Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 01-15-13City of Carmel CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2013 City Hall Council Chambers, 2nd Floor 1 Civic Square, Carmel, IN 46032 6:00 PM Members Present: John Adams, Michael Casati, 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, City Planning Administrator Rachel Boone, City Planning Administrator; Legal Counsel John Molitor Also Present: Ramona Hancock, Plan Commission Secretary John Molitor administered the Oath of Office to the following members: Michael Casati, new appointment; Brad Grabow and Susan Westermeier, re- appointments Election of Officers for the coming year: President: Steve Stromquist, elected by Unanimous Consent Vice President: Brad Grabow, elected by Unanimous Consent Board of Zoning Appeals Representative: Ephraim Wilfong, elected by Unanimous Consent Hamilton County Plan Commission Representative: Michael Casati, elected by Unanimous Consent Member -at- Large: Kevin "Woody" Rider, elected by Unanimous Consent The Minutes of the December 18, 2012 meeting were approved as submitted Legal Counsel Report: General Assembly has begun and there are a handful of Bills filed that may affect Plan Commission activity — will track and report on pending legislation. Reports, Announcements & Department Concerns, Rachel Boone: Annual Plan Commission Workshop will be held Saturday, March 9, 2013 at 8:00 AM at Carmel City Hall — all are encouraged to attend. Also, regarding item 6, the posting of the sign on the rezone for Arby's/Party Time/Langston Properties, will require a suspension of the Rules of Procedure to hear this evening due to the shorter period of time the sign was posted on the property; notice to adjoining property owners and notice in the newspaper did meet the time specified under the Rules. Motion: Sue Westermeier to suspend the Rules of Procedure in order to hear item 6, Docket No. 12120003 Z, Rezone of Arby's/Party Time/Langston Properties, seconded by John Adams, approved 11- 0 1 January 15, 2013 Carmel Plan Commission H. Public Hearings 1. Docket No. 12110012 DP Amend/ADLS Amend: St. Vincent Carmel Hospital Women's Health Center. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a 96,703 sq. ft building addition (4 stories tall) and for a 512 -space parking lot expansion. The applicant also seeks the following zoning waiver request: 2. Docket No. 12120002 ZW ZO Chapters 23B.12.B and 20G.06 — reduced number of required parking spaces. The site is located at 13500 N. Meridian St. The site is zoned B- 6/Business (in the US 31 Overlay Zone) and OM/MM -Old Meridian District/Mixed Medical. Filed by Jon Sheidler of Woolpert, Inc. Note: Items 1 and 2 were heard together Note: Michael Casati was recused from all discussion and was not present in the room when these items were heard. Present for Petitioner: Robert Hicks, Attorney, Hall, Render, Killian & Heath; Monte Hoover, Architect with BSA Life Structures; Dan Kloc, Architect employed by St Vincent; Jon Scheidler, Engineer, Woolpert & Assoc. Overview: • Project referred to as St. Vincent Women's Center • Property is zoned B -6 Business & also within the US 31 Overlay • Proposal is believed to be largest in Indiana dedicated to Women's Health • Specialties at this facility will be diagnostic & medical specialties • First floor of the bldg proposed for retail use & uses complementary to health uses, i.e. wellness spa, food service, boutique, etc. • Proposed bldg is 4- stories, approx 96,700 gross sq feet • Proposed bldg will be connected to existing bldgs on campus, including a covered connection to in- patient facility • Proposed bldg will face US 31 • Additional surface parking is proposed together with a new entrance drive to serve the parking off Main Street • The bldg is oriented purposefully in front of the existing professional office bldgs — a beautification effort by St. Vincent Carmel • Bldg materials are brick veneer & pre -cast stone combination with Spandrel glass • Bldg will have energy star features • First story floor of the roof will incorporate green plantings in a tray -type configuration • Signage: Three main bldg signs planned — top & middle of north elevation, east & west elevation of the bldgs, and the front, above the arches — numerals on the top left denote patient drop -off canopy entrance • There are two ground signs, larger than permitted, and variances have been filed with the Board of Zoning Appeals, plus the larger than allowed, way - finding signs • Lighting for the bldg is essentially what is already installed on campus, nothing novel — sconces will be on the bldg, at either side of the arched attributes • Site landscaping has been reviewed & approved by the City Urban Forestry Dept. 2 1 January 15, 2013 Carmel Plan Commission • Rain gardens are incorporated into the plan • 7 variances have been filed with the BZA regarding this project & will be heard January 29, 2013 • Parking: Waiver is being sought for the number of spaces to be constructed; per ordinance, 1427 spaces are required – current study shows 174 parking spaces are not being utilized currently – prior to the construction of the Women's Health Center • Current parking spaces total 1,031, plus the additional 231, totals 1,262 spaces • After construction of proposed spaces to accommodate the Women's Center, there will be an abundance of 339 spaces • Maximum 35% waiver would allow 928 spaces — petitioner is requesting 11.5% less than required by Ordinance -1262 spaces —to more than adequately meet the needs Public Remonstrance: None, Public Hearing Closed Dept Comments, Rachel Boone: • Proposal is an expansion to existing St Vincent Hospital & Medical Office Bldg • Proposed Addition will be situated in front of the existing Medical Office Bldg & tie -in to the entire campus • Additional Parking will be added as well as re- arranging the existing • 35% waiver is allowed, but the proposed numbers of spaces provides adequate parking • Some Variances are required – build -to line as well as signage • Three signs will be removed from existing bldgs that are other tenants within the medical office building & will not be replaced • Signs will match existing on site signage • No major outstanding comments • Possible sculpture at entry-way; petitioner will keep Dept up -dated • Petitioner will work with David Littlejohn for bicycle & pedestrian access • Dept recommends this item be forwarded to February 5th Special Studies Committee; Dept would also approve a Suspension of the Rules of Procedure & consideration for approval of the project Commission Members' Comments /Questions: • Definitely want to have Committee review • 35% Waiver on the parking is a concern • Typically would look for a Pilot Agreement attached to this, since the petitioner does not pay taxes Petitioner responded that they probably will not own the bldg, - -it will be a ground lease • Proposal will be a great addition to the community —only concern is the parking • How do pedestrians get from the parking lot to new bldg? – provide more detail at Committee • Bldg cutting into existing parking spaces? (Yes) With only one entrance on the north side, it will cut down pedestrian ability to access the bldg easily (petitioner hopes pedestrian access to site will be enhanced — pathways from parking lot to the bldg) • Agree with opportunity for review by Committee – petitioner to provide a pedestrian map to clarify access • Please bring color of brick for existing & proposed bldg to determine match/blend of proposed bldg • Please submit info materials prior to Committee for members to review 3 January 15, 2013 Carmel Plan Commission • Reason for variance for ground signs? • Petitioner states that the ground signs are taller than permitted, &more info needed on sign, more copy. Signs are 2 feet, 10 inches taller than allowed by Ordinance —width does not require a variance • Question regarding effectiveness of rain gardens & eliminating curbs Jon Schneider with Woolpert & Assoc clarified the rain garden design – also addresses stormwater quality requirements of the City • Would like to see 90 -foot setback exhibit first -hand at Committee • Consider access road that just disappears – please improve thruway from Main Street access road over to Old Meridian • What happens to those existing offices that currently have a view of US 31? Is there a courtyard between old /new bldg. or an air shaft? Petitioner says an interior courtyard has been created with enough room that the view will look north to the new bldg • Landscape Plan: Please look at greenbelt in more detail • Committee should look at curb cuts on Pennsylvania at access point • Stormwater retention planned for east side of new parking field – plans for attractive entry at south end of Main Street access drive with new trees & ponds – can the ponds be flipped? Petitioner states existing stream splits the two ponds, and goal was to minimize impact on the area – the ponds fit with the natural grade • Not in favor of taller signs to accommodate any retail signage • In favor of more parking, not less • Suggest locating rain garden in the middle of the parking lot to soften an area to walk thru the parking lot The petitioner explained/clarified the use of rain gardens • It would be a long walk from the back of the lot to the building The petitioner stated that employee parking will be moved to the southwest area of the lot and there will be a shuttle service for employees as well as patients • Pedestrian access to the entrance is a major concern – even in the old parking lot, it is difficult to know where to walk • Would like installation of a multi -use path rather than a sidewalk • Would like to see pictures /proposals of how the new addition will fit/blend – architecturally & aesthetically with the existing buildings • Any consideration given to incorporating elements in the path/walk that would melt ice /snow for easier, safer walking? Please explore at Committee level Petitioner reports that such elements will be incorporated into the walks at the entry/drop -off area • Would like name of developer prior to Committee meeting Docket No. 12110012 DP Amend/ADLS Amend, St. Vincent Carmel Hospital Women's Health Center, and Docket No. 12120002 ZW, ZO Chapters 23B.12B and 20G.06— reduced number of required parking spaces, were referred to the Special Studies Committee for further review on Tuesday, February 5, at 6:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. 3. Docket No. 12100018 DP /ADLS: Carmel Corners Retail Center (Meijer Outlot B). The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a 7,780 sq. ft. multi- tenant commercial 4 January 15, 2013 Carmel Plan Commission building that fronts on Pennsylvania St. The site is located at 1425 W. Carmel Dr. and is zoned OM/M: Old Meridian District, Meijer Subarea. Filed by Eric Carter of Weihe Engineers, on behalf of Versa Development. Present for Petitioner: Ryan Shultz, Versa Development; Eric Carter and Jamie Shinamen, Weihe Engineers. Overview: • Development proposed on approximately 1.74 acres • Building will be 7,780 square feet for multi- tenant commercial • Currently have three tenants signed for this location • Building will front on Pennsylvania Street • Site is zoned Om/M: Old Meridian District, Meijer Subarea • Petitioner has long- standing relationship with Meijer • Bldg aesthetics will provide a cohesive design with bldgs in the immediate area • DOCS Staff has suggested some changes; would like to discuss further at Committee level Public Remonstrance: None Public Hearing Closed Dept Report, Rachel Boone: • Petitioner is constructing a new, outlot bldg in the Meijer parking lot • Proposed bldg will be similar to existing outlot bldgs • Proposed bldg will front Pennsylvania Street • Access will be from either existing curb cut on Pennsylvania or Carmel Drive curb cut • Bldg materials are brick & stone, glass and some EIFS • Landscaping is required • Signage will be requested – some variances will be required • Signage will be similar to that which is existing in Meijer parking lot • A number of Outstanding Comments are to be addressed at Committee level • Dept recommends forwarding this item to the February 5, 2013 Special Studies Committee Commission Members' Comments /Questions: • Will there be adequate parking for Meijer & existing outlot bldgs with this additional bldg? Petitioner states parking ordinance was revised, previously one space for 400 square feet of retail space, and one space per seat in a restaurant facility. The number of spaces being provided are deemed adequate – 20 spaces are required for the proposed bldg, 85 on -site are being provided • Echo parking concerns – parking requirements need to be taken into consideration • Existing outlot retail bldg does not have enough parking & location of spaces is poor; parking in front of proposed bldg would be great Petitioner states there is parking in the front, and where pervious pavers are shown, that is also parking • Suggest moving bldg back and put in an island —maybe with a rain garden —to accommodate additional parking Petitioner states bldg is bordered by significant infrastructure underground & existing easements in place to service the Meijer building – there is not a lot of freedom in adjusting where the bldg is situated – 5 January 15, 2013 Carmel Plan Commission there are certainly site constraints that dictate • Would like to encourage connectivity among each of the bldgs as the outlots are developed – pedestrian as well as vehicles • Is there space for outdoor seating? Petitioner will explore connectivity at Committee level – outdoor seating has not been requested by the tenant • Signage issues still outstanding? • Yes, Dept will continue to work with petitioner • Should be a way to connect the north island (mulched area) to the existing sidewalk (Petitioner will work with Meijer — property is currently owned by Meijer, but the parcel is in process of being split from parent parcel & will be acquired) • Landscaping – small bushes – along Pennsylvania to screen parked vehicles? (There is an existing landscape berm in place, but petitioner is open to providing additional shrubs) • Would encourage petitioner to again look at possible impact of proposed outlot with Meijer as far as parking & easy in/out • Parking is a major issue & easy access is prime consideration — Meijer will be harmed, regardless of a study • Recommend lease for the propsed outlot bldg force their employees to park certain areas, otherwise employee parking cannot be enforced (Petitioner states that numbers are dictated by proposed tenants) Docket No. 12100018 DP /ADLS, Carmel Corners Retail Center (Meijer Outlot B) was forwarded to the Special Studies Committee for further review on February 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM. 4. Docket No. 12080004 Z: Springmill Court PUD Rezone. The applicant seeks approval to rezone approximately 15 acres to PUD/Planned Unit Development for multiple - family dwellings, from S- 2/Residence. The site is located at 400 W. 96th Street, at the northwest corner of 96th St. & Springmill Rd. Filed by Timothy Ochs of Ice Miller, LLP, on behalf of Sexton Development, LLC Present for Petitioner: Tim Ochs, attorney, Ice Miller, LLP, One American Square, Indianapolis. Overview: • Proposed multi - family dwellings to be developed by Sexton Development • Sexton typically constructs, then owns & manages developments • Current property owner is Mrs. Sexton & would like to develop the property • Site is located northwest of the intersection of 96th Street & Springmill Road • Proposed development would be the first project for Sexton in a number of years • Proposal is intended to be a "legacy" project • North of & adjacent to the property is I -465; to the west is a large -lot, single - family Subdivision; to the east is part of the new Duke Office complex which includes a 3 -story parking deck • There are 600 to 700 feet to transition from 5 -story office bldgs & a parking deck over to single family residential in a short, tight distance • Petitioner feels it is highly unlikely property would ever be developed as single family residential • Site is approximately 17 acres – 2 acres is right -of -way for Springmill Road 6 January 15, 2013 Carmel Plan Commission • As currently proposed, there will be 310 units -30 townhomes, the balance would be apartment "flats" 1, 2, and 3 bedroom • Site calls for a development with "Wow" factor • Project will be sustainable, limiting bldg coverage on site, less surface parking, and maximizing the open space • Majority of bldgs are on the center or middle of the site rather than the perimeter property line • No open detention ponds— requisite detention on site is possible in the green areas • Traffic Impact Study done by A & F Engineering: o Currently, the intersection of 96` & Springmill fails in the AM peak hours for south bound traffic on Springmill Road in terms of grade o Intersection of 96th & Springmill Road fails in the PM peak hours for north bound traffic on Springmill Road o The balance operates at adequate levels of service o Level of Service including proposed development in essence remains the same • Petitioner will be adding traffic, but it will not degrade the level of service with the improvements suggested by the Impact Study, i.e. a dedicated right turn lane for south bound traffic, & dedicated turn lane for west bound traffic on 96th Street • No amenities on site such as pool, tennis courts, basketball /volleyball courts • Amenities will include an elaborate,10 -foot wide, internal trail system and open space • Petitioner believes that parking of 1.85 spaces per unit is more than adequate • Petitioner disagrees with the Dept Staff Report and feels that multi - family is an appropriate use • Petitioner agrees with Dept statement that the development is too tall for this site – too dense • Petitioner will re- design the site to lower the height of some or all of the bldgs but keep bldg coverage area the same • Petitioner would like to explore change in design with the Committee if possible • Proposed materials are brick, and hardy -plank cement fiber board • Springmill Road entrance would be right in/right out only – no left turn onto Springmill Road • Entrance on 96th Street would be a full turn movement with two exit lanes, a dedicated right only, a lane for left turns, and one in -bound • Petitioner requested Committee review to work on re- design for an acceptable project Public Remonstrance /Organized/Unfavorable: • Dee Fox, resident of Carmel, member of Clay West Information Council, CWIC2. CWIC2 believes this proposal is seriously flawed; it proposes a huge increase in intensity and is not compatible with the location —it is totally out of line with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal jumps to the most intense, residential land classification which is not even a conditional fit next to its residential neighbors. Sexton focuses on compatibility with the Duke commercial development to the east without sufficient consideration for existing residential development. The PUD proposes multi - family residential next to large lots, single family homes; it would also change from owner occupied homes to rental property. Building height is not compatible & far exceeds the 35 foot maximum of single family homes on two of the four sides. The zoned maximum density would increase over 8 and one -half times to 21 units per acre. CWIC2 believes this property absolutely begs the Commission to demonstrate that appropriate transitioning actually means something. Magnitude of change matters. Each level of change from compatibility should require increased buffering, and/or compensatory transitioning methods- 7 January 15, 2013 Carmel Plan Commission sorely lacking in this proposal. Please require HUGE changes to this proposal or reject it entirely • Dr. David Cook, Lacoma Estates, agreed with statements made by CWIC2 representative & offered additional comments: Lacoma Estates residents are unanimous in agreement that the proposed PUD is not appropriate for the site. PUD's are supposed to offer something unique that cannot be achieved thru straight - forward zoning; PUD's are intended to encourage innovative, mixed land use within a single subdivision. The current proposal is not innovative and is a single land use — unique only in terms of its mass, height, and population density. The project is neither luxury nor green; rather they are mid - market in terms of square footage per unit & proposed rents, neither of any material and environmental merit nor any commitment to make it so. The Comprehensive Plan gives the developers guidelines & the residents expectations of what will be built on undeveloped property —those would be shattered by granting this PUD. As noted in an email from Mayor Brainard to Mrs. Cook on January 7, 2013, "Residents such as yourselves who have invested in their homes, both Indpls & on our side of 96th, have a right to rely on our Comprehensive Plan & current zoning when they make those investments." The Comp Plan lists only one zoning, best fit between estate residential and employment nodes as would be applicable to Lacoma Estates & the Duke Office Park, that being parks & recreation. The Comp Plan also lists a conditional fit of suburban residential which would appear to be an appropriate starting place for negotiating a zoning change. The building height is unacceptable and not a transition at all. Traffic is also a major concern. Appropriate transitioning should be considered for the Lacoma Estates neighborhood as well as the Duke Office Park. The residents of Lacoma Estates agree with the Planning Dept in not favoring this development and that density as well as the quality of building materials are also a concern. The Mayor is on record in his email of January 7, 2013 as "....... opposed to rezoning this parcel for apartments." The Lacoma Estates residents respectfully request that the Plan Commission deny this project. • Mark Snyderman, Copley Place, Lacoma Estates – agree with CWIC2 comments and those stated by Dr Cook. The proposed PUD Ordinance is inappropriate for several independent reasons. The height of the units will tower over the existing residences, block the sun, cast long shadows, and windows & balconies looking down will offer no privacy to the neighbors. The height of the units defies the Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; beyond the height is the density, currently capped at 2.4 units per acre —this proposal would triple the density and permit 7.2 units per acre. Increased density also drives a need for bufferyard, although a buffer that complies with the proposed PUD Ordinance would be wholly inadequate to protect sight lines in fall, spring, and winter. The traffic study did not make clear how the increased traffic would affect the residents of Lacoma Estates. We all bought homes subject to zoning, subject to easements, subject to the Comprehensive Plan. Initially the Sextons purchased the property to build a single family home, and that use should be allowed. The residents request that the Commission give a negative recommendation to this proposed PUD. • Kristy Clemmens, president of Park Meridian HOA, 96th & Meridian, just east of the proposed development. Traffic is currently a major concern – cut through traffic is a problem – McDonald's hires a rent -a -cop to direct heavy traffic. Adding 300 more residents to this area will only add to the problem. Please deny this proposal. • Thomas Kegley, resident at Reserve at Spring Mill. Residents at Reserve at Spring Mill agree with the Dept planning staff that this proposal is not acceptable and should not be developed as planned. Three basic reasons: Traffic; Density; Design & Construction Quality. The residents and HOA of the Reserve at Spring Mill request that this proposal be denied. • Dr. Deidre Pettinga, resident and president of Cedar Knolls HOA, Indianapolis. Based on 8 January 15, 2013 Carmel Plan Commission telephone calls, personal meetings, and email communications, the residents of Cedar Knolls are opposed to the proposed development due to the following reasons 1) Design & materials of the project, buffering, setbacks & landscaping, height of the bldgs, incompatibility of the project with surrounding homes, increased light 2)Density of the project; 3) Traffic impact & safety, location of entrance /exit, noise, headlights, possible school bus pick -up & drop off. Cedar Knoll residents urge the Plan Commission to deny this development. • Sally Paige, president of Belle Meade HOA, agreed with all comments made by Dr. Pettinga but added that cut - through traffic on 96th Street to Springmill Road affected their subdivision so negatively that the HOA petitioned the City of Indpls to put a gate at Kenwood, a public street. The City of Indpls installed a gate and thus eliminated cut - through traffic; it took seven long year to accomplish that. This proposal will add to the traffic. The residents of Belle Meade also urge the Plan Commission to deny this project. • Jill Meisenheimer, Williams Mill, also representing Carmel Citizens for Responsible Zoning (CCRZ) which was formed to try to maintain the residential character of Spring Mill Road, agreed with previous concerns expressed. Ms. Meisenheimer agreed with all previous concerns expressed, but her biggest concern is traffic. When traffic studies are done, they are not done in any manner that makes sense to her as a neighbor & a citizen. The traffic study only looks at three points and does not look at 103rd Street, 106`h Street, & 116`h Street, so they are not taking into consideration the traffic that could come from all the other developments in the area such as The Bridges, The Mormon Temple, the Frenzel property, and traffic from Illinois Street onto Springmill at the bridge where it will bottleneck. This project needs to be less dense, but the hope is that traffic studies can be looked at in a way that makes more sense for those persons sitting in the audience. General Public Comments /Unfavorable: • Linda Cook, resident of Carmel, recently annexed in the southwest area, posed questions to Plan Commission members relating to personal, individual decisions regarding property values, zoning of properties, and then finding out the property is "up for grabs." And what if you found out that this proposal was 75 feet from your property line? Would you like your grandchildren or any of your children playing in the backyard with those apartments bldgs having the ability to look into your backyard and "see" the children playing? Would you like to have to worry about your safety & security to the extent that you are considering spending $13,000 to install an 8 foot tall security fence to protect you from a change in zoning? Would you like to think about the un- intended consequences – perhaps being required to spend the money to hook up to sewers? Think about what it would be like to live next to this proposed development when three seasons of the year, you are going to the lighting, the people, the apartment bldgs – we worry about our privacy, our safety, our children; for those reasons, please deny this proposal. Please listen to the residents next door, and Mayor. All of us worry about our property values! Public Hearing Closed but additional comments may be allowed at Committee level. Rebuttal, Tim Ochs: The three critical issues that dominated the remonstrance were height, density, and traffic; use was a concern as well. With respect to the height issue, the petitioner will lower the bldgs- especially along the west property line —this is a give /take. No developer will build a project not thought to be economically feasible. Lowering the height will have a corresponding impact on the density. Regarding the Traffic Impact Study, the scope of the study was determined by Technical Advisory 9 January 15, 2013 Carmel Plan Commission Committee. If the Plan Commission requires a broader traffic study, that can be done; we do not deny that traffic is an issue, but it is not fair to leave this property undeveloped and place the blame on this site. The property owner should have an opportunity to develop this property within reasonable guide- lines and take adequate use. At this time, the petitioner is requesting Committee review. Mr. Ochs stated that various meetings had been held with adjacent property owners and that they continue to meet with all interested parties to reach agreement on a type of project that would be suitable. Dept Report, Rachel Boone: • Site/location is a very busy area • Property is bounded by residential to the west & south, commercial to the east, & highway to the north • Proposal is for 5 -story apartment bldgs with parking on first level • Under bldg parking, open space, & other "Green" aspects • Density, Height of Bldgs considering surrounding uses, buffering, building materials, & foreseen traffic issues are all concerns • Apartments are a good transition from business & commercial to single family when done in the right context and appropriate scale — this proposal is not • The land owner should be able to develop the property & the Dept is willing to work with them • The Comp Plan calls for preserving the Estate Character in this area & requiring new subdivisions to have large setbacks and quality landscaping along perimeter roads • As currently proposed, this PUD Rezone does not meet the requirements of the Comp Plan • Many issues in the PUD language — noted in the Dept Report • The Dept Report recommends suspension of the Rules of Procedure & a negative recommendation to City Council, if nothing in the PUD is proposed for change • The petitioner has stated a willingness to work with the Dept & the neighbors to make changes in the proposal, therefore, the Dept is recommending this item be sent to the Subdivision Committee on February 5, 2013 for further review Commission Members' Comments /Questions: • For the remonstrators, OK to fight the project, but also work to get the best you can before a project gets approved — don't just fight it • Remonstrators have pretty well summarized all the issues on this proposal • Cannot support this proposal — we need to work more on the PUD process • Many comments from public were valid, but do not appreciate comments made with the purpose of shaming Commission members into making a decision — we take our position on this Board seriously and do our best to make good decisions • Reference to Jan 7, 2013 letter received stating it would be illegal for this property to be rezoned John Molitor stated that he had reviewed the Jan 7 letter and it relates to the Annexation Agreement reached between the City & the remonstrators regarding the Southwest Clay Annexation. 5. Docket No. 12090019 DP /ADLS: Sterler Productions (Park Northwestern, Lot 8A1). The applicant seeks approval for a 10,000 sq. ft. building and parking area. The site is located at 4796 Northwestern Dr. and is zoned I- 1/Industrial. Filed by Bud Snyder of Hewes Concrete Polishing, LLC, for Sterler Holdings, LLC. 10 January 15, 2013 Carmel Plan Commission 6. Docket No. 12120003 Z: C -1 Rezone of Arby's/Party Time/Langston Properties. The applicant seeks to rezone 6 properties from B- 3/Business and I -1 /Industrial zoning, within the Carmel Dr/Range Line Rd Overlay Zone, to the C -1 /City Center zoning classification. The properties are located at the northwest corner of Range Line Rd. and Carmel Dr., near 1212 S. Range Line. Rd. Filed by the Dept.of Community Services, on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. I. Old Business 1. Docket No. 12100019 DP: The Bridges PUD — Commercial Amenity Use Block, Phase 1. 2. Docket No. 12100020 ADLS: CVS Pharmacy. 3. Docket No. 12100021 ADLS: Commercial Building. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for 2 free - standing commercial buildings that front on 116th St. The site is located at 11405 Springmill Rd. and is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger LP, for G.B. Developers II, LLC. J. New Business 1. Transferred to Feb. 5 Subd. Committee agenda: Docket No. 12120013 ADLS Amend: Holiday Inn Changeover (former Country Lan and Suites in North Augusta Addition, Section 1, Lot 5A). K. Adjournment 9:50 J 6a_ rv-w-1 Lisa Motz, Secretary Steve Stromquist, President 11