Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 05-16-00CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION MAY 16, 2000 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel /Clay Plan Commission was called to order with the Pledge of Allegiance at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. Members present were: Marilyn Anderson, Kent Broach, David Cremeans, Leo Dierckman, Madeline Fitzgerald, Wayne Haney, Ron Houck, Nick Kestner, Kevin Kirby, Norma Meighen, Bob Modisett, Jim O'Neal, Pat Rice, John Sharpe, and Paul Spranger. Steve Engelking, Director, Terry Jones, Mike Hollibaugh, and Laurence Lillig were present representing the Department of Community Services. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as submitted. F. Communications, Bills, Expenditures, & Legal Counsel Report Legal Counsel John Molitor stated that after further review of item 2H, he recommends that the case can be heard, since notice was adequate. He had no further report. G. Reports, Announcement, & Department Concerns David Cremeans reported the following Dockets as Tabled: lh. 57 -00 PP; Hazel Dell Pond at Waterstone Subdivision has been tabled due to faulty notification. 4h. 77 -00 OA; OM /Old Meridian District has been tabled. 5h. 78 -00 Z; Zoning changes associated with the Old Meridian Task Force are tabled. 6h. 79 -00 Z; Carmel Oaks Retirement Facility has been tabled. 9h. 83 -00 PP Amend; Estes Chevrolet has been tabled. 10h. 84 -00 DP /ADLS; North American Park has been tabled. 2i. 109 -99 DP /ADLS; Wingate Inn has been tabled. President Cremeans asked Legal Counsel Molitor if the attorney for Wingate Inn could address the Plan Commission. Mr. Molitor recommended that a motion be made to table these items which is not debatable. A motion would be required to allow the attorney to speak. s:\PlanCommission\Minutes.pc\pc2000may 1 Ron Houck moved to table 2i. John Sharpe seconded the motion. The motion carried with a vote of Yes -16; No -0, and Abstain -0. (a women's voice) moved to allow the petitioner to speak. The motion carried with a vote of Yes -16; No -0; and Abstain -0. Mr. Phillip Nicely, attorney for the petitioner of Docket 109 -00 DP /ADLS, commented that while he is not angry, he wished to make a statement. The petition was filed four to five months ago. The State of Indiana wrote a letter saying they were not interested in this property. At the request of the Special Study Committee, the petitioner agreed to table the matter for 90 days. Now the Plan Commission has tabled the case for another 90 days because people cannot make up their mind to take this property or not. Mr. Nicely wants the Commission to know this is not a situation to have the case heard for the sake of hearing. The petitioner has a $200,000 incentive from Wingate Inn which runs out in July. He does not know if it will be renewed. This represents real money to the petitioner, as does the rise in interest rates. With a 30 -year mortgage that is one half million dollars for a half of a point. Mr. Nicely wants this taken into consideration. The petitioner has tried to act in good faith. They want that good faith reciprocated to have this matter heard. H. Public Hearings lh. Docket No. 57 -00 PP. Hazel Dell Pond Subdivision. TABLED 2h. Docket No. 68 -00 PP Amend; Primary Plat Amendment application for Ross D. Moffitt and Elsie Moffitt Mcllroy. The petitioner seeks approval to replat Lots 12 and 13 of the John A. Phelps Addition on 0.573± acre. The site is located on the northeast corner of 5th Street Southeast and 1st Avenue Southeast. The site is zoned R -3 /residence. The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waiver: 68 -OOa SW SCO 6.3.6 to reduce the 25' half right -of -way to 20' in width. Filed by Melissa Rhodes Garrard for Ross D. Moffitt and Elsie Moffitt Mcllroy. Melissa Garrard presented the case on behalf of the petitioners. Two lots are involved. When the land was platted in the 1800s, a strip was left in a "no man's land ". There was no language of dedication indicating it was an alley. It was never accepted by the City of Carmel. Their interpretation was that was land reserved as access to the farmland or for access to future development in the rear. The status of that land has been unclear. The petitioner brought a quiet title action that has almost been completed. They have resolved most of the issues with Carmel in that litigation. The heirs have all defaulted except for the heirs that have given them quit claims. It is the petitioner's determination that Mrs. Mcllroy is the last remaining heir of the grantor. It is their intent to add that strip of ground to what originally was a double lot. Mrs. Mcllroy has transferred that lot to her son. That action will make lot 12 a more buildable parcel. Additionally, there is land on the other side of lot 13 that Mrs. Mcllroy has acquired by metes and bounds description. The plan department recommended adding the metes and bounds description to the platted lot. There are still some issues with the quiet title action. They will not seek secondary plat approval now. The ownership issues will soon be resolved. Mr. s:\P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000may 2 Moffitt wants to build a house on lot 12 for his mother and a somewhat impaired sibling who requires constant supervision. Mrs. Mcllroy gave the lot to her son to build a home. A subdivision waiver has been requested for the right -of -way issue. This should not be a significant issue for Carmel because this has been a 40' right -of -way since the 1800s. However, the petitioner is willing to go to the Subdivision Committee to address these issues. They do not object to the staff recommendation to table to the June 6rd meeting. Mr. Cremeans reviewed the rules of public hearing. There were no favorable comments. The Chair called for any unfavorable comments. Attorney Jack Hittle represented Mr. Lynn Yanovich, the owner of lot 11. It is immediately adjacent to lot 12. Mr. Hittle believes this land to be an alley. This litigation did not include Mr. Yanovich. He is the owner on the other side of the alley. They did not include him in the law suit. Mrs. Garrard said she attempted to bring him in but the City of Carmel's attorney objected. The 1800s plat clearly showed an alley. Contrary to Ms. Garrard's belief, Mr. Hittle thinks an alley vacation process is required. Then both owners would receive their half. However, the plat shows the entire alley going to the petitioner. Yesterday, the petitioner received an order from Hamilton Superior Court No. 1 granting his request to intervene in the lawsuit. Mr. Hittle offered a copy of the order. The petitioner asks for an alley vacation. Therefore, since ownership is in question, Mr. Hittle thinks it would be improper to approve this request. There were no additional remonstrators. In rebuttal, Ms. Garrard stated there are issues to be resolved. Ownership must be proved at the secondary plat stage. The drainage and utility easement issue fell out of the settlement negotiations. Carmel is no longer seeking the easement. The easement issue is to be resolved in Subdivision Committee process. Ms. Garrard believes this was never an alley, rather just an undeeded strip of ground. She asked the Commission to continue this or attach commitments. They do not want to refile. The City of Carmel would not allow them to include Mr. Yanovich months ago. They want to complete this matter and start building. They will seek secondary plat approval later. Laurence Lillig stated the staff recommends the matter be sent to the June 6, 2000 Subdivision Committee meeting. The public hearing closed. Ron Houck inquired whether it was appropriate to consider the primary plat with the issue of ownership still being considered. Mr. Molitor stated it was; but, any decision made by the Plan Commission must be conditioned upon a court ruling. Mr. Cremeans moved the matter to the June 6th Subdivision Committee. 3h. Docket No. 73 -00 DP.ADLS; Development Plan and Architectural Design, Lighting & Signage applications for Glendale Partners. The petitioner seeks approval to construct three buildings on 24.848± acres for a Target department store. The site is located at 10401 North Michigan Road at West Carmel Center, Block D. The site is zoned B- 3/business and is located within the US 421 Overlay Zone. Note: This item is s:\P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000may 3 paired with Item 1 j Docket No. 97 -99 SP (under New Business) Secondary Plat application for Glendale Partners. Petitioner seeks approval to plat one lot of 24.848± acres in order to construct three commercial buildings. The site is located at 10401 North Michigan Road at West Carmel Center, Block D. The site is zoned B- 3/business and is located within the US 421 /Michigan Road Overlay Zone. Filed by Kevin D. McKasson of Glendale Partners. Kevin McKasson, introduces Jamie Poczekay, American Consulting Engineers, and April Hensley, Leach Hensley Architects, and Linda Abrahmson, Target. Glendale partners involved with the 421 area starting with their first project Weston Shoppes in the Marsh Development. This project was started prior to the 421 Overlay Zone being in effect but they agreed to many of the restrictions in that Overlay. He displayed an overview. The petitioner seeks approval only of the Target portion. The two buildings proposed in the outlot are not part of this application. They will be back for ADLS approval for the two conceptual buildings. There is no user yet, but will be back for further proposals. Mr. McKasson reviewed other projects in the area stating they will be consistent with other development. Weston Shoppes is their first project; it is adjacent to the Marsh Store. Last October they presented their proposal for the six acres on corner. They received approval; it is under construction now. A streetscape is important for 421. Mr. McKasson described the project. Walgreen's and Wendy's are under construction. A drawing of the retail portion was displayed. Much of the traffic for the project will enter from Commerce Drive. The utilities are screened. The petitioner will be back for approval of the high - pressure gas lines. The site plan shows the Target building and the landscape features. The outlet building placement is slightly different than the original site plan. They do not know what those buildings will be; however, they will match Federalist style. West Carmel Shoppes used the streetscape plan to avoid a large amount of parking area in front of the retail buildings. Half of parking lot will be screened with buildings. Target proposes a significant berm and landscape plan in the 30 foot transitional yard as well as an area on the north part of the lot that is not in the buffer zone but is land that could be used for parking. There will be six -foot mounds that undulate and are backed up with landscaping. The proposed landscaping meets the zoning requirements of the Overlay Zone. The City of Carmel has not yet given approval but the petitioner will commit to using the plan ultimately accepted. Mr. McKasson described the location of landscape buffers. At the north side, the six -foot high buffer will obscure the cars but not the Target store. The mounds extend to the south to the first proposed building. The petitioner will commit to completing the 30 feet of landscaping. After meeting with neighborhood groups, the petitioner decided to expand the scope of landscaping to include the east side of Commerce Drive. This will be an additional 30 foot buffer area. There are no plans to do the office building at this time. There will also be a landscape buffer on the south side of 102i1 Street. They tried to screen the parking fields from Michigan Road and have increased the landscaping plan on Commerce Drive and 102nd Street to lessen the impact on the neighborhood. Another concern is the truck dock at the rear of the building. A brick wall will be constructed to further protect the neighborhood from its impact. This is the only activity at the back of the property. The elevation of the building was displayed. The code has specific requirements for offsets in s:\P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000may 4 the building. The Overlay Zone does not wants any large project to look like a big box. The variance required for this elevation is concerned with the entrance proportionality. April Hensley, Leach Hensley Architects told the Commission that the Target store wanted to create a Federal style building that met the desired spirit of the Federal style. Ms. Hensley cites the detail and described the extra effort. Brick detail is used to break up the face of the building and there are a lot of steps in and out of the front line of the building. There are less than 60 feet for all steps in the building. The requested variances are for height and peaks to make building more attractive. The other variance is for the entry because it is not to the proportion that would standardly be considered a federal style. Because of the numerous doors that are required to meet ingress and egress code, it is very difficult to make that work in Federal proportion. Brick will be used across the front of the building with a base of split face block. The side and rear exteriors will be either "Qwik- Brick ", a 4 -inch masonry product, or a split face to look like standard brick. Kevin McKasson believes the code allows 35 feet. The entrance is 38.5 feet at peak. The code allows for other masonry materials on the side and rear of the building. Brick will be used on the front. This is not a standard Target store. There is an upscale look to this building. Target has tried very hard to make the project meet Overlay Zone requirements. The project is the key to this corridor. Mr. McKasson displayed a conceptual plan for the outlot buildings. They are the same as the conceptual buildings of West Carmel Shoppes. The petitioner will return for further approval. The staff report stated the lighting plan exceeds maximum levels. Jamie Poczekay said the plan is now consistent with Michigan Road requirements. Mr. McKasson said they will adhere to regulations. The Overlay sign provisions require special use permits for all signage. The code allows 40 square feet of signage. They are asking for minimum size of signage allowed by Target corporate office. Mr. McKasson displayed the signage proposed. They will go to BZA for the sign variances. Kevin McKasson reviewed the variances, SU 34 -00 through V 47 -00, are to be presented at the May 22, 2000 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Chairman Cremeans called for favorable public comments. Michael Dugan, 3805 Carwinion Way, said his road connects to Commerce Drive. He provided detailed comments in writing. This represents six months of very diligent work by Glendale Partners working with community. Mr. Dugan represents Ashbrooke subdivision. The owners know there will be development and believe that final development of the subdivision will be better if a well done, "known" project is approved rather than "unknown" lying immediately to their west. They want to see construction move ahead in a timely fashion. They reached an agreement with Mr. McKasson to get some road work done. s:\P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000may 5 There was no unfavorable remonstrance. Mr. Kevin McKasson stated a promise was made to the neighbors concerning Carwinion Drive which connects with Commerce Drive. Commerce Drive is projected to be a secondary arterial road someday going as far south as 96th Street. The petitioner will go the County Highway Department to request that Carwinion Drive be turned into a cul -de- sac to reduce commercial traffic. They will allow for emergency traffic to enter if necessary, but will discourage commercial traffic. Laurence Lillig stated this project will go before Board of Zoning Appeals on May 22, 2000 for public hearing on two special use petitions and twelve developmental standards variance petitions. The petitioner understands that the BZA must make its approvals before final action can be taken by the Commission. Therefore, the department recommends that these petitions be forwarded to the Special Study Committee for further review. Chairman Cremeans closed the public hearing. Pat Rice commended Kevin McKasson for working with the community. She inquired what the backside of detailed peaks look like. Weston Shoppes was the first project and he did not know these peaks were visible from the rear. West Carmel Shoppes used the shingle material. On this project if the peaks are visible from the rear of the buildings they will have the same shingle treatment as the front of the building. Madeline Fitzgerald inquired about external dumpsters, cart corrals, seasonal outdoor plant sales, outdoor storage of salt, pools, and summer toys. Chairman Cremeans decided those questions would be resolved in subcommittee. Ron Houck stated signage must be addressed at subcommittee. He is also concerned about the shoe box light fixtures. He is unclear about illumination. This will be reviewed at subcommittee. Marilyn Anderson commented that Michigan Road is a major road. She urged the committee to look at curb cuts to reduce the number of cuts. Leo Dierckman will note the issues for special studies. Bob Modisett asks for a large overall aerial to see surrounding development. It would be helpful to have an enlarged, board - mounted aerial. Mr. Cremeans likes the project and believes it will be a good store for Target. He wants the committee to cover many items. His concerns are with curb cuts and seas of asphalt. Chairman Cremeans moved the project to the June 6th Special Study Committee. s:\P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000may 6 7h. Docket No. 80 -00 PP, Primary Plat application for Plum Creek Partners, LLC. The petitioner seeks approval to plat 6 lots on 14.738 acres to be known as Hazel Dell Corner Subdivision. The site is located on the northwest corner of East 131st Street and Hazel Dell Parkway. The site is zoned B -3 /Business. The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waiver: 80 -00aSW SC06.5.1 to plat Lot 4 with 0 feet of frontage on a right -of -way Filed by J. Cort Crosby of Schneider Corporation for Plum Creek Partners, LLC. Corby Thompson of Plum Creek Partners, LLC and J. Cort Crosby of Schneider Engineering appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. The petitioner is seeking approval to plat 6 lots on 14.738 acres that were rezoned to B -3 /Business in 1995 as a part of the Plum Creek Master Plan project. The site is located at 131st Street and Hazeldell Road. The Primary Plat was displayed on the overhead. Four of the six lots front on Hazeldell Road, two lots front 131St Street. Lot 4, subject of the Variance for next month, is to the rear and will be accessed by a common, private drive, typical for a commercial subdivision. Under B -3 zoning, each use will come before the Board of Zoning Appeals for a Special Use variance request. Additionally, in the commitments referenced, the petitioner has agreed that every user in the project will appear before the Plan Commission for ADLS approval on a public hearing basis and for the Secondary Plat process. Mr. Thompson reported that the plat was reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee and there are no outstanding issues that will not be addressed before Secondary Platting occurs. An aerial view of parcel was shown; due to its location, it is considered to be very pedestrian friendly, a neighborhood retail center with uses that will not be of a regional type nature but primarily serve the residents of the area. The Mitchner Ditch does run through the project. The parcel will have pedestrian access with some amenities and detention ponds, and access trails into the Avian Glen Subdivision to accommodate pedestrian traffic. The northeast corner of Hazel Dell and 131St Street provides for a natural buffer between the commercial area and the existing residences. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; no one appeared. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petition; the following appeared: Glenn Davis, 12948 Cantigny Way, Plum Creek Ridge, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Davis stated concern about the possibility of a gas station in the proposed retail center. Mr. Davis referred to a letter regarding MTBE and a video tape that was delivered to the President of the Commission. Mr. Davis encouraged each member to review the letter and watch the video. MTBE, in short, is a lethal, poisonous chemical s:\PlanCommission\Minutes.pc\pc2000may 7 that leaks from gasoline and contaminates water. There is a water treatment plant in the immediate area and White River is very close. Mr. Davis thought it was not appropriate that a gas station should be located at this specific site because of the close proximity of the water treatment plant. The video was produced by "60 Minutes" in January, 2000. MTBE is becoming a major issue across the country and Mr. Davis encouraged the Commission to review the video. Jeff Keene, 13109 Dunwoodie Lane, Plum Creek North, appeared before the Commission and voiced concern regarding the traffic generated by the retail center. The round -a -bout is the location of a number of near collisions. Traffic exiting the retail establishment onto 40 mph traffic that is merging into a circle will need to be addressed and Mr. Keene wanted to know how this situation would be handled. Margie Schmittt, 5263 Ivy Hill Drive, agreed with comments concerning the traffic exiting the retail area onto 131st Street. The hours of operation are also a concern, considering that the retail strip is located in a residential neighborhood. Ms. Schmitt stated definite opposition to a gas station, especially in the close proximity of a water protection area. Mandy Keller, 13154 Dunwoodie Lane, requested that there be landscaping on both sides of the street, not only where the commercial /retail development is located, but also along the northeast portion where there are yards in Plum Creek North that face the commercial development. Ms. Keller requested mounding and substantial plantings to create a visual barrier from traffic entering and exiting the commercial development. Paula Mataxis, 5255 Cherokee Court in Delaware Trace, objected to a gas station in the area -- Starbuck's is OK, but has a problem with a gas station due to increased traffic because of the high number of children in the area. Scott Martin, 13126 Dunwoodie Lane, requested more detail of the proposed development and wanted to know hen more detail would be available. Michelle Emmons, 13101 Dunwoodie Lane, stated that her family did not receive a certified letter regarding this public hearing but did hear about it from the neighbors. However, Ms. Emmons shares the concerns of all previous speakers. Rebuttal: Corby Thompson. To date, there are no known users at this location. Every user within the proposed development will come before the Board of Zoning Appeals for a Special Use request, and also before the Plan Commission for ADLS approval on a public hearing basis. For notification purposes, the list of residents was provided and certified by the Hamilton County Auditor. The round -a -bouts were inherited by the petitioner as well as all of the residents. The petitioner has met with the City Engineer, and access is believed to be appropriate at this location. Laurence Lillig rendered the Department report. In clarification of the process, tonight's consideration is for the primary plat that divides the project into 6 lots. The commitments s:\P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000may 8 submitted by the petitioner require every user within the development to be subject to ADLS review and approval by the Plan Commission. As each user requests to develop a lot, ADLS review and approval will be required. In addition, every petition also needs Special Use approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals. As a final step, every user will submit the Secondary Plat for the lot on which they are establishing use; again, a Plan Commission petition, similar to the process gone through in the Mayflower Park or Carmel Science & Technology Park as those lots develop. The City has also heard the rumor of the gas station and is aware of issues brought forth by Mr. Davis. The retail center is in a wellhead protection area and the Utilities Department is keeping a close vigil on this project as it comes through the process. The Department is recommending that this petition be forwarded to the June 6, 2000 Subdivision Committee that will meet at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. The public hearing was then closed. Commission President Dave Cremeans further explained the process for the benefit of the public. At this point, there is NO request for a gas station at this location. The immediate item for review by the Commission is whether or not to grant the petitioner the authority to build more than one building on this site - -the request is for 6 lots. Docket No. 80 -00 PP, Hazel Dell Corner Subdivision, was referred to the Subdivision Committee that will meet at 7:00 PM on June 6th in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. Ron Houck questioned what might be excluded uses in the B -3 /Business zone classification. Laurence Lillig referred to a list of uses on the reverse of the commitments that were submitted. In that list, "automobile service station" is the 5th item on the list. Ron Houck questioned the definition of an auto service station —this will be reviewed at the committee level. Dave Cremeans reminded the Commission that he does have the "60 Minutes" video in his possession, and any member wishing to view it should contact him. 8h. Docket No. 82 -00 OA, Ordinance Amendment petition for the City of Carmel. The petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation to amend Chapter 7: Open Space Standards for Major Subdivisions of the Carmel /Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance. Filed by Michael P. Hollibaugh of the Department of Community Services. Ron Houck, Chair of the Subdivision Committee, reported that the Committee had reviewed the Open Space Ordinance and that has been a "work in progress" to address the concerns. The members of the Committee and perhaps the entire Commission have by now received an executive summary compiled by Mike Hollibaugh. The Committee did adjust the formula for computing the density bonus but did revise it to address concerns that appeared to be "too generous" in the original formula. s:\PlanCommission\Minutes.pc\pc2000may 9 Originally, there was an artificial base density applied to the various zone districts that did not necessarily match the zoning density dictated by Ordinance. The Committee reverted to the base density being that that would be called for in the Ordinance and then also lowered the Open Space Requirements, effectively allowing the petitioner or any petitioner to receive a density bonus with a slightly smaller dedication of open space. Overall, the new, revised formula would account for a less generous density bonus than in the previous Ordinance. There was some clarification and delineation of the types of open space. There seemed to be some confusion or lack of clarity under the previous Open Space. Different types of open space have been delineated and the Committee has attempted to set some guidelines for how we would like the Ordinance structured. The Committee is desirous of obtaining a Suspension of the Rules to allow for a vote on the amendment. The Committee voted a favorable 7 -0 to approve the amendment. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the proposed Amendment; the following appeared: Mark Rattermann, 11257 St. Andrews Lane, Carmel, appeared before the Commission as president of Crooked Stick Owners Association and president of the Original Clay West Information Council. Mr. Rattermann stated that he had worked on the proposed Ordinance Amendment for approximately one year. The resulting proposal is not perfect, it is not an "Ordinance for the Millenium," but just for a while. If the Ordinance stifles development in western Clay Township or in the eastern part of the township, then the Ordinance will be revisited. Mr. Rattermann is in favor of the proposed amendment and asked that the Commission vote in its favor. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the proposed amendment; the following appeared: Roger Stevens, Builders Association of Greater Indianapolis, "BAGI" confirmed Mark Rattermann's comments. Mr. Stevens distributed a letter from BAGI to the members of the Commission. At issue is the density - -the formula for the density bonus is now cut in half and that significantly cuts down the density that any builder would be allowed and also cuts the units per acre. Mr. Stevens commented that the proposed amendment goes against current land planning being used across the country today. There are a lot of "empty nesters" that would like to build homes on less property due to the maintenance factor, and the proposed ordinance is contrary to that premise. The amendment also goes against land preservation- -less density uses more land. Steve Pittman, 306 Mill Ridge Drive, Carmel, spoke as a developer who has utilized the cluster option and then the Open Space Ordinance. The current amendment is more user friendly; however, the changes reduce density and make it more difficult to define common area. There still needs to be a clearer definition of "common area." s:\P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000may 10 Ron Houck, chairperson of the Subdivision Committee, addressed the concerns and comments. The process is a "give and take." Neither side wins everything or loses everything. From the standpoint of participation, comments, issues and concerns, were submitted in writing from Mr. Rattermann, the Builders Association, and the development community. It was simply agreed that the Committee and the input did not agree on the density issue. The development community did receive benefits from the changes made in the Ordinance. The amount of space was increased that an individual lot could be located from individual open space. Conservancy lot minimums were felt to be too restrictive and therefore, not marketable; hence, the minimum was lowered to 5 acres and the Plan Commission has an opportunity to grant a 35 % variance. In regard to the Greenbelt Buffer, a minimum width of 100 feet was established that had previously been 150 feet. The density formula was lowered and in that sense, the development community was moving in a different direction than the Committee. Changes were made in the Ordinance that do benefit the development community and they agreed those changes were beneficial to them. Again, the spirit of the Amendment was always a give and take and looked at from the entire perspective of the community. A lot of the undeveloped land is in western Clay Township that is an area of lower density. The committee felt it was appropriate to tie the formula to the base density of the area and to make the adjustments in calculation for open space that reduces the amount of open space permitted but does still provide a density bonus for the development community Ron Houck commented that the Committee has resolved those issues given to them and a sincere attempt was made to be fair to all parties involved. Mike Hollibagh deferred any comments and questions to Ron Houck. Madeline Fitzgerald asked if the proposed amendment would help alleviate a lot of the waivers being requested. Michael Hollibaugh thought this would be the case, although it is impossible to cover every scenario. Some exemptions have been added; minor subdivisions are exempt from the Chapter 7 requirements as well as new plats that have a gross density of one unit per acre or less. Dave Cremeans then closed the public hearing. Ron Houck emphasized that no change was made in the Ordinance that would dictate or restrict in any way lot size or configuration. The flexibility still exists under the Ordinance. Paul Spranger asked how the proposed Ordinance preserves streetscape as opposed to the earlier ordinance from the standpoint of thoroughfares. Michael Holligbaugh responded that there were no specific requirements additional to subdivisions abutting, say 116th Street. Ron Houck moved to suspend the rules; Approved Unanimously. s:\P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000may 11 Ron Houck moved to approve Docket No. 82 -00 OA, Chapter 7: Open Space Standards for Major Subdivisions. APPROVED 14 in favor, Kevin Kirby opposed. This item will be forwarded to the City Council. I. Old Business: Docket No. 105 -99 Z, Rezone petition for The Linder Group. The petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation for a rezone from R -1 to B -8 in order to construct between five and eight retail buildings not to exceed a total of 95,000 square feet on 14.378 acres to be known as Merchants' Pointe. The site is located on the southwest corner of East 116th Street and North Keystone Avenue. The site is zoned R- 1/Residence within the SR 431 Overlay Zone. Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson & Frankenberger for The Linder Group. Jim Nelson, attorney, 3663 Brumley Way, appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Mr. Nelson reviewed the request of the applicant. The requested rezone is for a mixed -use development to be known as Merchants' Pointe that will provide for a blend of restaurant, retail /service, office, and banking uses. The petitioner has appeared at the Special Study Committee for review, during which time there have been a number of changes and additions. Changes to the project have been by way of amendments to the commitments from The Linder Company and the Woodland Country Club. With respect to the Linder Company, the changes have been set forth in revised commitments previously mailed to the Commission members. As to the number of buildings, it was originally suggested that there would be between 5 and 8- -there are now to be 7 in exact number. Fast Food Restaurants are prohibited on this site. A tree preservation area has been created and expanded - -the preservation area is adjacent to Keystone Avenue. At the point nearest 116th Street, the preservation area is a minimum of 30 feet in width and moving south, at the very base of the triangle, it is 80 feet in width. The tree preservation area was expanded from a minimum of 30 feet down to 80 feet as the south boundary line of the real estate is approached. The commitments provided for no ground signs adjacent to Keystone Avenue, however, reserving the right to have a ground sign at the very corner of 116th and Keystone. The commitments provide for the dedication of the required right -of -way by The Linder Company for the proposed 116th Street project. Lastly, the commitments were amended to include a provision that no building would have more than two (2) retail tenants - -a specific request of the Committee review process. Woodland Country Club has also made commitments to the Plan Commission and the City County, also provided to the members. Those commitments are enforceable and amendable only by a vote of the Plan Commission and the City Council. s:\PlanCommission\Minutes.pc\pc2000may 12 Upon the sale of the 14 acres at the corner to The Linder Company, Woodland will continue to own slightly in excess of 150 acres of real estate. The plan is to redesign the golf course into a first class course representing a four million dollar investment. In fact, a Special Use Application is on file to be heard at the Board of Zoning Appeals at a later date. In spite of the plans of Woodland, during the review process, concerns were expressed in two ways about the use of Woodland's remaining land. It was stated that if the rezone is approved, it would result in a further proliferation of commercial uses adjacent to Keystone Avenue. Secondly, further into the review process, a concern was expressed not only as to commercial uses adjacent to Keystone Avenue, but basically any other use for Woodland's land other than a golf course. Woodland has chosen to address, directly, these concerns in the form of commitments presented to the Plan Commission. These commitments are voluntarily and willingly submitted by Woodland Country Club; they are not lightly submitted, they view these commitments as very substantial and very real, and made after many, many hours of study and consideration. Summarily, the commitments are as follows: Woodland has committed that for a period of 15 years, the remainder of its real estate, including the 52 acres to the rear, will be used only as a golf course. The commitment states that Woodland will not seek a rezone of any of the remaining real estate for commercial use for 30 years. Lastly, Woodland has agreed to grant to the City of Carmel the Right of First Refusal to purchase the remainder of the real estate should it be sold in the ordinary course of business, for a period of 30 years. Mr. Nelson commented that in his 30 years experience, these commitments are unparalleled. Woodland understands that they are necessary, and they are willing to give them. Again, the commitments are viewed as quite substantial. Hopefully, 50 years from now, Woodland will be approaching its 100th anniversary as a first class golf course in the City of Carmel. The commitments have been offered as further assurances as to what the future use of this parcel of real estate will be. It was strongly suggested by John Molitor that a final amendment be added to the commitments. By way of letter amendment, Woodland has agreed that in finalizing the Right of First Refusal, (signed by Woodland and the City of Carmel) the following language will be included. "The fair market value of the real estate for the purpose of the Right of First Refusal shall be based on the zoning classification of the real estate being R -1 /Residence district which is the manner in which it is zoned today (May 16, 2000). That provides great assurance that the offer that we would receive as to value would be closer to that that is determined to be realistic and based upon the R -1 zoning." In closing, Mr. Nelson was hopeful that a favorable recommendation could be made by the Plan Commission this evening. The matter has been heard and re- heard, studied and re- studied. s:\PlanCommission\Minutes.pc\pc2000may 13 Paul Spranger reported that the Special Study Committee had reviewed the matter on April 11 and again on April 25. Kate Boyle, City Engineer, had addressed the Committee regarding roadway improvements connected with the up -grade of 116th Street. Several members of the Committee had visited the site via golf cart and walking, to get some feel for the area along 116th Street in terms of setback from the right -of -way in relation to the current fence and the street. The holes and fairways in the northeast corner of the golf course have already been squeezed, compressed and impacted prior to the issue before the Commission. The Committee requested, in a formal commitment, that the Club commit to 25 years as a Club through either a combination of deed restriction or other recordable commitments so that the Club would be protected green space. The Committee was split, much like the community has been, both for and against the rezone. The Committee voted 3 -3 to make no recommendation to the full Plan Commission. Ron Houck asked what the major stumbling block was for the Committee. Mr. Spranger explained that there were simply not enough (four) votes for a decision either way. The arguments for and against ran very close. When the road is widened, it will materially affect the golf course. In the commitments made by the petitioner, the first right of refusal language is strongly recommended to be changed into something more binding. Mr. Spranger thought it very important to keep the Country Club intact because of the impact of its 150 acres of green space. Bob Modisett commented that there was really not any one particular issue brought up at committee but several issues. There is a lot to be considered. Mr. Modisett also wanted to ensure the viability of the Country Club and Merchants Square. Jim O'Neal stated that he voted against this project, the main objection being that this is a rezone. In Mr. O'Neal's opinion, there was no reason to change the zoning from R -1/ Residential to B -3 Business, thereby changing all of the hours of planning that went into the Comprehensive Plan, 20/20 Vision, etc. to accommodate a developer. Mr. O'Neal was very supportive of Mr. Linder's plan at Merhants Square, but Carmel has not achieved the success it has by always bending the rules to accommodate one individual developer. The only objective tonight is the Rezone. "The proposal is an excellent project, but it is the wrong location." Marilyn Anderson asked if those committee members opposed to the rezone were opposed by reason of this particular commercial proposal or the rezone to commercial. Pat Rice commented that the Committee had looked at the zoning and maintaining status quo. There were other issues as well. The number of buildings, the 15 year right of first refusal is not long term in respect to the green space. Paul Spranger added that there was a philosophical split -- approving the rezone may perpetuate the golf course for a longer period of time; thereby ensuring greenspace; the other side was that to approve would break trust with the Comprehensive Plan. s:\P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000may 14 Leo Dierckman suggested that if the City so decides, they can guarantee that the property will remain a golf course in perpetuity under the proposal, because the City has the Right of First Refusal on an R -1 piece of property- -not commercial. The 15 year term will help facilitate additional improvements to the property, buy the golf course for use as a golf course, and it also allows the City to assure the community that the balance of the property will remain a golf course. It is a good thing In regard to the Comprehensive Plan, the plan cites "high intensity, residential community." Steve Engelking stated that Leo's characterization with regard to the language and text of the Comprehensive Plan is correct, it does say "high intensity, residential." This also makes the ground susceptible to 8 or more units to the acre. Leo Dierckman stated that he would like Woodland to remain a golf course in perpetuity. Ron Houck referred to past history and compared the current petition to a former petition made approximately 5 years ago for this same parcel. The Comprehensive Plan is still a guideline, although if the guideline is to have credibility, it needs to be followed, but it doesn't mean blindly, without any exceptions. Therefore, we are left with a situation where there are two groups of citizens in opposition to each other; those that live nearby and those that are actually members of our community not particularly living on this parcel but do belong to Woodland Country Club. In the corporate world, you try to look at win -win scenarios for both parties. A lot of effort has gone into trying to engineer something that would provide minimal disruption. In contract to the previous proposal for this ground by Marsh Supermarket, the current proposal represents a definite improvement over that type of use at this location. Whether or not it is necessary for the viability of Merchants Square is debatable, but it certainly is a compatible use and will not harm and may certainly help to have this use at this location. It will allow the community to receive the land it needs for the improvement of 116th Street. The previous proposal made had no offer of commitments as those currently being presented for the preservation of the golf course, First Right of Refusal, and a 30 year period before any commercial use would be established. The 20/20 Vision Plan indicated that this is the period of time that was envisioned as build -out for the City of Carmel and by all estimates, it will probably occur ahead of that schedule, probably 2015, about the time this commitment would be ending. There will be some aspects of re- development and changes of use within the community. In weighing all of the factors, it seems that this is in the best interest of the community and represents a win -win scenario. Obviously, residents would always prefer to see things stay the same, and in many respects, it will. The golf course will be preserved through a commitment for many years to come. This small piece of the corner will change, assuming it receives a favorable vote through the process. 116th Street will be widened and improved to allow for traffic flow that obviously is a problem today. The proposal does allow preservation of greenspace - -it will be restructured, but some 150 acres still remain. A small piece will be given up for the greater improvement of the community. For those that live nearby, it will provide additional benefits for traffic and also for residents who live elsewhere in our community but travel through it to other locations. This proposal does make sense and it should go forward. s:\P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000may 15 Marilyn Anderson asked about the redesign of the golf course and if it was true that this was going to be done. Jim Nelson responded that Woodland is redesigning the course at a cost approaching $4 million. The source of funds is partially from the proceeds of sale from this parcel of real estate but also from an assessment for all members. The Woodland membership is stepping forward and paying for these improvements. Presently, Woodland has filed with the City for Special Use approval through the Board of Zoning Appeals for the redesign of the golf course; to go forward requires the approval of the BZA. Norma Meighen asked if Mr. Dye was redesigning the course free gratis. Phil H. Minton, president of Woodland Country Club, responded that Mr. Dye is donating his services; however, Mr. Liddey is not. .Kent Broach asked about the financial commitments. Jim Nelson stated that Woodland does have debt today. One of the greatest challenges was not to do anything that the lender would look at unfavorably. Woodland is not permitted to do anything that would change the lender's position as a secured party. It was strongly suggested that any future lender would not be willing to accept any lesser quality security than the present lender. Paul Spranger commented that any commitment made regarding use of the Country Club be made by Woodland and not by Mr. Linder. Mr. Nelson stated that that commitment from Woodland is signed by Phil Minton as president of Woodland and is in recordable form and could be recorded tomorrow. Madeline Fitzgerald questioned if the Right of First Refusal would be in effect should the property revert to the lender due to a default. Jim Nelson responded that the Right of First Refusal would remain intact, two of the other commitments would disappear. Pat Rice stated that while she appreciated Leo Dierckman's comments in terms of long term plan, but in keeping with the intent and integrity of the City's Comprehensive Plan, Ms. Rice does not believe that this is an appropriate use of the property and especially the density of the commercial request. Leo Dierckman commented that this has been one of the most complex Dockets that he has dealt with in two years on the Commission. The degree of the commitments is the result of those persons opposed to the rezoning and is definitely a credit to them. s:\P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000may 16 Paul Spranger commented that the 15 years commitment is a little short and should maybe be 20 as opposed to 25. Also, at the First Right of Refusal, there are two things going coincidentally, one is that the rezone for commercial is set for "no rezone for 30 years for commercial, and also the First Right of Refusal expires exactly at that point." There is some exposure there for this to go 30 years and Mr. Spranger would like to see the First Right of Refusal to exceed the 30 years, because there will probably be activity on the parcel at that time. Jim Nelson asked publicly if Woodland, through Mr. Minton, was willing to extend the Right of Refusal for one additional year. Mr. Minton, president of Woodland Country Club, then addressed the Commission. Woodland has met every reasonable request that has been made of it as the property owner, not the petitioner, but the property owner. Woodland is tying up the balance of its real estate under the terms of the commitments presented. Mr. Minton stated that he could not speak for the Board or entire membership of Woodland but only as its president. It does appear that every time Woodland has addressed an issue, there are more requests for more concessions, for more commitments, for more surrender of property rights. At some point, we must say we have met, we have conjured, we have sweated, we have cursed, we have dealt with these things and have made an honest, good faith effort to meet every request of the Committee and the full Commission has asked of us. Dave Cremeans commented about the law of unintended consequences. If this proposal fails, would the result be worse - -would the next proposal be worse? Madeline Fitzgerald responded to those comments made by Mr. Minton. Yes, indeed, the Commission has put some heavy requests on petitioner, and they have stepped forward and made the commitments and this is certainly a good faith gesture on the part of the Country Club. Madeline commended the petitioner for presenting the commitments before the Commission at this time. Ron Houck then moved for the approval of Docket No. 105 -99 Z, rezone for The Linder Group to be known as Merchants Pointe, seconded by Leo Dierckman. APPROVED 12 in favor, 3 opposed (Norma Meighen; Jim O'Neal; and Pat Rice) NOTE: At this point, Kevin Kirby, Norma Meighen and Jim O'Neal exited the meeting and did not return. 3i. Docket No. 71 -00 ADLS Amend, West Carmel Center, Block A, Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping & Signage Amendment application for Glendale Partners. The petitioner seeks to establish sign criteria for the retail development commonly known as West Carmel Shoppes. The Develoment Plan and ADLS petitions for this project were approved as Docket No. 47 -99 DP /ADLS. The site is located on the southeast corner of West 106th Street and North Michigan Road. The site is zoned B -3 /Business and is located within the US 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by Kevin D. McKasson of Glendale Partners. s:\PlanCommission\Minutes.pc\pc2000may 17 Kevin McKasson of Glendale Partners, 320 North Meridian Street, Indianapolis, appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. The petitioner is seeking approval for the revised signage for retail development for West Carmel Shoppes. As a result of the Special Study Committee review, a color palette was determined and a limitation set on the brightness of the lights. The signage will meet all criteria of the Sign Ordinance in terms of brightness and color. The colors were chosen because of the colors of the signs on the north side of the block and the petitioner desired to remain consistent with those colors. In addition to the limitation specified in the brightness chart, the petitioner has committed to give the Department of Community Services the right to moderate the brightness of the signs; Glendale Partners also agrees to enforce the Department's decision. Paul Spranger confirmed that the Special Study Committee had requested a color palette and the desire was to achieve as much an upscale look as possible, and controlling glare from backlit signs. The colors before the Commission are 5 plus white. Ron Houck asked how the Department determines the amount of illumination on a proposed sign. Laurence Lillig responded that there are definite standards for intensity of light based on foot candle measurement. In terms of lighting in a sign, the Department has a photo- meter that measures light intensity in terms of foot candles. There is no specific guideline as to an acceptable level of brightness for a sign. Typically, when light intensity is measured on a site at the property line, any lighting on site contributes to the brightness of the overall site lighting. At that point, it is really subjective as far as what is too bright or what is not. Paul Spranger commented that the City does not have a standard for that and it is much needed. At this point, a commitment is submitted by the petitioner that if the Department feels the glare is objectionable, the petitioner is obligated to correct it. It is now in the subjective hands of the Department until a standard is developed. Nick Kestner commented that in his opinion, the current signage is not attractive and recommended that the petitioner utilize all one type face or one color if various type faces are used. Otherwise, it looks hodge - podge. Paul Spranger recommended limiting the color palette to two colors plus white, thereby creating consistency and reducing clutter. Paul Spranger moved to approve colors of green, blue and white, seconded by Marilyn Anderson. s:\P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000may 18 Ron Houck commented that three colors are too restrictive. Some red is appropriate. Ron Houck recommended eliminating orange. Paul Spranger then amended his motion to provide for colors of blue, green, red, (and white) omitting the orange and yellow, with a provision of no more than 30% of the signs are red. John Sharpe was in favor of the blue because of the Prudential sign and its corporate colors. Madeline Fitzgerald commented that it is unfair to the petitioner to say that he must use certain colors until he has had an opportunity to confer with his tenants. Mr. McKasson stated that he is selling identity and corporations do have a certain corporate identity, whether it be a color or a style of sign. Mr. McKasson was agreeable to the limitations of color; brightness is arbitrary, but the petitioner agrees to be guided by the Department. Laurence Lillig asked for clarification of the 30% provision. 30% of signs in the development? Paul Spranger then clarified the 30% as being one -third of the number of signs or businesses that use this particular color. Paul Spranger's motion for approval of Docket No. 71 -00 ADLS Amend, as amended to include 4 colors of blue, green, red and white, with no more than 30% of signage to be red, was APPROVED as amended. 9 in favor, 2 opposed (Wayne Haney and Bob Modisett) 4i. Docket No. 76 -00 ADLS Amend, Architectural Design, Lighting & Signage Amendment application for Marsh Supermarkets, Inc. The petitioner requests approval to remodel the facade of the old Marsh Supermarket building located in the Marsh Plaza for a banquet facility to be known as The Fountains The site is located at 502 East Carmel Drive. The site is zoned B -8 /Business. Filed by Mark Pratt of AGD Architects. Mark Pratt of AGD Architects, 50 East 91st Street, Indianapolis 46240 appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. This project was referred to the Special Study Committee for further review. The Special Study Committee requested that three issues be addressed. 1) The Landscape Plan will be submitted to the Department of Community Services for review. 2) The paint chips and colors are being submitted this evening. These colors will be behind the fountains; two tan colors are the base colors on the building, the dark green is the color of the aluminum facade over the canopy in the drive through area. 3) The s:\P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000may 19 Committee also required the submission of a sign plan. The proposed sign is 108 square feet; allowable is 115 square feet. Paul Spranger confirmed that the landscape plan was a condition of the Committee's review as well as the materials for the fountain, and the colors for the entrance that is the glass portion over the center of the building. The Committee recommended 7 -0 for full Plan Commission approval. Madeline Fitzgerald asked about the lighting plan. Mr. Pratt stated that landscape lighting will be done in the landscape area and the fountain area - -up- lighting. Bob Modisett Modisett moved for the approval of Docket No. 76 -00 ADLS Amend, for The Fountains. APPROVED 11 in favor, none opposed. Ron Houck announcerd that on June 22nd, the Subdivision Committee will meet with the Greater Home Place Homeowners Association in the Township Center. Discussions will begin for improvements in that area. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 PM. David A. Cremeans, President Ramona Hancock, Secretary s:\P1anCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000may 20