HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 07-19-11 G QliirsIIN, F
r
i s,.,.,..,
i el
CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
JULY 19, 2011
City Hall Council Chambers, 2nd Floor
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
10:00 pm
Members Present: John Adams, Brad Grabow, Judy Hagan, Nick Kestner, Steve Lawson, Kevin "Woody” Rider,
Susan Westermeier, Ephraim Wilfong
Members Absent: Jay Dorman, Steve Stromquist
DOCS Staff Present: Director Michael Hollibaugh, Angie Conn; Legal Counsel John Molitor
Also Present: Ramona Hancock, Plan Commission Secretary
The Minutes of the June 21, 2011 meeting were approved as submitted
No Legal Counsel Report No Dept Concerns at this time.
Motion: Kevin "Woody" Rider to re -order the Agenda and hear Woodland Terrace CCRC under Old Business as
the first item of business this evening;" 8 -0 in favor, Motion Approved.
H. Old Business
1. Docket No. 11020013 DPIADLS: Woodland Terrace CCRC. The applicant seeks site plan
design approval for a continuing care retirement community (CCRC) on 7 acres. The
application also seeks the following zoning waiver request:
2. Docket No. 11030006 ZW: Ordinance Chapter 23.08.01.D: front building setback.
The site is located at l36`" Street (Smokey Row Rd.) and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B-
6 /Business, within the US 31/ Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson
Frankenlrger, on behalf of .Justus .Home;, Inc..
Present for Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewicz, Land Use Professional with Nelson and Frankenberger; Walt
Justus, Justus Companies; Chris White, Consultant; Dan Ware, Architect; Rick Reynolds, Project
Engineer; other members of the development team; and Jim Shinaver, attorney with Nelson and
Frankenberger.
Overview:
e Initially presented at Public Hearing in April
Proposal reviewed by Subdivision Committee
o Returned to the June Plan Commission Meeting
Referred back to Subdivision Committee for additional consideration on July 5 July 12
Returned to full Commission with a favorable recommendation
1
Enhancements made to the Project as follows:
o 40% addition to tree preservation area
o Additional setbacks added from east property line to residential area to the east
o 10 feet additional setback and tree preservation area provided along bldg closest to
Kensington Place
o Garage bldgs moved farther west away from Kensington Place, approx 58 feet
o The additional 58 feet is tree preservation area and increases the buffer width to 108 feet
in that particular area
o Portion of bldg reduced from a 4 -story element to a 3 -story element
o 10'7" parapet reduced to 8 feet in height
o If project developed in phases, 2 northern-most wings of the bldg will be constructed at a
future date (all construction/bldg materials to be consistent)
o Additional landscaping to be provided between the bldg tree preservation area approx
24 plantings OR re- locate the planting materials to an alternate location 3 per lot
o Petitioner has agreed to construct an off -site trail segment., from site to Meadowlark
Park, along Smokey Row Old Meridian
o Commitments tendered address compliance with Carmel Dept of Engineering regarding
drainage requirements and specifies delivery hours to the north and east access area
Monday thru Friday, no earlier than 8:00 am no later than 6:00 pm
o Two parking spaces will be removed from the plan, thereby eliminating the need for a
parking variance to allow the bldg to be shifted farther west
The extension of a 5 ft sidewalk is delineated on the construction plan
Balcony design: some will partially project from the bldg, some will be recessed
At this time, the petitioner is requesting a favorable vote this evening with commitments recited in the
Dept Report
Dept. Report, Angie Conn:
Dept recommends approval of this petition
Approval to be conditioned upon Dept of Engineering approval of final construction documents
recorded commitments being provided to the DOCS
Committee Report, Brad Grabow:
Issues at Committee:
o Interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance
o Understandinciar~•.ificato of Uses Table
o A CCRC is a permitted use within the Overlay
o At closest point of a building to the Kensington property to the east, the topographical
difference is between 6 and 9 feet; the distance is greater traveling south on the property
o Building height became an issue with proximity of this bldg to Kensington Townhomes
profile of the bldg changed substantially
o Petitioner agreed to reduce or eliminate one -half of the fourth story along -side
Kensington Place to reduce bldg height
o Parapet wall height has also been reduced on entire bldg from 10 feet to 8 feet 1'8" for
the part of the bldg adjacent to Kensington Place
o Moving the bldg slightly allowed an additional 58' for tree preservation at the south end
2
10 to 15 more feet of greenspace along the east footprint of the bldg
o Three Committee Members made site visits to similar, existing Justus properties had
favorable comments in terms of condition of the property management practices
o Committee voted 3 -1 favorable recommendation to the Plan Commission
o Balcony issue: request made by neighbors only in respect to those that over looked
Kensington Place and was for balconies to be fully inset —fully functional —but inset or
flush with the facade as opposed to faux or "French- type" balcony
o Roof of the third floor on bldg along Kensington Place is to be made into a "green" roof
with grass or plantings so that it becomes an amenity for the residents Request
clarification from petitioner on this concept
o Petitioner has addressed continuity transition where phase II would attach to phase I
o Need for landscape screening of loading dock mechanicals area on northeast lawn in
the event phase II does not materialize
Commission Member Questions/ Comments:
Issue with Thoroughfare Plan? (standard procedure regarding dedication of right -of -way)
Tree Protection Area— fencing in place, secured, inspected before dirt is moved? (Yes —City
Forester to be on site as well)
Petitioner states that an amended plat will be submitted showing dedication of right -of -way an
administrative procedure conducted by DOCS
How regular are tree inspections? (Dept will check with City Forester)
Will re -plat occur before construction permits issued? (Yes, it is required will be handled
administratively)
Please add trash pick -up time limitations to deliveries section
When will path be constructed to Meadowlark Park? (Petitioner will work with City State for
date/timeline—no definitive date as yet)
e How does reduction of 4t floor affect number size of units? (same number ofunits, but more
studio units rather than larger units more assisted living than independent units as proposed)
Q Petitioner states balcony size is 5X10, approximately 2/3 recessed into the building, 1/3
projecting
O Petitioner will commit to "green roof' in phase I but will need to explore a structural issue
Petitioner commits to plant 20 evergreens in the northeast wing of the bldg for additional
screening will include in commitment language would only apply if development occurs in
two phases, not single phase
Comments from Legal Counsel, John Molitor:
New State Law went into effect July first that affects one provision in commitments: Section 11, second
section: "Provisions of Section 11 Not Withstanding, these commitments shall terminate as to any part
or parts of the real estate hereafter re- classified or rezoned on the City's Official Zone Map." This
sentence was probably included because State Law formerly required that commitments terminate upon
a rezone. Effective July First, State Law no longer requires that. John Molitor recommended removing
the second sentence. The commitments would not automatically terminate upon a rezone —only if the
Commission so determined after a public hearing.
Petitioner will delete the second sentence and the provision that the commitments would not expire with
a rezone.
3
Motion: Steve Lawson "To approve Docket No. 11020013 DP /ADLS, Woodland Terrace CCRC, and
Docket No 11030006 ZW, Ordinance Chapter 23.08.01.D, front building setback, with three conditions:"
1) trash pick -up delivery hours to be agreed upon and committed to by petitioner 2) rooftop option as
a commitment to plant 20 evergreens applies only if development occurs in two phases 3) the 2nd
sentence of Section 11 of the commitments will be stricken;" seconded by Woody Rider, approved 8 -0.
3. TABLED TO AUG. 16: Docket No. 10110012 DP /ADLS: Legacy PUD Turkey Hill
Minit Market. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for an automobile fuel station,
retail store, carwash and also seeks the following zoning waiver approval:
4. Docket No. 10110013 ZW: Section 9102, Legacy PUD Ordinance Z -501 07, maximum 15
ft front yard setback. The site is located at 7729 E. 146 St (at River Rd) and is zoned
PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger on
behalf of Justus Homes, Inc.
I. Public Hearing
1. Docket No. 11050013 Z: Silvara PUD The applicant seeks approval to rezone approximately
300 acres from S -1 /S -2 /Residence West 116 Street Overlay Zone to PUD Planned Unit
Development. The site is located at 11960 Spring Mill Road at the northwest corner of 116
Street and Spring Mill Road. Filed by Steve Hardin of Baker Daniels LLP.
Present for Petitioner: Steve Hardin, attorney, Baker Daniels, representing Republic Development and
the Frenzel Family; Otto Frenzel, representing the landowners; Rick Arness Larry Moon, Republic;
Mark Nemger, DSW, nationally recognized design planning firm based in Denver, Colorado.
Introduction:
Site is located at the northwest corner of 116 Street Spring Mill Road.
Site is a 305 -acre, contiguous piece of property
Site is located near the US 31 corridor has full access to US 31
Adjacent Uses include a Church Property; The Bridges recently approved includes up to
250,000 sq ft of retail space 500,000 sq ft of office use; IU health center PUD as an existing
hospital, with a variety of business residential uses permitted for the balance of the property—
current zoning permits, among other things, multi family, high intensity, residential townhomes
(usually 8 to 9 units per acre) and surrounding neighborhoods ranging from 1.0 to l .3 <unit per
acre density range.
Site Features include:
o Over 90 acres of natural areas, planned preserved open space
o Williams Creek a dramatic divide throughout the property with rolling
topography
o Natural features also include a significant stand of trees -13 acres —and other
fence rows of trees
O Petitioner is requesting a PUD Ordinance for Silvara a $250 million estimated investment in
the community a mixed use development
History of Property, Otto Frenzel IV, 11960 Spring Mill Road
O Grandparents purchased the farm property in 1933 for barn horses
4
Home was built on the property in 1939
The Frenzels have enjoyed the build -out of the neighborhoods and families moving into West
Clay
Frenzel family decision was to divide the property for development but with strict parameters
e Strict parameters included preserving the creek 13 -acres of hardwood trees
Otto Frenzel and his sister will continue to live on the property be deeply involved in the
development of the property
e The proposed development will not be just another subdivision in Carmel but rather something
that Carmel can be proud of
Steve Hardin, C3 Plan Policies Objectives:
o C3 Plan is a holistic, guidance document factor to consider when planning
o "Manage Community Form" to achieve a superior quality built and natural environment in which
people reside, work recreate
o Be a Leading Edge City
Perpetuate Economic Vitality
Be a City of Neighborhoods
Be an Adaptable City
Inspire Community Character
Inspire Environmental Character
Inspire Healthful Living
Silvara was designed with these Comp Plan goals in mind
Proposed development is a good transitional project, east/west
The Comp Plan its policies, as a whole, support this type of development
Plan Overview, Mark Nemger, Design Studios West, Inc.:
Comp Plan requires developer to look at what is happening around them
Site is completely surrounded by other developments, from existing neighborhoods to the west to
intense uses to proposed uses, church uses and traditional neighborhoods
Petitioner would like to preserve internal features of the site, i.e. existing waterway, wildlife
corridor, 13 acres of woods, existing vegetation on site
O Proposal allows for natural areas, landscape areas, potential areas for community gardens
Comp. Plan requires a. regional trail connection thru the site (12 .ft wide path 4,000 ft long) and
connected to side paths on Spring Mill and Clay Center, and a side path on 1 lf'' Street as well
a Trail within Silvara would be off-street trail system :integrated into a walk system
Comp Plan requires open space availability to all residents within 5 minutes or one quarter mile
of their residence
To the north of the creek is the Enclave area Bridgecreek to the south —when combined, these
areas are an opportunity for empty nester residential a variety of products /home -sites for
detached residential
Village neighborhood is the largest mix of residential products
Silvara is a conceptual plan with street layouts, trail network, pond location detention areas
Traditional Single Family Areas include The Estates, Creekside, and Woodlands
Buffer areas proposed exceed existing requirements for buffers
PUD specifies architectural design guidelines standards to ensure quality
Empty Nester Areas include The Enclave, Bridgecreek, Forestview, Williams Creek
5
Village Neighborhood is a mix of single family, detached homes
Village Center will link up to all other neighborhoods; pedestrian scaled, neighborhood- scaled,
and neighborhood amenity with small retail uses
O Village,Green is the central gathering place is walkable
Petitioner feels PUD responds to Frenzel family's goals as well as the City's planning goals,
while taking into account the changing demographics
Changing Demographics, Larry Moon, Republic Development
Clay Township's demographics are changing
Changing demographics will change the need for housing in the future
Silvara addresses the needs of the community by createing a sustainable community
Based on Trends, there is decreasing demand for family homes on large lots, and
Increasing demand for active adult empty nester housing
Trends show empty nester housing needs are growing significantly will be a target market for
this area
Empty nesters desire smaller homes but quality homes as well
Silvara is a planned, collection of neighborhoods with design standards that ensure quality
development
O Petitioner feels they have addressed the City's planning goals, studying contexts, site features,
and transitions
Comprehensive Plan goals represent smart growth leads to a truly sustainable community
Petitioner also feels the development plan responds to changing demographics
Neighbor Outreach, Otto Frenzel IV:
Sent letters of invitation to neighbors and. HOA presidents for open houses walking tours
35 meetings with neighbors interested parties
Multiple one -on -one meetings resulting in numerous changes to proposed Silvara PUD
o Outreach continues with neighbors other interested parties
Conclusion, Steve Hardin:
Silvara will be a ,special, unique neighborhood for the City of Cannel
Silvara will provide certainty for the development of this property,by:
o Preserving natural features
o Adding significant, architextural standards
o Incorporating open spaces
o Creating a high quality, walkable, livable neighborhood with mix of uses
responsive to the change in demographics
From planning perspective, Silvara offers good transitions meets Comprehensive Plan's
policies objectives
Silvara PUD is good planning design
Current zoning could result in "just another subdivision"
Current zoning permits one- quarter -acre lots and one -third -acre lots with no committed
architectural standards, and minimal square footage for the homes as low as 1,000 square feet
O Current zoning is not what is proposed with Silvara
0 The 305 -acre site is large enough to allow accommodations to be made to be able to
accommodate current development that is already in the area
6
Numerous changes have been made in the proposed Silvara PUD in response to Staff comments
neighbors' questions suggestions
The petitioner believes that from a density perspective, Silvara will be compatible with the
density of the adjacent neighborhoods
The Frenzels look forward to continued dialogue and meetings with the neighbors regarding this
development
Petitioner looks forward to Committee review
Public Remonstrance:
Motion: Woody Rider "To suspend the Rules of Procedure to allow additional time (within reason) for
public comments," seconded by Ephraim Wilfong, approved 8 -0.
General Comments- Favorable
Pete Adams Jim Marshall, Adams Marshall Homes, 9310 N. Michigan Road, largest
builder of empty nester, adult homes in the Indpls area has worked with Republic for approx 6
years. Empty nester will be a very healthy market and Adams Marshall look forward to
working with the petitioner
Dr. Jim Noland, 770 West 116 Street the southern-most and western-most borders of the
proposed development. Presently the property is zoned within the 116 Street Overlay, one home
per 3 acres, Dr. Noland has walked the woods and boundaries with the Frenzels (approx 1200
feet) Some significant concessions have been made that will maintain the quality of the area—
1 retention ponds have been moved, the density of the dwellings has been reduced, additional areas
of old- growth trees have been preserved, increased the landscape barrier along their property line
from 20 feet to 30 feet to 50 feet and more in some areas. The Frenzels continued residence
within the development bodes well for continued dialogue compromise
f Andy Gervin, 13520 Shakamak, professional engineer and surveyor, is familiar with the
developer and is in favor of this proposal. The development has excellent green space and trails
and has limited retail. The petitioner has also done a good job of establishing step -down uses
and the density. Kudos to the developer and would recommend/support this development
Gary Ritz, 4303 Powder Horn Court, supports this development for three reasons: 1) The City of
Carmel will be better with this development than without 2) High level of trust in _DOGS Plan
Commission to study details of the development to ensure that this is a quality asset for the City
of Carmel 3) Republic is a local developer, not a faceless corporation absent from the State, they
are known in the community and residents of the community
O Beverly Smith, 377 Patricia Court, Carmel, -endues Republic as a developer in the community
and has worked with them for the past `6 years. Republic goes way beyond the project
buildings and into the families and the community; this developer is passionate about his projects
Jerry Lynch, 11 612 Williams Creek Drive, also representing neighbors Kenwallenders and the
Kittermans entire neighborhood of 7 homes plus Jeff Scott at 880 West 116 Street I very
favorable to this proposal. Mr. Lynch has been a resident for 45 years and has watched the
overlay continue to encroach into West Clay; the proposed development seems to fit more into
the original West Clay, residential, low retail space; would like to see this development approved
Jeanne Book, 40 -year resident and neighbor to the Senior and current Otto Frenzel. Jeanne and
husband Bob have attended neighborhood open houses meetings for Silvara and are pleased
with the quality development planned for this area; they are very much in favor of the proposed
development. There are some flood plain traffic issues, but these will no doubt be addressed
7
o Gary McNutt, 856 Wedgewood Lane, Carmel resident since 1967 and also a business owner in
Carmel; statistically for the first time in 22 years, we are seeing a decline in the size of homes
being built at a time when housing has never been more affordable, interest rates have never
been lower, we are finding that people are building smaller homes. It is relevant for new
communities such as the one being proposed which provides quite a few alternatives to people in
the Carmel community. The "McMansion phase" is over and demographics shown earlier
support that. The movement is toward life -style communities. Silvara respects the natural
topography of Williams Creek, the flood plain, and the preservation, and also creates a
compelling reason for someone to move and make a lifestyle change —it is not just another
neighborhood. The commercial component of any lifestyle community is very relevant —it
provides connectivity between the residential piece, the 7, 8, or 9 sections of the community, and
it is important that it is all connected to the trails; it is small in scale but very important in its
contribution to the neighbor -hood. The Frenzels have invested in the community, and re-
invested, and it is relevant that they plan to continue to reside in this location. The Frenzels are
people of their word and with a very high level of integrity. Mr. McNutt is an advocate for this
development and in support.
o Keith Freed, 9919 Suinmerlakes Drive and an 18 -year resident of Carmel, spoke in support of
Republic as one of the most quality sensitive and environmentally friendly developers known to
him. Mr. Freed supports this development.
Steve DeLaney, principal in Site -Hawk Real Estate, stated support for the development but more
specifically, Republic. Mr. DeLaney has never worked with a developer who has paid more
attention to detail and demands more quality than Republic —they are first class developers.
Brian Bruner, 3525 West 131 Street, echoed comments regarding the Frenzels —their high
character and his deep respect for the family —their word is their honor and this will be a quality
development. Mr. Bruner is in full support of this development and feels it would benefit
Cannel greatly with its diverse housing and additional services that are lacking on the west side
of Carmel The proposed development is a good economic engine for tax revenue and if not at
this location, then where? There is no other place in Carmel that can accommodate a
neighborhood of this scale and diversity. As a resident of West Clay, Mr. Bruner feels the west
side is woefully lacking the types of services offered in the Village Center. The Frenzels are to
be commended for their desire to continue to reside on the property and have this development
around them that speaks volumes for the quality of development this will be, and the
preservation of the open space will be an asset for the community. There will probably be a
number of objections based on the effect on property values -as an owner of one of those large
homes on a lie lot, the last thing Mr. Bruiser wants to see is more large homes on large lots in
an area where there is clearly a shrinking deed for this type of housing—it would be the pct
opposite of protecting home values and would have a negative impact. Property values are more
impacted by the quality of construction architecture rather than the density. The Silvara
proposal will be an asset to the community.
o Jim McKenzie, resident 14042 Staghorn Drive, resident since 1990, home builder, stated support
for the proposed development. Mr. McKenzie has a lot of experience serving the active, older
adult housing community and wanted to add that from a development standpoint, when you drive
past the property, you have no idea what is there until you are actively on the property. Anyone
that is invited should make a point to visit the site and see all that the property offers. It is
amazing that the Frenzels are willing to open it and share it with the community. If it were
developed in a different manner, it would be "locked out" from the community and only a few
8
would be able to enjoy it. The Silvara development will be a huge benefit for the entire
community to enjoy.
o Robert Weihe for Alan Weihe, 11055 Winding Brook Lane and a resident of Carmel for 50+
years. Mr. Weihe spoke in favor of the proposed development for the following reasons: 1) The
project has a good preservation of the natural features and use of common areas, specifically
Williams Creek 2) the project has a good mix of uses to meet the multiple demographics 3) low
impact on the school system 4) Republic is a developer of good character integrity
Todd Fenoglio, 725 Edison Way, architect resident for 30+ years, has experienced how on-
going development of the Spring Mill corridor west of Spring Mill has had a beneficial effect
on the traffic flow, not a detrimental one. Traffic back -ups at 4 -way stops are now a thing of the
past. Along with the tax revenues that these new developments brought came improvements to
the streets serving them: 136 Street, West Main, (131 Street) and the ultra efficient Illinois
Street Thoroughfare. With past improvements to nearly all major thoroughfares in Carmel, the
anticipated traffic concerns have not only been adequately addressed but have made our vehicular
flow the envy of national international experts. With the future interchange plan for 116
US 31 Meridian Street, considerable traffic will be routed to this intersection, whether we like it
or not. The Thoroughfare Plan recognizes that fact and planning zoning considerations should
do the same. Mr. Finolio urged the Commission to consider the plans that are in motion for US
31 improvements and the projects previously approved at this intersection as the highest and best
use of this ground, and to also consider the positive growth this development will bring to the
west side of Carmel. The residents have a lot of faith and trust in the Dept of Engineering and
Dept of Community Services to anticipate this growth and respond with foresight.
Thomas Eubank, 1280 Laurelwood, has known some of the Frenzels for 54 years. The Frenzel
family is one that you can count on and believe their word. Mary Frenzel Bookwalter and her
daughter are intensely interested in conservation probably the reason why approx 90 acres of
the development is being dedicated to green space —they would not be part of something that
was not good for conversation.
Joe Graddison, Lot 1, Chateau de Moulin, in support of development which fits in and has been
carefully thought out. We are in a.time when more thoughtful design and land planning are
important features that people are looking for. Springmill Road is a transitional corridor and
there are not too many uses that would fit well against the roadway. The plan that has been
presented is a fabulous use of the land that utilizes its natural amenities.
o Tim Ginn, 3686 East Carmel Drive, is in support of the development for two reasons: 1) the
diversity of the project and how they have thoughtfully tied into connecting all the trails
throughout Carmel 2) economic impact for the City of Carmel, tax revenues, and bringing jobs to
the area.
Pete Gray, 3196 Smokey Ridge Trail, supports proposed development. Republic is strict to their
standards —they do not make comprises; they not only meet but exceed the intent of the
development. Smaller, more amenity, custom homes people want the amenities but not the
size. The smaller home does not indicate value; people are re- sizing, not downsizing. This PUD
proposal is the market niche that Carmel needs.
Craig Jensen, 1783 Hourglass Drive, has worked with Republic for approx 18 years in the Indpls
market. Republic is a quality developer and stands behind their word. Individuals from various
lifestyles can benefit from the diversity of the homes planned —very much in support of this
proposal.
e Mack McNaught, 425 McClaron Lane. Mr. Mrs. McNaught are empty- nester buyers —moved
9
to Williams Mill for small lots and maintenance free living. Williams Mill is a small, 47 -lot
community with not a lot of room to walk; therefore drive to the Monon Center or during non-
peak hours, run the gauntlet on Spring Mill to get to Spring Mill Ridge (Place) neighborhood to
walk. Also drive to Arts Design District, or Clay Terrace, or Village of West Clay for the
amenities. If the Mormon Church builds its development, it will be great to bicycle or walk to
achieve those amenities.
Matt McLaughlin, one of the advantages of the plan is maintaining the integrity of Williams
Creek environment and wildlife. The Frenzels have been great neighbors over the years.
Pleased with the proposed development and very much in support.
Cheryl Cord Curry, 13026 Brighton Lane, 45 year resident and have known the Frenzel family
for 45 years. Commends the Frenzel Family for developing this property themselves and not
allowing someone else to come in and bulldoze. The Frenzels will preserve and stay on this
property. This development is progress –good progress for Carmel.
Organized Remonstrance/Unfavorable:
Marilyn Anderson, 3884 Shelborne Court, President of CWIC 2 disagrees with statements that
this PUD complies with the Comp Plan. What City Council approved for west of Spring Mill
Road is only single family homes. At one unit per acre, with no new commercial areas. CWIC
2 wants the new Comp Plan up -held. This is the first time the Comp Plan is being tested in
West Carmel. If you are to turn your backs on the decisions made for the new Comp Plan, what
is the point of all the time, effort, and citizen input? Ignoring the Comp Plan sends a message
to every developer that the Comp Plan really does not mean anything and every piece of land is
up for grabs. For residents, if we can't relyon the Comp Plan, the resulting uncertainty hurts the
value of every property. Something said repeatedly during the Comp Plan process was For so
many people in Carmel West, it is not just about `I want to live on my large lot in my
subdivision of large lots;' they want to live in an area of large lots which is why CWIC 2
exists because of all the support for that, and no commercial intrusion. There are clear
contradictions with the Comp Plan, the land:classification plan, and the map. If the ideas and
essence of the entire City had been incorporated into West CarmeI's essence, and the land
classification section, these two parts would read much differently. A yellow highlighter was
used to mark areas of the Comp Plan which Silvara does not meet; a green marker was used for
language supporting Silvara's position that the Comp Plan supports high density with
commercial development they propose. (the only parts marked are in yellow —no green marker
was used.) The Comp .Plan is new—surely Silvara can be expected to follow it— Estate
residential, with the 116 Street Overlay. The Church is not a commercial use; Cla -ian has mo
commercial use on Spring Mill Road but did want commercial use an Spnng'Mill Road and
was denied that use to protect the residential area and the land across the street that is now the
proposed Silvara. The Bridges was identified on the Comp Plan as a special study area and east
of Spring Mill determined to be the dividing line between more intense uses and the Estate
Residential area west of Spring Mill Road. It is erroneous to state that this PUD deviates only
from one or two aspects of the Comp Plan -in fact, it deviates from single family homes, one
unit per acre, and no commercial uses
O Dee Fox, 11389 Royal Court, Secretary of CWIC 2 Since the Silvara PUD seeks exemption
from all the major requirements for this property in its zoning, the Comp Plan, and the 116
Street Overlay, it creates its own, major set of problems to be solved. Regarding the 116
Street Overlay and compatibility conflicts with the neighboring subdivisions: In 2005, the West
10
116`" Street Overlay was established with a purpose to "Protect the Estate character of the
area." For 990 feet from the center of 116` Street, it requires minimum 3 -acre lots and 100 -foot
frontages. The Silvara PUD requests exemption from the Overlay requirements because,
obviously, the planned high density residential and commercial buildings that it plans for
ForestView and the Village Center would not be allowed there. There are options more
acceptable to residents and the requirements for that corner without commercial or residential.
Regarding neighboring subdivisions: Properties zoned S- 1surround the Frenzel property on
three sides. Across Spring Mill to the east are Williams Creek Farms at 0.4 units per acre,
Spring Lake Estates at 1.76 units per acre —both built at a density much less than the maximum
for suburban residential. The proposal opts out of S -1, S -2 requirements and aligns much more
closely with the R -2 thru R -4 zoning standards. R -3 and R -4 are described as medium to high
density, not single family, and in "urbanized areas;" which most certainly does not describe
west Cannel. Compatibility issues with surrounding subdivisions include: density, lot sizes,
setbacks, landscape buffering, and height. The proposed, overall density would be 3 times the S-
1 density and would be equivalent to R -2. Densities in the individual planning areas range from
the current high of 9.1 units per acre in the Village neighborhood of apartments and townhomes
to most between 5 and 3 units per acre to the low of 1.5 units per acre in the Estates area only.
Lot sizes the 46 acre Estates area with the PUD's largest lots has one -third acre minimums; all
other lot sizes range from a minimum of approx one- quarter acre to one -tenth of an acre.
Minimum lot areas and widths for all but the Estates are smaller than S -2 standards, with many
equivalent to the R -3 and R -4 standards. Minimum Yard Setbacks: Most rear yard setbacks
Il east of the creek do not meet the minimum standards in S -1 thru R -4. All front yard setbacks
are below those required in R -4. Minimum aggregate sideyards in all but the Estates section are
at or mostly below R -3 and R -4 standards with the smallest being 5 feet in the Enclave.
Landscape buffer: Where single family homes abut single family homes, the zoning ordinance
requires at least type B landscaping. The PUD has the smallest amount of landscaping, Type A,
on the southern border of Creekside and on the northern borders with CIaybridge, Springmill
Streams, and Springmill Ridge. Residents have compatibility and transition concerns, and
virtually no one favors three -story buildings. Most Carmel west residents see no compelling
reason the subject property, especially when it jumps as much as 5 zoning levels, from S -1 to R-
3 and R -4. Silvara's size makes its intensity all the more inappropriate for Carmel west. This
type of intensity and commercial uses should be located in areas already planned and zoned for
that type of development. CWIC 2 asks that the Plan Commission refuse this request for drastic
change to the carefully studied decisions made to the new Comprehensive Plan
a Fred Ydde, 2117 Burning Tree Lane, resident of Carmel since 1961, member of CWIC 2, finds
the presentation and <content of the Silvara presentation to' be irreverent and disrespectful of the
C -3 Comprehensive Plan and the people that created it. There are many facets of C -3 that just
do not comply with C -3, the most glaring of which is density, and that Silvara does not comply
with the C -3 Plan that says "There shall be no new commercial development in the area west of
Spring Mill Road, and more specifically, in the estate /residential areas —pages 35 and 36 of the
C -3 Plan support Mr. Ydde's objection. Carmel has plenty restaurants and plenty commercial.
To "shoehorn" another commercial area categorized as a neighborhood service node or
neighborhood support center close to prime, residential real estate, especially in the 116 Street
Overlay Zone, is a violation of C -3. It is not only improper, it is now overkill especially when
you consider that a large, commercial development to the southeast was just approved.
Considering the traffic this development will generate when completed, it is difficult to
11
understand how traffic will progress at the 116 Spring Mill intersection/roundabout. Re-
read /review C -3, and please consider when making a determination.
Kathy Stetler, 349 Mallard Court, 18 -year resident of Carmel, speaking on behalf of CCRZ,
Concerned Citizens for Responsible Zoning, .agreed with the 3 previous speakers and has had
direct communication with 21 of the 38 homeowners in her neighborhood, with 100% of them
opposing the proposed development. Silvara greatly deviates from the Comprehensive Plan and
the underlying zoning, one unit per acre, which would permit 300 single family homes. Instead,
Silvara is proposing almost 1,000 dwellings, including 450 apartments and other multi family
dwellings before a possible 20% increase is even applied. The proposed development will have
a dramatic impact on the abutting subdivisions and character of perimeter roadways. Does the
proposed PUD offer ways to minimize the impact? No. The needed transitions are poor and
not adequate for replacing the intended compatibility mandated by the Comprehensive Plan.
Regarding the perimeter areas that do not abut subdivisions: The need for goodborders is
basic —this is addressed in the Comp Plan under "West Carmel's Policy" Silvara proposes a
significant border along the southwest area of the Estates and the south border of Creekside that
lacks transitioning. The minimum lot sizes are at best one -third to one -half the size needed.
The perimeter landscaping for Creekside south border is only 20 feet wide and with the least
amount of landscaping. Along the same area, there is a portion where a road directly abuts the
border with only a thin line of landscaping as a buffer. Since the plan is conceptual, there is no
guarantee that the lots will not be moved to this border and the road shifted inward. Even if the
road is as illustrated, there are two problems: 1) the one -third acre lots are only a small distance
from the actual property line, and 2) for any adjoining developer, there is a road on the border
and small lots directly across, decreasing the value of its bordering lots. This area needs much
more to protect the value of neighboring properties. 116 Street is considered such an
important corridor that an Overlay Zone was established to protect the estate character of the
area, and it established a minimum, three -acre size lot size. Silvara proposes replacing this with
a commercial area and lots varying from twelve -one- hundredths to eighteen- one hundredths in
size. Extensive setbacks and landscaping would be expected in trade for this intensive use and
destruction of the Overlay Zone. There is no written language available that commits a
retention pond to be located along 116 Street in the Forestview area, and this section of 116`
Street will just get a Type B buffer yard with the second to least number of plantings. Setbacks
and buffering are insufficient as written. Also, there is too much leeway allowed to planning
area sizes into other dimensional and quantitative standards. The ability to change the PUD by
10% without returning for additional hearing is typical. It is difficult to believe that a PUD this
large should get twice the ability to implement the changes.. This provision should be reduced if
not eliminated. The number of dwelling units is much too high and there should be a firm cap
on the total number of dwellings. The decisions made in the Comp Plan should be honored and
any commercial area west of Spring Mill Road should not be permitted at all. Uses are also an
issue the residents ask that any uses not specifically listed as permitted are not permissible,
subject to any modification and without additional public hearing.
Jill Meisenheimer, 471 Burlington Lane, Williams Mill. Has attended the open house and met
with Otto Frenzel, Steve Hardin, Larry Moon, and Doug Wagner. Mrs. Meisenheimer supports
those concerns already expressed by CWIC2 to reduce density, eliminated commercial
development, provide adequate transition sensitivity, and buffering on the perimeter of the
Frenzel property. Area residents are concerned about traffic. Also, the three massive
developments proposed on Spring Mill in less than a year all ask for new dwellings, new retail,
12
and new offices, specifically The Bridges, the Mormon Temple and Meeting House, and the
Clarian North PUD which also proposes development on the west side of Illinois. Today, the
Silvara PUD is requesting 303 acres to be rezoned from residential to PUD to triple the density
with 950 proposed dwellings, retail and office uses. With the number of units proposed and the
possibility of 2 or more cars per dwelling, 2,500 additional cars will be added to the roads and
roundabouts 011 a daily basis. The residents fear gridlock. Following are six questions that will
hopefully be addressed during the discussion/review of Silvara: Does the traffic study include
the increase in traffic expected by The Bridges PUD? How many cars per dwelling in the
Silvara PUD? Does the study include traffic that could be generated by the Mormon Temple
Special Use? Does the study factor in traffic that could be generated from the undeveloped 27
acres of the Clarian PUD between Illinois and Spring Mill Road? What are the numbers for
peak traffic time for Silvara and please explain the numbers. Background traffic increased
beyond the 2% predicted in the 2003 Clarian PUD Traffic Study. Is the 2% traffic growth
provided in the Silvara PUD adequate? The Plan Commission is hereby requested to do a
Comprehensive Traffic Study with a map that encompasses all four corners of 116 Spring
Mill Road. There is no confirmed start date for the completion of Illinois Street to 103` Street
and the re -do of Meridian Street into a limited access road and there is no guarantee that it will
solve all the traffic problems. Development is out pacing infrastructure in the area and will
produce gridlock in the short term or perhaps longer if all road improvements are not completed
and if assumptions leave out important data. There must be a balance between the neighbors
and future developments that will allow residents to maintain the quality of life in the
II neighborhood they have chosen to invest.
General Public Remonstrance/Unfavorable:
Dr. Allan Bryer, 648 Suffolk Lane, Claybridge, focused on the "Quality of Life" issue,
preservation of character, and preservation of what we have come to know and treasure about
living in Cannel. Comparisons made between living working in Washington DC area and
Carmel. Request the Plan Commission strongly preserve the character of the area. Three
concerns are: density; traffic •congestion and gridlock; and the border issues.
0 Dr. Jim Dillon, 507 Cornwall Court. Jim wife Sue understand the purpose of good planning
and zoning as a guide to orderly, growth that provides assurances to property owners, whether
residential or commercial, that development around their property will not place their investment
in jeopardy. Throughout the Cluster Ordinance, Residential Open. Space, Neo- Urbanism, and
PUD zoning, the Cannel Comprehensive Plan was upheld and the zoning ordinances lave
honored the promise of protecting property valnes something that has contributed) to Carmel's
being one of the most desizable communities in the United States. The Silvara PUD rezone is
not the first to test the validity of the Comprehensive Plan, but certainly one of the most
audacious. The current Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Plan Commission and the City
Council is only two years old. It is a product of much public input guidance. There is NO way
that Silvara complies with the lot size intended for the area west of Spring Mill. Dr. Dillon gave
page references in the Comprehensive Plan which deals with lot size. Dr. Dillon commented that
the Department Report dated July 19, 2011 is both superficial and ducks the problem. The
flexibility of the PUD Ordinance is inappropriate for this property. The adjacent Spring Mill
Road Clay Center Subdivisions were built in compliance with. S -1 lot requirements and consist
entirely of owner occupied, single family homes. Silvara proposes 450 apartments as well as
commercial and is attempting to circumvent Carmel's zoning standards to gain a density three
13
times what is intended in the Comprehensive Plan. If approved, Silvara will set a precedent for
future invalidation of this Plan. Silvara will diminish the character of this area that has made it
such an attractive residential area. The purpose of zoning is not to guarantee a petitioner
maximum profit but rather to provide assurances and protection. Silvara creates insecurity. Dr.
Dillon urged the Plan Commission to deny Silvara's request on this property and require Silvara
to return with a request that rezones the individual areas in accordance with our current zoning
ordinances. The boundary for commercial in the Spring Mill Road area has changed a number of
times, despite previous commitments to restrict commercial development —this certainly raises
issues about the sincerety of the City in previous commitments. We heartily recommend that you
do not alter this reject it!
Allison Brown, 600 West 106 Street, agrees with Silvara preserving nature and Williams Creek,
and not building near the creek but it is a flood plain and would not be built in that location
anyway. If the proposed 950 residences and commercial area are constructed instead of the
possible 300 residences that were thought, there would be air pollution from a possible 2,000
vehicles per day would net emissions as well as emissions from the homes -grill, gas heat,
chemicals used on the outside and roof of the home, water pollution, runoff from the sealed land
taking pollutants with them from roads and building materials into the ground water, and into
Williams Creek. Heat intensity is an issue as well as light pollution. Traffic is an issue.
Regarding demographics: The Silvara proposal is not designed for current residents and their
wishes but for new residents who would want something quite different or maybe not. The next
challenge for the western boundary of Spring Mill Road is being pushed toward Michigan
Road —this is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan or the wishes of all the citizens
who worked on that Plan. Outreach with the Frenzel family— representatives, builders, etc has
been significantly better than the neighbors experienced with The Bridges; nevertheless, many if
not most neighbors still want low density and no commercial as required by the zoning in the
Comp Plan. Ms Brown found the intimation that the development in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan would somehow be boring and unattractive, both bizarre and unbelievable.
0 Phil Martini, 12883 Brighton Circle, Springmill Streams, moved here with a job relocation 6
years ago and moved into a large lot home. Two years ago when the Comp Plan was passed, it
was an affirmation that Carmel "got it" and our property investment would be protected long
term by what we thought would be adhered to as a Comprehensive Plan. During The Bridges
discussion, we heard a lot about the commercial boundaries on the east side of Spring Mill; we
are now hearing that east of Spring Mill Road does not mean anything at all, it is west of Spring
Mill Road. There is a lot of discussion in these meetings about people riding bicycles and
walking to these amenities, etc_ We ride our bikes from the north end of Clay Center Road to the
Village of West Clay; we do not see a flood of people from surrounding areas riding their bikes
into the Village of WestClay, and when you get there, you do not see a huge amount of vehicular
traffic or bicycles, or people walking. For the density of that area, there are a lot of people that
drive in and drive out. There will not be a lot of pedestrian traffic for these businesses except for
those in the immediate area. Mr. Martini said he looks forward to the day when he can actually
ride his bike across Meridian to downtown Carmel. Mr. Martini re- affirmed those comments
made regarding traffic being bad only east/west were totally wrong —it is backed up on Spring
Mill Road to 111 Street from the 116 Street intersection. Maybe someday this development
will be appropriate; if it is developed now, Mr. Martini urged the Commission to stick to the
Comprehensive Plan or else through it out. If the Commission moves this forward, you are
throwing out the Comp Plan in principle —you might as well stand up for what you believe in
14
111 and say that .there is no comprehensive plan and that it is all PUD.
Rob Knapp, 513 Cornwall Court, a 1.03 -acre lot that borders the cornfield now known as The
"Enclave." Mr. Knapp's 1.03 -acre lot would be adjacent to 5.3 lots, significantly smaller lots
than anticipated when moving here in 1985 and built his "dream- house" after living in Chicago
and Boston with high density, tough commutes. The value of Mr. Knapp's house, the third one
built in Springmill Streams, has been enhanced by the controlled development of Springmill
Streams and Claybridge. Mr. Knapp feels that the value of his home has been enhanced by the
improvements made in downtown Carmel; however, he has no intention of living downtown and
would prefer that the downtown not be brought to him. Mr.Knapp understands risk/reward ratio
and positive profit motives. When Mr. Knapp purchased his house, he understood the risk
associated with an undeveloped cornfield next door as well as the fact that it was zoned non-
commercial, single family with .lot sizes comparable to the neighbors —S -1. Mr. Knapp said it
was a surprise to seethe Enclave located adjacent to his property -100 to 200,000 square foot
homes on one -tenth of an acre, ten feet from his lot line. A four -lane, super highway would
destroy the value of the property, the proposed development would diminish its value by some
unknown factor just the threat of development of the adjacent property would cause a buyer in
the neighborhood to think twice about making an offer. Even if a 10 -foot berm were constructed
on a 20 -foot easement with trees on top, there would still be potential for unstable, track -house
development behind it. Who would buy into that now? By putting small homes on small lots,
they are diminishing not only the value of Mr. Knapp's property but all the property in
Springmill Streams and Claybridge —the result would be a reduction in the assessed value and
lower taxes for the City. People deserve affordable housing in keeping with the neighborhood.
The developers of this property are borrowing value from each of the neighbors surrounding the
Enclave and are using it to enhance the value of the development. It may not be illegal, but it is
certainly unfair —that is why we have zoning laws —to protect homeowners from developments
that are not compatible.
0 Carol Schleif, 10517 Hyde Park. Silvara does not follow the C3Plan or the 20/20 Plan. Ms.
Schleif said she chaired the C3Plan Conunittee and discussions, forwarded the document to the
Plan Commission, and eventually to the City Council. What is proposed is not at all in keeping
with theC3Plan that was approved, Ms. Schleif said she could not believe what she was seeing.
The proposal needs to be single family, detached, one unit per acre, either S -1 or S -2 with those
zoning requirements. Ms. Schleif asked for clarification of some comments expressed earlier,
i.e. smaller homes. A current architectural journal says that people are not buying smaller homes,
it has leveled out. There is still a market for larger homes- people are not throwing them away.
Ms. Schleif referred to a study done regarding fire safety and the closeness of buildings houses
b feet apart is too close for fire safety. Another issue is the impact of over crowding on people
and how stressful that can be. Please consider these concerns when reviewing this petition.
Response /Rebuttal, Steve Hardin:
Steve Hardin declined rebuttal at this time. Comments would be addressed at the Committee level.
Dept Report, Angie Conn:
II Report is approx 6 pages long in order to lay -out all the facts an address items such as context,
transition, height, setbacks, land uses and buffers
DOCS is working with the Dept of Engineering to get an update of their review of the traffic
study
15
Up -dated review of the traffic study will be submitted prior to Committee meeting
Dept ultimately looks favorably upon this. PUD rezone
Recommend this item be sent to August 02 Spec Studies Committee for further review
The Public Hearing was officially closed on Docket No. 11050013 Z, Silvara PUD and this item was
referred to Special Studies Committee on August 02, 2011 at 6:00 PM.
I. New Business None
r Adjournment at 9:30 PM
Brad Grabow, resident Pro -Tem
amona anc ck, Secretary
16