Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 01-18-12f C ity of arme lNDIANP� CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2012 Council Chambers, Second Floor Carmel City Hall One Civic Square Carmel IN 46032 6:00 PM Members present: John Adams, Jay Dorman, Brad Grabow, Nick Kestner, Joshua Kirsh, Steve Lawson, Kevin "Woody" Rider, Steve Stromquist, Susan Westermeier, Ephraim Wilfong Members Absent: Alan Potasnik DOCS Staff Present: Director Michael Hollibaugh, Alexia Donahue -Wold; Legal Counsel John Molitor Also Present: Ramona Hancock, Plan Commission Secretary Joshua Kirsh was sworn in as the Parks Board appointment to the Plan Commission. The Oath of Office was also administered to John Adams and Jay Dorman. Jay Dorman was elected President by Unanimous Consent Steve Stromquist was elected Vice President by Unanimous Consent Ephraim Wilfong was elected to serve on the Board of Zoning Appeals Joshua Kirsh was elected to serve as the Hamilton County Plan Commission representative Kevin "Woody" Rider was elected Member -At -Large by Unanimous Consent The minutes of the December 20, 2011 meeting were approved as submitted Legal Counsel Report, John Molitor: The Court has granted the Plan Commission Motion to Dismiss in the controversy between Justus Homes and the Kensington Place Homeowners and is not subject to further action. Department Announcements, Alexia Donahue -Wold: Gramercy PUD has requested a Continuance to the February 21, 2012 meeting and will not be heard this evening. The Legacy PUD- Turkey Hill Minit Market has officially been Withdrawn. Note: There are no additional notice requirements regarding Gramercy PUD as long as the announcement is made at this meeting that the hearing is being continued to a certain date, now February 21, 2012. The announcement at this meeting fulfills the Open Door Law. H. Public Hearings 1. TABLED TO FEB. 21 Docket No. 11100022 DP /ADLS: Gramercy PUD (Mohawk Hills Redevelopment). The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a multifamily apartments infill and renovation project on 116.4 acres. The site is located at approximately 751 E. 126` Street, at the southwest corner of 126` St. and Keystone Pkwy. The site is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Matthew Griffin of Buckingham Companies. 2. Docket No. 11070022 Z: COCO Commons PUD. The applicant seeks approval to rezone 19 acres from S- 1/Residence to PUD/Planned Unit Development, for a neighborhood -scale commercial development. The site is located at the southeast corner of 146` St. and Towne Rd. Filed by Steve Granner of Bose McKinney Evans LLP for Timothy Baker, owner. Motion: Woody Rider to suspend the Rule -s of Procedure and allow for additional time for public comment; motion duly seconded and approved 10 -0. Present for Petitioner: Joe Calderon, attorney, Bose McKinney Evans, and Steve Granner, Land Use Planner with Bose McKinney Evans; Tim Baker, property owner. April Hensley, Architect; Alan Fetahagic, Structurepoint Engineers. Overview, Joe Calderon: History of Property: Baker Family had owned an 88 -acre tract at 146` Towne Road pre- dating residential development in the area In year 2000, the Baker Family sold off 60 acres now a section of Saddle Creek As part of sale to Saddle Creek: Baker family reserved the right to share tap into utility drainage Deed included the right to seek to rezone the remainder piece —that which is before the Commission this eve for commercial, specifically retail purposes Petitioner has met with DOCS Staff, City Council members, adjoining neighbors representatives of CWIC2 Petitioner's goal is to protect the neighborhood to the south, i.e. Saddle Creek, as much as possible Tim Baker has 20 plus years in real estate Skinner Broadbent —now The Broadbent Company At this time, no specific tenants are lined -up The 146` Street expansion is imminent petitioner feels the time is right to seek entitlement Petitioner states he has been working with Hamilton County Highway Net effect of changes to the infrastructure results in a taking of almost 4 acres 146 Street becomes limited access should be considered in decision making The petitioner has no intention of building until the infrastructure is in place There will be no building setback on the south end less than 100 feet from the property line The PUD was not designed to "get around" anything Mixed uses will not be introduced because of the size of the proposed development after losing 4 acres to infrastructure Proposed plan provides for three areas: anchor -type store such as grocery, neighborhood retail or "B" shops, and an out -lot area 2 The petitioner will work thru connectivity issues with neighborhood to the south regarding pedestrian and bicycle connectivity Landscaping is currently featured; a decorative fence would be considered as well The petitioner has been open honest about the proposal and transparent in all respects General Public Comments/Favorable: None Organized Remonstrance/Unfavorable: Marilyn Anderson, 3884 Shelborne Court, President of CWIC2 -CWIC2 appreciates the Dept's statement of concern that the current site plan does not reflect the Comp Plan nor the goals of the PUD; however, QWIC2 disagrees that a neighborhood support center or service node might be appropriate in this area. The Comp Plan communicates to residents developers what Council determined was the highest best use of the land. If the Comp Plan cannot be relied upon, buying a home becomes a hugely, risky investment and people will buy in other municipalities. The Comp Plan also sends a message to developers about what is desirable, but only to the extent the Comp Plan is followed, otherwise developers will keep "pushing the envelope," further reducing predictability and harming the desirability of west Carmel. The State mandates a Comp Plan, requiring that vision be established. If the vision does not guide your judgment, what reason is there to establish the vision? Council was clear during Land Use Committee discussion when approving the new Comp Plan that there were to be no new, commercial areas in west Carmel, and the land along 146` Street was to remain as zoned. A change in conditions could justify a reasonable rezone. The up -grade plans for 146` Street were in place and well -known when Council applied judgment in determining to keep this land as zoned. Is Carmel going to let Westfield determine what Carmel does? Why would it make sense to seek compatibility with any proposed, un- built, commercial use instead of the already built, existing Saddle Creek neighborhood to the south, particularly with a four -lane road and two access roads between. Please note that Westfield does not place commercial nodes next to any, existing neighborhoods. The existing neighborhoods in Westfield will be buffered from their proposed local serving commercial with additional, new residential areas. Those new residents will know what is planned before investing in their homes. We would hope Carmel would be as sensitive please keep this ground zoned residential. Cindy Johnson, 14408 Chariot's Whisper Trail. The owner of the 19 -acre parcel proposed to become Co -Co Commons has publicly stated that he has always intended for this parcel to be commercial development, yet none of the 339 Saddle Creek homeowners were informed of these intentions prior to purchasing their home. Neither verbal conversations nor written documentation indicated that this land would be developed as anything other than single family homes. Ms.Johnson made references to the Comp Plan. Retail square footage of proposed Co- Co Commons would be 22 times that of the smallest commercial classification for visual reference, 165,000 square feet of retail is equal to the following buildings along Michigan Road: Best Buy, PetCo„ the entire strip mall from 106` Street Grill to Roselli's, plus 93% of Kohl's. 146th Street with roundabouts and likely 45 mph speed limit is not, nor will it become a highway. There is no reason to convert 146` Street into something similar for the Michigan Road Overlay Zone. Along Michigan Road there are extensively- buffered office buildings between the retail stores residential development; the retail office areas were planned before the residential subdivisions were built. Co -Co Commons is a destination retail that will impact traffic for miles around. Approval of Co -Co Commons would guarantee that the property to the west which abuts 3 Lincolnshire residence would also develop as commercial; once developed commercially, there will be a push to add conditional fit, commercial uses along yet more, undeveloped land on 146th Street. Approval of Co -Co Commons begins the "domino" effect, amplifying the traffic problems akin to the Castleton Square area. Cut through/alternate route traffic would be a concern. There is undeveloped space at Village of WestClay, and approving this proposal for commercial would under -cut their ability to attract business and build -out this previously approved and accepted, commercial area. Residents of Saddle Creek are also opposed to a gasoline /service station in the area; residents of Saddle Creek do not want any deviation from a single family, residential only neighborhood. Please preserve respect the residents' choice not to live next to a commercial area. Jim Sposato, 1554 Esprit Drive, Carmel. Three quick points about residential development: o Reasonable Expectation Intensity Highest most intense retail classification 146 Street Residential Development existing subdivisions separated by berms, setbacks, landscaping, and fencing Please listen to the neighbors who purchased their homes based on the current residential zoning Chris Potts, 14330 Chariot's Whisper Drive, Saddle Creek. When purchasing their homes, the residents had every expectation that the pond in Common Area #6, Section 12 would remain the same size and not extend northward, thus giving up its physical boundary and landscaping rights. The HOA has written to Mr. Baker in reference to page 6 of the PUD entitled "Drainage Plans" which state that the owner of the real estate may enlarge to the north, the existing retention pond located on Common Area #6 of Saddle Creek, Section 12. Mr. Potts read an excerpt of a letter written to Mr. Baker regarding the drainage. The residents feel that the expansion of the pond onto Mr. Baker's property is an illegal taking of the land and the residents object. The issue with increasing the pond size would result in an increase in the silting the residents are already suffering, not only in this pond but the other 9 connecting ponds as well. The owner of Co -Co Commons can refuse at any point to share the costs that Saddle Creek believes are necessary for the ponds to continue in a good state of well- being. Even if the landowner legally has the right to share the drainage pond, given the problems such sharing would create for Saddle Creek, we ask that the Commission deny the PUD as proposed. Dee Fox, 11389 Royal Court, QWIC2 Secretary. Nothing has changed since the 2009 Comp Plan was approved that would call for such a drastic change to the Plan for this area tweaking this proposal is not going to help and we ask that you turn it down. Copies of the organized remonstrance and supporting documentation were distributed to the Commission members and all those opposed to this proposed development were asked to stand. General Public Comments/Unfavorable: Tom Clark, 14519 Autumn Wood Drive, representing himself as well as Autumn Wood Farm Neighborhood Association Mr. Clark expressed significant concern about the amount of traffic that will be routed onto what is proposed to be a frontage road, currently 140 Street, since the only access to this proposed development is the frontage road as well as Towne Road. The quantity of both cars and delivery trucks will increase substantially. As a homeowner, Mr. Clark said he had done due diligence prior to the purchase of a lot, had reviewed the Comp Plan and determined the zoning of the area. If the proposed type of activity had been occurring at the time Mr. Clark purchased his lot, he would not have proceeded with the significant investment in the home and improvements. On behalf of the residents of Autumn Wood Farms and himself, Mr. Clark wanted to go on record as opposing this development. Andy Crook, 2228 West 136` Street, "What is the compelling reason for this rezone There 4 needs to be justification for the rezone. Mr. Crook gave figures to support his position that there are not enough households in the area to support the proposed retail. Currently there is no demand for retail in this area. This particular location does not fit the community or neighborhood type of retail. There are community vitality nodes already in place and available to the residents Clay Terrace, the Westfield area, 106` Michigan Road, and Meijer at Cannel Drive and US 33. This proposal does not fit any of the best fit or conditional fit requirements within the Comprehensive Plan. If this is approved, it will create major problems for properties to the west and to the east, and the Comprehensive Plan will be compromised. This needs a lot more planning before retail is approved in this area. John Dipple, 683 Piedmont Drive, Westfield, City Council Representative for District 4. Mr. Dipple stated that according to Hamilton County Highway, there is a planned roundabout at Ditch Road for which Hamilton County is presently acquiring property. The contract is scheduled for letting in 2013 with commencement in 2014. The roundabout will extend west about 150 yards and will stop it will not come close to Towne Road. The Comprehensive Plan for Westfield is a 2007 document; the Council will probably change the zoning for the land north of the subject site to "LB," not "GB;" reasoning is that in the judgment of Westfield, if a petition is approved for the development of homes behind this site, it would not be fair to have "GB" to Towne Road. When the roundabout on Ditch Road is constructed, the frontage roads will not be factored in they will not be built, there will be no plans for them because the County wants the property on the Westfield side to be donated frontage roads will not happen on either side until at least 2018. The proposed roundabout at Towne Road would be constructed at the earliest, 2017, and currently, the County has no funding in place for engineering or construction Scott Potterack, 2565 Tullamore Court, Lincolnshire, wanted to make 8 points: o Carmel Comprehensive Plan for this area is residential o Lincolnshire development is only partially built out, and undeveloped lots face directly across Towne Road and into the proposed commercial center approving commercial development would have a negative effect on Lincolnshire residential build -out o Village of WestClay has several, un- leased, commercial locations on both sides of Towne Road approving this commercial would create competition o There are a number of commercial locations in close proximity around Carmel. Mr. Potterack was concerned that there would be commercial on the west side of Towne Road Currently, the interior road in Lincolnshire, Carlow Run, dead -ends into the subject site commercial zoning will increase traffic inside the Lincolnshire development o Light pollution o Noise pollution o Truck delivery traffic o Commercial zoning of the subject site will undermine the security of a neighborhood, rural residential, agricultural, "countrified," comfortable place to live and will bring transients and potential for vandalism crime Shawn Shelby, 2548 Murphy Circle North. Mr. Shelby's back yard will have a view of the proposed development. This proposal changes the look of the neighborhood to commercial and that is not what the residents bargained for when moving to this area. This loss of this residential land to commercial will impact future homeowners wanting to build in this community. neighborhood. It is understandable that the road improvements will happen, A change in zoning will hurt our neighborhood will impact our ability to sell our homes. Any change in zoning will stop home development in our community. Noise, lights, traffic, crime pollution are all ramifications of this proposal. Vote "No." Tony Lamear, 14391 Chariots Whisper Drive. Towne Road was just re -done, and new trees planted in the median. There is only one way for traffic to enter this, and that is northbound on Towne Road. E Southbound on Towne Road would necessitate "a turn around in our left turn lane and coming back in. One grocery store services about 10,000 people that is 10,000 turn arounds most people will not take frontage road, they will come up Towne Road the City will have to pay more money to put in a round about. From the County standpoint, it also means that if they buy this land from him (Mr. Baker) for commercial, it will cost all of us more money to have this done it will be commercial instead of residential property. Before he purchased his home, Mr. Lamere was assured by the builder, realtors, the Mayor, etc., that this area was all residential. The view from Mr. Lamere's back yard will be one of commercial, traffic trash. Kara Clark, 14445 Chariots Whisper Drive points are all repeat at this time. The only think not touched on is safety. This community fills Smokey Row Elementary and the middle school as well. The road is really close to Saddle Creek, Chariots Whisper Towne Road. Safety is a major concern Brittany Fechtman, 14407 Chariots Whisper Drive, on behalf of her father. Currently, their back yard is a cornfield, but it was known that something would be built there someday. We have a 4 year old and one year old in our family. Brittany's Dad and family are opposed to the construction of a mall in this area because there are other commercial malls a 10- minute drive away. Right now, our surroundings feel rural suburban, and we love it that way. Please vote no. Madison Powell, 1518 Esprit Drive, feels that the planning in Carmel is amazing. The expectation and standard has already been set, and the proposed plan design which is in our back yards especially knowing that the zoning was S -1 residential, makes me think twice about where I live if this were to go through. If the petitioner was really listening to what the residents want, they would not be bringing this development plan forward. Please vote no. Maniesch, 1466 Street Name Unclear.....Saddle Creek is split between the north side of 141" Street and the south side of 141 Street with a shared recreational facility. 141 Street has deteriorated over the past 5 years with the residential traffic; there are also a lot of children on bicycles and this is a huge security issue. If the traffic were increased due to commercial, it would be worse. The City of Carmel has invested a lot in terms of beautifying the area with roundabouts and walking trails that not only connect Saddle Creek but several residential communities and there was a reason for that. People can enjoy the biking walking and introducing this commercial component in the mix will reduce the residential traffic and increase the risk for security. Please vote "No." Public Hearing Closed. Rebuttal, Joe Calderon: Most people that support a project do not show up to voice that opinion. Also, any proposed change is difficult and emotional. However, the petitioner does have the right to seek a zoning change. Zoning is not the same as a covenant to never change a property's use. Zoning is a process that our legislature has looked at for a number of years and allows for deliberation via the Plan Commission and ultimately the legislative body. There are transitions in zoning all the time sometimes retail to residential, sometimes office to residential. Regardless of whether or not this property is developed commercially, this is the road infrastructure that is planned for this area. The petitioner has been working with professionals at Structure Point, and they are in contact with Hamilton County Highway this road and infrastructure will happen someday, maybe 2015, maybe 2017. But, when it does happen, it will be impossible from an economic viability standpoint, to develop the property as S -1 Residential. If you really consider what the Comprehensive Plan says about everything west of Spring Mill and between 141" and 146` Streets, the residents that have spoken this evening would not be in compliance either. The Comp Plan is not perfect, it is a guideline. We are asking for consideration as to how this 20 -acre parcel 17 after taking can be developed. We don't think we are establishing some new and dangerous precedent. This is a conceptual plan, and the petitioner will not infringe on anyone's property rights. The deed for the sale of 60 acres to Saddle Creek reserved the right to seek a change in zoning as well as a no- remonstrance clause. Mitigating factors have been built into the PUD regarding light and noise pollution; we understand these classic arguments. Those concerns have already been addressed in the PUD. Gel Dept Report, Alexia Donahue -Wold: If the site is well designed, a neighborhood support center or neighborhood service node might be appropriate in this area; however, the current site plan does not reflect the goals of the Comp Plan The Dept is recommending this item be sent to Subdivision Committee on February 07 for further study review Commission Members' Comments Questions: This proposal has little, if any, benefit to the community There is also no apparent benefit to the neighborhood This proposal has few, if any, of the attributes that make up a commercial node This proposal is not a creative use of this parcel the wetlands character of the area will be destroyed The proposal is inconsistent with the C -3 Plan This proposal does not merit any further review at sub committee Hopeful there will be some sort of compromise for both parties This proposal seems out of place with surrounding residential and compared to the C -3 Plan there is nothing to support it PUD should be used with a degree of caution they are sometimes a bridge to difficult development No viable argument for viability of this proposal, given existing land -use classifications Would like to see an analysis of B -7 compared to B -6 and why B -7 would not work in this area, and an enumeration of the deviations from B- 7— whether more conservative or more latitude for understanding as to why this should be a PUD Arguments for a PUD should be the first topic of conversation at committee Cannot discern that this is a PUD or that if fits anywhere near the definition of community development that would result in superior living or development arrangements with lasting values Proposed plan is sketchy and conceptual vague This development seems to be in conflict with the zoning west of Spring Mill this does not fit in with neighborhood nodes or retail Need to find a better fit for the area The proposal does not look like a PUD no transition designed as a regional shopping center and not commercial node serving residential as provided by the Comp Plan The line is Spring Mill unless people say otherwise and unless it is something really special this is not really special This proposal is NOT a PUD and is out of place The neighborhoods have every belief that what they bought and what we've planned is going to be what they have No further comments necessary If this goes to Committee, would recommend viewing the public records of Saddle Creek, and asking staff to engage in dialogue with City of Westfield to validate information given this evening Note: There is no money available for the construction of the roadway, and if this proposal is geared to development when the roadway is completed, what are we doing here now? Motion: John Adams to suspend the Rules of Procedure, seconded by Woody Rider, approved 7 in favor, 2 opposed (Dorman, Grabow,) one abstaining (Kirsh) There is not enough substance with this proposal to warrant additional time to develop and refine. At this stage, the proposal does not merit additional work. 7 Motion to Suspend the Rules by a show of hands 8 in favor, 2 opposed (Dorman, Grabow) none abstaining, Motion Approved Motion: Kevin "Woody" Rider to forward Docket No. 11070022 Z, CoCo Commons PUD, to the City Council with a negative recommendation; seconded by Sue Westermeier, Approved 10 in favor, none opposed 3. Docket No. 11110009 DP /ADLS: Fifth Third Bank. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a new bank building. The site is located at 205 E. Carmel Dr. The site is zoned B- 8/Business and lies within the Carmel Dr. Rangeline Rd. Overlay Zone. Filed by Kurt Prosser of GPD Group. NOTE: Brad Grabow was Recused from all discussion and voting on Docket No. 11110009 DP /ADLS, Fifth Third Bank, and was absent from the Chambers during this Docket. Present for Petitioner: Kurt Prosser, GPD Group; Mike Sexton, CB Richard Ellis, Project Construction Manager; Ben Hutchings, Fifth Third Bank, Retail Regional Manager. Overview: o Current locations of 5/3` at Carmel Drive and at 119 Meridian will be abandoned New building to be located at 205 East Carmel Drive Site boundaries: To the west is Carmel Financial Corporation To the east is a law firm To the south is the Carmel Racquet Club Carmel Walk Shopping Center is to the southwest Existing building is a mixed use of medical and office Site is 85% impervious with building and parking area Existing building on site to be demolished New building to have a drive -thru, parking along the west south property lines Signage located at the northwest corner a Variance will be requested Proposed building consists of 8,427 total sq ft —first floor is 4,800 sq ft, second story is 3,627sq ft First floor will be banking activity; second floor consists of offices conference rooms Petitioner has worked extensively with DOCS Engineering Dept Thoroughfare Plan currently met with existing improvements: sidewalk, landscaping, existing drive Petitioner working through comments in Dept Report No Public Remonstrance Public Hearing Closed Dept Comments, Alexia Donahue -Wold: Petitioner has been responsive to Staff comments Petitioner will be requesting 3 variances: Ground sign, floor area ratio under point 5 and one for building occupied less than 75% of the frontage Dept would like windows in the front of the bldg to be seen through rather than the spandrel glazing as shown Petitioner to explain how the "Do Not Enter" area will be addressed Dept recommends forwarding to Feb 07 Committee Commission Members Questions /Comments: Bicycle Parking? (Yes) P Would like to see colors of the bldg (sample board displayed -color renderings will be submitted to Dept) Would like to see color renderings of all sizes and how this will look and blend with surrounding bldgs Re -use stone on the existing bldg? (architect would have to look at and assess for condition and fit) All the 5 /3r Bank Bldgs the same? (No, different based on location and municipality —this bldg has site specific architecture) Mike Sexton, CB Ellis, response: There is a corporate prototype, but there is flexibility this facility will be a consolidation of the existing, 5/3 Banks in the community. The proposed building does deviate from the proto- type, but the general color schemes will match the proto -type; however, this is the first two -story of this design Petitioner requested to bring photographs of existing 5/3 facilities here surrounding states for purpose of comparison Explain the southern part of the site adjacent to the Racquet Club, apparently set aside for an easement Kurt Prosser responded that the easement came out of a request from the City for cross connection between the properties. The easement is proposed for future, potential cross connection as re- development occurs in the area no history on the sidewalk area. Would like to know what the landscaping would look like (refer to landscape plan in packet) Motion: Jay Dorman, to forward Docket No. 11110009 DP /ADLS, Fifth Third Bank to the Special Studies Committee on February 07 with final voting authority; seconded by Steve Stromquist, Approved 10 -0 4. Docket No. 11120004 PV: Taylor Trace Plat Vacation, Lot 12. The applicant seeks approval to remove Lot 12 from the Taylor Trace Subdivision plat. The site is located at 3309 E. 146` St. and is zoned R- 1/Residence. Filed by Mary Marcotte, owner. Present for Petitioner: Dr. Mary Marcotte, 3309 East 146` Street„ Carmel. Overview: Would like this property removed from the Taylor Trace Plat Site is original farm house built in 1901 with 3 surrounding acres Developers purchased the surrounding property and platted 12 lots All other homes are on the cul -de -sac coming off 146` Street Subject site is the only property with direct access off 146` Street Subject site is not affected by the HOA, the dues, common area, snow removal, etc Taylor Trace HOA has voted approval and signed agreement to remove Lot 12 from Plat No Public Remonstrance Public Hearing Closed Dept Comments, Alexia Donahue -Wold Dept has no outstanding issues or concerns Engineering Dept also has no issue with this request Recommend suspension of the Rules of Procedure vote this eve Motion: Kevin "Woody" Rider to suspend the Rules of Procedure in order to vote this evening; seconded by Brad Grabow, approved 10 -0 Motion: Kevin "Woody" Rider to approve Docket No. 11120004 PV, Taylor Trace Plat Vacation, Lot 12; seconded by Steve Stromquist, Approved 10 -0. 5. Docket No. 11110015 DP /ADLS: The Bridges PUD, Office Residential Use Block, Berm. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a perimeter buffer landscape plan on approximately 1.6 acres along 111` St. Springmill Rd. The site is located at 11405 Springmill Rd. and is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for JEC Partnership LP. Present for Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewicz, Land Use Professional, Nelson Frankenberger; Buzz Wizziger, Gershman Brown Crowley; Ryan Perdue, Project Landscape Architect, Alan Fetahagic, Engineer with StructurePoint; and Charlie Frankenberger, Nelson Frankenberger. Overview: Request to allow a landscape berm within Office Residential Use Block of The Bridges PUD Landscape berm will be along Spring Mill Road and 111`" Street As a condition of zoning approval, developer is required to install landscape buffer along 11 lch Spring Mill Road within 210 days of the issuance of a building permit for the first bldg within the Office Residential Use Block Construction of HealthSouth property to commence later this year would trigger installation of the buffer Request this evening for two approvals: Development Plan and ADLS Color rendering of cross section of berm displayed Buffer comprises street trees, a mound, evergreen trees, ornamental trees, shrubs, ornamental grasses all a requirement of the PUD As a condition of zoning approval, height of mound was elevated from 3 to 4 feet in height to 6 feet tall Openings in the berm allow for pedestrian walkways To allow for taller berm height, Williams Mill HOA was charged with obtaining a Consent to Encroach Easement Amendment Developer assisted Williams Mill by preparing all necessary documents obtaining approvals allowing the placement of the berm from the Carmel Board of Public Works Clay Township Regional Waste District Buffer complies with Type D buffer requirements of the Zoning Ordinance evergreen trees, minimum of 8 ft height, 15 ft on center, to provide more significant, year -round visual screen Adjustments made to landscape plan to provide greater continuity of screening address comments received from neighbors Urban Forester has approved the landscape plan Connectivity plan filed with DOCS petitioner required to provide a minimum of 3 connections between Spring Mill and Illinois Plans have been discussed with Martin Meisenheimer as well as other homeowners The petitioner would like to request a suspension of the Rules and a vote this evening General Public Comments/Favorable: Martin Meisenheimer, president of Williams Mill HOA, located directly west of the current PUD Have met with Mr. Frankenberger Mr. Dobosiewicz last week and voiced concerns about their plan with the berm. All of the changes have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Williams Mill HOA, and would encourage the Plan Commission to approve the proposed berm in its latest rendition. 10 No further remonstrance— public hearing closed DOCS Report, Alexia Donahue -Wold: Urban Forester has approved the plan as well as Alternative Transportation Coordinator No additional outstanding concerns Dept recommends positive consideration Voting this evening requires a suspension of the Rules of Procedure Commission Members Comments: Is there a plan for ballard -type lighting on the paths from a safety standpoint? Response: There is no plan to do anything within the bufferyard; however, as development occurs adjacent to these points of connectivity, we will take your comment into consideration and will extend lighting in a ballard format if that is something the Commission would like to see. This piece of ground will be seen again as part of a Development Plan Zelcova Wireless that shows on a corner of the plan is that anything to do with a cell tower? Brian Perdue, Landscape Architect, said responded that Zelcova Wireless is a variety created to Hughes under power lines, maximum height approximately 20 feet with an umbrella shape Motion: Woody Rider, to suspend the Rules of Procedure, seconded by Steve Stromquist, approved 10 -0 Motion: Woody Rider to approve Docket No. 11110015 DP /ADLS, The Bridges PUD, Office Residential Use Block, Berm, seconded by Steve Stromquist, Approved 10 -0. I. Old Business 1. WITHDRAWN: 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: 2. WITHDRAWN: Docket No. 10110013 ZW: Section 9.02, Legacy PUD ordinance Z-501- 07, maximum 15 -11 front yard building 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. 3. Docket No. 11080011 Z: Monon Overlay Rezone, Natural Section North. The applicant seeks approval to rezone properties which abut the Monon Greenway north of First Street NW, to include them in the Monon Greenway Overlay Zone. This overlay district is super- imposed over the primary zoning districts, and its regulations shall supersede those of the primary zoning districts. The properties which are included in the rezone consist of properties which abut the Monon Greenway from 140" Street to First Street NW. Filed by the Carmel Dept. of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. 4. Docket No. 11080013 OA: Monon Overlay Ordinance Amendment. The applicant seeks approval to amend Chapter 23H: Monon Greenway Overlay Zone of the Zoning Ordinance in order to modify the regulations as need be during the rezoning of the affected parcels in the Natural Section North. Filed by the Carmel Dept. of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. 11 Note: Items 3 and 4 were heard together. Present for Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling, Department of Community Services Initially heard at Plan Commission in September, 2011 Has been reviewed by Subdivision Committee, amended approved Proposal consists of two petitions: one is a rezone which amends the actual zoning map; the other petition is a text amendment to the zoning ordinance Effort being taken at this time is to amend the map to make development standards Changes took place at the Committee level Notable change for both map and text of the Overlay is re- statement of the measurements Measurements are now a constant from the center line of the trail, not from the set -back of the trail Properties not included in this rezoning are those across Second Avenue NW in Old Town where there is a street between the trail and the properties; the other exception is Rohrer Road which has houses fronting on the trail and would not be affected No additional restrictions on residential accessory buildings or room additions as originally proposed Another notable change was language regarding conflicts with overlay zones development standards have been adjusted accordingly Language also added to state that landscaping, lighting parking standards will be triggered when Plan Commission approval is required Request favorable recommendation to City Council Subdivision Report, Brad Grabow: Objective was to help reduce undesired or unintended tunnel effects of development that was pushed too close to the Greenway or loss of tree canopy that protects the greenway s The original approach based on property lines setbacks were scaled back; ability to use the centerline as a reference point was a big, simplifying factor m Public concern regarding non conforming uses, garages, and accessory buildings has been addressed Committee voted 4 -0 to return this item to Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation Motion: Woody Rider to forward Docket No. 11080011 Z, Monon Overlay Rezone, Natural Section North, and Docket No. 11080013 OA, Monon Overlay Ordinance Amendment to the City Council with a favorable recommendation; seconded by Susan Westenmeier, approved 10 -0. New Business None K. Adjournment 8:50 PM Jay Dorman, President 12