
19
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417