Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 10-16-12City of Carmel CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2012 City Hall Council Chambers 2nd Floor, 1 Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 6:00 PM Members Present: John Adams, Jay Dorman, Brad Grabow, Nick Kestner, Joshua Kirsh, Steve Lawson, Alan Potasnik, Kevin "Woody" Rider, Steve Stromquist, Susan Westermeier, Ephraim Wilfong DOCS Staff Present: Director Michael Hollibaugh, Planning Administrator Angie Conn; Legal Counsel John Molitor Also Present: Ramona Hancock, Plan Commission Secretary The Minutes of the September 18, 2012 meeting were approved as submitted Legal Counsel Report, John Molitor: City Council received the Plan Commission's report regarding changes to the Patch Ordinance— discussed at the last meeting. The Patch Ordinance was sent to the Council's Land Use Committee that will meet one week from tonight. It might be well to have the Subdivision Committee chair attend the meeting and continue to work to achieve accommodation. F. Communications, Bills, Expenditures & Legal Counsel Report 1. PC Resolution No. PC- 10- 16-12: Parks & Recreation Impact Fee Ratification (2013). Plan Commission resolution to implement increase in the Parks and Recreation Impact Fee (PRIF) and ratify the scheduled fee increase for June 2013. Present for Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling, Dept of Community Services. The Dept is starting the process to ratify the next increase for the Parks Impact Fee which would take effect in June, 2013, from $1526 to $1679. The Impact Fee Advisory Committee will meet Wednesday, November 7, 2012 at 5:30, prior to the Special Studies Committee meeting. The Impact Fee Advisory Committee consists of members of the Special Studies Committee, plus two members of the public. 2. Highpointe on Meridian PUD (Docket No. 11120027 Z). This Planned Unit Development ordinance /rezone was amended and then approved by City Council under Ordinance Z- 559 -12, and it needs a majority vote from the Commission to affirm or deny those changes. Majority vote needed to affirm or deny amendments made and approved by City Council Motion: Woody Rider to affirm amendments made and approved by City Council on Highpointe on Meridian PUD, Docket No. 11120027 Z, seconded by Brad Grabow. Motion Approved 7 in favor, 4 opposed (Adams, Potasnik, Stromquist, Westermeier) 1 October 16, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Mecting G. Department Concerns, Angie Conn: The Draft 2013 Plan Commission Calendar of meetings was included in the last mailing; members are encouraged to look it over to see if the dates are workable. H. Public Hearings 1. Docket No. 12090011 Z: Hunter /Pullins Rezone. The applicant seeks approval to rezone 1.29 acres from PUD/Planned Unit Development back to S- 2/Residence. These 3 parcels were formerly part of Aramore PUD. The site is located near 2155 E. 99t1i Street. Filed by Jamie & Lucy Hunter and Grant & Denise Pullins, owners. Present for Petitioner: Grant and Denise Pullins, 99th Street. Overview: • Three Parcels purchased from Aramore PUD on 12/31/2009 • Request to rezone from PUD to S- 2/Residence • Currently, no plans to develop property No Public Remonstrance/Public Hearing Closed Dept Comments, Angie Conn: • Recommend favorable consideration • Recommend suspension of the Rules of Procedure • Recommend voting this eve & forwarding to Council with a favorable recommendation Motion: Woody Rider to suspend the Rules of Procedure, seconded by Steve Stromquist, Approved 11 -0 Motion: Woody Rider, to forward Docket No. 12090011 Z, Hunter/Pullins Rezone, to City Council with a favorable recommendation, seconded by Joshua Kirsh, Approved 11 -0 2. Docket No. 12090013 CA: Lincolnshire Subdivision, Commitment Amendment. The applicant seeks approval to amend the recorded commitments, including building elevations. The subdivision is located at the northwest comer of 141st St. and Towne Rd. and is zoned S -1/ Residence -ROSO. Filed by Christine Robbins of Fischer Homes. Present for Petitioner: Brad Kriner, Division President for Fischer Homes, locally; Christine Robbins, Production Assistant, also of Fischer Homes Overview: • "Home Mix Guidelines" submitted • Re- naming some plans • Changing exterior elevations of some plans • Introducing new plans Petitioner displayed current, approved plans and proposed new plan; no architectural commitment previously made is being changed. Petitioner meets minimum square footage requirement; petitioner has internal monotony codes that protect the use /over -use of the same product 2 October 16, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting No Public Remonstrance — Public Hearing Closed Dept Comments, Angie Conn: • Petitioner has adequately addressed the question of side elevations • Dept recommends this item be sent to Subdivision with final voting authority Commission Members' Comments /Questions: • Initially front -load garages? (cormnitments for Lincolnshire require side -load garages, 2 -car minimum) • What would the mix be at build -out between Fischer Homes & prior builder? (50/50 -- proposal only affects about 14 homes in the Lincolnshire community) • Side elevations — (petitioner states that of 14 lots remaining, homes are not required to be brick - wrapped — can be hardi -plank or fiber - cement board siding) Motion: Woody Rider to suspend the Rules of Procedure and vote this evening on Docket No. 12090013 CA, Lincolnshire Subdivision, Commitment Amendment, seconded by John Adams, Approved 11 -0 Motion: Woody Rider to approve Docket No. 12090013 CA, Lincolnshire Subdivision Commitment Amendment, contingent upon inclusion of the monotony code (Home Mix Guidelines) seconded by Joshua Kirsh, Approved 11 -0 3. WITHDRAWN: Docket No. 12080003 CA: Stafford Place Subdivision, Commitment. Y. _ .. • _ • __ .. . Amendment. 4. TABLED TO NOV. 20: Docket No. 12080004 Z: Springmill Court PUD Rezone. St. & 5. Docket No. 12070023 SW: Gray Oaks Subdivision Waiver. The applicant seeks the following waiver request from the Subdivision Control Ordinance: Docket No. 12070023 SW: SCO Chapters 6.03.19 & 6.05.07 — Access to Arterial Roads; Houses must face a Secondary Arterial Road. The site is located at 14412 N. Gray Rd. and is zoned R- 1/Residence. Filed by The Old Town Design Group, LLC. Note: This item was heard together with item #1 under Old Business, Docket No. 12050015 PP, Gray Oaks Subdivision. Present for Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewicz, Land Use Professional with Nelson & Frankenberger; Justin Moffett, Old Town Design Group, LLC; Dustin Meyers, Crossroads Engineers; Jim Shinaver, attorney with Nelson & Frankenberger. 3 October 16, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting Overview: • Proposal is for 40 single family residential lots on 23.8 acres • To accommodate the design & comply with zoning ordinance, subdivision waiver & plat approval are required from the Plan Commission as well as a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) • Variance request was approved by BZA on July 23, 2012 • Entrance location along Gray Road was addressed as well as positioning of lots & homes on those lots adjacent to Gray Road • Original & revised site plan adjacent to Gray Road was displayed • Change in entrance location is to accommodate dip in Gray Road & sight/distance requirements by Dept of Engineering • A path & seating area were added off Gray Road as well as path & seating area along Gray Road for use of the public • Open space area has been enlarged, adjusted, and moved to the west • Modifications to site resulted in lower lot count from 41 to 40 • Changes to site support the application for subdivision waiver; otherwise homes backing up to Gray Road would be required to face Gray Road rather than interior streets of the development • Petitioner has increased landscaping & added a masonry wall & fence to assist in producing a more publicly useable open space along Gray Road • Commitments were distributed to the Plan Commission and the neighbors at the time of the Public Hearing for the Primary Plat • Engineering Dept has reviewed the revised plans and is in support of Plan Commission approval of the plat • Changes in the plan were reviewed by the Subdivision Committee & unanimously approved at the Oct 2m1 meeting and forwarded to the Plan Commission with a positive recommendation • Petitioner requests suspension of its Rules of Procedure and voting on the Waiver Request, and final approval vote on both the Waiver and Primary Plat this evening Public Remonstrance: None Dept Comments, Angie Conn: • Three points made at Committee that should be included in approval of this development o Behind lots 1 thru 4 — option to show a staggered, panel fence wall rather than solid o Addition of gravel or mulch path between the two large ponds o Add requirement to covenants & restrictions that vehicles parked on driveways cannot obstruct sidewalks • Dept recommends suspension of its Rules of Procedure & approval of the Waiver & Primary Plat Subdivision Committee Report, Brad Grabow: • Subdivision reviewed the Primary Plat • Petitioner confirmed and agreed to the three commitments /conditions noted by Dept • A staggered fence (brick & wrought iron) offset with breaks in between, will allow homeowners easier access to the pond & recreation area • A gravel/mulch path between the two ponds will make the area more useable —more a recreation 4 October 16, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting area and will encourage foot traffic • Regardless of driveway length, there will be a neighborhood covenant restricting cars from parking cars in such a manner as to block the sidewalk/pathway crossing the driveways • Connectivity is confirmed to Stratford Place Subdivision to the west • The Committee voted a unanimous positive recommendation Commission Members' Comments: • Maintenance of the pond should be included in the HOA covenants & restrictions • Enhance aesthetics with plantings at the pond/walk and do not display signs saying "no fishing" etc. • For safety reasons, consider moving path along Gray Road farther to the west because of heavy traffic • Is the path/public gathering area really a good idea behind lots 3 and 4? • Sidewalk connection north to 146t1i Street? The petitioner agreed to add the condition of perpetual maintenance of the gravel /mulch path to the Homeowners' Covenants & Restrictions to be enforced by the HOA. Justin Moffett reported that the path behind lots 1 thin 4 along Gray Road will be installed within the right -of -way but at the very back (west side) of the right of way. The petitioner has agreed to a 60 foot total one -half right -of -way; currently the petitioner has a 25 foot one -half right -of -way. There will be a substantial buffer strip until/if the City should make any plans to widen Gray Road —the pavement section of Gray Road is not planned for change —the petitioner will have the existing edge of pavement plus an additional 35 -40 feet of right -of -way. There is substantial greenspace between the path and edge of pavement; the multi - purpose path will be 10 feet wide Justin Moffett commented that a nice wall & landscape buffer will be installed between Gray Road and either the back of lots 3 and 4 or the back of the right -of -way. The 5 -foot concrete sidewalk from Gray Oaks will connect at Oakbrook Subdivision to the south, but will not extend to the north. There will be a 10 -foot multi -use path per the alternative transportation plan the full frontage of this development along Gray Road Jay Dorman suggested allowing the developer flexibility to close the gaps of the staggered fence before turning over control to the HOA; same with making the public gathering area private at a future time. Motion: Woody Rider to suspend the Rules of Procedure in order to vote on the Subdivision Waiver this evening, seconded by Alan Potasnik, Approved 11 -0 Motion: Brad Grabow to approve Docket No. 12070023 SW, and Docket No. 12050015 PP, Gray Oaks Subdivision, with the following conditions: 1) A staggered panel fence /wall will be installed behind Lots 1 -4 instead of a solid fence /wall -- -gaps in said staggered panel fence /wall may be enclosed one year or later after the HOA is transferred to the property owners from the developer; 2) Gravel or mulch will be added to the path between the two ponds and will be maintained in perpetuity by the HOA and written into the HOA By -Laws, Covenants & Restrictions – said path may be paved at a future date; 3) ) The HOA covenants & restrictions will include a requirement that vehicles parked on driveways cannot obstruct the sidewalks; 4) Improvements in the development plan for the public recreation area at the 5 October 16, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting northeast comer of the subdivision can be waived any time, one year or later after the HOA is transferred to the property owners from the developer. The motion was seconded by Woody Rider, Approved 11 -0 I. Old Business 1. Docket No. 12050015 PP: Gray Oaks Subdivision. The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 40 residential lots on 23.8 acres. The site is located at 14412 N. Gray Rd. and is zoned R -1 /Residence. Filed by The Old Town Design Group, LLC NOTE: This item was heard together with Public Hearing Item #5, Docket No. 12070023 SW, Gray Oaks Subdivision Waver. 2. Docket No. 12080007 Z: Old Town Neighborhood Rezone. The applicant seeks approval to rezone 22 parcels from the B-1/Business, B-3/Business and B -5/ Business District Classifications within the Old Town District Overlay Zone, Character Sub -Area to the R -3/ Residence, R- 4/Residence and B-5/Business District Classifications within the Old Town District Overlay Zone, Character Sub -Area. The properties are located along 1St Avenue NW, 1S` Avenue NE, 2id Avenue NE, ls` Street NE, 2m1 Street NE and 5`'' Street NE. Filed by the Carmel Dept. of Community Services. Present for Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling, Long Range Planning Administrator, DOCS. Overview: • Committee Members voted favorable consideration • Rezone of 22 residential properties — two parcels west of Range Line & parcels to the north would go to either R -3 or R -4 Zone matching surroundings • Most of Committee discussion centered around 4 properties at south end along First Street NE, currently zoned B -1 Business • Committee recommended that the B -1 Business District be changed to a B -5 Business District with additional commitments requested • Commitments strictly relate to uses • Committee proposed only the following uses would be permitted by right on the B -5 properties: o Single - Family Dwelling o Two - Family Dwelling o Home Occupation as an Accessory Use o Residential Kennel as an Accessory Use (homes with 3 or less animals) o Private Swimming Pool as an Accessory Use o Clinic or Medical Health Center o General Office o Professional Office o School of General Elementary or Secondary Education o Salon or Day Spa • The list follows -up with Special Uses that would be approved in the B -5 District — permitted only with Special Use approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals • Regarding Use Commitments, there have been discussions with 3 of the 4 properties at the south end along First Street NE and no verbal concerns have been raised 6 October 16, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting • The former Carmel Day School, the 4`h property, has recently had a change in ownership — discussion on the table now is a professional office use for this property • The Dept recommends that all or some of these properties be moved forward to the City Council with favorable recommendation — all of the residential properties; it may be advisable to separate the B -5 properties because each one will have individual commitments assigned to them, negotiated individually • The new owner of the former Cannel Day School property is willing to work with the City, and draft commitments have been forwarded to the owner today • Each property will have individual commitments, signed by individual property owners • Dept recommends rezone items be forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation Committee Report, Steve Stromquist: • Committee did a super job with proposed commitments & use • DOCS Staff did a fine job in outlining the Ordinance, presenting to Committee, and working with the residents • The Committee listened to the residents and were responsive Motion: Sue Westermeier to forward Docket No. 12080007 Z, Old Town Neighborhood Rezone to City Council with a favorable recommendation, conditioned upon the elimination of general elementary, secondary education as a permitted use, seconded by Steve Stromquist, Approved 11 -0 3. Docket No. 12070017 OA: Aramore PUD Ordinance Amendment. The applicant seeks approval to amend text and exhibits for PUD Ordinance Z- 495 -06. (Related to Ordinance Z- 527 -09.) The site is located at 9801 Westfield Blvd. and is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Pittman Partners, Inc. Present for Petitioner: Nick Churchill and Steve Pittman, Pittman Partners, Inc; Alex Barrett, Barrett & Stokely. Overview: • Proposed changes recommended by Subdivision Committee on Oct 2 "d resulted in four requests having to do with clarifying language o Anyplace a driveway leads up to a garage, the driveway will be a minimum of 20 feet in length as measured from the edge of pavement of the nearest street to the face of the garage door o Definition of "Manor Buildings" has been changed to Townhomes & Court Homes now refers to the Exhibits to best describe those residential products; Conceptual plan has been modified & included as an Exhibit to the PUD o Proposed pedestrian crossing — the intent is to extend the Monon Trail thru a spur along the south side of the development within the right -of -way of 98`h Street that is unimproved (the extension of the trail would have to cross Westfield Blvd at some point and that is a concern) A better option might be to make connection to 96th Street, since traffic is slower entering/exiting the roundabout o Concerns brought up at 9/18/12 meeting by the neighbors regarding the connection to Maple Drive which has no sidewalks or curbs, and any increase in traffic into Maple Drive -- not a thru street — Maple Drive to the south is primarily used by the residents. 7 October 16, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting Aramore has agreed to construct Maple Drive on their property, but the actual, physical connection will not be provided; there will be ballards installed or similar device that would prevent traffic accessing the southern portion of Maple Drive & the older portion of the neighborhood until such time as the infrastructure is improved — details would be worked out during the DP /ADLS process • Final item was requested by Staff relating to clear illustrations as to how /where approved product types for construction within the Aramore PUD district could be built. Response is in creation of Exhibit L as well as additional language in Section 6.7 of the PUD Dept Report, Angie Conn:] • Dept recommends favorable consideration Subdivision Committee Report, Brad Grabow: • Most all work dealt with remonstrance concerning Maple Drive & Aramore • Bulk of work centered on the 4 issues stated by petitioner • Connectivity of trail spur on the west side of Westfield Blvd was examined from a safety standpoint • Definitions were looked at, clarified, and cleaned up thru Exhibits and additional language • Driveway lengths were discussed and clarified • Connection of Aramore to Maple Drive was a large part of the committee review — solution is for petitioner to install improvements now that would create a drive up to the existing Maple Drive, but at the same time, block off vehicular access thru use of vehicular ballards that could be removed at a later date when the existing part of Maple Drive can support the traffic • Committee vote was unanimous for a favorable recommendation Commission Comments /Questions: • Would ballards be adjacent to the driveway that goes thru the subdivision or on the south property line? Concern would be turning the area into a public parking place that would accumulate boat trailers, etc. Can review again at DP /ADLS Nick Churchill's response: Petitioner could install two sets of ballards, north & south side, to prevent the area from being used as a storage place for boat trailers, etc. • Would like to see where south property line ballards would be located & will there be a sidewalk width connection to the street so that a mud puddle is not created between the street and access- - as long as the neighborhood is good with that • Ballards should be able to be removed to allow emergency vehicle access Petitioner will work with Dept of Engineering for a solution Motion: Sue Westermeier to forward Docket No. 12070017 OA, Aramore PUD Ordinance Amendment to the City Council with a favorable recommendation, seconded by John Adams, Approved 11 -0 Note: At this point, Joshua Kirsh exited the meeting and did not return. J. New Business Motion: Woody Rider to re -order the Agenda to hear Docket No. 12090014 ADLS Amend, Woodgate Subdivision Wall along 146th Street, as a Public Hearing item, seconded by John Adams, Approved 10 -0 8 October 16, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting 1. Docket No. 12090014 ADLS Amend: Woodgate Subdivision, Wall along 146th Street. The applicant seeks approval for an 8 -ft concrete wall to run along the backs of 11 residential lots along 146th Street to replace an existing wooden fence. The site is located near the intersection of Woodgate Dr. and 146th St. The site is zoned R- 1/Residence. Filed by Lyndon Craig Stiff, president of The Woodgate Homeowners Association. Present for Petitioner: Peter Beering, Attorney; Lyndon Craig Stiff, President, Woodgate Homeowners Association. Overview: • Petitioner seeks permission to replace a wooden fence with an 8 -ft concrete fence • Wooden fence erected by developer in 1995 as a requirement of City Planning Staff • Wooden fence has been maintained consistently by Woodgate HOA and replaced by the HOA in 2005 • Cedar fence has deteriorated to the point that it needs to be replaced • Since the initial fence was constructed, materials and technology have changed dramatically • Examples of previously approved, existing fence walls were shown • Pre -cast concrete system is now a preferable material for maintenance • Pre -cast materials also has an advantage of drainage opportunities as well as removable panels close to utility structures that would be impacted • The Company that would supply the proposed pre -cast wall offers a 15 -year warranty upon installation and lifetime warranty on materials Public Remonstrance/Favorable: • Dr. Cheryl Anderson, resident of Woodgate, in favor of the barrier wall • Bonnie Spencer, resident of Woodgate, in favor of replacing the fence • Randy Hitchens, resident of Woodgate, supports the barrier wall, thinks it is attractive and supports the diligence of the HOA • Linda McGee, resident of Woodgate, is in support of the proposed wall that would beautify the neighborhood and be maintenance free • Kate Benson, resident of Woodgate, supports the proposed wall and feels that it would be a huge safety factor for the neighborhood since the upgrade of 146th Street to a four -lane road and the amount of traffic on 146th Street • Myra Ruckinoff, resident of Woodgate whose house is currently for sale, feels that the present fence is an eyesore and affects the property values in the neighborhood • Kathleen Gill, resident of Woodgate, in favor of the proposal that would beautify both the neighborhood and Carmel, since it is on 146th Street • Mike Sieve, resident of Woodgate, fully supports the replacement of the fence. The current fence is an eyesore and a maintenance issue. • Linda Tatum, resident of Woodgate, believes the proposed fence would create a desirable look for the entire neighborhood and keep up appearances for the area • Marissa Anderson, resident of Woodgate, fully support the replacement of the fence for the reasons aforesaid, safety and aesthetics • Chamin Lall, resident of Woodgate, is in favor of the concrete wall/fence that will be maintenance free 9 October 16, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting • Jack Robertson, resident of Woodgate, stated the fences heretofore have all been problematic due to sub - standard construction and materials. The current condition of the fence reflects negatively on the neighborhood. The fence should be a quality that matches what is inside the fence. The residents seek approval of the proposed fence wall. General Remonstrance/Unfavorable: • Mary Schmidt, resident of Woodgate, also an attorney, believes the existing fence should be replaced, but the difficulty is the petition itself having been filed on behalf of the Homeowners Association, with the understanding of the Board that it is the HOA's expense to replace the fence – it is not. This has been an on -going issue and Ms. Schmidt and her husband have filed a lawsuit to prevent the association from utilizing the HOA dues to pay for the fence. Anyone who wants to volunteer to pay money for the fence and come back and ask for replacement of the fence is welcome to do so, but the HOA, based on the lawsuit filed and the reasons set forth therein, does not have the authority to use the HOA dues to pay for the fence. The lawsuit is on- going and probably will be for a while. • Marty Anderson, resident of Woodgate, does not believe it is the Woodgate Homeowners Association's responsibility to pay for the replacement of the fence which is not on common area. Mr. Anderson appreciated the time given by the Commission for the public hearing on this issue, since it was implied by the Woodgate HOA Board that the wall had already been approved. There is opposition against the wall and Mr. Anderson wanted to be certain that the Commission was aware of that. Mr. Anderson also believes that it is not the HOA's responsibility to pay for replacement of the fence just as it is not their responsibility to replace /maintain the ponds within the subdivision —it is in fact the individual homeowners responsibility to maintain that as, Mr. Anderson believes, it is the individual homeowners responsibility along 146th Street to maintain the fence • Randy Henry, resident of Woodgate – legalities issues aside, the proposed structure seems more fit for homes adjacent to interstates, homes in high commercial areas, but not on a residential street. The 8 -foot fence, concrete barrier does not really fit with what is to the east and west of the subdivision which is wooden fences, some with concrete pillars, 6 feet in height. The wall looks a little un- inviting for the neighborhood which is not private gated but very open. The pool at Woodgate is open to everyone, no matter whether they live in Carmel or Noblesville or Westfield. We want to make sure that this neighborhood does not look exclusive. This type of fence along areas in Carmel does not fit the overall look. Mr. Henry felt that the proposed fence would take away the aesthetics of the neighborhood Rebuttal, Mr. Beefing: • Goal is to come up with a reasonable solution that is: o Not unsightly o Serves a number of purposes o Serves noise control as main purpose • When Woodgate was platted, 146th Street was a very different roadway • Re- alignment of 146th Street placed the street closer to the Woodgate Subdivision • If Woodgate were before the Commission today for approval, it would look very different with probably dramatically larger buffers, as was the requirement in 1994 when section 5 of Woodgate was before the Plan Commission for a fence • Review of the records indicate that the plat was not amended 10 October 16, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting • Copies of votes have been submitted that show an overwhelming majority of homeowners in Woodgate are in favor of this specific concrete fence system; 15 persons voted against doing anything, and 12 people that voted in favor of a wood fence – three others voted to support a similar fence to an adjacent subdivision • There has been a very thorough effort on the part of the HOA Board to vent the possible options • The petitioner is requesting the Plan Commission's approval of the concrete fence proposal Public Hearing Closed Dept Comments, Angie Conn: • Petition was looked at by members of Technical Advisory Committee, including utilities & City Engineering • Main issue is that there is no common area platted – lots back up to 146th Street and the backs of those lots also contain a 10 -foot wide drainage & utility easement • Encroachment is an issue • Dept recommends approval, subject to final review & approval of City Engineering Dept, Board of Public Works & Safety, County Highway Dept • Even if Plan Commission approved the design & materials this eve, additional approvals would be needed • Petitioner is aware of additional approvals and is working on them already Committee Report, Steve Stromquist: • Due to the litigation, Committee decided to return this item to the full Commission • Committee thought it was best to hold a public hearing & request input from residents & neighbors Commission Members Comments /Questions: • Research shows fence belongs to 11 homeowners along 146th Street and not to the neighborhood • Retention ponds belong to the people on the ponds & they are responsible for maintenance • Until litigation is settled, the process is harmed by pursuing this further • Would encourage tabling of this item • Existing fence is an eyesore and does need to be replaced • Proposed fence would meet existing guidelines of Plan Commission but would need additional approvals • Beyond the3 scope of the Plan Commission to deal with how the fence is paid for or who installs • Height of existing fence? (8 feet) • Why are we involved? (Subdivision Control Ordinance states that perimeter walls must be reviewed & approved by Plan Commission; because it is a wall and not a fence) • Commission should not be involved until litigation is settled – in favor of tabling • It is uncertain if the petitioner has the proper standing to be making this request of the Plan Commission —if there is uncertainty over ownership of the fence • Is this the right entity to bring this before the Commission? (No case law on this - -no black/white answer on this) • Plan Commission should not be refereeing a family feud over a fence • We are not refereeing or in the middle —we are staying out—we should not be involved 11 October 16, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting Recommendation: The HOA meet and vote to authorize the HOA to take responsibility for the fence so that the HOA is the correct entity to move this forward — until then, this should probably be tabled. Motion: Woody Rider to Table Docket No. 12090014 ADLS Amend, Woodgate Subdivision Wall along 146`1' Street and waive the time period for returning /re- filing, seconded by Steve Stromquist, Approved 8 in favor, 2 opposed (Adams, Westermeier) one absent (Kirsh) 2. Docket No. 12080005 ADLS: McDonald's Rebuild. The applicant seeks design approval to rebuild a fast food restaurant building with two drive - thrus, plus add new landscaping, lighting, and signage. The site is located at 750 E. Carmel Dr. and is zoned B-8/Business, within the Keystone Parkway Corridor Overlay Zone. Filed by Timothy Ochs of Ice Miller, LLP. Present for Petitioner: Tim Ochs, attorney, Ice Miller; Bob Guiton, McDonald's Construction; Blair Carmosino, Carmosino Group, 112 Westchester Blvd, Noblesville. Overview: • Seeking approval to allow McDonald's to tear down existing facility & replace with a new McDonald's • Existing McDonald's is approximately 36 years ago and is dated architecture and worn • BZA has heard the sign package and variances have been approved Blair Carmosino, ADLS Specifics: • Rebuild will allow store to be moved closer to Carmel Drive and farther from Keystone, caused by the dual drive -thru • Dual drive -thru enables more volume • One key design element is screening the drive -thru components at the northeast corner • Trash enclosure will remain at its current location to best screen the drive -thru elements • Site now gives appropriate sight -lines & appropriate screening where needed once final landscaping is in place • McDonald's is upgrading their stores throughout the country — info packets show new look • Building will not have a Mansard roof • Materials are split -face block, no EIFS, & will have a stone hearth element; with yellow accent trellis & internally illuminated signage If this item is sent to Committee, Petitioner requests final approval at Committee level. Dept Comments, Angie Conn: • Petitioner is working with staff to resolve outstanding comments, now at 11 • Dept recommends this item be referred to Subdivision Committee to even the work load • Dept asks that Committee be granted final approval authority Commission Members Comments /Questions: • Pick -up window at its current location? Too close to pedestrian entrance for safety... 12 0 October 16, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting Response: Pick -up window will stay on the same side of the bldg —in -bound lane will align with southern or front curb; concrete median will also be installed for exit flow • Pedestrian entrance on west side (Yes) • How will handicap parking exit – cars will back up & block them in Response: Common layout for McDonald's, que time with dual drive -thru will shorten it • Concern with traffic, double lanes & more traffic onto Carmel Drive – entering & exiting -- please compare the proposed facility with existing double -lane facility at 96t1i & Meridian • Concern with the number of outstanding items & possible Committee approval Response: McDonald's has several layouts, and these are well - tested; there are several parking lot configurations, not just standards that we thrown together —these are tried, true, tested throughout the Country. The store is limited to right in/right out because of improvements to Carmel Drive; there is not full movement onto Cannel Drive • Would recommend further study on the layout situation • Was BZA sign pkg that was approved specific to this layout? • Where are we not taking advantage of the full lot width? Response: Because of the Keystone Overlay Zone landscape buffer requirements – cannot encroach — can review at Committee • Issue of connecting sidewalk from Carmel Drive to the parking lot & front door Response: Petitioner states that this will be corrected & will comply with alternative transportation requirements • Currently there is a problem getting out of McDonald's for persons southbound —the only option is to head west and either make a "U" turn someplace or continue to Range Line Road; this is a major problem now and will only get worse – the parking needs major review for pedestrians entering the restaurant • McDonald's are all over the place —and they work, even with cross traffic; as far as access, the City created the problem, not McDonald's – recommend working with the bldg next door to work out something • Dept Comments, Angie Conn: • Confirmation of outstanding items • A lot of the BZA variances were for number, size, location, and the Dept can work with whatever is approved Suggested Motion: Jay Dorman to forward Docket No. 12080005 ADLS, McDonald's Rebuild to the Special Studies Committee on Wednesday, November 7, with discretion for final voting authority or return to Commission for a final vote, seconded by Woody Rider, approved 8 in favor, 2 opposed (Kestner, Potasnik) one absent (Kirsh) 3. Docket No. 12090020 ADLS Amend: Ultimate Car Washy Modifications. The applicant seeks design approval to slightly modify the stacking lanes, add a canopy, change signage, and more, to accommodate a new tenant (Rama Carwash & Lube.) The site is located at 431 E. Carmel Dr. and is zoned B -8 /Business. Filed by Corey Williams of SEA Group, LLC. Present for Petitioner: Corey Williams, SEA Group, LLC, Carmel. 13 October 16, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting Overview of Site Modifications: • Traffic flow design same as initial carwash • Nine, Employee- assisted vacuum stations on west side of facility • Currently, exit island for vacuum lanes at east side of bldg • Exit/access easement agreement with property to the east • Sign package will be re- evaluated; either new submittal or request for variances thru BZA • Landscape plan submitted; existing landscape being evaluated by City Urban Forester • Regarding Engineering & disturbance of one - quarter acre, petitioner will work with Engineering to resolve any stormwater /drainage issues Dept Comments, Angie Conn: • Dept recommends this item be referred to Subdivision Committee Wednesday, 11/07 • Dept also recommends Committee be granted final voting authority Commission Members Comments /Questions: • Location of vacuum canisters? • Fence or Wall between canisters & property to the west? (to be worked out with Staff) • Lines from canisters will be entrenched in ground and will service from there • Utility mat & cart with supplies at each drying spot? (Yes) • Cleaning service offered only certain hours or all day? (during regular business hours, 8 -7, stored after that) • Questions with traffic flow pattern Questions to be addressed at Committee Docket No. 12090020 ADLS Amend, Ultimate Car Wash Modifications was referred to the Subdivision Committee for further review on Wednesday, November 7, 2012. Note: John Molitor recommended an Executive Session of the Executive Committee to discuss possible litigation, perhaps schedule for next Monday, 10/22, in advance of the BZA meeting, 5:30. K. Adjournment at 9:20 PM ona Hancock, ecretary • Jay Dorman, President 14 Hancock, Ramona B From: Sawbuilder @aol.com Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 2:53 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: McDonald's Meeting Concerns Ramona- My concerns that would like to voice regarding the tear down /rebuild McDonald's at Keystone and Carmel Drive: Our Office Park shares a sign with McDonalds and I want to make sure that any future landscaping around that said sign does not cover our part of the sign. I also want to make sure that the new dumpster area is landscaped to block it from our parking lot view. An ongoing major concern is the traffic. Since the thru -way to the west of McDonalds has been blocked off and the city of Carmel took away the left hand turn onto Carmel Drive, it is EXTREMELY difficult for McDonalds traffic and our tenants /customers to get to Keystone. Traffic making U -turns in the middle of Carmel Drive is very dangerous for everyone. This issue needs to be addressed. Morning, Lunch and Evening traffic also gets backed up onto Carmel Drive lining up to the drive thru which is dangerous for traffic exiting off the Keystone /Carmel Drive roundabout. Please let me know if you have any questions about my concerns. Thanks, Steve Wilson Steven A. Wilson, Inc. 317- 846 -2555 317 -846 -9594 fax www.sawbuilder.com 1