HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 08-15-00CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
AUGUST 15, 2000
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel /Clay Plan Commission was called to
order with the Pledge of Allegiance at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall,
Carmel, Indiana.
Members present were: Kent Broach; David Cremeans; Leo Dierckman; Wayne Haney;
Ron Houck; Nick Kestner; Kevin Kirby; Bob Modisett; Jim O'Neal; Pat Rice; John R.
Sharpe; and Paul Spranger.
The minutes of the July meeting were approved as submitted.
In attendance for the Department of Community Service: Steve Engelking, Director;
Michael Hollibaugh; Terry Jones; and Laurence Lillig. Also present was John Molitor,
Counsel.
F. Communications, Bills, Expenditures, Legal Counsel Report
John Molitor reported that the amendments to the Residential Open Space
Ordinance were reviewed by City Council and returned to the Plan Commission with
further amendments recommended by the Council. Under state law, the Commission has
45 days to consider the amendments proposed by Council and report its further
recommendations on those changes back to the Council.
Ron Houck then recommended that this item be referred to the Subdivision
Committee that dealt with the ROSO initially. This item would be for further review and
eventually would return to the Plan Commission.
Dave Cremeans asked that Mark Rattermann and Steve Pittman also be included
in the review at the Committee level on the ROSO item. Subdivision Committee review
would be at the September 5th meeting.
G. Reports, Announcements Department Concerns:
David Cremeans announced that the following items have been tabled: 1 g. and 2g. Filed
by Michael Howard for the Hamilton County Redevelopment Commission; item 4h.,
Bonbar Place Subdivision; items 7h. and 8h., Docket Nos. 134 -00 Z and 135 -00
DP /ADLS filed by Majid Rastegar of Majestic Residence, Inc.; Items li. and 2i. under
Old Business, Docket Nos. 106 -99 SP and 107 -99 DP /ADLS, Tower Design Group for
Carmel Drive Storage; item 3i. Docket No. 109 -99 DP /ADLS Wingate Inn, tabled until
November 11 item 4i. Docket No. 57 -00 PP, Hazel Dell Pond at Waterstone
Subdivision; and items 12i. and 13i., Docket Nos. 77 -00 OA and 78 -00 Z, filed by the
Department of Community Services for the Old Meridian Task Force.
s:\Minutes\PlanCommfission\pc2000aug
Director Steve Engelking addressed the Commission regarding a change in the filing fees
and an amendment to the Thoroughfare Plan that will be coming to the Plan Commission
at the September meeting. Commission members are being provided with a copy for
preliminary review in the hope that at September's meeting they will be comfortable with
voting on this particular item.
Dave Cremeans reviewed the Conduct of Public Hearings for the benefit of the public.
H. Public Hearings:
lh. Docket No. 83 -00 PP Amend; Primary Plat Amendment application for
Estes Chevrolet. The petitioner seeks approval to replat North American Park,
Lot 3. The site is located at 4102 West 96 Street. The site is zoned B-
2 /Business and is located within the U.S. 421 Overlay Zone.
Note: This item is paired with Item 2h. under Public Hearings (Docket No. 84 -00
DP /ADLS.)
Filed by Brian Newman of the Schneider Corporation for Bill Estes Chevrolet,
Inc.
2h. Docket No. 84 -00 DP /ADLS; Development Plan and Architectural Design,
Lighting Signage applications for Estes Chevrolet The petitioner seeks
approval to establish an automobile dealership at North American Park, Lot 3.
The site is located at 4102 West 96 Street. The site is zoned B -2 /Business and is
located within the U.S. 421 Overlay Zone.
Note: This item is paired with Item 1h. under Public Hearings (Docket No. 83 -00
PP Amend.)
Filed by Brian Newman of the Schneider Corporation for Bill Estes Chevrolet,
Inc.
Bill Estes of Estes Chevrolet appeared before the Commission representing the applicant.
The subject site is at the northwest corner of 96 Street and U.S. 421, the former Dairy
Queen location. The proposed site will be used for selling pre -owned vehicles, currently
located at the southwest corner of U.S. 421, (Michigan Road) and 96 Street.
Estes Chevrolet is in the process of working with INDOT to finalize the property the
State is acquiring along the south side of the dealership and on the Michigan Road side,
and on the south side of the subject site along 96 Street, west of Michigan Road.
Presently, there are three entrances off 96 onto the property. The petitioner is proposing
to reduce the entrances to one, and align it with the entrance on the south side of 96
Street with the Chevrolet dealership. The INDOT proposal actually has two entrances,
but the petitioner is requesting only one.
Steve Fehribach of A &F Engineering did a traffic analysis. The traffic analysis reports
that there will be less traffic into the sales operation than the former Dairy Queen, but the
additional entrances are not needed.
s:\ Minutes \PlanCommission \pc2000aug 2
The petitioner stated that they are aware of a Thoroughfare Plan in existence in regard to
this particular location. In addition to the traffic analysis, Steve Fehribach and Brian
Newman put together drawings showing the INDOT project that will consist of 5 lanes
west of 96 Street approaching Michigan Road going west, away from Michigan Road
by the INDOT process.
The petitioner does not feel that it is necessary to take the additional almost 20 feet that
would represent 20 to 25 parking spaces along Michigan Road. The Thoroughfare Plan
is not necessary at this time as long as INDOT has 5 lanes going in and out of this inter-
section. Additionally, the 421 "gateway" to Carmel will appear and be maintained in a
fashion Carmel can be proud o£ The petitioner is well aware of the 421 Overlay
requirements, and will do whatever is appropriate to meet the needs and represent the
City of Carmel as an entrance.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the two petitions; no one
appeared. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to either or both of
the petitions; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed.
Laurence Lillig reported that the Department is recommending this item be forwarded to
the September 5 th Special Study Committee, 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall.
3h. Docket No. 109 -00 PP; Primary Plat application for Kosene Kosene. The
petitioner seeks approval to plat 110 lots on 26.7 acres to be known as Guilford
Park Subdivision. The site is located southeast of the intersection of East 116
Street and South Guilford Road. The site is zoned R- 1/Residence and is being
developed as a Qualifying Subdivision under Chapter 7 of the Subdivision
Control Ordinance (ROSO).
Filed by Paul Reis of The Reis Law Firm for Kosene Kosene.
Paul Reis, attorney, 12358 Hancock Street, Carmel appeared before the Commission
representing the applicant. Also in attendance were Jerry Kosene of Kosene Kosene,
developer of the property; Gary Weaver, land planner for the developer; Mark Monroe of
The Reis Law Firm; and engineer Roger Ward.
The proposed subdivision is located southeast of the intersection of 116 Street and
Guilford Road. The site is bounded by the Cinergy building to the north, Wood Park
Subdivision to the west, a subdivision directly to the east and then the Monon Trail, and
directly south of the site is the newly proposed central park site for Carmel and Clay
Township. The site is currently zoned R -1 /Residential and will be developed under
Chapter 7 of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, the Residential Open Space Ordinance.
The plat provides for approximately 7.37 acres of open space or 21.7% over and above
the required 20% of open space. Mr. Reis reviewed the areas of designed open space as
being a planting strip along the south side of 116 Street; Blocks B and D that are linkage
designed open space running through the site linking with pathways into the central grain,
s:\Minutes\PlanConmlission\pc2000aug
delineated as Block C. Block E on the south part of the subdivision, also a linkage, will
link into the park property as the park develops in the future. Finally, Block F located in
the northeast corner of the property, is designed open space in the form of ponds, storm
water facility area.
Mr. Reis referred to drawings of housing product types distributed to the Commission
members, although no specific builder has been contracted for construction of the homes.
The petitioner has met with the neighbors in the Wood Park Subdivision and has shared
these drawings with them as well.
The petitioner appeared before Technical Advisory Committee on July 19 and is in the
process of addressing various comments received at that meeting. The petitioner has
received a request from the Department for a traffic operations analysis- -this is being
discussed as to the necessity, given the fact that 116 Street will be widened in the future.
The primary entrance to the subdivision will be on 116 Street; however, to the west
there is a road that goes into the existing intersection that was created with the Wood
Park Subdivision and roughly aligns with Guilford Road. The petitioner has had
discussions with the County Highway regarding the design of this particular intersection.
The County Highway and the Carmel Fire Department are requesting that there be two
entrances into the proposed subdivision. These discussions are still in progress.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the proposed petition; no one
appeared. Member of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petition; the
following appeared:
Arthur Sanford, 748 Barkwood Court, Carmel appeared before the Commission and
questioned the proposed connection of West Park Drive onto 116 Street. According to
Mr. Sanford, West Park Drive does not match Guilford. Mr. Sanford also questioned the
width of the street from Wood Park Subdivision onto 116 Street. This is a very
dangerous intersection because of the slight jog at the intersection. There is also a
question of drainage at the east /west boundary.
Bruce Barker, 11575 Newport Drive, 3 -house subdivision to the immediate east of the
site, stated objection due to the traffic. Potentially, there will be 165 additional cars onto
116 Street at rush hour, and Mr. Barker encouraged the Commission to require a Traffic
Analysis. The reduction in minimum lot widths is a mistake and should not be allowed.
The current Open Space proposal does not meet the definition of the ordinance. The
main section of open space is surrounded by road and is not really accessible. With the
currently proposed park, the main drive into the park will be a street that will require
persons to cross the street to get to the open space. The linkage on the south side does
not meet the definition of a linkage under the Open Space Ordinance and does not link
anything within the Subdivision except a road -it does link to the park, however. There
are currently no covenants and restrictions available and no landscape plan for the open
space.
s:\ Minutes \PlanCommission \pc2000aug 4
Christa Davis, 1211 East 116 stated that her primary concern is for the safety of
children at the school bus stop. The children must cross the street either in the morning
or afternoon, depending on the bus route. The density is also a concern as well as the
width of the lots.
Tom Chevalier, resident of Wood Park Subdivision, stated concern with cut through
traffic due to congestion on 116 College. If another access is needed for the proposed
Subdivision, they should concern themselves with bringing it out onto 116 Street and
keep it out of the Subdivision.
Barbara Padgett, Donybrook Subdivision, south of the proposed site, stated concern with
the density and traffic issues. At present, 116 Street cannot be accessed from side
streets due to high volumes of traffic and the congestion.
The public hearing was then closed.
Paul Reis, rebuttal. The intersection at Wood Park and Guilford does not exactly align.
It was anticipated that there would be a dedication of land to the County on the subject
site owned by the Valinet family- -this did not happen and the extra one -half right -of -way
never came into being. In discussions with the County Highway, they would like to have
the other half of right -of -way so that there is a match -up of the design of the intersection
at Guilford. Also, the County feels that this point is the most appropriate for ingress and
egress. In regard to drainage, based upon engineering calculations, the site drains toward
the northeast corner of the site. Wood Park neighbors are concerned with some of the
trees along the perimeter and the petitioner will look at different stormwater /drainage
designs in order to save the trees.
Regarding the traffic on 116 Street, everyone is aware of the congestion and the City is
moving forward to improve 116 Street through widening. The petitioner is to be in
touch with the City Engineer for drainage calculations and estimates as far as the subject
site is concerned, and how much traffic is involved in their calculation and design in the
widening of 116 Street.
Department Report, Laurence Lillig: The Department maintains that the scope of the
project warrants a traffic operations analysis and these figures should be made available
by the date of the Committee meeting. The Department is recommending that this item
be forwarded to the September 5 th Subdivision Committee.
At this time, the Plan Commission formally requested a traffic operations analysis to be
made available prior to the Committee meeting on September 5
Ron Houck asked if the project had been reviewed under the Residential Open Space
Guidelines and if so, that the results of the review be made available to the committee.
Also, has the petitioner considered annexation of the property? Is there a City
Thoroughfare Plan with regard to the extension of Guilford? Was there a planned or
proposed access to the park site from the extension of Guilford?
s:\Minutes\PlanConmlission\pc2000aug
Mr. Reis stated that the petitioner would consider annexation of the subject property.
Laurence Lillig reported that the Park Board has a 5 foot easement along the west side of
the subject site. The current Carmel Thoroughfare Plan does not show Guilford going
through -it is the County that is making the request for right -of -way.
Bob Modisett spoke as the Parks Board appointment to the Commission. The subject site
was at one time included in the condemnation suit. In the settlement phase of the suit, the
subject parcel was removed but there were a number of commitments made by both the
land owner and the Parks Board regarding utilities and drainage. There will be no access
through this parcel of land to the central park site to the south. The commitments should
be made known to the Committee and factored into their review of the current petition.
Also, 116 Street between Rangeline Road and College Avenue is in terrible shape right
now and the widening of 116 Street and the dedication of right -of -way needed for the
widening should be taken into consideration by the Committee. The road widening will
probably not be accomplished until 2002.
Laurence Lillig undertook to locate the recorded commitments prior to the Committee
meeting on September 5 Paul Reis also volunteered to furnish the commitments.
Wayne Haney asked for an expanded plan that would show the adjacent properties and
how the proposed development would affect the adjacent area.
Nick Kestner asked to see a comparison in the size of the lots of the proposed subdivision
and those lots adjacent. Also, Mr. Kestner asked that the petitioner work with the Parks
Board to provide the plan for access to the park and the Monon Trail.
Ron Houck also asked to see a tentative plan for access to the site and what it would line
up with from the Parks' perspective. Bob Modisett responded that there is no master
plan, as yet, for the central park site.
Paul Spranger asked to see design and types of product to be built and materials to be
used.
Docket No. 109 -00 PP was forwarded to the Subdivision Committee for further review
on September 5, 2000, at 7:00 PM.
4h. Docket No. 129 -00 PP, Bonbar Place Subdivision. TABLED
5h. Docket No. 132 -00 Z, Rezone petition for Plum Creek Partners. The
petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation for a rezone from the S -1 /Residence
diestrict to the B-8/Business district on 11.35 acres. The site is located on the
southeast corner of East 146 Street and Hazel Dell Parkway. The site is zoned
S -1 /Residence.
Filed by Corby D. Thompson of Plum Creek Partners.
s:\Minutes\PlanConmlission\pc2000aug
Corby Thompson of Plum Creek Partners appeared before the Commission on behalf of
the applicant. Approval is being requested to rezone 11.35 acres located on the southeast
corner of 146 Street and Hazel Dell Parkway to B -8 /Business District from the R -1/
Residence. 146 Street has become a major east /west route in northern Hamilton
County and Hazel Dell Parkway is a four -lane artery to the south. At present, there are
two lanes at the proposed site, but right -of -way has been acquired and this area, too, will
be expanded to four lanes. Hazel Dell has quickly become the Noblesville by -pass.
There will be more changes at the intersection of 146 and Hazel Dell Parkway; a project
has been filed with the City of Noblesville for both the northeast and northwest corners
involving over 60 acres for commercial rezone. Development Director Steve Huntley
stated that he did not favor a rezone for that use; however, he did say he could commit to
a lesser amount of commercial at this location. Given Noblesville's penchant for
neighborhood centers and village centers, Mr. Thompson envisions a rezone of a portion
of both corners to commercial at some point.
Corby Thompson introduced his partner, Brian Chandler, and also named Tim Hole and
John Duke as partners -all Clay Township residents.
The surrounding neighbors include a church with their parking lot abutting the south
border of the subject parcel, Hazel Dell Parkway, (Ashton Subdivision) and then
Ashmore Trace to the east with three lots that actually abut the property.
The Carmel Comprehensive Plan recognizes the need for neighborhood retail and
commercial areas. One such commercial area is sited at 146 and Gray Road; however,
the topography of the site at 146 and Gray does not lend itself to any type of commercial
development due to the large ravine. Also, Hazel Dell has become the major north/south
artery, leaving Gray Road behind. The B -8 zoning classification provides for limited
commercial uses and every project would require the petitioner to come before the Plan
Commission for ADLS public review.
Photographs were displayed of buildings and landscape treatments in the Columbus area,
a university campus, and a bank as examples of types of architecture that will be utilized
in the proposed development. The center would be a neighborhood service center that
residents of the area could walk to rather than drive. There are a number of
walking/biking paths in the area that go nowhere, but the service center would be a point
of destination. Of the thousands of people who live in the area, there is one commercial
service in the area except for the landscape shop. The proposed site is smaller than the
neighborhood retail area at 126 and Gray Road. This proposed plan is for a
"Neighborhood Service Center" and is not expected to be a draw for traffic from adjacent
communities. There won't be anything offered at this site that Fishers doesn't already
have or Westfield or north Noblesville or Indianapolis. Only the residents of the area will
be attracted and that is the intention.
The site plan emphasizes water features and pedestrian access. A courtyard would be a
wonderful gathering place for the community.
s:\Minutes\PlanConmfission\pc2000aug
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; no one appeared.
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petition; the following
appeared:
Mark Zeems, 14509 Cottswold Lane, Ashmore Trace, commented that the proposed
development area is currently a horse farm and a picturesque area. The area residents
understood that the zoning would allow for large homes on this tract of land at the time
they purchased their homes in Ashmore Trace. At present, the fencing and landscaping
of the horse farm ties in with Ashmore Trace and complements the development. There
is a concern with a decline in property values, light spillage from the neighborhood center
onto adjoining residential properties, delivery truck, dumpsters, noise, etc.
Peter Langowski, 5211 Rippling Brook Way, Spring Creek Subdivision, requested that
the public hearing open. Mr. Langowski also requested that commitments from the
developer be made available for review by the adjacent residents.
Jody Burton, (Burtner stated opposition to a change in zoning. A neighborhood center
has been approved at 131" and Hazel Dell Parkway; if the current proposal is approved,
there would be one thousand residents split between two commercial developments and
not enough business base to support the two centers. If the community does not support
the two centers, there would be a vacant building and an eye -sore. Also, Ms. Burton did
not see any sign on the property advising of the proposed development. It is not certain
that the neighbors were aware of the meeting this evening.
Gail King, Scarborough Lane, stated that she had spoken with Steve Huntley of the
planning department in Noblesville. Mr. Huntley supports the Noblesville
Comprehensive Plan and does not support commercial development on the other two
corners of Hazel Dell and 146 Street. Ideally, Noblesville would like to see large scale,
residential on these corners. Noblesville has also said that they would like to develop the
northeast corridor of Noblesville as commercial and they did not want to see commercial
scattered throughout. Ms. King referred to a development in Carmel at Main and
Guilford that has not been supported by the residents and the commercial space is now
run down and contains empty stores. The City has not received any financial gain from
this center either. The residents do no want another strip mall that will become empty.
Ms. King asked that the Commission not support the request for a rezone. Statistics say
that women do most of the shopping on a multi -task basis, and neighborhood centers are
not patronized.
Dennis Alt, Plymouth Rock, Ashmore Trace, commented that he was offended by the
developer's presentation and display of photographs of existing properties in Columbus,
Purdue University, and various existing properties. No plans were shown of what is to
actually be developed at this site. Mr. Alt challenged the developer to walk across Hazel
Dell to get to a neighborhood center.
s:\ Minutes \PlanCommission \pc2000aug 8
Paula Mataxis, 5255 Cherokee Court, Delaware Trace, commented that the residents
don't need a gathering place. The major concern is with traffic on Hazel Dell and small
children in the area. "Nobody wants this!"
Nancy Motter, City of Noblesville, Kingsley Subdivision, stated opposition to building/
development in Noblesville and also concern with this proposal. Traffic is a major
concern, considering the number of children in the residential area. Ms. Motter stated
that she could be at Wa1Mart or Applebee's within 3 minutes and does not need another
gathering place.
Eric Tinsley, City of Noblesville, reported that a large group of Noblesville residents are
opposed to commercial development in this particular area. Mr.Tinsley requested that the
Carmel Plan Commission communicate directly with the City of Noblesville on the
planning and development.
Robert Peterson, 5200 Sioux Drive, Woodfield, stated concern regarding the plan and
believes it to be "unnecessary." Convenience is not an argument. There would be nothing
available in the proposed center that is not already available at Wa1Mart. Mr. Peterson
would like to see large family, residential homes on this property.
Ted Duley, Ashton Subdivision, voiced opposition by reason of traffic that would be
generated by a commercial development. Mr. Duley also stated that he was not notified
of the meeting this evening and any neighborhood meetings with the developer. Business
will bring security lights, parking lot lights, and light pollution; the residential
neighborhood will be lost. The ground on the north side of 146 and Hazel Dell in
Noblesville has not yet been rezoned, and the residents will appear at the Noblesville
Plan Commission in opposition to any attempt to rezone to commercial or business. The
residents would like to keep the area rural.
Rebuttal, Corby Thompson. Traffic is definitely there at 146 and Hazel Dell. Mr.
Thompson agreed that walking across Hazel Dell is not possible, hence the reason for a
commercial node on this site. Mr. Thompson stated that he would be happy to have more
meetings with the adjoining neighborhoods.
Department of Community Services report, Laurence Lillig. The Department is
recommending that this petition be referred to the Special Study Committee scheduled for
7:00 PM on September 5 th in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall.
Dave Cremeans requested that the Noblesville Plan Commission be kept "in the loop" of
communication regarding proposed development in this area.
John Molitor opined that it was not necessary to keep the public hearing open on this
Docket. If there are significant changes in the plans, the hearing can always be re- opened
by a formal motion.
The public hearing was then closed on Docket No. 132 -00 Z.
s:\ Minutes \PlanCommission \pc2000aug 9
Ron Houck requested that the City of Noblesville not only be kept advised but also
submit comments and input to Carmel Department of Community Services regarding
upcoming projects for consideration at this location.
Paul Spranger requested that more specificity of design be presented at the Committee
level for further review.
Docket No. 132 -00 Z will be heard at the Special Study Committee scheduled for 7:00
PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall on September 5 th
6h. Docket No. 133 -00 PP, Primary Plat application for Reserve at
Springmill, LLC. The petitioner seeks approval to plat 25 lots on 45.3 acres to be
known as The Estates of West Clay Subdivision. The site site is located on the
northwest corner of West 131 Street and Ditch Road. The site is zoned S-
1 /Residence and is being platted as a Non Qualifying Subdivision under Chapter
7 of the Subdivision Control Ordinance (ROSO). The petitioner also seeks
approval of the following Subdivision Waivers:
133 -00a SW SCO 6.3.3 forego installation of stub to Village of West Clay
133 -00b SW SCO 6.3.6 26' pavement width
133 -00c SW SCO 6.3.19 plat lots within 50' of a Collector (Ditch Road)
133 -00d SW SCO 6.3.20 to plat a private street
133 -00e SW SCO 7.4 to plat 18.8% open spce
Filed by Steve Pittman of Pittman Partners, Inc.
Dave Cremeans reported that there was an error in the publication of notice in the
newspaper -the Docket number was incorrectly recited as 49 -00 PP rather than 133 -00 PP
Before proceeding, Mr. Cremeans asked if the error caused anyone injury or hardship.
John Molitor commented that if no one is aggrieved by the error in Notice, he would
recommend suspending the rules to hear this item.
Leo Dierckman moved to suspend the rules to hear Docket No. 133 -00 PP, The Estates of
West Clay Subdivision, despite the error in publication of notice. APPROVED 12 in
favor, none opposed.
Steve Pittman 306 Mill Ridge Drive, Carmel appeared before the Commission
representing Pittman Partners, Inc. Also in attendance were Neal Smith and Bob
McKinney of Pittman Partners, Rich Kelly of Paul L Cripe, project engineer, and
Lawrence Hemp, land planning. Steve Pittman reported that the name "WestClay" has
been trademarked, and the name of this Subdivision will be changed at a later date.
The subject site contains 45.32 acres located west of and adjacent to Ditch Road, north of
and adjacent to 131 Street, south of an undeveloped, 10 acre parcel located south of
136 Street, and east of and adjacent to a future section of the Villages of WestClay. It is
anticipated that this portion of the development will be completed within the next five
years.
s:\Minutes\PlanConmfission\pc2000aug 10
The Estates of West Clay is part of a quadrant formed by Ditch Road to the east, 131
Street to the south, a future section of the Villages of WestClay, currently undeveloped
land to the west, and ten acres of undeveloped property to the north.
The site plan provides for 25 homesites on 45.32 acres, and large, useable areas of open
space. The property is being platted as a non qualifying subdivision under the
Residential Open Space Ordinance. A minimum of 20% open space must be provided;
then, a density of one unit per acre would be allowed. The proposed plan contemplates
18.8% open space and a density of .55 units per acre.
The consumer is demanding homesites greater than one acre in size, a master suite on the
main level and another master suite on the upper level; they will stay in their homes until
a much later age than the typical buyer of a custom home. These buyers are also saying
that they want enough depth to their lot that they can have their own swimming pool and
an additional yard where the kids can still play soccer or football. The average lot
dimension is 250 feet deep by 200 feet wide, and the average lot size is 1.25 acres.
Average lot prices will exceed $200,000 and it is anticipated that homes will range from
$900,000 to $1.75 million. The plan provides for one point of ingress /egress off of 131
Street, and one point of ingress /egress off of Ditch Road.
The Estates of West Clay offer both challenges and opportunities. The size is rectangular
in shape and offers little topography and vegetation. As a result, the parcel requires more
effort in land planning and landscape design process.
The proposed plan offers a low density; however, there is an unfortunate circumstance of
having to take the highest elevation on the site and build a 2.4 acre lake. While
expensive, the spoils from the lake will allow for the buildup of lot pads and create
daylight, lower levels. Each common area will be irrigated and professionally
maintained. Additional landscaping will be provided on each home site.
The entrance will include brick columns and heavy, wrought iron fencing; also street
lighting, large common areas, curvilinear streets, dynamic terminal vistas, and extremely
strong landscape plan that incorporates a variety of trees. A 4 foot sidewalk will be
installed along the entire length of all interior streets. A 45 foot one -half right -of -way
will be dedicated as part of the plat along 131 St Street, and a 40 foot one -half right -of -way
will be dedicated along Ditch Road. In addition, the developer has agreed to construct an
8 foot, multi -use path along 131 Street and Ditch Road.
The plan also provides for five Subdivision Control Ordinance Waivers: To forego the
installation of a stub to the Village of WestClay; 26 foot wide streets, (already approved
by the Hamilton County Commissioners); to plat lots within 50 feet of a Collector street,
in this case, Ditch Road, (the alternative would be to go with a frontage road); to allow
private streets and 18.8% open space.
s:\Minutes\PlanConmfission\pc2000aug 11
The utilities serving the site are Indianapolis Water Co.; Clay Township Regional Waste
District; Indiana Gas; Ameritech; Cinergy/PSI; and Time Warner Cablevision.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; the following
appeared:
Mark Rattermann, 11257 St. Andrews Lane, Carmel supports the development and the lot
sizes. The developer has a good track record and the development is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The variances should not create any large problems unless there
are technical issues not known. The low density of the development does not dictate a
large amount of open space.
Mark Jacob, 13301 Ditch Road, directly across the street from the proposed development,
totally supports the development. Mr. Jacob was particularly interested in the variance
from SCO 6.3.19 and was hopeful that this would be granted.
Dave Smittson, 13201 Ditch Road, Carmel, spoke in support of the proposed
development. The current proposal meets the spirit and intent of the ordiance and Mr.
Smittson encouraged the Commission to approve the development.
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petition; no one
appeared and the public hearing was closed.
Per Laurence Lillig, The Department recommended that this item be sent to the
Subdivision Committee that will meet on Tuesday, September 5 at 7:00 PM in the
Caucus Rooms of City Hall.
9h. Docket No. 137 -00 DP /ADLS, Development Plan and Architectural
Design, Lighting Signage applications for Thomson Consumer Electronics.The
petitioner seeks approval of a 297 space parking lot expansion on 13.9 acres. The
site is located southeast of West 103 Street and Superior Street. The site is
zoned S -2 /Residence; B -1 /Business; and B -5 /Business, and is located in the U.S.
31 Overlay Zone.
Filed by James D. Piggott, Jr. of Woolpert LLP for Thomson Consumer
Electronics.
Jim Nelson, attorney, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel appeared before the Board
representing the applicant. Also present on behalf of Thomson Consumer Electronics
were Pam Fox, Dave Arland, and Rip Dyer; and from Woolpert and Associates, Jim
Piggott, Jr.
Development Plan Approval is being requested to expand a parking annex of 48 spaces
approved in 1997 for Thomson Consumer Electronics. The request is to expand the 48
space area into a 4.6 acre parcel that lies east of Superior, between the Mariott and the
Pilgrim Lutheran Church, and to provide within that area 256 parking additional spaces.
s:\ Minutes \PlanCommission \pc2000aug 12
The need for the additional parking area arises as a result of Thomson's response to the
digital revolution. It is Thomson's business plan to include digital in all of its product
line and as a result, it is their intention to bring to the research and development facility
over 200 digital technicians over the next 12 months.
There is not a lot to consider from an architectural design point of view on a parking lot,
but the drawings show an existing parking area of 48 spaces, reduced to 39 because of the
reconfiguration, and the area farther east that will provide for 256 spaces.
Minimal site lighting has been provided; there are 8 pole mounted fixtures with shoebox
style lighting fixture. The photo metrics provide that the point one foot candle
requirement is met at the property line.
Of primary significance is the landscaping. The petitioner has provided a specific plan to
include landscaping around the perimeter, within the parking area, and adjacent to U.S.
31. There are undulating mounds, one to three feet in height, and heavily landscaped
pursuant to the landscape plan.
The petitioner has also provided a commitment to the Department with respect to the
installation of sidewalks.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one
appeared and the public hearing was closed.
Laurence Lillig reported that it was brought to the Department's attention that there may
be a commitment from the petitioner to build a parking garage in lieu of further parking
lot expansion. If that is the case in fact, Thomson will need to obtain a Commitment
Amendment prior to an approval of the Development Plan/ADLS. The commitment will
be researched shortly.
Jim Nelson verified that in February, 1992, Docket V -5 -92, a variance was granted with
respect to parking requirements for the Research and Development building. At that
time, a variance was granted reducing the number of parking spaces required for that
building. The deferral of those parking spaces was granted based upon the fact that if it
was deemed necessary, Thomson would install, at the request of the Board or the Plan
Commission, a parking garage (if requested.) As of today, Thomson has not been
requested to install a parking garage. The parking garage that would be installed and in
fact was approved would be several stories in height and was to be sufficient in size to
accommodate 274 parking spaces.
At the time Thomson was approved, it was one of the very first to be approved in this
area; since approval, the development has matured and many new buildings have been
built. The desirability of a parking garage in this area is not in the best interest of the
other business owners and building owners within the office park. Thomson has not been
asked to construct a garage, and unless asked, it is not necessary to construct a garage.
The 4 acre parcel for the parking area has been leased from the Pilgrim Lutheran Church.
s:\Minutes\PlanConmfission\pc2000aug 13
For informational purposes, Variances V -36 -92 and V -5 -92 should provide additional
back -up information.
Leo Dierckman agreed that the Plan Commission should not require the construction of a
parking garage; it is an inappropriate use that would over look a lot of homes, etc.
Secondly, with some slight modification on the mounding, perhaps rounding the corners
of the parking lot, the design is excellent. With proper mounding and protection from
U.S. 31 is provided, there should be no issue with the petition.
Paul Spranger commented that the landscaping plan should provide for year 'round
screening, in addition to rounding the corners. Also, some small plantings in front of the
taller screening to provide transition and depth would be desirable.
In response to Leo Dierckman's comments regarding the landscaping, Jim Nelson stated
that mounding can be extended back to about the 3' parking space and on each end, wrap
the buffer at the corners of the parking lot. The species selection will also be reviewed so
that the buffer will be green all year 'round.
Laurence Lillig: The Department strongly suggests that this be sent to committee to
allow time to look into the specifics of those commitments and the specific language.
This is perhaps a failing on my part, but I was not aware that these commitments were in
place and only brought to my attention after the report had been prepared. I would like to
be certain that we are not jumping the gun. Certainly, our original recommendation on
this was that it be forwarded to the Special Study Committee. An opportunity is
requested to look into the commitments further and report at that time.
Comments from the Commission members:
Ron Houck: Stated that he was on the Plan Commission at the time this was originally
presented. The request from Thomson as characterized by Mr. Nelson was to "landbank"
parking spaces at that time because they did not feel that the parking allowances were
consistent with what their business needs were at that time, i.e. less people per square
footage, which is what dictated parking numbers at that time. One clarification requested
is, was there an exact location for the parking garage? The understanding was that they
committed to construct it, but an exact location was not committed to. Secondly, the
intent for that commitment was to avoid the concept of a sea of asphalt. The feeling of
the people on the Commission at that time was that this was a preferred alternative to
having the additional parking above ground. Obviously, thinking changes from time -to-
time, but that was the thinking at that time. It would be interesting to hear the results of
the Department's research.
Dave Cremeans: A parking garage, regardless of where it is located on this property,
would either have to be in an area perhaps where this parking lot is planned or in the area
Jim (Nelson) pointed out on the overhead. Either location is not good, and no one wants
to see a parking garage from U.S. 31. If I lived in the housing addition behind where it is
s:\ Minutes \PlanCommission \pc2000aug 14
proposed, I would really be upset. I would not want to look out my back window and see
a concrete garage. Wherever we go with this, it appears that this is good, common sense
planning, rather than a parking garage.
Leo Dierckman: Was in favor of suspending the rules.
Pat Rice: Asked if the rules were to be suspended and this item recommended for
approval, could the Commission require contingents that would be worked out with the
Dept. of Community Services, whatever they need to research, and that they could handle
it.
Dave Cremeans: If it is not acceptable, (to the Dept.) it would have to come back before
the Plan Commission. We would still give the Department the right to pull the "kill
switch."
Leo Dierckman moved to suspend the rules, seconded by Pat Rice. Approved 11 in
favor, 1 opposed (Ron Houck.)
Leo Dierckman moved to approve Docket No. 137 -00 DP /ADLS, Thomson Consumer
Electronics parking lot expansion, subject to the Department's review and finalization of
the parking garage issue to their satisfaction -that the commitment has not been requested
or required by the City, and incorporating the landscape changes that wrap around on the
south and north sides of the parking lot (detailed landscape plan to be provided to the
Department of Community Service for final approval); seconded by Bob Modisett.
APPROVED 11 in favor, 1 opposed (Ron Houck.)
Note: There was discussion as to whether or not item l Oh should be heard and l I
Tabled this evening, since these items are paired. The Department is recommending that
item l lh be Tabled until all necessary petitions have been filed and revised documents
received.
Paul G. Reis addressed the Commission in regard to item l lh. The issues are the
drainage plan and re- platting the lots involved in the expansion. Mr. Reis stated that a
drainage plan was submitted to the Technical Advisory Committee and additional,
detailed information was requested. The additional information is being prepared and
will be submitted in advance of the September 5 th Committee meetings. The issue with
the replat was only made aware to the petitioner at the time the Department Report was
received; however, the petitioner does feel that the replat can be put together in advance
of the Special Study Committee.
Mr. Reis requested that both items l Oh and l I be heard this evening as opposed to
having another public hearing at a later date on item l lh, especially since these two
project items go together. There has been some research into the re -plat and how it
affects the site design plan. Mr. Reis requested that the Commission reconsider, and
allow l I to be heard this evening.
s:\ Minutes \PlanCommission \pc2000aug 15
Laurence Lillig pointed out that the re -plat was discussed at the Technical Advisory
Committee meeting and it was deemed necessary on this project. The Department is still
recommending that this item be tabled. The City Engineer is in attendance at this
evening's meeting, if the Commission would like to discuss the drainage issue.
Jim O'Neal moved to TABLE item l lh, Docket No. 139 -00 DP /ADLS, MOTION
DENIED 4 in favor, 7 opposed, no vote, Dave Cremeans.
I Oh. Docket No. 138 -00 Z Rezone petition for Carmel Ace Hardware, Inc. The
petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation for a rezone from the R -2 /Residence district
to the B -7 /Business district on Lots 2 and 3 of Newark Village Subdivision. The site is
located on the northwest corner of Paunee Road and Winona Drive. The site is zoned R-
2 /Residence.
Note: This item is paired with Item l lh. under Public Hearings (Docket No. 139 -00
DP /ADLS).
Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for Carmel Ace Hardware, Inc.
I lh. Docket No. 139 -00 DP /ADLS, Development Plan and Architectural Design,
Lighting Signage applications for Carmel Ace Hardware, Inc. The petitioner seeks
approval of an expansion of the Ace Hardware. The site is located at 731 South Range
Line Road. The site is zoned B -7 /Business and R -2 /Residence.
Note: This item is paired with Item l Oh. under Public Hearings (Docket No. 138 -00 Z.)
Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for Carmel Ace Hardware, Inc.
Paul Reis, 12358 Hancock Street, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing
the applicant. Also in attendance were Mr. and Mrs. Steve White, owners of the Ace
Hardware store, David Freiburger, general contractor, and Mark Monroe of The Reis
Law Firm.
The petitioner is seeking approval to rezone to a Business district. A new, covered
garden center is being proposed, as well as an expansion for the parking lot facility. No
additional signage being proposed.
The Hardware store has continued to prosper since its re- location from Main Street in Old
Towne. However, with the success of the store, customer demand for garden supplies
and materials has grown to the point where the current garden center is inadequate to
provide space needed. In order to avoid outside storage, Mr. White is proposing the
construction of a new garden center and a drive through loading area to accommodate the
customer. A larger facility would allow Mr. White to expand the amount and variety of
products and also allow competition with the large, national and regional hardware store
chains.
There is no outside storage at this location, and all merchandise is within the enclosed
walls. This situation has forced a decrease in the offering of products to the community.
The current location is at the corner of Winona and Range Line Road. The petitioner is
proposing a rezone of two lots extending to Pawnee Road and Winona Drive. The two
s:\Minutes\PlanConmfission\pc2000aug 16
lots are currently zoned R -2 /Residential, and under the petition, would be rezoned to B -7/
Business district, the same as the current store and site.
Pursuant to the requirements of the B -7 district, the petitioner has prepared the
development plan and the architectural design and landscaping plans for the construction
of the new garden center and the expansion of the parking lot. No additional signage is
being proposed for the project at this time.
The covered garden center will consist of approximately 10,159 square feet. The plan
does include a 30 foot landscape buffer with the residential areas to the north. There will
also be additional landscaping along the south and east sides of the expanded parking
area. The petitioner is in the process of changing the suggested species of trees and
adding shrubbery so that additional screening will benefit the neighbors to the east.
The traffic has been discussed with the neighbors. Mr. White is supportive of any and all
efforts to institute a 4 -way stop at the intersection of Pawnee and Winona Drive. It is
hopeful that upon completion of construction on Rangeline Road, the primary points of
ingress /egress to the store will be out Winona Drive and onto Rangeline Road. Once the
Rangeline Road improvements are completed, it is hopeful that traffic currently going
through the neighborhood will go out to Rangeline Road and thus alleviate traffic through
the neighborhood.
The expansion will be a continuation of the current look of the store in terms of masonry,
materials, etc. The north elevation, looking to the houses to the north, utilizes black
metal fencing for the gate and the wood treatment for the storage area that will totally
enclose the area. The east elevation was shown, with the brick wall on the garden center.
The same style and gables are on the north elevation. The south side will have a brick
wall, black metal fence, and columns along with the wood roofing and the gate area. A
lighting plan has been filed with the Department of Community Services.
The petitioner met with the Technical Advisory Committee on July 19 and the
petitioner is working with their engineering firm to address those concerns. These issues
will be addressed and ready for committee review. Also, the replat is anticipated for
review at the committee level.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petitions; no one appeared.
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petitions; the following
appeared:
Thomas Mundt, 729 Pawnee Drive, (opposite the parking lot) spoke as a representative of
the Newark Village Subdivision. Mr. Mundt was not opposed to growth, but asked the
Commission to manage growth responsibly so that it does not undermine the quality of
life of the current and future residents. The proposed expansion would encroach into one
of Carmel's few remaining, entry level residential neighborhoods, with a wonderful mix
of older, life -long Carmel residents as well as the growing population of young couples
and new families. The homes in this Subdivision were not purchased in a commercial
s:\ Minutes \PlanCommission \pc2000aug 17
development area and commercial is not wanted. It is understood that the Rangeline
corridor is a point of focus for economic development and this is not opposed. The
encroachment of the commercial into the neighborhood is opposed. The very corner Mr.
White is proposing to develop is currently a school bus stop. Another area of great
concern is traffic flow. The intersection of 126 and Rangeline Road is currently being
expanded and improved; any increase in traffic entering or exiting the hardware store
would be in direct opposition to the smooth flow of traffic through that intersection. As it
currently stands with the new medians, the only way traffic may exit the store and
proceed south on Rangeline is to first exit onto Winona. In addition, approaching the
hardware store from the east, the most logical point of access is to circumvent the
intersection of 126 and Rangeline Road and cut through the neighborhood. Mr. White's
own delivery trucks cut through the neighborhood. There are currently 36 listings in the
telephone book for northside garden centers. This location is not the place to battle a
superstore. The area proposed for development is a low spot and seriously flooded a few
years ago. Mr. White was aware of the boundaries when he bought the store and Mr.
Mundt would say "No" to the expansion. The customers of the hardware store were
never polled as to an expansion of the facility or expansion of merchandise. After
meeting with the neighbors and concerns voiced regarding the landscaping plan, no
changes were made in the landscape plan, only promises of looking into it. Traffic flow
was not taken into consideration from 126 Street, only from Rangeline Road.
Dawn Widmer (Greeves), 721 Pawnee Drive, stated that she has spent a lot of money
remodeling her home. This is one of the last, affordable neighborhoods in Carmel.
Traffic has increased ten -fold since the purchase of her home 5 years ago. Speeds of the
cut through traffic skirting the construction are outrageous. If the proposed expansion is
approved, Pawnee Street will have 3 homes as a buffer between a long established,
residential neighborhood and commercial zone. Ace Hardware is not in the same market
with Menards and Loews -they do not carry the same merchandise, they cannot begin to
compete and adding a garden center will not take them the additional step. Please do not
sacrifice the neighborhood for the expansion of the Ace Hardware.
Mike Elkin, 131 Winona Drive, stated that Mr. White has been a good neighbor.
However, Mr. Elkin does have concerns with the proposed expansion plans. There are
definite concerns with traffic flow out of the store into the neighborhood. Most traffic
entering the store will do so on Rangeline, but will exit onto Winona, into the
neighborhood. Mr. Elkin would support a 4 -way stop at the intersection of Winona and
Pawnee.
Chris Tolin, 150 Winona Drive, likes Ace Hardware, but objects to the hardware store
encroaching into a residential area and is afraid it will set a precedent. Mr. Tolin is
definitely opposed to the rezone and expansion.
Patty Ryker, 121 Winona, 12 year resident, loves the quiet neighborhood. Ms. Ryker
sees no reason to change the view to a parking lot that would devalue the homes. Traffic
is a major concern; there are small children in the area. Ms. Ryker asked that the
Commission not approve the petitions.
s:\ Minutes \PlanCommission \pc2000aug 18
Mr. Mundt presented a petition from the adjoining neighbors to the Commission asking
that the expansion of Ace Hardware into any residential property be opposed.
Rebuttal: Paul Reis. Mr. Reis stated that he has talked with the Mundts. The petitioner is
willing to consider additional landscaping between the hardware store and the residential
neighborhood. The petitioner would also support the 4 -way stop. The Hardware store
will not be a "Loews" but will remain a local business. The outside materials were
shifted to the Geist Store, since outside storage is not allowed in Carmel. The Hardware
store will not carry appliances, but will offer a host of products.
Department Report, Laurence Lillig. The Department recommends that item l Oh be
forwarded to the Special Study Committee that will meet in the Caucus Rooms of City
Hall on September 5 th at 7:00 PM. Item l lh is recommended to be TABLED until
such time as all items are received by the Department.
Ron Houck asked about the lighting plan -types and lighting fixtures and site lighting.
Mr. Reis responded that the lighting plan should have been included with the submittal,
but will be sure to bring it to Committee on the 5 th of September.
Docket No. 138 -00 Z and 139 -00 DP /ADLS for Newark Village Subdivision, Carmel
Ace Hardware, were forwarded to Subdivision Committee that will meet on Tuesday,
September 5 th in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall at 7:00 PM.
12h. Docket No. 131 -00 DP /ADLS, Development Plan and Architectural Design,
Lighting Signage applications for Chrysler Realty. The petitioner seeks approval to
establish an automobile dealership on 7.3 acres. The site is located on Block 6, Lot 2 of
Mayflower Park Subdivision. The site is on the southwest corner of West 99 Street and
Michigan Road. The site is zoned I- l Industrial and is located in the U.S. 421 Overlay
Zone.
Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for Chrysler Realty.
Paul Reis, 12358 Hancock Street, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing
the applicant. Also in attendance were Ron Angeletti, central area manager for land
acquisition, and Mark Monroe of The Reis Law Firm.
The petitioner is proposing construction of a new Chrysler Auto Dealership to be located
in the U.S. 421 Michigan Road corridor, at the southwest corner of Michigan Road and
99 Street. The site is the former Mayflower facility, now RCI, currently zoned I -1
Industrial, and consists of 7.3 acres. The proposed building is 30,000 square feet in size,
Consistent with the Overlay Zone, the building has been oriented towards Michigan
Road. Additional right -of -way is to be dedicated to INDOT in connection with the
roadway improvements to 421. The petitioner has oriented the building in such a manner
as to improve the site and provide an innovative site design and encourage efficient land
usage. The building has been set 120 feet from Michigan Road and is very different from
s:\ Minutes \PlanCommission \pc2000aug 19
the typical, suburban automobile dealership that would typically have large parking areas
in front of the main dealership. There is a 30 foot greenbelt along Michigan Road and the
petitioner has limited the amount of parking to two rows so that the building is clearly
within and oriented to the corridor in keeping with the spirit of the Overlay Ordinance.
The landscape plan also calls for the preservation of existing trees on the south side of the
site and landscape planting within the parking lot along the north side (99 Street). There
is a large, open green area on the western part of the site.
The petitioner has filed and presented to the Board of Zoning Appeals certain variances
to reduce the number of trees and shrubs in the various, required landscape areas. The
petitioner is currently working with the Department in order to further refine their
landscape plan and to better address the ordinance requirements, the variance request, and
also, the permitted use of the property as an automobile dealership.
The building is to be constructed and designed in the Federalist style, one of the
permitted styles under the Ordinance. Some features are the archway, the cut stone look,
the columns, and the cornices. The building materials are available for review. The front
fagade (east elevation) utilizes "EFIS" material to project a cut stone appearance. The
side and rear facades, in addition to the EFIS material, also has a scored, split -face,
masonry.
In regard to signage, there would be signage on the east elevation and a monument sign
located along Michigan Road within the landscape areas. The sign is 10 feet in height as
opposed to 7 feet allowable along a thoroughfare. A variance has been filed with the
Board of Zoning Appeals for the height of the sign and the number of signs. Presently,
99 Street is not a public street, however, it is anticipated that it will be dedicated to the
County as a public street. In the interim, a variance is required for the wall sign and the
monument sign for the dealership.
A detailed lighting plan has been filed with the Department, however it was not included
in the informational packets because of legibility when it is reduced in size. The
petitioner is working to address issues raised at the TAC meeting, namely the master
drainage plan for the park and the site. The petitioner is working with the County on the
drainage.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; no one appeared.
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petition; no one
appeared and the public hearing was closed.
The Department is recommending that this item be forwarded to the Special Study
Committee scheduled to meet September 5 th at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City
Hall.
Wayne Haney asked for a definition of the "Federalist" style.
s:\ Minutes \PlanCommission \pc2000aug 20
Dave Cremeans asked that the Committee look at the proposed "Federalist" style and the
signage.
Ron Houck questioned if the Department had reviewed the architectural style and design
of the building and if so, what was the Department's opinion and were there any
comments?
Laurence Lillig reported that a review letter had been received from the architectural
consultant for U. S. 421. The architectural style could not be identified and it is the
opinion of the Department that the architectural style will require a variance.
Docket No. 131 -00 DP /ADLS was sent to the Special Study Committee for further
review on September 5 at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall.
I. Old Business:
li. Docket No. 106 -99 SP, TABLED.
2i. Docket No. 107 -99 DP /ADLS, TABLED.
3i. Docket No. 109 -99 DP /ADLS, TABLED.
4i. Docket No. 57 -00 PP, TABLED.
5i. Docket No. 100 -00 PP, Primary Plat application for Edgar Mary E. Fleenor.
The petitioner requests approval to plat 2 lots on 4.40 acres to be known as Sunset
Heights Subdivision. The site is located on the southwest corner of Norriston Drive and
Westfield Boulevard. The site is zoned S- 2/Residence and is being developed as a Minor
Subdivision. The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waivers:
100 -00a SW SCO 8.8 to forego the installation of curbs gutters
100 -00b SW SCO 8.9.1 to forego the installation of sidewalks
Filed by David R. Barnes of Weihe Engineering for Edgar Mary E. Fleenor.
Stan Neal with Weihe Engineers, 10505 North College Avenue, Indianapolis, appeared
before the Plan Commission together with Dave Barnes, also of Weihe Engineers.
Approval is being requested for a Primary Plat application for Sunset Heights
Subdivision. The petitioner has appeared before the Subdivision Committee; the owners
of the lots have agreed to sign a letter of commitment to construct sidewalks when
sidewalks are built up to their property.
Ron Houck confirmed that the Subdivision Committee had heard this project. The
Committee was concerned that the commitment would include not only if sidewalks were
brought to the property line, or at such time as a sidewalk plan was put into place and at
the request of the Department to install sidewalks.
s:\ Minutes \PlanCommission \pc2000aug 21
Laurence Lillig reiterated that the Committee wanted a re- working of the commitments
so that it would be easier to cause the sidewalks to go into effect. It could be initiated by
the Plan Commission, Department of Community Services, or by an adoption of a
sidewalk plan for the area, generally. This draft provision will be sent to the Department
of Law for review; once that is accomplished, it can be "signed off' by the petitioners.
A commitment was also requested for the installation of curbs and gutters, should those
ever come through.
Ron Houck confirmed that the Waivers were not recommended for approval, but
commitments were asked for instead. The language is as stated by Laurence Lillig. The
Committee had voted in favor or recommending the plat for approval, but not the
waivers.
Ron Houck moved for the approval of Docket No. 100 -00 PP, Sunset Heights
Subdivision. APPROVED 11 in favor, none opposed to the Primary Plat; none in favor
11 opposed to granting the Subdivision (variances) Waivers 100 -00a SW and 100 -00b
SW. SUBDIVISION WAIVERS DENIED.
6i. Docket No. 102 -00 PP, Primary Plat application for DYC Realty. The petitioner
requests approval to plat 4 logts on 38.23 acres to be known as East 96 Street Auto
Park Subdivision. The site is located on the northeast corner of East 96 Street and
Randall Drive. The site is zoned B -3 /Business.
Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for DYC Realty.
Note: Kent Broach recused himself from this Docket due to a potential conflict of
interest.
Charlie Frankenberger, attorney with Nelson and Frankenberger, 3021 East 98 Street,
Indianapolis, appeared before the Commission representing the applicant, DYC Realty,
Tom O'Brien, and Tom Wood, in connection with their request for Primary Plat approval
to allow the division of approximately 39 acres into 3 lots.
The real estate is a rectangular parcel consisting of a west parcel, the east parcel, and the
floodway in between. The real estate is bordered on the south by 96 Street, on the west
by Keystone Avenue, and on the east by Gray Road.
On June. 26 the applicant presented to the Board of Zoning Appeals the request for a
Special Use to develop the eastern parcel for automobile sales and service. The request
was unanimously approved, but the BZA asked that the petitioner submit greater detail to
the Plan Commission on the buildings.
The Plan Commission reviewed the primary plat and sent it to the Subdivision
Committee for further review. The Committee unanimously recommended the approval
of the primary plat. The residential community to the north, Williamson Run, also was in
total support of the primary plat, as witness the presence of the Daniel Boarab, president
of the Williamson Run HOA.
s:\Minutes\PlanConmfission\pc2000aug 22
The Palmer Dodge entrance and the entrance to the Tom Wood/Tom O'Brien facility
have been aligned. There were questions regarding maintenance of the greenway area,
the lighting plan, and the removal of the metal siding from the Tom O'Brien building.
The applicant has agreed to eliminate the metal siding on the Tom O'Brien building.
The Tom O'Brien building is located in the eastern-most part of the real estate, across
from Palmer Dodge, approximately 275 feet back from 96 Street and closest to the
mining operations. The metal siding has been eliminated. The building fagade now
consists of painted, split -face block with painted, textured block. The petitioner was
asked to consider "squaring off' the south elevation by adding a parapet. The parapet
wall was considered; however, it does create some functional problems.
Tom O'Brien addressed the Commission regarding the squaring off of the building and
the addition of the parapet wall. The cost factor was negligible, however, there are some
functional problems where the roof meets the wall -with the constant freeze and thaw, it
would be an on -going source of concern regarding water leaks. Most people would be
approaching the building from an angle, and not from the front. The architectural
integrity of the building would be compromised.
Ron Houck reported for the Subdivision Committee. The petitioner has agreed to
textured block rather than metal siding. The building is pretty plain and architecturally
uninteresting, but the petitioner was willing to consider a parapet and change the building
material. The Committee had voted unanimously in favor.
Dave Cremeans was confused as to looking at the design of the building on a primary plat
request. Laurence Lillig explained that B -3 zoning requires that any use must go for a
special use approval. The Board of Zoning Appeals does not have as tight a system for
dealing with architectural design as does the Plan Commission. Therefore, the Board of
Zoning Appeals asked that the petitioner agree to come before the Plan Commission for
architectural review.
Note: This item has already been ruled on by the Board of Zoning Appeals and it may be
discussed openly.
Leo Dierckman reported the findings of the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board agreed
to the signage, but did not feel that they had adequate capabilities to review the overall
architectural design of the property; therefore, it was made a part of the plat approval
process.
There was further discussion regarding the architectural design of the building.
Pat Rice commented that the Board had approved two other petitions for automobile
dealerships to change the present, well designed and aesthetically pleasing buildings to
totally different designs that this Plan Commission would not have approved, and yet, it
did go through the BZA. This particular petition is in line with what was approved, and
we will see a different look on 96 Street because of this.
s:\Minutes\PlanConmfission\pc2000aug 23
Laurence Lillig reviewed the 25 points that the Board of Zoning Appeals is directed to
review. Lighting is one of those items architectural design is not. In many instances, on
the 96 Street corridor, red brick was a standard. The current Board did not feel they had
the same leverage or control as previous Boards, and therefore requested the petitioner to
appear before the Plan Commission for architectural design.
John Molitor stated that the Ordinance does not give the Board of Zoning Appeals the
ability to refer a case to the Plan Commission.
Dave Cremeans commented that the Subdivision Committee looked at this because it is
the subdivision of a plat, however no one has given proper review of the ADLS.
There was further discussion regarding the architectural design of the building and the
fact that there is no ADLS review required in the B -3 district.
Kevin Kirby commented that perhaps the Ordinance needed to be changed to require
ADLS review in the B -3 District.
Ron Houck reported that the Subdivision Committee's vote was in favor of the project,
but that vote was based on the change in material and the petitioner looking at a change
in design. The change in design is before the Commission this evening. The parapet was
suggested to "square off' the building. The petitioner has stated reasons why the parapet
is not functional.
Kevin Kirby moved for approval of Docket No. 102 -00 PP, East 96 Street Auto Park,
seconded by Pat Rice. The vote was 6 in favor, five opposed -NO ACTION VOTE.
Steve Engelking addressed the Commission requesting clarification of the charge to the
Department. The BZA minutes should determine what occurred with regard to this issue,
whether or not there were commitments agreed to. The petitioner is also to look at the
architectural design of the building again.
Charlie Frankenberger addressed the Commission. The petitioner did appear at the Board
of Zoning Appeals for Special Use Approval. The BZA approval was for everything,
architectural design, lighting, not signage if a variance is needed. After the entire project
was presented to the BZA, Mrs. Rice asked for more detail on building materials and
exterior design, and asked if we were willing to present that to the Plan Commission as
part of our primary plat approval. The petitioner's response was in the affirmative. It
was then presented to the Plan Commission, and referred to Subdivision Committee. We
implemented the change and came back to the Plan Commission believing that we had
done what we were called upon to do and that this was acceptable. The signs were
approved as a separate matter by the BZA. Time does not permit the project to go back
to Plan Commission next month, and to hear the Department's recommendation on what
was and was not committed to. The Plan Commission would then conclude that they
would either send the petitioner to Special Study Committee or not; this would mean an
s:\ Minutes \PlanCommission \pc2000aug 24
appearance in November at Special Study Committee and then back to the Plan
Commission in December. This timing creates some major problems.
Charlie Frankenberger volunteered to attend the Special Study Committee on September
5th for architectural review of the building and then back to the full Plan Commission on
September 19, 2000.
Kevin Kirby commented that when the Commission abuses their own rules, they weaken
all of the rules, and this has happened this evening. It is upsetting. We will deal with this
at Special Study Committee, but in the future, rather than continuing to abuse the rules,
the rules should be changed.
Leo Dierckman moved to reconsider the motion to send this item to the Special Study
Committee, seconded by Ron Houck. APPROVED 7 in favor, 4 opposed, Kent Broach
recused.
Docket No. 102 -00 PP, East 96 Street Auto Park Subdivision, will be heard at the
Special Study Committee on September 5 at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City
Hall.
7i. Docket No. 110 -00 PP Amend, Primary Plat Amendment application for
Kenneth B. Donna E. Evans. The petitioner requests approval to amend the
boundaries of Parkside Village Subdivision, Section 2, to exclude Block H. The site is
located at 44 Wilson Drive East. The site is zoned R -4 /Residence.
Note: This item is paired with Items 8i. and 9i. under Old Business (Docket Nos. 1 I 1 -00
PP Amend and 112 -00 PV.)
Filed by David R. Barnes of Weihe Engineering for Kenneth B Donna E Evans
8i. Docket No. 111 -00 PP Amend, Primary Plat Amendment application for
Kenneth B. Donna E. Evans. The petitioner requests approval to amend the
boundaries of Wilson's Village Subdivision, Section 2, to include Parkside Village,
Section 2, Block H. The site is located at 44 Wilson Drive East. The site is zoned R-
2 /Residence and R- 4/Residence.
Note: This item is paired with Items 7i. and 9i. under Old Business (Docket Nos. 110 -00
PP Amend and 111 -00 PP Amend.)
Filed by David R. Barnes of Weihe Engineering for Kenneth B Donna E Evans
9i. Docket No. 112 -00 PV, Plat Vacation application for Kenneth B Donna E
Evans. The petitioner requests approval to vacate Parkside Village, Section 2, Block H
in order to incorporate it into Wilson's Village, Section 2, Lot 115. The site is located at
44 Wilson Drive East. The site is zoned R -4 /Residence.
Note: This item is paired with Items 7i. and 8i. under Old Business (Docket Nos. 110 -00
PP Amend and 111 -00 PP Amend).
Filed by David R. Barnes of Weihe Engineering for Kenneth B Donna E Evans
s:\ Minutes \PlanCommission \pc2000aug 25
Stan Neal and David R. Barnes of Weihe Engineers appeared before the Commission
requesting approval of Primary Plat Amendments and the Plat Vacation. These items
were heard at the Subdivision Committee on August 1St
Ron Houck, Subdivision Chairman, reported that there was a lot of discussion at the
Committee level regarding the potential use of the property. The Committee did vote
unanimously in favor of the Primary Plat amendments and the Plat Vacation.
Per Laurence Lillig, the Department is recommending approval of all three Dockets.
Kevin Kirby moved for the approval of Docket Nos. 110 -00 PP Amend, I I 1 -00 PP
Amend, and 112 -00 PV, Parkside Village Subdivision, Section 2, Block H. APPROVED
12 in favor, none opposed.
10i. Docket No. 114 -00 DP Amend /ADLS Amend, Development Plan
Amendment aned Architectural Design, Lighting Signage applications for St. Vincent's
Carmel Hospital. The petitioner seeks approval to expand the existing hospital's facilities
on 39 acres.
Filed by Becky R. Feigh of BSA Design for St. Vincent's Carmel Hospital.
Note: Jim O'Neal recused himself from this Docket.
Jim Nelson appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. This matter was
heard at the Special Study Committee on August first. Following review, the expansion
plans for St. Vincent's Carmel hospital were approved subject to three changes to the
plan. These changes were confirmed to the Department by way of written amendment.
In addition, revised plans showing the changes were filed with the Department.
The changes involve the change in exterior building material of the small maintenance
building, and the exterior building materials of the trash refuse area are to be of the same
material and design, style and color as the office buildings, basically "EIFS" exterior
materials. The petitioner also agreed to reduce the height of the trash refuse area from 13
feet to 6 feet 8 inches. Revised plans have been filed with the Department of Community
Services confirming those changes.
Since the Special Study Committee meeting, the petitioner has had personal meetings
with Kate Weese, City Engineer, the County Surveyor Steve Cash and Kent Ward, and
John South of County Soil Water. They required additions to the drainage plan and
these required changes have now been filed. Kate has not yet had an opportunity to
review them. The review meeting with Kent Ward and the petitioner was scheduled
today, but was rescheduled for next week. As of this evening, we have not received final
approval of the drainage plans, and if the Commission sees fit to vote on this application
tonight, it is expected that any approval would be subject to final review of the drainage
plan by the City Engineer, the County Surveyor, and the Department of Soils Water
Conservation.
s:\ Minutes \PlanCommission \pc2000aug 26
Paul Spranger confirmed that the committee had voted to approve this Docket. Mr.
Spranger commented that he had also received copies of the revised plan.
Laurence Lillig reported that he had had a conversation with the County Surveyor's office
this afternoon -they have received the plans and the County Surveyor will be having a
meeting next week to review the plans. As yet, they have not given their blessing to the
drainage plan. The City Engineer received a copy of the drainage plan on the 11 of
August and has not yet had an opportunity to review it. No word has been received from
Soil Water as yet. The City Arborist, Scott Brewer, received correspondence this
afternoon indicating that the plan, as currently proposed, eliminates 50% of the trees on
the northeastern corner. The most recent version of the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone requires
70% tree preservation on site. If the numbers are accurate, that would require a variance.
Paul Spranger responded that at the time the Committee reviewed this project, they did
not have the information from the arborist. By necessity, the location of the building will
relocate some of the trees.
Paul Spranger moved for approval of Docket No. 114 -00 DP Amend/ADLS Amend,
subject to the drainage and a waiver from the Commission regarding the number of trees
on the northeastern corner. APPROVED 11 in favor, none opposed, Jim O'Neal recused.
I li. Docket No. 116 -00 PP Amend, Primary Plat Amendment application for Cheryl
Newman, Paul Brenda Sharpe, and William Lee Dorth Thomas. The petitioner
requests approval to replat Little Farms Addition, Lot 41 into 4 lots on 1.019 acres.
The site is located on the southwest corner of East 104 Street and Combs Street. The
site is zoned R- 1/Residence. The petitioner also seeks approval of the following
Subdivision Waivers:
116 -00a SW SCO 6.3.6 to plat East 104 Street and Combs Street with 20
foot one -half rights -of -way
116 -00b SW SCO 8.8 to forego the installation of curbs gutters
116 -00c SW SCO 8.9.1 to forego the installation of sidewalks
Filed by David R. Barnes of Weihe Engineering for Cheryl Newman, Paul Brenda
Sharpe, and William Lee Dortha Thomas.
Stan Neal and David Barnes of Weihe Engineers appeared before the Commission
representing the applicant. Approval is being requested to replat lot 41 of Little Farms
Addition into 4 lots.
The petitioner has appeared before the Subdivision Committee for review and is
committing to the installation of curbs and gutters, and sidewalks. The petitioner is also
platting a 20 foot one -half right -of way at 104 and Combs Street, with an additional 5
foot County Highway easement.
Ron Houck rendered the Subdivision Committee report. The Committee approved the
primary plat with the waiver for 6.3.6 for the 20 foot one -half right -of -way. The
Committee did not favorably recommend the Subdivision Waivers for installation of
s:\Minutes\PlanConmfission\pc2000aug 27
curbs, gutters and sidewalks. The Committee did request commitments from the
petitioner that the installation of the curbs, gutters, and sidewalks will be worked out with
the Department of Community Services.
Laurence Lillig reported that the 20 foot one -half rights -of -way render the eastern most
of these 4 lots to be less than 10,000 square feet which is the minimum for the R -1
district. By leaving the 15 foot one -half on Combs, the petitioner would re -gain the
square footage and would bring them above the 10,000 square foot minimum. The
Hamilton County Highway Dept. explained in an email that their reasoning for requesting
the 20 foot one -half is that the Indiana Code requires that rights -of -way be not less than
40 feet; hence, a 20 foot one -half is apparently mandated by State Code. As an
alternative, the petitioner stated a willingness to support a petition to vacate Combs. The
Department would also be disposed to support such a petition.
As a matter of amending the primary plat, the Combs Street stub that currently dead ends
in the College Meadows Subdivision is recommended to be vacated and that would solve
both the R -1 problem and the right -of -way issue for the Combs stub. It would then be a
matter of simply resolving the right -of -way vacation with the County Commissioners
prior to the recording of the secondary plat.
The actual plat vacation of Combs Street will be accomplished through the secondary plat
document and the approval of the County Commissioners of that document and the
vacation of the right -of -way.
Ron Houck moved for the approval of Docket No. 116 00 PP Amend, seconded by
Kevin Kirby. APPROVED as to Primary Plat based on the vacation of Combs
Street, 12 in favor, none opposed; the Subdivision Waiver a to plat East 104 Combs
Street with a 20 foot one -half right of way, and an additional 5 feet of right -of -way to the
County was approved (6.3.6); DISAPPROVED in regard to Subdivision Waivers b and c,
SCO 8.8 and 8.9.1 to forego the installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks.
Kevin Kirby addressed the Commission with remarks on ROSO which is being sent back
to the Subdivision Committee for further review. Kevin requested that the Commission
allow the City Council's Land Use Committee to sit in on the Subdivision Committee of
September 5 not necessarily to comment or for input, but for informational purposes.
Most of the tweaks made in ROSO were very positive.
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was
adjourned at 11:50 P.M.
David A. Cremeans, Presid nt
4 /1/1
R, mona ancock, Secretary
s:\ Minutes\P1anCommission \pc2000aug 28