Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 04-18-06INDIANN City of Carmel CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION April 18, 2006 Minutes The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel Plan Commission met at 6:00 PM on April 18, 2006 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Member present were: Jerry Chomanczuk; Leo Dierckman; Dan Dutcher; Wayne Haney; Kevin Heber; Rick Ripma, Carol Schleif and Susan Westermeier, thereby establishing a quorum. The minutes of the March 21, 2006 meeting were approved as submitted. Department Staff in attendance: Mike Hollibaugh, Director; Matt Griffin; Christine Barton Holmes; Adrienne Keeling. John Molitor, legal counsel, was also in attendance. Legal Counsel Report, John Molitor: There were two new Statutes enacted by the General Assembly last month that would protect private property rights. Mr. Molitor is meeting with an ad hoc committee tomorrow for the Association of Cities and Towns; there may be some Ordinance changes indicated as a result of the new Statutes. Mr. Molitor will keep the Commission informed. Also, the Executive Committee did not meet in March. There is a conflict with Leo Dierckman holding two offices, Vice President and Committee Chair If Leo were to resign one of the positions, a new person could be elected to fill the slot. Jerry Chomanczuk suggested continuing this item of business to the next meeting when a full Commission would be in attendance for a vote. Department Announcements, Matt Griffin One item not on the Agenda but was advertised by the petitioner for tonight's meeting, Docket No. 06030024 ADLS Amend, DP /Amend, Carmel Family Physicians, will be heard May 16, 2006. Docket No. 06010025 DP /ADLS, Huntington National Bank is being Tabled to the May 16, 2006 meeting. Docket No. 06010003 Z, Guerrero Property PUD is being Tabled to the May 16, 2006 meeting. Comprehensive Plan Up -Date: Adrienne Keeling addressed the Commission regarding an up -date for the City's Comprehensive Plan. A draft will be released within the next two weeks and a public open house will be held on Saturday, May 6, 2006 at City Hall, 8 AM to 2:00 PM. There will be a brief presentation on the Comp Plan at the top of each hour with the remaining time for questions, discussion, and input. A May 16 public hearing is anticipated on the Comprehensive Plan. S:/P1anCommission /Minutes /2006/PCapr18 1 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 Brad Johnson, Ground Rules, Inc., addressed the Commission regarding the Comprehensive Plan. Brad has been working on the Carmel Comprehensive Plan and explained that there are a few changes that have evolved —one is that the City is transitioning from a land -use based type of regulatory system to a form based or hybrid of a form based and land -use base. What this really means is that when considering future land use, we ware not just looking at uses but also considering the bulk of the structures, the orientation, the style, and the physical components that go along with that. H. Public Hearings: 1H. Docket No. 06010003 Z: Guerrero Property PUD The applicant seeks to rezone 38.8 acres from S1 /Residential to PUD /Planned Unit Development for the purpose of developing attached single family residences and townhomes. The site is located at the northwest corner of Towne Road and 131S Street. Filed by Charles Frankenberger of Nelson and Frankenberger for Indiana Land Development Co. TABLED to May 16, 2006 2H. Docket No. 06010025 DP /ADLS: Huntington National Bank The applicant seeks Development Plan, Architectural Design, Lighting, and Signage approval for 1.155 acres, for the purpose of building a bank on an outlot on a larger retail commercial parcel. The site is located at 10925 North Michigan Road and is zoned B2 /Business. Filed by Brad Schneider of Professional Design Group for Huntington National Bank. TABLED to May 16, 2006 3H. Docket No. 06030003 DP Amend /ADLS: REI Medical Office Building The applicant seeks to build a 2- story, 34,000- square foot medical office building on 7.54 acres. The site is located at 11911 North Pennsylvania Street and is zoned B -6 /within the US 31 Overlay. Filed by Joseph Scimia for REI Real Estate Services, Inc. Joe Scimia, attorney with Baker Daniels, 600 East 96 Street, appeared before the Commission representing REI Real Estate Services who is proposing the development of a two -story medical office building on Pennsylvania Avenue, approximately 1191. This particular location is the existing medical office building located on the west side of the site. This 7.5 -acre site has access off Pennsylvania Avenue. The petitioner is proposing to amend he existing Development Plan and seek a new ADLS approval to construct a 35,000 square foot medical office building on the eastern portion of the site. The site plan for the proposed development contains a two -story medical office building oriented toward Pennsylvania Street with two curb cuts, S:/P1anCommission /Minutes /2006/PCapr18 2 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 156 new parking spaces, a pedestrian walkway and access to the building from Pennsylvania Street, a canopy- covered drive through area located at the rear of the building. The building materials consist of brick and stone with some glass architectural features. The western elevation fronts the existing building, visible from Meridian Street except for the existing structure. There will be one monument ground sign of similar architectural style and materials as the existing structure. Total sign area is 75 feet, 6 feet tall, 12 feet wide. The east elevation depicts the open issue with this project. The petitioner is requesting more presence with respect to the entrance on Pennsylvania than they currently have —it is a matter of extent, not scope. The petitioner will work with the members of the Committee as well as the Staff to come up with an appropriate access off Pennsylvania Avenue. From the Department comments, Staff would like to see more detail, more presence off Illinois Street. The petitioner is agreeable to a bicycle parking area, but it is not known exactly where it would be located or the best location —the north or south entrance. Due to the site constraints and the way the parking lot is configured, the petitioner feels that it is appropriate to have the canopy located on the side of the building facing west and this needs to be balanced with something on the east side. From the site plan, it aligns with the entrance on the opposite side for a corridor effect. Given the limited amount of space between the building and Pennsylvania Street, it does limit some of the options available. Because this is a medical office building, it is very important to have a covered drop -off This can be worked through —it is just a matter of coming up with a design that is acceptable to all. Joe Scimia agreed with the Staff recommendation that this item should be forwarded to the Special Studies Committee for review. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; the following appeared: Paul Reis, attorney with Bose, McKinney Evans, 600 East 96 Street, Suite 500 said he was not so much in favor or opposition to the project but to simply identify a current use. Mr. Reis represented Bopper Airways that owns the helipad directly north of the Conseco Executive building. The helipad site is zoned M -3 and allows for this use upon approval of a Special Use. In 1991, the helipad/heliport was approved as a Special Use by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The pad is used on a regular basis, however, it does not have a regular schedule. After speaking with the pilot, Mr. Reis wanted to confirm the current flight patterns. If the wind conditions are slightly different, there is a chance the helicopter would slightly alter the approach. Primarily, the flight paths have been determined so that they do not over -fly any residential areas and they stay pretty much in the commercial areas. Mr. Reis also wanted to request that the petitioner acknowledge in writing, to be made a part of the record for the DP /ADLS, that the proposed development is located near this helipad, that helicopters will fly over the proposed development from time to time which may create some noise that would be heard within the building, and that the petitioner for itself, the current landowners and any future landowners recognize and accept the continued use of the helipad for helicopter landings. Mr. Reis did not want any current or future owner to think that these flights would not be occurring because they are irregular. Besides Mr. Irsay's personal use, it is used for S:/P1anCommission /Minutes /2006/PCaprl8 3 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 medical life -line and St. Vincent's use. Mr. Reis was to put together a usage log for the benefit of the Commission. Remonstrance/Unfavorable: None Department Report, Matt Griffin: The Department is recommending this item be forwarded to the Special Studies Committee on May 4, 2006 for further discussion of the points outlined in the report. Leo Dierckman asked about the "revised" elevations. Matt Griffin said the main concern was that the front of the building is facing internally and not Pennsylvania Street. The Department would really like to see the Pennsylvania Street elevation played up and look like it is presentable from the street. The Department is waiting to see what option this will take. Rick Ripma was curious about the parking lot and whether or not the spaces were double counted. Matt Griffin said the parking spaces are all new. The back half of the site is all undeveloped at this point. Jerry Chomanczuk referred to language that indicates the Department is waiting for up -dated landscaping report and engineering reports. The hope is that by the time this item reaches the Committee, many of these issues would be resolved. If the petitioner is holding things up, we need to expedite the process. Regarding notifications, were they sent to the surrounding neighbors? Joe Scimia responded in the affirmative and proof has been supplied for the record. The only thing the petitioner is waiting for is the final approval from the Urban Forester and determination as to what minor adjustments will be necessary to the entrance treatments. There are no plans for a wall sign. There is a sign pad, but the petitioner would have to return for a sign to be approved. As of now, there is no request for a sign at this location. Jerry Chomanczuk asked the setback distance from the sidewalk to the building. Joe Scimia said the petitioner is fully aware of the existence of the helipad and its use patterns. The petitioner is not prepared to put anything in writing —that is between the private property owners. No problem is foreseen. Carol Schleif asked about the dedicated street that runs through the building —what is the explanation? Joe Scimia said it is a remnant of a street that was never built —it is a carry -over from the old Overlay. We thought it was important to how it because it was on the original plan —if we have to vacate it, we will. Right now, we see no evidence that this street was ever dedicated. It does not appear to have ever been an accepted or recognized street on the thoroughfare plan —this will be resolved or there will be no building. S:/P1anCommission /Minutes /2006/PCaprl8 4 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 Kevin Heber asked about the off -set entrance —it may make more sense to have a single entrance in the middle to would offer some symmetry into the building and makes the entrance more obvious. Jeremy Stevenson with REI Real Estates Services, responded that the reason it is off -set is the tenant mix typically seen on these medical office buildings. The off -set works well because there is contiguous space on one side, off the core of the building, and contiguous space on the other, off the same size— consistent with the types of commitments currently. To clarify one other thing, the dedication of the street right -of -way is actually reference to the water main easement. Docket No. 06030003 DP Amend /ADLS: REI Medical Office Building was referred to the Special Studies Committee for further review on May 04, 2006 at 6:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. 4H. Docket No. 06030005 PP: Village on the Monon The applicant seeks to plat 19 lots on 6.29 acres. The site is located at 1320 Rohrer Road and is zoned RI Residential Filed by Kevin Roberts of DeBoy Land Development Services for The Anderson Corporation. Dave Stewart, attorney, 931 South Range Line Road, Carmel appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Also in attendance: Kevin Roberts of DeBoy Land Development, land surveyor and engineer for this project; Jim Anderson, partner with Stewart Anderson LLC. The petitioner is seeking primary plat approval for a site at 1320 Rohrer Road consisting of 6.29 acres. The property is the actual Rohrer farm residence. The property is bordered by three subdivisions: Cedar Lake, Hunters Creek Village, and Rohrer Meadows. The property is zoned R- 1 /Residential. The petitioner is seeking to develop under the Residential Open Space Ordinance. The proposed development will be known as Village on the Monon. Under the Ordinance, 2.9 units would be allowed. The petitioner is seeking approval for 19 homesites and will be connecting two roads that currently terminate Jeffrey Court terminates in Cedar Lake Subdivision and Rohrer Meadows. The road will be completed and connected and a road —yet to be named —would be taken off Jeffrey Court for a curb cut into Rohrer Road. Pursuant to the request of the City, Stewart Anderson LLC will be providing a decel lane and improving Rohrer Road for the section that is in front of the development. Stewart Anderson LLC has previously held a community meeting and provided notice to the surrounding homeowners. David Stewart would be happy to furnish the green receipt cards and the letter as a follow up. Approximately 20 homeowners attended the meeting and asked questions. At this time, the petitioner concurs with review by the Subdivision Committee. 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: S:/P1anCommission /Minutes /2006/PCapr18 5 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 Robert Crist, 1420 Jeffrey Court West, had no derogatory comments on the project; however, Mr. Crist stated that he and his wife had not received written notice of this hearing, but did receive a phone call. Since Mr. Mrs. Crist are the only members of the public in attendance this evening, does that mean that other persons did not receive notice of the hearing? Cynthia Heimliger, 344 Stone Hedge Drive, said the only way she is affected is that the proposed development is at the rear of her property, directly across Rohrer Road. Ms. Heimliger's main concern is traffic congestion. Rebuttal: Kevin Roberts, DeBoy Land Development Services, displayed a map of the area that was provided by the Auditor's Office. 46 neighbors were notified of the hearing, two deep from the subject site. 60 homes were notified of the neighborhood meeting. Regarding the traffic, a Subdivision of this size will generate approximately 160 vehicles trips per day —some will go north, some south, some internal to the remainder of the neighborhood. The traffic along 146 Street probably carries 30 to 40,000 vehicles a day. Mr. Roberts though the project would have a minimal effect on 146 Street. Some trips will be generated within the neighborhood. The connection of Jeffrey Court will probably soften the entire area and traffic will not have to travel Rohrer Road. Mr. Stewart explained that this project is being built with empty- nesters as the primary target market. Dan Dutcher requested more specifics in tree inventory and what is to be preserved on a lot -by -lot basis. The revised site plan only indicates pedestrian ramps on the west side of Jeffrey Court. Also, if the Department could review the architectural standards specified under TAB 6 and compare them to the current recommended design standards, this would be helpful. Matt Griffin explained that there are two sidewalks heading west that stub into Jeffrey Court –there is no pick -up on the other side for them. Basically, there are the ADA ramps and on the other side is a curb —no ramp is shown. The Department would like to make sure this is shown on the site plan and construction plans Carol Schleif requested that landscape plans and site plans would be submitted in larger print. Jerry Chomanczuk asked that the petitioner superimpose the site plan on either the aerial or other plans to see how Jeffrey Court connects to Cedar Lakes or Rohrer Meadows. Docket No. 06030005 PP: Village on the Monon was forwarded to the Subdivision Committee for further review on May 04, 2006 at 6:00 PM. 5H. Docket No. 06030008 Z: 1003 E. 106th Street Rezone The applicant seeks a rezone from R3 to B5 to allow neighborhood scale office /commercial use. S:/P1anCommission /Minutes /2006/PCaprl8 6 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 The site is located 1003 E. 106 Street and is zoned R3 Residential/within the Home Place Business District Overlay. Filed by Michael Godfrey of Brunson and Company. Michael Godfrey appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Michael Godfrey and wife, Kay Brunson, have owned the property at 1003 East 106 Street since 1997. The property is currently being used a residential rental property. In the past, it has been used as a home office for an insurance agency. If the Rezone is approved, Mr. Godfrey intends to find a new owner that will utilize the property as small professional office, a designation that is in line with the future planning for the immediate community of Home Place and Carmel in general. Mr. Godfrey felt that the rezone would not only raise the assessed value of the property, it would encourage the immediate, surrounding homeowners to be aware of the condition of their property. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to this petition; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. Department Report, Matt Griffin. The Department recommends forwarding this item to the Special Studies Committee for further review on May 4, 2006; there is nothing additional at this time. Docket No. 06030008 Z: 1003 East 106 Street Rezone, was forwarded to the Special Studies Committee for further review on May 4, 2006 at 6:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. 6H. Docket No. 06040002 SW: Woods at Lions Creek The applicant seeks the following subdivision waiver: 06040002 SW SCO Chapter 6.03.20 Request to allow private streets The site is located at east of W. 138 Street and West road and is zoned S1 Residential Filed by Dave Barnes of Weihe Engineering for JC Developers, LLC. Matt Skelton, attorney with Bingham, McHale with offices at 970 Logan Street, Noblesville appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Also in attendance: Jim Langston, Langston Development; Muno Henderson, JC Developers; Dave Barnes, project engineer with Weihe Engineering. Department Comments, Matt Griffin This item is a Subdivision Waiver request that requires a public hearing. However, this item is also a part of Old Business, the next Agenda item that is the Primary Plat for Woods at Lions Creek. Essentially this waiver was identified at the last Committee meeting as essential. The petitioner made notification and met the State deadline, but not the Plan Commission's required 25 -day Notice. The Commission would have to suspend its Rules of Procedure in order to hear this item. Leo Dierckman made formal motion to suspend the Rules of Procedure, seconded by Rick Ripma. The vote was 6 in favor, one opposed (Dutcher) one abstaining (Heber.) Motion Failed. S:/P1anCommission /Minutes /2006/PCapr18 7 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 John Molitor commented that since the Commission has declined to suspend its Rules of Procedure to allow the hearing, this item cannot go forward until the petition has met the Notice Requirement as provided in the Rules of Procedure. Dan Dutcher commented that the next time such a request comes before the Commission, he would like to see more detail in the review and also Department recommendations regarding the criteria that we have approved regarding private street waiver requests in the past. Ultimately, no matter how you vote on the request, the Commission members would be better served with more detailed analysis of how the item proposed meets or does not meet each of the criteria. Matt Griffin responded for the Department. That is the intent in the future; the issue with this one in particular is that it was filed prior to the adoption of those criteria formally That is not to say that we could not use them as a guideline. Dan Dutcher said that the bottom line is the Commission is being asked to waive one of its standards and we should recognize the fact that we have adopted standards that we feel should be put into play when we get this kind of waiver request —we should at least evaluate the request in that context. Matt Griffin stated that this Subdivision Waiver would be continued to the next Plan Commission meeting on May 16, 2006 for the public hearing. The public hearing will go forward when Notice Requirements are met. Leo Dierckman commented that no decision would be made on the waiver this evening, the rules would be waived only as they apply to the Public Notice; the State requirement has been met. It is not a decision as to whether or not we like private streets or gates —this is only the function of the public notice process. Matt Griffin responded that the Old Business item relies upon this Subdivision Waiver in terms of the petitioner's design. The Commission would be deciding on the Old Business item this evening, but that is the "cart before the horse" sort of thing Dan Dutcher said that no matter how you feel about the essence of a request for private streets, we, as a Plan Commission, have been a little fast and loose —I don't think we have been as demanding and as organized on these kinds of requests in the past and they have come back to serve us, maybe not as well as we would like. That is the reason for the "No" vote —we need to get our collective act together as it relates to requests for private streets and be sure to dot the I's and cross the T's. Jerry Chomanczuk reiterated that this Docket will be tabled to the next full Plan Commission on May 16, 2006. Matt Skelton said he was prepared with a detailed analysis of exactly what is being requested and he could offer that this evening. If not, it would be done at the May meeting. Jerry Chomanczuk asked that Mr. Skelton submit the analysis to the Department and it would be distributed with the materials for the Committee meeting. S:/P1anCommission /Minutes /2006/PCaprl8 8 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 Matt Griffin commented that it is completely up to the petitioner —if they want to go for a vote on the rest of this item this evening, or if they want to wait and catch up at the May hearing, that is OK too. It is not typical to send a Subdivision Waiver to a Committee to discuss. If it comes in by itself, it is an item that has been discussed in Committee already. Jerry Chomanczuk then noted that it is the petitioner's preference at this point —new business is closed and the petitioner is the first item under Old Business —the petitioner can move the discussion forward or opt to package this all. After conferring with his client, Matt Skelton addressed the Commission and said his client is willing to TABLE at this time and request hearing at the next meeting in May. Old Business 11. Docket No. 06020016 PP: Woods at Lions Creek The applicant seeks to plat 33 lots on 59.097 acres. The applicant also seeks the following Subdivision Waivers: Docket No. 06020019 SW: SCO Chapter 6.05.01 Lots request to permit lots with less than 50 feet of right of way frontage Docket No. 06020020 SW: SCO Chapter 6.05.07 Orientation of Home request to allow dwellings to face internal street Docket No. 06020021 SW: SCO Chapter 6.03.07 Cul -de -sac Length request to have cul de sac in excess of 600 feet in length Docket No. 06020022 SW: SCO Chapter 6.03.21 Stub Streets Request to have only one point of access (no stub streets) The site is located at 4343 W. 138 Street and is zoned S1 Residential Filed by Allen Weihe of Weihe Engineering for JC Developers, LLC. Tabled to May 16, 2006 21. Docket No. 05050003 Z: Fortune Rezone The applicant seeks to rezone 43.6 acres from S1 to PUD for the purpose of developing a site with single family homes, townhomes, and limited commercial uses. The site is located at 2555 W 131s Street and is zoned Si. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger for Indiana Land Development Corp. Charlie Frankenberger, attorney, Nelson Frankenberger appeared before the Commission representing Indiana Land Development in its request for a change in zoning classification. Also in attendance: Paul Shoopman, Indiana Land Development; Bruce Breeden with Paul I Cripe Engineers; Landowners Tom Neal, Wendy Fortune, and Mark and Becky Herbison. Since first presenting this item last year, the petitioner has attended numerous committee meetings and has also had numerous meetings with the neighbors. As a result, the plan has undergone significant revision since its initial hearing at Plan Commission. S:/P1anCommission /Minutes /2006/PCapr18 9 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 The subject 43.6 acres form the narrow, rectangular parcel located at the southwest corner of Towne Road and 131s Street, bordered on the south by 126 Street, on the north by 131s Street. The property is abutted on the east and west by sections of the Village of WestClay; to the immediate east is a high- density residential section of the Village of WestClay permitting 7.4 units per acre and a commercial retail section of the Village of WestClay that permits, among other uses, a grocery store, free standing fast food restaurant with a drive through facility, and a gas station. In order to provide transition from the high intensity residential and commercial uses to the immediate east, Indiana Land Development has filed a request for a change in zoning. As stated earlier, since the initial filing, the plan has undergone significant revision. The initial plan provided for detached, single family residences, townhomes and commercial development in sub -area A to the north. The residential density illustrated by the original plan approximated 4.2 units per acre. Throughout the Committee process and during the numerous meetings with the residents and neighborhood, there were concerns regarding the location of the entrance off 126 Street, tree preservation, the need for an amenity area and tot lot, density, architectural standards, price point, quality of homes, the need for the text of the PUD to correspond to the illustrations attached to the PUD, and the commercial area. To address these concerns, the concept plan and the PUD have been significantly revised. The entrance off 126 Street was moved to the east so that it was not in front of a neighbor's home to the south, tree preservation was significantly increased, in part, to save large clusters of Oak trees located in a northern area of the real estate, per the illustrations in the brochures, a central amenity area was added and a separate tot lot was also included. As recommended by the Special Studies Committee, Indiana Land Development has committed and tonight re- affirms its commitment that the improvements in the amenity area and the tot lot will be at least equal in value to what is represented by the illustrations in the informational brochures. Density was reduced from 4.2 acres per unit to 2.9 units per acre; architectural standards were increased as evidenced by the illustrations of residences in the informational brochures; vinyl was eliminated as an exterior building material; the text of the PUD was enhanced so that it corresponds to the elevations attached as exhibits to the PUD. The illustrations of the residences in the brochures are actually part of the PUD ordinance. Finally, the commercial area was eliminated entirely —the PUD no longer permits commercial development. Considering these revisions, the Special Studies Committee forwarded this matter to the full Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation. The petitioner will comply with all conditions noted in the Staff Report. At this time, the petitioner is requesting that this item be forwarded to the City Council with a favorable recommendation. Department Report, Matt Griffin There are a few items that were mentioned at the Special Studies meeting that would be committed to, and those have been outlined in the report. Matt asked for verification that the architectural standards mirror the standards committed to on two other rezones. Charlie Frankenberger responded that after the last committee meeting, there were subsequent committee meetings on unrelated matters in which the PUD language was closely examined and S:/P1anCommission /Minutes /2006/PCapr18 10 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 continued to be refined. The petitioner took the revisions from those discussions and implemented them and incorporated them into the PUD. Charlie Frankenberger said he had emailed a red -line version of the PUD to Christine Holmes comparing the PUD in the informational brochures to the PUD so that those changes could be verified as having been made. There are two additional refinements that were made after the informational brochures were submitted. The refinements are: 1) a porch will be at least six feet in depth; 2) each occupiable floor of every elevation will have at least two windows. The petitioner has committed to the department that in the PUD that is submitted to Council, those two revisions will be incorporated as well. Department Comments, Matt Griffin With the commitments outlined, the Department is recommending a favorable recommendation to the City Council from the Plan Commission. Committee Report, Leo Dierckman: This item has been at the Committee level for ten months with two different bodies of the Committee of the whole. At some point, everyone on the Board has reviewed this property and project and has had input and been instrumental in its further refinement and changes. A lot of changes mentioned by Charlie Frankenberger took place with the prior Committee, and the current Committee after the first of the year did some modest work and changes. The Committee decided that there is nothing further that can be added, at this point, and it should be moved on to City Council. Some of the issues surrounding this property were the new Comprehensive Plan, the impact the new Comprehensive Plan would have on this particular plan, and whether or not it was appropriate to be approved at this time. The Committee decided to move this item forward in a positive manner because of significant change. The properties from one side to the next continue the change in density and that was well thought -out and focused on as well as the complete elimination of all commercial utilization and concern for the directly affected neighbors and additional landscaping that will be completed when the project is forwarded. The Committee voted 3 -1 in favor of this Docket. Rick Ripma commented that was it now before the Commission is a significant improvement over the initial proposal. Personally, it is not fair to hold any project hostage while waiting for a Comprehensive Plan to be approved. This Committee has done a good job with this petition. Jerry Chomanczuk commented that he was the chair of Special Studies during the first six months of the process and there was a tremendous amount of remonstrance. There were several months of working out issues, compromises, and it was welcomed to see the commercial aspect eliminated. There were also issues of tree preservation, the incorporation of a "tot lot," and buffering. Again, the current Special Studies Committee took this Docket to this goal line —we have seen several refinements and several positive compromises. At this time, Jerry Chomanczuk said he felt very comfortable in moving this item forward. Carol Schleif said she had missed the Committee work but sees very little change in the petition. There are a lot of good qualities about this project, but is not in favor of the density —the development should be more uniform. The building heights are too high —there will be massing and privacy issues; these comments are based on the February draft and revisions to date. S:/P1anCommission /Minutes /2006/PCapr18 11 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 Jerry Chomanczuk commented that to do real justice to this particular project, we would dust off the June 2005 presentation and see the full direction. Jerry Chomanczuk said he shared some of Carol Schleif s concerns with density and height, but with Leo Dierckman's Committee report and summary regarding the transition element, it is palatable. Rick Ripma referred to the informational booklet under Tab 2 that shows the density of the community, the Village of WestClay and it comes right up to the commercial area and an area that is at a density of 7.5 units per acre— townhomes. Within this community, they are making the transition from commercial in the high- density area into a single family area; it makes sense because of the density surrounding it. Carol Schleif said she would rather have seen garages not face the street, masonry on the front elevation of the townhomes, masonry chimneys, and metal roofs are not appropriate. Leo Dierckman made formal motion to forward Docket No. 05050003 Z, Fortune Rezone to the City Council with a favorable recommendation, seconded by Rick Ripma, the vote was 8 in favor, one abstaining (Heber.) Motion Approved. Note: In response to questions from Leo Dierckman, John Molitor reported that as a general rule, the Plan Commission Rules of Procedure do not accommodate abstention unless there is a conflict of interest or some other reason why the member cannot participate. Charlie Frankenberger noted that the petitioner would be eliminating metal roofs and there is a provision that exterior chimneys are masonry so that has been included. Leo Dierckman suggested that those changes be incorporated into the PUD prior to submission at the Council level. 3I. Docket No. 06020005 OA: Michigan Rd Overlay The applicant seeks to amend the Zoning Ordinance in order to amend the development standards in Zoning Ordinance Chapter 23C Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services. Adrienne Keeling, Planner with the Department of Community Services appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. The revised Ordinance has been distributed to the Commission members and the current Docket deals with the proposed amendments to the Michigan Road Overlay Zone. The Use Table Amendment was moved forward at last month's meeting. Generally, the proposal is for a change to four sections of the Michigan Road Overlay. The first change limits retail uses to 75% of the gross floor area of projects in the B -3 District north of 106 Street; allowing residential uses up to 50% of a project's gross floor area in the Overlay Residential Uses were not allowed previously. S:/P1anCommission /Minutes /2006/PCaprl8 12 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 Each lot is required to contain a building with a minimum of 2,500 square feet of gross floor area 2,500 square feet already is a minimum set forth in the Overlay, however, the proposal is to require each lot to contain such a building and establishing a maximum gross floor area of 85,000 square feet north of 106 Street. The Marsh building at 106 Street and Michigan Road is roughly 85,000 square feet. The intent of the amendment is to enable a transition from the larger, more intense uses to the south to smaller buildings to the north end of Michigan Road as it travels northward. 85,000 square feet roughly represents the footprint of the Marsh building. The Department is trying to prevent any single building larger than the Marsh building north of that area. This item was reviewed by the Subdivision Committee March 30 and received a favorable vote to return to the Plan Commission. At this time, the Department is requesting a favorable recommendation to the Carmel City Council for this Ordinance Amendment. Department Report, Matt Griffin Nothing additional at this time. Committee Report, Rick Ripma: This item went through review at two Committee meetings. After a lot of discussion, the Committee felt that because of the transition and what is happening on Michigan Road, the Amendment is a good option as we transition into the area northward on Michigan Road. Leo Dierckman made formal motion to forward Docket No. 06020005 OA, Michigan Road Overlay to the City Council with a favorable recommendation, seconded by Rick Ripma, Approved 8 -0. Leo Dierckman motion to adjourn, seconded by Rick Ripma Jerry Chomanczuk, A final word from Counsel.... Matt Griffin, Point of Clarification: The Woods at Lions Creek Subdivision Waiver was not identified until the last Committee meeting. The petitioner did his best with Notification the following day —it is just that the time line did not work for the public hearing this evening. It is not a poor reflection on the petitioner —they did the best they could with the knowledge they had —the Department did not catch it. Jerry Chomanczuk noted that Dan and Kevin had several good comments, things they would like to see further information on. Carol Schleif then asked if some of the original waivers could be discussed in Committee. Matt Griffin responded that the design was based upon private streets; if they are not granted private streets, the petitioner might want to re- estimate what their pro -forma is and how those lots "shake out." S:/P1anCommission /Minutes /2006/PCaprl8 13 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 John Molitor stated that the Primary Plat is no longer in Committee unless it is sent back to Committee next month after hearing the additional waiver request. Matt Griffin concurred. In theory, it the petitioner does not get the waiver, they could request to go back to Committee to discuss a re- design. If the petitioner gets action on the Primary Plat, that is "It" for that design and they start over. Dan Dutcher referred to comments made by Carol Schleif,- -since the matter is no longer in Committee, if any of the Commission members have additional thoughts or concerns regarding the project, it would not be appropriate to share those thoughts or concerns with the Department or to forward them on to the petitioner and /or -What would the proper forum be if other members of the Commission would like to share additional thoughts or concerns about either what was addressed or what was not addressed up to this point? Matt Griffin responded that the petitioner is asking for a waiver from the regulations for that design; the design itself is still in play. Dan Dutcher said the matter is not only the private street —there are other concerns related to some of the other waiver requests that have now come out of Committee Kevin Heber ....that may or may not be related to the street. Dan Dutcher said there are concerns related to the waiver of the second entry access point that may or may not be appropriate. What would the proper procedure be at this point to address additional concerns now that this has come out of Committee? John Molitor opined that certainly the Commission is not obligated to grant waivers —the Subdivision Control Ordinance is our law, passed by the City Council. Unless we are convinced that whatever the petitioner has come up with that requires the waiver is a better plan than they would have had otherwise, we certainly should feel no obligation to the petitioner to give them the waiver they are seeking. Dan Dutcher asked then, that if a petitioner is of that mind regarding any particular request, at this point, the petitioner may not be aware that those concerns exist. Would it be appropriate to share that with the Department and with the petitioner....from a prior notice standpoint... John Molitor responded that this Docket is kind of in "no man's land" because it is not in Committee, but it is not yet eligible for a vote because it has not had the public hearing on the waiver. We could send it back to Committee after the public hearing next month. Leo Dierckman said that it absolutely would go to Committee because of the waiver —it is a controversial issue and an important one that we need to spend time reviewing. Carol Schleif said she felt that she was misled on one question that had to do with one of the waivers —she would not have voted as she did had she known. In double checking, Carol found that S:/P1anCommission /Minutes /2006/PCaprl8 14 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 the information was not true —that is why more information was requested on the entrance. The reason given as to why they could not incorporate the second entrance —I'm guessing it was not true. Matt Griffin asked for clarification. Carol Schleif said that the Committee was told that the reason for not doing the second entrance was headlights, and losing trees. However, if you go out there and look at the property, there are no trees across the street is a row of mature evergreens, solid, except for one spot, where the developer could offer to plant some nice evergreens, but it is across the street and that is where it comes out. The real issue is that they have already offered to put in an emergency gate and, according to them, is always ornamental metal and if that is so, the headlights are going to show anyway. Whether it is an emergency gate or a regular gate or a regular gate that only the neighbors use —Wayne Haney's idea —the headlight argument does not stand and the trees don't exist. I don't know how the rest of the Committee would have voted on that. Rick Ripma said that regarding the headlights —if there is a street there that goes out, you are going to get more traffic on that drive than if it were a cul -de- sac —it is not equal. If it is a cul -de -sac, there are not as many people driving there as if it were an entry and an exit. Carol Schleif responded that when you come home at night, the folks across the street would get taillights, not headlights, and you only get half as many people that way —if there is a second entrance. Wayne Haney's suggestion of having an entrance dedicated to residents only and no guests was quite good. Rick Ripma countered that when you do that, if you look at the private street situation that was put together by staff, if there were two entryways, they could not have private streets or gates. Carol Schleif asked why they could not have a waiver on that —it seems like a better solution. Matt Griffin reported that they could gates on two entries if they so chose. Carol Schleif said they are talking about doing it anyway because emergency access is another gate. Matt Griffin clarified that the emergency access is a break -away gate —a fence that could be driven through for emergencies. Carol Schleif recalled that there were two reasons to have the waiver: One reason stated was a hardship for the petitioner (that is not seen here) and the other reason was that it was a better design. However, the layout of the street with the cul -de -sac about 5 feet from public access is very poor design. I could have brought this up earlier, but felt misled. Rick Ripma asked that if this is returned to Committee, that there would be something of this nature that is different information rather than re -hash things already discussed. The other issue is that the neighbors have been shown a single entrance community. If the Plan Commission makes it a two- S:/P1anCommission /Minutes /2006/PCaprl8 15 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 entrance community, how can you do that without having the neighbors know? The neighbors are saying they are OK with the way it is designed today —they are not saying it is OK with two entryways. It would be uncomfortable if the neighbors did not know of a change. Carol Schleif reiterated the report from the petitioner —that the reason the neighbors would be against it was the two reasons stated: headlights, and losing trees —that does not hold water. Rick Ripma again emphasized that if the Commission refers this back to Committee and wants to go after two entryways, somehow the neighborhood should be notified of that because that is a big change. Matt Griffin said that as courtesy, the petitioner could contact those neighbors —there is only a handful across the street —and explain that it is possible that the plan will be revised and please be aware of it —come to the Committee if there are concerns. Re- Notice is not necessary, but as a courtesy, the neighbors should be informed. There is a support letter from one of the neighbors with the current design —so they will want to know that the design might be revised. Carol Schleif said that Willie Woods is farther north and this is not visible to him anyway. Neither one of the two neighbors that would be affected by this has said anything, Matt Griffin pointed out that an additional letter was received today from one of the neighbors across from the cul -de -sac. Carol Schleif said if the neighbor is OK with headlights shining from going through the emergency gates, how is he going to be different when it is going through the other gates? Matt Griffin had no explanation. John Molitor said the emergency gate is only to allow a fire truck to go through in the event of an emergency. The emergency gate would not routinely allow people to go in and out. Dan Dutcher commented that he was not at the Committee meeting, but the proposal for a second gate that would be controlled by the residents is a better answer than the current design. If there is going to be one —in this case there should be two! Rick Ripma said the Committee did not vote on whether or not there would be gates —that is not something that is a part of any of that. Tonight, we needed to hear that so the petitioner could come to us and know what our issues are going to be —we would have seen that in our Committee the next time. We will just see it in six weeks instead of two. Jerry Chomanczuk asked if it would be possible for the Department to work with the petitioner and notify them of the additional concerns. S:/P1anCommission /Minutes /2006/PCaprl8 16 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 Matt Griffin then reiterated the concerns. The second cul -de -sac wants to become a full entry with a gate; also the petitioner is to show criteria of how the private street setup matches the criteria in the recently adopted Private Streets. Kevin Heber said it was more on the Commission to understand when it is acceptable and when it is not in terms of private streets. The criteria is totally different and another level below that decision. There is a level where the Commission decides even if they are going to consider it at all. The only thing heard is when there is hardship and that is really vague. Rick Ripma commented that if you don't want private streets, it doesn't matter what it is, you are not going to vote them and you are not going to like them. And, if you are OK with private streets you are pretty much OK with them and it doesn't matter what the Department did or what the guidelines are, you either like them or you don't. If you don't like them, it doesn't matter, you are going to vote against them and if you do like them, you will tend to vote for them. Dan Dutcher thought Rick's comments were categorically unfair. Normally, Dan was opposed to gates, but was actually open in this case to possibly a second gate if it meets the criteria. As many times as the Commission has gone up against the gate issue, the fast track here tonight, when there were notice issues —to try to package that with the other items proposed was out of line. Rick Ripma offered his opinion that this particular piece —the Subdivision Waiver —was going to go to Committee and would not be voted on this evening; it is too big an issue. Jerry Chomanczuk commented that the Commission's action this evening was appropriate and the petitioner is to follow the guidelines as they are written. Regarding the overall design, the price point on the homes is $1 million plus and there is a limited amount of land with the floodplain and meandering stream —this is an awkward site; there is a lot at stake here for the developer. Dan Dutcher thought that this analysis commits to an approach that abandons the legal standard that the Commission is to use when it comes to hardship requests and it substitutes that with an analysis that if the price point is high enough, a developer can get whatever they want regardless of a hardship —it redefines hardship as based on the price point and legally, we should not be in that business —that is not good public policy for the City. Jerry Chomanczuk said that if the Commission and the Committees rules that if they do not want to grant a waiver, that is OK —Jerry was trying to explain how the petitioner looks at their rationale for this particular design —not saying it is the best design, just how the petitioner is approaching it. Jerry said he is not necessarily agreeing that all of the waivers should have been approved. Susan Westermeier commented that the hardship burden should be proven up -front. We must be more diligent. Carol Schlief asked if the plan could be submitted in an overlay showing the area underneath with the trees located and the second entrance. This is really important, and it needs to be in bigger print. S:/P1anCommission /Minutes /2006/PCaprl8 17 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 Matt Griffin responded that the Department could start requesting that petitioners submit projects in an overlay format. Jerry Chomanczuk called a meeting of the Executive Committee one -half hour prior to the Committee meetings on May 4, 2006. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 PM. Ramona Hancock, Secretary S:/P1anCommission /Minutes /2006/PCapr18 18 ONE CIVIC SQUARE Jerry Chomanczuk, President CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417