HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 07-17-90CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JULY 17. 1990 1
The regular meeting of the Carmel Plan Commission was brought to
order by Jeff Davis, President', on July 17,1990 at 7:35 P.M. at
the Carmel City Hall at 1 Civic Square,Carmel, Indiana. The
meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.
The board members present were: `Richard' Kl Caroline
Bainbridge, Sue McMullen, Henry Blackwell, Alan Potasnik, Ila
Badger, Jeff Davis, Annabelle Ogle, Frank 'Fleming, Henrietta
Lamb. Ronald Houck and Jim 'O'Neal: Mr.-Max Moore. not
present. Ms. Sharon Clark of Hamilton County was present.
The staff members present were: Wes Bucher, David Cunningham,
Terry Jones, Wm. Wend ling, Jr. and Dorthy Neisler.
Mr. Jim O'Neal moved to approve the minutes for the June 19, 1990
meeting as presented with the following corrections: Page 9,
paragraph 4 should read: It was noted that the committee vote was
4 -0; page 14, 3rd paragraph from the bottom should read: This
6,000 seat football stadium, etc.; and page-15, after 1st line,
Mr. Moore seconded, should read Suspension of Rules approved
unanimously.
Mrs. Ogle seconded.
Approved 12 -0.
Mr. Wes Bucher officially welcomed the.. Plan Commission to. the new
City Hall
and announced that there will be a public open house to tour the
new City 'Hall on September 9, 1990.
G. PUBLIC HEARING
lg. Commission to consider Docket No. °54 -90 PP, a primary
plat_appl;ication. for "Ashmore Tra subdivision. The."
primary, plat consists of 42 on 36:05 acres of land
located onthe south side of 146th Street Just west'" o`f
Cherry Tree Site is zoned-6 -1 residence
district Petitioner, requests approval to subdivide
the prope into 42 single family "residential lots.
The petitioner is requesting the'fo.11owing Subdivision
Regulations variance:
6.3.14 frontage road is required to prevent
direct access
Filed by Richard L. Fisher for Safco Development
Company.
The public hearing was opened at 7:42 P.M;
Mr. Stan Neal of Weihe Engineering, made the presentation, a copy
of which is on file at the Carmel Departmen of 'Community
Development.
CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JULY 17,
Ms. Jennifer Shea of Safco Development was present.
An aerial view a development plan was.shown.
Mt :Connie Lockhart, of 14415 Cherry Tree Road questioned the
of, homes and the size of the homes.
Ms. Jennifer Shay, 349 Bailey Circle, Carmel, stated that the
size of the lo_ts demand a price range from $250'and up, the
minimumsq:.ft•. of 2400 sq.ft.
Ms. Viola,McGraff, 14565 Cherry stated that she has a
Subdivision adjoining this, there. are only'six lots.in it She
was not allowed to subdivide and have one lot in the flood plain
and we are adjoining this and' °we.re. not allowed to.have- access.
from 146th :Street because of the tr problem then.' It, has
increased tremendously.
Ms. Gail McKinley, 14519.Cherry Rd questioned where. is the
vessel.drai„nage ditch:? There will be 3 lots in the flood plain
What will be done with the surface water in that area will it. go
into one or both of the creeks? Her objection is that that creek
is extremely full whenever there is a big rain and she is
concerned about it 'overflowing.
Mr,,, Neal_ pointed out where the, drainage. ditch was and stated that
there Will be 3 lots in the flood -ain, stating that the ground
would be. raised to be above. the. flood plain'so they can be built
there.legal.ly. These 3.lots. the surface water will go into the
creeks, everything else will go into the lake.
Ms. Connie Lockhart asked if the creek will overflow onto our
property?
Mr, Neal stated that they have sent this project to the..
Department of'Natur.al Resources to have them establish the 100
year flood elevation to establ ish flood way and the flood
plain There are two areas in a stream :channel, the flood plain
is the elevation, the ground that would be.cov:ered in the-event
of a..100 ye f, lood,, the flood way is the area necessary. to pass
the 100 .year,.: flood th rough .a given piece of ground and- not raise
the elevation.. of the 100 year: flood. They have laid out the
subdivision wi th those elevations. :and those areas in mind as
established ;with the Department of Natural Resources.
The.lake.that the center of ,the area, outlet pipe of
that Make' will be sized so that''the total runoff of the project
into the'ditches willnot be at, a than what it is
today in it;s -undeveloped .state
The public hearing was closed at 7:55 P.M.
CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JULY 17, 1990 3
Mr. Potasnik asked Mr. Neal.. toexplain, how they are planning on
draining for the ingress and egress of lots -41- -and 42. 1
Mr. Neal stated that'the center'.Lot 41 will have an easement
.across the front of the lot where it fronts on. 146th Street.
Lots 40 and 42 will ry gain there access -by going through that
easement on the front of..Lo.t 41 and then going:onto 146th Street.
Therefore we'will"'have one single driveway cut onto 146th Street.
Mr. Blackwell asked what percent of the'total,l_and space that is
being developed,is actually in the flood plain? Will this be on
sewers or septic system
Mr. Neal stated that this will on sewers and the area on the
flood plain is approximately 7 acres.
1
Mr. Potasnik asked e. if there any plans for type of signage or
identification sign of the subdivision
Mr. Neal stated that across the-corners at the entrance have
established sign easements. They have not applied for signage at
this time.
Mr Davis requested that the staff do some research on this area
of the'flood plain before_t,h'isgoes to committee, in regards to
Mrs. McGraff not' being able_ to :have access to this area and what
the reason was for this.
This item was referred to.the- Subdivision Comm'ittee on August 7,
1990 at the City Hall 1 Civic.Square, starting,. ;at 7:30 P.M.
H. OLD BUSINESS
lh. Commission •to consider „Docket .No.. 18_ -90 ADLS, an
Architectural: Design, Signage,and Lighting application
for 301 East Drive. Petitioner seeks approval
for the construction of two single story retail
bui.ldingst- bldg.A- 10,200 sq.ft. and bldg..B -2,800
sq.f.t.): Site is located a half mile west of Keystone'
Avenue on south side of Carmel Drive, site of the
former Carmel Putt -Putt, and is zoned B -8.
Filed°by Mark Boyce for C.P. Morgan, Development,
Mr. Mark Boyce of C.P. Morgan at 1980 E..i16th'Street, Carmel
'stated that they had made presentation -to. the Subcommittee and
their response was positive. There is an amendment to our
petition which was "the addition of 28 parking spaces to the
development on a quarter :acre of land located.' between 301 E.
'Carmel Dr. and the Carmel'Racquet'Court. This land was purchased
after application was,made and an approval would be subject to
that design going through TAC.'
CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- JULY 17, 1990 4
Mr. O'Neal moved to approve Docket No. 18 -90 ADLS with the
parking area addition, provided -TAC review and approval of the
Ms, Ogle seconded.
Approved 12 -0.
2h. .Commission to consider: Docket No. 23 -90 PP, a, primary
plat application for the Enclave of Carmel subdivision.
The primary plat consists of 50 lots on :10'.9 acres of
land located on the north side of 126th Street just
west of Keystone Avenue. Site is zoned R r.e.sidence
district. Petitioner *requests approval. to subdivide
the property into:50 single family`re>siden tial lots.
The petitioner is requesting the following Subdivision
Regulations variances:
6.3.1 street jogs less than 150'
6.3.15- curvature of streets less than 150'
6.3.16- min.distance between reversed street
h curves
6.5.1 min'.`frontage of lots at "right -of -way of
50'
6.5.2 irregular shaped lots
6.5.3 planting:strip of 20'.for lots that back
onto major streets
8.9 sidewalks On both sides of the street
within the subdivision and along adjoining 1
streets.
Filed by- E.Davis Coots for Eaton Lauth Community
Development Company,
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TABLED FOR 30 DAYS UNTIL AUGUST 7,.1990.
3h. Commission to consider Docket No 31 -90 PP, .a. primary
plat application for. Timber.. Crest Bend subdivision.
The primary plat consists of 5 lots on 5.89.acres of
land located on s of 126th Street,.approx.
on half mile east of,Gray.Road. Site is zoned S -1
residence district. Petitioner request primary plat
approval to subdivide the property into 5 single family
residential lots.
Filed by Thomas C. Barnes
Mr. Klar moved to approved Docket No. 31 -90 as presented.
Ms. Bainbridge seconded.
Findings of Facts we're completed by all board members:
Approved 11 -0. Jeff Davis abstained.
Commission to consider Docket No 39=90 ,OA, an
ordinance amendment to Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance Z-
160. this amendment is to amend sections 5.3.2, 6.3.2,
7.3.2, 8.3.2, 9.3.2, 10.4.2. and 16.3.2. of the
'Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance. This is to amend the
_CARM L PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JULY 17, 199(} 5
sections ,requiring e6 foot fence surromnd a
swimming 'p6ol.
Filed by the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission
Ms. Caroline Bainbridgerequested thisitem to be tabled for 30
a r
d
days to enable Mr.' Wendiing to obtain information from
the State Commissioner.
Mr: Klar seconded.
Approved 12-0.
5h. Com i nto:consider Docket N rezone
app ication:for 39.6B acres of land located on
southeast co /er of Old Meridian Street and SmokeyRow
Road (136th Street). Site iS currently zoned R-2
(Residential). Petitioner is requesting to rezone
27.04 acres`of the property toB-6'(Entramce Corridor)
for the:deelO memt of a mental health treatment center
and the, future development of.a mental health treatment
center an the future development-of ancillary and
auxiliary'medical/health care facilities.
Filed' by James J. Nelson for Pro-Med.Limited
Mrs. Badger moved to approve Docket NO. 40-90Z as presented.
Ms. McMullen seconded.
Mr. Houck asked abou t the buffer area adjoining the road cut on
Smokey Row Road, t green belt area to the east of that road,
what is the depth of that buffer? For parcel 2 where would the
likely place b r a building Mr. Houck also has a concern of
the protection of the residents in Kensington place. Is there a
plan to preserwe the vegetation in the green belt area or will it
be cut down?
Mr. Nelson stated that 25_30'° which is the requirement.
He would assume it Would be in!the center and oriented towards US
31� The building'tahnot exceed 50' in height,'and'if_there were a
penthouse it could be` of vegetation.
higher. �In the green belt there is no_
�ny
reason to destroy f the
Mr. Cunningham br' ht the Commissions. attention to thelast
highlighted paragraph On the s+aff dations (which is a
part of ��he_official al* attac to the Master Copy).
The Staff feels ver strong about this the fact that three
of th other_four rbrn� at 136th and Meridian have agreed to
:_thiv�. Two have ap oved that way and�ne agreed to and
later withdrawn, Pe itioner has submitted 'a`commitmemt to enter
into fair share co of preparation of a traffic study not to
exceed$4,000. We ask that asastated in the highlighted
paragraph the same stat t as �pprov�d ƒor' Flynne Zinka or
St. Vincent's as agreed to by R K prior°to_their withdrawal and
as to by Radnor prior to their, withdrawal be made part of
the motion. It haS 'been agreed to before,-it has been approved
by you before and the staff feels very strong about it.
CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION `MEETING MINUTES JULY 17, 1990
Mr. Nelson stated that this matter was brought to the attention
of.the Land Use Comm"ittee'and'"we' discussed it at great at
the committee meeting. Mr. Nelson stated that the staff fails to
note that unlike R'& K or St.Vincent's who'agreed to participate
in long term roadway improvements .for the area, the petitioner
has agreed and are agreeing to make substantial roadway.
improvements `to the area at their cost.and expense so, they are
not putting off their contribution to some time in the'future
they are making the roadway improvements today. They are
widening and resurfacing Smokey'RowRoad, they are widening and
resurfacing' Old Meridian and at the intersection of Old Meridian
and US 31 we are converting what'is now a two"lane entry into
that intersection".to over a51ane intersection. Thecost
approximately will be in the range Of' $150,000.
Approved 12 -0.
6h. Commission to consider Docket. No. 44 90 1, a.. rezoned
application for 5 acres of '`land located at 1439. South
Rangeline Road, Site is currently zoned R -2
(Residential)and'8 -3 (Business). Petitioner" is
requesting to rezone :to.8 -8 (Business).
Filed by James J. "Nelson for Executive Commons, Inc.
Mr. Potasnik moved to approve•Docket No. 44 -90Z as presented.
Mrs. Badger seconded.
Approved 12 -0.
Mr. Houck asked if a commitment has been regarding the road way
improvements?
Mr: Nelson stated that a written. commitment was presented'to the
Department of Community Development` agreeing to participate along
with other land developers in the,area to the installation of a
traffic- signal in the vicinity of'Carmel Executive Drive and
Medical Drive.
7h.' Commission to "consider Docket'No. 46-90 FDP/SP, a Final
'Development Plan and'Secondary Plat application for
Technology Center Associates..' Petitioner
approval to construct "a. s "ing l e' story 62,000 square
foot office /warehouse facility.. Sit is..located at 801
Congressional Blvd 'and" is zoned M 3
Filed by Jim Nelson for Center Associates.
Mrs'. Badger moved,to.'approve Docket'No 46 -90 FDP /SP "as
recommended by Land Use Committee.
Mr. Potasnik seconded.
Mr. O'Neal asked if the staff recommendation o
the sidewalks in the motion.
Mr. Potasnik stated that it did not.
approval Inc ~ludes
CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JULY 17, 1990 7
Mr. Cunningham stated :the staff had researched this question and
does not believe that is was the intent of the subdivision
regulations sidewalk_` requirement to be for residential
development only..; In", addition, the declaration of covenants for
the Carmel Science Technology Park states:that all the
development is to comply fully with the Carmel Subdivision
regulations, included Section 8.9 (sidewalk requirement) and that
the intent of °the ordinance was..to promote sidewalks throughout
the City of Carmel /Clay Township area. For these. reasons and to
staff commits sidewalks should;be proposed for this area.
Mr. Nelson stated they are not ■attempting,to evade any
responsibility that: is incumbent upon us under applicable
ordinance. It .is his :opinion that under the M -3 Industrial
District Classification that they are required to provide
sidewalks in any M 3 zoned real estate Under .the M -3
classification they must present a preliminary platand that
preliminary plat'mu.st be in compliance with certain provisions of
the subdivision control: ordinance... The M -3 doesnot incorporate
by reference all of, the'provisions'of the subdivision control
ordinance.. It is specifically does not incorporated the
provision of the.'.subdivi-sion control ordinance requiring
Sidewalks The.. petitioner does not• believe that sidewalks are
required,, in this.: subdivisi,on...,. Nelson stated. that if it is the
commissions: feelings. ;that the ordinance does require sidewalks
then if it is the opinion of "the Plan Commission attorney that
sidewa_lks'are requiredin'the ordinance, we will put them in.
Mr. Potasnik the- staff= if sidewalks have been required on
any other building-' in ;;:this area.
Staff responded that, sidewalks have been, required on each
building in the last 2_years.
Covenants for the Technology Park. were' discussed.
Mr..Potasnik asked Mr. Wendling and stated that.the staff
mentioned 'the intent would he have any problem relative to
enforcing the intent it you: had to go into.court and expect a
favorable verdict in ,something "like -that?
Mr. Wendling-, Jr, ,that apparently this land was barred by
Jackson and it apears.to me that there is some special covenants
that were granted 'b:y ,Jackson when these were taken care of, one
of which he was j,ust handed I t gives some indication that they
would utilize the sidewalks orput sidewalks in .and it also
states that in here..that the PlanningCommission or the Director
of Community Development has the right to enforce .these. Before
going but on a limb Mr.'Wendling, Jr. would.,like to take a closer
look at these. He.,feels these may have been transferrable with
the property when'sold Regardless of wha went on around it, it
may be applicable to that.'particular problem now..- He would feel
pretty comfortable if all those things were:in place, it would be
transferrable.
CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES .JULY 17, 1990 8
Mr. Potasnik asked if the Commission were to vote on this where
would the covenants fit in now?
Mr. Wendling, Jr. stated that he would have to look at the
covenants to see who else may enforce them.' Someone-else, may
have the 'power to enforce them. Mr. Wendling, Jr. would like
more time to review the covenants.
Mr. Nelson stated'that ifiit is Mr. Wendling's opinion that the
petitioner it required top`utsidewalks in, the petitioner•will
put them in.
Mrs. Badger stated that there was nd reason why this Commission
could not vote an:this issueas it was presented and the
Committee certainly did not'in`clude provisions for sidewalks and
if the. Department or the City :or. `somebody else .wants;. to enforce
those ''covenants they still have the power to do..so. In which
time, that they`would want total cooperation from anyone who is
already in thisarea..
Mr. Wendling, Jr. stated thatthey would get because Of the
document..
Mr. Davis stated as long:as there are :multiple people that can
enforce it we canogo' ahead and vote on it as presented.
Mrs Badger recommended that the,Commission go ahead and vote on
the motion as,it'was'made at the Committee level and as it was
recommended to this body.
Mr. Houck questioned Mr Wendling:, Jr. if we :take this action and
approve this Without sidewalks',' does that foreclose any other
parties from exerting their rights .and insisting that sidewalks
go in?
Mr. Wendling, Jr. stated that he did•not think but would have
a pretty.good argument with this body enforcing it;'because they-
waived that right,' he doesn think they havethe power to waive
the rights of the 'other people,: like a property owner.
Approved '11-1. Sue McMullen 'voted against.
8h. Commission to consider ._'Docket- No.48- 90_ADLS (amend an
Architectural Design,,.' Lighting and Signage application
for %Coots, Henke Wheeler.'% Petitioner is seeking'the
approval to place a sign at..255 E. Ca rmel Drive. Site
is zoned B -8'.
Filed by Sheil'a Marshall for Coots, Henke
Mr. ONeal moved to table this item until
review and approval.
Mrs Badger' seconded
Approved`'`I2 -O.
I. NEW BUSINESS
Wheeler
plans "are submitted for
CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JULY 17, 1990 9
li. Commission to bocket No. 55 -90. ADLS, an
Architectural Design'Signage and Lighting application
for Keystone Square Shopping Center Petitioner seeks
approval for. the refa,cadeing and approval of a new
sign'package for the'.shopping. center. Site is located
at the northwest corner of Keystone- Avenue and 116th
Street, and: is zoned B -B
Filed by.'James J. Nelson for: Keystone Square Shopping
Center Co:
Mr. Jim Nelson, "3663. Brumley Way,, Carmel,- made, the presentation,
a copy of which is on file'at,the Carmel Department, of Community
Development.
Photos of the shopping-area was shown.,-samples of the lettering
and columns were shown
Ms. Ogle questioned; what the maintenance level of this material
is and what the.: life expectancy is?
It was stated that will be of ver.y low maintenance
and a long life and the material is fire retardant.
This item was referred'to the Industrial Commercial Committee
on August' 7, 1990, at '7 P.M at-the-City, Hall, 1 Civic Square.
2i. Commission to .consider. the following
amendments to the, Carmel/Clay Z�ning Ordinance Z -160 as
amended. to the following proposals.:_
1. :outside'storageiand display report from
Industrial .and: Commercial Committee
2. garage.size being prepared for public hearing
for the Carmel. City Council
additional height for setback (sections 26 ",1.2
26.1.:3) .being public hearing for
the Carmel City Council
4. cluster report from Cluster Committee Chairman
on status of. committee assignments
Mr.Hank Blackwell stated that he has.not selected a
committee.at'this time. He has names of seven
additional people indicating their willingness to serve
on this committee. He has been working with Mr. Bucher
to have a staff person assigned to this committee and
then the,.committee members will be selected. The people
with the:. most interest in: this is.the'builders. They
are dealing with an prdinance'whi.ch there has been
great dissatisfaction for a number of reasons. He has
requested a possibility of having some outside expert
on these matters and'give us some guidance.
CARMEL PLANNING. COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JULY 17, 1990
Mrs`. Badger stated that she had three names to add to
the list.
5. °Comprehensive Plan Update report. 'from Plan
Commission President on current status
10
The committee members have not had the.'material long
enough to make a reasonable decision. as to whether .the
draft was correct or not. The next meeting night will
be August 14, 1990.
6. Plan Commission Rules of Procedure report from
the Executive Committee
This•is still be worked' on..
7. Plan Commission Budget report from the Plan
Commission President
Mr. Davis stated that he had presented 'the budget
the' City Council
Mr. O'Neal to adjourn the meeting
Ms. Ogle seconded.
The meeting was'adjourned at 9.14 P.M.
President Secretary