Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 09-19-00CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel /Clay Plan Commission was called to order with the Pledge of Allegiance at 7:00 PM 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; Norma Meighen; Bob Modisett; James T. O'Neal, Sr.; Pat Rice; and Paul Spranger. The minutes of the August meeting were approved as submitted. In attendance for the Department of Community Services: Steve Engelking, Director, Michael Hollibaugh; Terry Jones; and Laurence Lillig. Also present was John Molitor, Counsel. F. Legal Counsel Report: John Molitor explained the Open Door Law as it pertains to site visits and Notice requirements for publication of meetings. G. Announcements: David Cremeans made the following announcements: Docket No. 141 -00 Z, Rezone petitioner for C. P. Morgan Communities, item lh has been administratively removed from the Agenda; Docket No. 106 -99 SP and 107 -00 DP /ADLS, Carmel Drive Storage, items li. and 2i. under Old Business, have been Tabled by the Petitioner; and Docket No. 109 -99 DP /ADLS, Wingate Inn, item 3i. under Old Business, has been Tabled by City Council by Ordinance. There was discussion regarding Docket No. 57 -00 PP, Hazel Dell Pond at Waterstone Subdivision, and whether or not this development has been substantially changed and therefore would require re- notice to the neighbors. Ron Houck, chairman of the Subdivision Committee, reported that there was substantial change to this development. In consultation with legal counsel for the Plan Commission, the normal procedure would dictate that the petitioner would withdraw and re -file; in so doing, there would be a six month waiting period. The Commission would be willing to treat this as an amendment to the primary plat if the petitioner were to re- notice the public and go through the public hearing process; the petitioner would then not have to wait the six month period, and a new Docket number would be required. This item went to committee and received a unanimous, negative recommendation. In the meantime, the s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000Septemberl9 1 petitioner re- designed the project to meet some of the concerns that were raised at the committee level. Ron Houck moved to suspend the rules to waive the six month waiting period and requiring the petitioner to re- notice Hazel Dell Pond at Waterstone, seconded by Bob Modisett. APPROVED 12 -0. Steve Engelking recommended that a letter be drafted for the Plan Commission president's signature advising the petitioner of the action. 1 g. US 31 Ramps Economic Development Area, Plan Commission to review Declaratory Resolution (Resolution No 6/2/00/A adopted June 2, 2000) and Economic Development Plan for property located at the southeast corner of US 31 and East 146th Street. Filed by Michael Howard for the Hamilton County Redevelopment Commission. 2g. West 96th Street, US 421 Economic Development Area, Plan Commission to review Declaratory Resolution (Resolution No. 2000 -1 adopted February 25, 2000) and Economic Development Plan for property located in the vicinity of US 421 /Michigan Road. Filed by Michael Howard for the Hamilton County Redevelopment Commission. Michael Howard, 694 Logan Street, Noblesville, Indiana, appeared before the Commission representing Hamilton County and the Hamilton County Redevelopment Commission. Also in attendance was County Commissioner Sharon Clark. Approval is being requested for an Order to approve the development plans for two projects before the Hamilton County Redevelopment Commission. The first project is the US 31 Ramps Project that will involve capturing tax increments south of 146th Street and on either side of US 31 with the goal that the revenue stream from the increment will be used to build the various ramps. Phase I consists of a ramp northbound off Keystone and the loop ramp to head northbound on US 31. If there is further development, Phase II would include the local street and would alleviate congestion at Greyhound Pass/US 31 intersection with build -out on either side of 146th Street. The US 421 and 96th Street area includes some of the commercial parcels being developed north of 106th Street. The project would include the improvements of 96th Street and Shelborne Road intersection, and the local road section of 96th Street across to the Boone County line. This project is not as yet under design, but there has been a preliminary study and the idea is to capture some of the tax increment from those commercial properties. Also included in this district are some small parcels on the north side of 96th Street to the east of US 21 and along the eastern side of 421 heading north. Currently, these are residential parcels, but it is reasonably foreseeable that given the nature of the development, these will be combined and merged into commercial parcels. s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000Septemberl9 2 These Orders are not for the land uses, but for building the roads to accommodate the traffic and will conform to Carmel's development plans for these areas. The Orders will also allow the County Redevelopment Commission and County Commissioners to proceed. Comments from Plan Commission Members: Madeline Fitzgerald felt that the proposal is an excellent example and opportunity for the adjoining counties to work together and do a joint study. Michael Howard pointed out that the preliminary cost of the proposal in land acquisition is $14 million and even with the tax increments, other partners would be anticipated such as Marion County, perhaps INDOT, and others when the project actually comes together. In response to Ron Houck's questions, Mike Howard stated that the TIF law says you may capture increases in assessed value from within the geographic area. Paul Spranger moved for the approval of the US 31 Ramps and the West 96th Street -US 421 Economic Development Areas, seconded by Ron Houck. APPROVED 12 in favor, none opposed. H. Public Hearings: Docket No. 108 -00 PP, Long Branch Estates Petitioner requests approval to plat 150 lots on 119.6 acres. The site is located on the nortwest corner of West 116th Street and Shelborne Road. The site is zoned S- 1 /Residence and is being developed as a Qualifying Subdivision under Chapter 7 of the Subdivision Control Ordinance (ROSO). The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waivers: 108 -OOa SW SCO 6.3.3 to forego a stub street connection to adjoining property 108 -00b SW SCO 6.3.7 to plat a cul -de -sac greater than 600 feet in length 108 -OOc SW SCO 7.7(D)(7) to clear more than 50% of scrub woodlands on site 108 -OOd SW SCO 7.7(D)(8) to clear more than 15% of steep slopes on site Filed by Richard J. Kelly of Paul I. Cripe, Inc. for Pulte Homes Tim Ochs, attorney, Ice Miller Donadio & Ryan, One American Square, Indianapolis, appeared before the Commission representing the applicant, Pulte Homes. Richard Kelly of Paul I. Cripe Engineering was also in attendance. This item was heard previously by the Plan Commission; however, it was discovered that there was faulty notice and this has now been corrected. Laurence Lillig confirmed that according to the Department Report, the Commission would need to determine whether or not the public notice requirement had been met and if so, a motion would need to be made to suspend the rules in order to re -open the public hearing. s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000Septemberl9 3 According to Rich Kelly of Paul I. Cripe, the auditor's office confirmed that 7 adjoining property owners had not been notified. Notices were then sent by registered mail on the 6th of September. A petitioner's Affidavit of Notice was filed with the Department. John Molitor opined that the Notice would not be sufficient under the Rules of the Plan Commission but would be sufficient under State Law. A suspension of the Rules would be required. Marilyn Filo, bordering the property on Shelborne and 121st Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that a neighbor, Dr. and Mrs. Edwards who are directly opposite the property on the west side of 121st Street, were not noticed. Mr. Ochs stated that notice had been sent to this particular neighbor, but it was refused. After further discussion, John Molitor recommended that the Commission consider suspending the rules and hear this item, since minimal notice for the missing 7 property owners had been given under the State law. Additional testimony should be allowed, essentially a supplemental public hearing, to accommodate the 7 people who missed the initial hearing. The initial public hearing remains open. Ron Houck moved to suspend the rules to waive the 25 day notice period and allow the hearing of this item, seconded by Kent Broach. APPROVED 11 in favor, 2 opposed (Leo Dierckman and Norma Meighen.) Mr. Ochs stated that a Traffic Study by A & F Engineering was completed for the entrance at 116th Street, 121st Street, the intersections at 421 (Michigan Road) and 121st Street and 116th Street and Michigan Road. The petitioner is willing to put into place those improvements suggested for 116th Street and 121st Street. The capacity was acceptable with the exception of US 421, but the study did note that when the improvements by INDOT are made on 421, those would be of sufficient capacity and the impact of this development, until that time, is minimal compared to the overall traffic on 421. A Conservation Area Study by J.F.New & Associates identifies the conservation areas under the ROSO. The only wetlands identified on the site are point one acre in size and very minimal; this will be mitigated pursuant to the requirements of the INDEM and US Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Ochs stated that the petitioner had met with surrounding neighbors. Notices were delivered and the meeting was conducted to show the development in greater detail and answer any questions. s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000Septemberl9 4 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: Jack Bigham, 3755 West 116th Street, stated opposition to the number of homes being proposed. Mr. Bigham lives directly south of the project and was not noticed the first public hearing. Mr. Bigham was not opposed to developing, but was definitely opposed to the density of this development. Mr. Bigham was curious to know what improvements would be made to benefit the intersection of 116th and Shelborne Road. Mr. Bigham questioned whether or not he would be required or allowed to hook into City Water and Carmel Sewer at the time this property is developed. Andris Berzins, 3805 West 116th Street, wanted to see the rolling hills, trees, wildlife and rural character of the area maintained. Developing the property at the proposed density is excessive. There is no question that the proposed development will cause traffic problems and roadway improvements will have to be made in this area. The area residents would like to see the woods on the property maintained as much as possible. Michael Pritz, 3930 West 121st Street, Zionsville, 46077, did receive notice of the first meeting, not the second. Mr. Pritz has met with Pulte Homes, but at the time of the meeting, there was no information available on transportation and traffic report, and not a lot of detail as to how the ground would be arranged and the impact on the environment. Mr. Pritz echoed agreement with the previous speakers. Mr. Pritz stated that the proposed development would change the character of that portion of western Clay Township. There are also transportation problems; Michigan Road will not be improved for quite some time. Also, the Shoopman property to the west will have nearly twice as many homes, with one to two cars, and the traffic impact will be significant. It is understandable that the property will be developed, but the area residents would like to see the types of homes and environment that would complement the community and that everyone would be proud of as opposed to an "eyesore." The Department is recommending that this item be referred back to the Subdivision Committee and be removed from the Table at the Committee level. The public hearing was then closed on this Docket. Mr. Ochs deferred rebuttal. However, developing under the Residential Open Space Ordinance would allow an increase in the density and 164 lots could be platted. The developer is platting 150 lots, 90 to 100 feet wide, side -entry garages. A 25 foot conservation easement is also being added along the rear of the lots around the mature woodlands and along the bank. The petitioner is in agreement with the neighbors and would like to preserve the natural topography and woodlands; the home sites would be more marketable. Questions and comments from Commission members: s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000Septemberl9 5 Leo Dierckman questioned the photos provided and the captions; Mr. Ochs responded that the captions were reversed and what is labeled scrub woodlands is actually mature trees. Jeff New had visited the site and measured the trunks of the trees. Nick Kestner questioned the traffic study and wondered what the impact would be on Towne Road for traffic headed east; not everyone would turn onto Michigan Road. Mr. Ochs responded that there were on -going discussions with the highway department on the necessary improvements and the traffic study. The traffic engineer could be made available at the Committee meeting to address those concerns. Dave Cremeans questioned the drainage and roadway improvements and how those improvements would affect the homeowner to the northeast of the property. Mr. Ochs responded that this is not actually a traffic concern but rather drainage. The petitioner would be happy to work with the County Surveyor and the highway department. Marilyn Anderson questioned the traffic study after improvements are made and after this development is constructed- -the level of service at 116th and Michigan Road would be a "D" level of service in afternoon rush hour. Marilyn asked why there was no traffic study done for 116th and Shelborne Road. Mr. Ochs responded that there are guidelines in the Ordinance for the scope of a traffic study and these have been complied with. Also, the highway department was consulted on the scope; the highway department is contemplating the improvements to Shelborne Road and 116th Street will be aligned to improve the functionality of the intersection. Laurence Lillig explained the parameters for traffic studies; the petitioner meets with members of the staff and the Department lets them know what intersections are to be looked at. It is uncertain what was asked of this petitioner; however, there are two intersections with Michigan Road to be looked at outside the County - -116th Street and 121st Street, and the two entrances into the subdivisions. Marilyn Anderson said 116th and Shelborne need to be included in the traffic study inasmuch as it borders the corner of the property. Mr. Ochs stated that his firm was involved in the initial research to determine what this intersection should look like. Discussions occurring between the developer and the County indicate that the 116th Street and Shelborne realignment has been set by the County. The County has determined the number of lanes that will ultimately be associated with the intersection improvements. It was not requested that this appear in the traffic report, however, the County has gone a long way to look at this intersection. Madeline Fitzgerald said that considering the Eagle Ridge Development going in to the west of this site, the Commission needed to look at Shelborne and 121St Street because the west access over on Michigan Road is a very difficult intersection. The eastbound s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000Septemberl9 6 traffic will be seen as going to Shelborne down to 116th Street, even if traffic is trying to go west to Michigan Road. Even with the improvements to 421, 121st is not scheduled to be a signalized intersection. Again, Shelborne and 121St Street needs to be included in the overall package. Ron Houck asked about the variance for the percentage of scrub woodlands to be removed. Mr. Ochs responded that Paul I Cripe had determined that the only area designated as scrub woodlands was a small pocket. J. F. New has since assessed the site and reported that there is actually scrub woodland instead of young woodlands and does not meet the criteria under ROSO. As a result, the petitioner is now less than 50% impact on scrub woodlands. Since the reclassification to scrub woodlands, it meant that the amount of young woodlands was significantly reduced. The petitioner is impacting more than 30% of the young woodlands and it must be excluded from the open space requirements. The variance will be needed under section 7.7(D)(6). John Molitor commented that the petition should be amended and the committee can do this at the committee level. The cul -de -sac length is at 720 feet as opposed to 600 feet, and a variance is being requested. Leo Dierckman asked if the petitioner intended to complete the additional information for the traffic study; Mr. Ochs responded that the petitioner would do whatever it takes to address the concerns of the Plan Commission. Docket No. 108 -00 PP; Long Branch Estates, was referred to Subdivision Committee, October 3rd, at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. At this time, Ron Houck announced that the Greater Home Place Area Task Force will meet on October 10th in the Hensel Center, 10701 North College Avenue at 7:00 PM. 2h. Docket No. 129 -00 PP, Primary Plat application for Kosene & Kosene. The petitioner seeks approval to plat 115 lots on 35.77 acres to be known as Bonbar Place Subdivision. The site is located on the northwest corner of I -465 and the Monon Trail. The site is zoned R- 1/Residence and is being developed as a Qualifying Subdivision under Chapter 7 of the Subdivision Control Ordinance (ROSO). The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waivers: 129 -OOa SW WCO 6.3.7 to plat a cul -de -sace in excess of 600 feet in length 129 -00b SW SCO 6.3.20 to plat private streets 129 -OOc SW SCO 6.5.1 to plat lots with less than 50' of public frontage 129 -OOd SW SCO 7.7(d)(7) to clear more than 50% of the scrub woodlands on site Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Laws Firm for Kosene & Kosene. s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000Septemberl9 7 Paul Reis, 12358 Hancock Street, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Mark Monroe was also in attendance. The petitioner is requesting approval to plat 115 lots on 35.77 acres located at the northwest corner of I -4654 and the Monon Trail. There is an existing retention pond and lake on the site, 11.76 acres, and existing woodlands of 18 acres. Special attention has been given to the preservation of many of the young woodlands and the buffering and screening of the subdivision from the adjacent neighborhoods to the west and the north. The arrangement of the houses has been made in order to maximize the tree preservation and buffering to orient as many homes as possible toward the retention pond and away from the surrounding areas. The buffers range between 30 feet to 200 feet. Under the Residential Open Space Ordinance plan, 7.24 acres or 70% of the scrub woodlands will be removed. This is in excess of the 50% maximum prescribed by Ordinance; however, it is important to consider that the petitioner is preserving over 73% of the young woodlands and almost 96% of the mature woodlands. The homes have been grouped along the banks to maximize the orientation and also to provide an aesthetic appeal- -the garages will not be visible from the main street; hence the creation of private streets. Some units are oriented toward the interior with an alley behind for rear access to the garages. Three conceptual floor plans were submitted for the types of homes that may be built. They are all two bedrooms with the possibility of a bonus room above the garage. The sizes range from 1367 square feet to slightly more than 1800 square feet. Under the Open Space Ordinance, the required amount of open space is 20 %; the proposed plat provides for open space of more than 47 %. As a Qualifying Subdivision, the plat is eligible for a density incentive. Under the formula prescribed by the Ordinance, the base density for this area, 2.9 lots per acre, may be increased to 4.5 lots per acre. This would allow for 161 lots on the property. The plat being presented proposes 115 lots or a density of 3.06 lots per acre, not a substantial increase above the base density prescribed by the Ordinance. There are two points of access, 101st Street into the site and Marwood Drive. The southern access point, 101st Street, is a direct route to College Avenue. As requested by the Hamilton County Highway Department, the petitioner is considering improvements to both 101St and Marwood Drive at those points of access, particularly Marwood Drive where the road is almost disintegrated coming into the site. A traffic operations analysis was prepared by A & F Engineering to study the effect of the existing traffic in the area. The analysis indicated that 90% of the traffic will be exiting onto College Avenue heading south. Based upon that analysis, the traffic engineers do not expect significant traffic to exit Marwood Drive and take a circuitous route either to 103rd or 106th Street. Likewise, they do not expect traffic to cut up Carrollton Avenue to go up to 103rd Street s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000Septemberl9 8 or the other streets to go south on College Avenue. While the level of service at 101st and College will be impacted by this project, the projected delay in the ability to exit from 101st Street south to College Avenue is between 30/45 seconds to 50 seconds additional delay. It is also important to realize that this is a single family residential community and the engineers have pointed out that in most cases, residents will stagger the time departing their homes during peak hours to avoid congestion and delay. It is not a situation where everyone living in the subdivision will leave at the same time to exit at 101st and College Avenue. Certain Subdivision Variances are being requested for approval. First, due to the layout of the site and in order to maximize the bufffering, a long cul -de -sac in excess of 600 feet is being requested. The intent is that the petitioner will provide all emergency access necessary so that it accommodates any emergency vehicle necessary. Secondly, the petitioner is requesting a variance to reduce the lot width from 50 feet. Thirdly, to eliminate the viewing of garage after garage, or house after house along the street, the roads will be considered private streets and a variance is required. Finally, the petitioner is seeking a variance to remove up to 70% of the scrub woodlands; the intent is to maintain the mature and young woodlands primarily located along the western and northern portions of the site. The petitioner met with the Technical Advisory Committee on July 19, 2000. The petitioner is continuing discussion with the County Highway Department concerning the streets and improvements to 101St and Marwood Drive. It is also noteworthy that the petitioner had a large public meeting with the neighbors and two subsequent meetings with smaller groups within the neighborhood to discuss this project and explain the proposal for this site. Members of 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 persons appeared: John Garvey, Marwood Trail East Drive, appeared before the Commission representing College Meadows, College Hills, and Marwood Trails Subdivision coalition. A major concern is the traffic. The use of Marwood Drive as a point of access to the proposed subdivision is a stretch of the imagination. A four -way stop at 103rd will generate traffic to 101St street, since there is no traffic control at that point. A visit to the site is the only way to under the proposal. Emergency equipment in particular would be challenged to negotiate the route of access. The traffic study is statistical probability and results in the prediction that for 115 homes, there will be an additional 67 cars during the AM peak. It is expected that there could easily be 115 or 170 cars at that peak, but this is speculation and cannot be proven. The intersection at 101st and College is the most significant; the traffic study indicates that the level of service for westbound approach is at level of service "D" and below acceptable standards. Additional traffic will result at a level of service "F" at the AM peak. This intersection is presently operating below acceptable levels during both AM and PM peaks and will continue to do so. The traffic study makes certain recommendation for the intersection -- "Nothing needs to be done." This is s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000Septemberl9 9 completely baffling. There are already significant traffic problems, particularly in the morning. It is difficult to exit southbound onto College from 101st Street at a level of service "D," and the residents cannot be expected to live with level of service "F." Jerry Willis, 10129 North Guilford, also a realtor with Coldwell Banker /Kaiser Land Co. Mr. Willis asked that three areas of the proposal be addressed: 1) Safety; 2) History of Events; and 3) Facts in Support of the neighbors' position. Traffic is a major concern. There will be a lot of traffic cutting through the subdivision to get to 101st Street, thereby eliminating the four -way stop at 103rd Street. The community is an older one and does not have sidewalks in place. Residents walking the area must use the street. The project, as proposed, presents a severe safety issue. The density of the proposed development and the number of cars that will be added to the streets are a great concern because the only way in and out of the Bonbar Place is through the residential community. Mr. Willis met with Gary Hoyt of the Carmel Fire Dept. and was told there were a number of concerns with the proposal. In the TAC minutes, the Fire Dept. is concerned with the cul -de -sac extension and the lack of turning radius for emergency equipment. The Fire Dept. does not support that particular variance and neither do the residents. Gary Hoyt also requested "No Parking" signs on the eyebrows which are private drives; otherwise, no emergency equipment could access the site. Sheriff Cook stated that his department could not enforce a "no parking ordinance" on the eyebrows. The building line of the project is 15 feet from the front of the lot - -a Ford Taurus is 18 feet long and if parked in the driveway would extend 3 feet into the eyebrow and would restrict street access. Because of the density of the project, fire would spread very quickly and would be a disaster. Mr. Willis referred to a meeting between him and Steve Broermann of the County Highway Department on September 6th. The County Highway has two primary concerns, the length of the cul -de -sac and where a snow load would be stacked during the winter months. Mr. Willis met with Ron Farrand of the Carmel /Clay School System on September 7th. Mr. Farrand would not send a bus into Bonbar Place under the proposed plan - -a 93 foot turning radius is required for buses. This would mean that school children in Bonbar Place would have to walk to 101st and Guilford or to Marwood and Guilford to catch the school bus. The residents are not unreasonable people. The residents are aware that this site will develop; however, the residents would like a family product that is conducive to the neighboring communities. The current proposal is not a win -win situation for the community. Density is the issue. Mr. Willis asked that the Commission deny the project or at least deny all of the requested variances. It is understood that this item will be sent to subdivision committee and Mr. Willis asked that the public be allowed to participate at that time. Mark Abby, 1037 Birnam Woods, at the north end of the proposed development. Mr. Abby was opposed to the development by reason of the density. Traffic poses a potential threat to the safety of the neighborhood; fire and emergency vehicle access is questionable. The amount of scrub woodlands requested for clearance is unacceptable to the neighboring residents, and the 75 foot buffer has been breached in some areas. Mr. Abby submitted a petition of opposition signed by a number of area residents. The s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000Septemberl9 10 proposed homes are shown to be vinyl clad; however, the covenants state the use of brick masonry and wood are required -- aluminum and vinyl are not to be used. The residents would welcome a development that would encompass some of the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood. Once the infrastructure is added and with the open space set aside, there is a buildable area of eight acres. Eight acres with 115 homes, 3.066 lots per acre. Mr. Abby and neighbors are disappointed in the Open Space Ordinance that would allow the lake to be included as open space. Henry Henandez, 10329 North College Avenue, wanted to know if this item had to be sent to subcommittee or could a vote be taken this evening. John Molitor responded that the Rules of Procedure provide that petitions of this nature are forwarded to committee for review. Any vote on a petition the same evening it is presented would require a suspension of the rules by the Plan Commission. Maureen Fall, president of Northridge Home Owners' Association, expressed concern regarding traffic and quality of life. Ms. Fall asked that the Commission continue the aesthetics of the adjacent neighborhood that contain large lots and brick homes, and a number of trees. Nancy Bancroft, Chevy Chase, stated that the proposed development is incompatible with the adjacent neighborhoods. Bonbar Place, 115 homes on 7.7 acres is far too dense- - 14.78 homes per acre - -and the density is not acceptable; it is incompatible with adjacent land use. The traffic would be unacceptable. Ms. Bancroft would be able to live with a 50% reduction in the number of homes proposed. Lisa Meredith, Marwood Trail, stated opposition to the development by reason of density and the safety factor. There are no sidewalks and no street lamps in the area and lots of children. The value of a life is priceless! Sharon Clark, County Commissioner District 1, carried a message from the County Highway Department. The County Highway spoke with this petitioner in July and virtually disapproved everything the petitioner requested. As a point of interest, 101St Street is 19 feet wide and there are no plans to do any improvement with 101st Street any time soon. Since 1998, the County has been trying to relieve some of the traffic congestion in the western part of the township; to date, one intersection is almost built and that should be an indication of where 101st Street would be on the agenda. Dan Ryan, 938 Marwood Trails, stated opposition to the development by reason of density and felt that the turn-out this evening from adjoining property owners "speaks for itself." Tom Kestler, 895 East 101st Street, questioned the utilities that would serve the proposed subdivision, i.e. sewer, water, and how construction vehicles on 101st Street would be controlled. s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000Septemberl9 11 Martha Smith, 10149 Carrollton Avenue, stated that the traffic count was inaccurate because it was taken before school started, just prior to a holiday weekend and many people were out of town. It takes at least 3 minutes at the intersection of 101st and College to be able to turn south onto College and proceed to the interstate. There is a big traffic problem at this intersection and Ms. Smith was opposed to the development. Rebuttal, Paul Reis: Steve Fehribach of A & F Engineering, 8425 Keystone Crossing, was called upon to explain the traffic analysis for the proposed development. The trip generation is based on national data and submitted to the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The data is compiled and reported back to the traffic engineer; it is actual data that occurs out on the street at subdivisions of single family residences, multi - family residences, retail, etc. Mr. Fehribach was comfortable that the amount of traffic generated in the report, both AM and PM peak hours, is accurate. Mr. Fehribach also talked about the level of service and stated that today, there is about 29.4 seconds of delay for traffic on an average, for traffic exiting westbound to turn south onto College. The number will increase to 54 seconds on average at the intersection. Level of Service "F" usually occurs around 50 seconds of delay. The north and south bound traffic does not stop at this intersection, therefore, the report does not address an intersection level of service. The westbound approach is level of service "F" turning south, and turning right northbound is a free -flow movement. Paul Reis clarified the cul -de -sac length. The petitioner did meet with the County Highway Department and the length of the cul -de -sac is still in dispute. It is premature to change the plans at this point until further discussion with the neighbors and the Committee. Increasing the turning radius has already been discussed with the Highway Department to allow fire equipment adequate turning radius. Comments have been received from the fire department, and the petitioner will again review them. The issue of private drives did not come up, but this will also be revisited. Fire Hazard and close proximity of the homes was not raised by the fire department and the petitioner will follow up on those comments and discuss at Committee. In regard to school buses, it was not anticipated that the buses would be going the length of the cul -de -sac; there is a loop that the buses potentially would use. The route has not been finalized with the school system. The homes were not presented as vinyl and they will not be constructed of vinyl. The ponds are used as part of the Open Space under Section 7.10, subsection N. Detention areas or ponds up to 3 acres or more may comprise up to 75% of the open space. In response to Commissioner Clark's remarks, 101st Street was not shown as to width. 101St Street is very narrow by the Church, and the petitioner has been in discussion with the Highway Department as to what kind of improvements would need to be made to this street; obviously some widening and reconstruction of the road, etc. As part of the process, this will be defined and a commitment made accordingly. s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000Septemberl9 12 Department Report, Laurence Lillig: The Department is recommending that this item be forwarded to the October 3, 2000 Subdivision Committee meeting. The public hearing was then closed. Pat Rice had the following questions: 1) Has an on -site review been requested by the Department of Natural Resources; 2) Are the trees marked with orange paint to be left standing or cleared; 3) Why were the surrounding roadways not shown in the traffic study presented by the petitioner; 4) The pond is believed to be a lake, a "living lake" and a retention pond tends to be a dead body of water. This is extremely important, since a retention pond with runoff simply kills all living organisms. 5) In regard to the traffic report, the effect of traffic generated by the proposed development at full occupancy on the adjacent roadway system was not addressed. 6) The safety issues are a concern as well as the impact of the development on the existing community, not just at the intersection. 7) What signals will be needed with the increase in traffic? 8) The critical areas of 96th and College and 106th and College were not addressed in the traffic study. 9) The traffic study has not adequately addressed the safe and efficient movement of traffic through the study area. 10) The capacity analysis of the traffic study does not take into account internal road systems not designed for this kind of traffic and does not indicate who designated the specific intersections for study. 11) The traffic study does not include data from the existing residential development, particularly Marwood Subdivision, the safety of that particular community, and the number of increased vehicles that the proposed development will generate. It was Pat Rice's opinion that the traffic study does not take into account real life, actual reality rather than virtual reality, does not reflect accurate conclusions and falls short of presenting the true picture. Pat Rice moved to TABLE this item until the Plan Commission has had an opportunity for a fact - finding field trip to the site and a report from the Department of Natural Resources. Wayne Haney commented that in the materials received, ingress and egress are not shown to the site, and adjacent neighborhoods are not shown to provide an overall picture. Bob Modisett commented that he had driven to the site two or three times. The Marwood Trail access is really a stretch to be a legitimate access. It is hard to imagine that this would be any kind of access to a subdivision. 101st Street is very narrow, there are no sidewalks or lamplights or streetlights in the area and there are definitely safety and traffic concerns. Leo Dierckman agreed that the access points are minimal and this is a situation where the proposed development should match the existing neighborhoods and not increase the density beyond that. There is a lot of work that needs to be done at Committee. Ron Houck requested that the following things be touched on at Committee: provisions for construction traffic; level of service issues raised in the traffic impact study; letters s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000Septemberl9 13 from the Technical Advisory Committee government agencies; a copy of the covenants and restrictions; and more information about the platting of private streets in terms of construction standards, dimensions, and general geometry specifications to be dealt with. Paul Spranger commented that the two week time slot prior to the start of school is a tremendous vacation period for the community as well as some other times. Perhaps the Commission needs to look at "black -out" periods regarding traffic studies that may provide opportunities for traffic engineers to seize on or create the most optimistic results, particularly if there are counts being done. The proposed project highlights excesses that were never intended in the Open Space Ordinance Dave Cremeans concurred with comments made by Paul Spranger regarding the traffic study. It would be helpful to determine the number of cars in Carmel, and cars per household. Marilyn Anderson was also in agreement with Paul Spranger's comments. Pat Rice re- stated her motion to TABLE this item for Committee review until the full Plan Commission has had an opportunity for a fact - finding field trip to the site and a report from the Depaitment of Natural Resources is submitted, seconded by Leo Dierckman. APPROVED 13 in favor, none opposed. Clarification: This item is to be tabled to the November 14th Subdivision Committee. Further Clarification: Pat Rice is to meet with the Department of Community Services to determine guidelines for the report from the Department of Natural Resources that is to be furnished by Mr. Reis. It was decided that the field trip would be scheduled for October 3rd prior to the sub- committee meetings. Anyone wanting to attend should meet at the Korean Presbyterian Church on 101st Street at 5:15 PM. 3h. Docket No. 134 -00 Z, Rezone petition for Majestic Residence. The petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation for a rezone from the S -1 /Residence district to the B -5 /Business diestirct on Lots 29 through 32 of North Augusta Subdivision, Section 2. The site is located on the southwest corner of North Augusta Drive and West 97th Street. The site is zoned S- 1/Residence and is located within the US 421 Overlay Zone. Note: This item is paired with Item 4h under Public Hearings (Docket No. 135 -00 DP /ADLS. Filed by Majid Rastegar of Majestic Residence, Inc. 4h. Docket No. 135-00 DP /ADLS, Development Plan and Architectural Design, Lighting & Signage applications for Majestic Residence Inc. The petitioner seeks approval of three general office buildings totaling 54,000 square feet. The site is located on the southwest corner of North Augusta Drive and West 97th Street. The s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000Septemberl9 14 site is zoned S- 1/Residence and is located within the US 421 Overlay Zone Note: This item is paired with item 3h under Public Hearings (Docket No. 134 -00 Z) Filed by Majid Rastegar of Majestic Residence, Inc. Ron Bussell, attorney, appeared before the Commission representing the petitioner. Also in attendance was Majid Rastegar and Michael Dehr from Major Engineering. The petitioner is requesting approval to rezone 4 lots (29 through 32) located at the southwest corner of North Augusta Drive and West 97th Street to the B -5 /Business district classification. The petitioner will be constructing three general office buildings totaling 54,000 square feet. The site is within the U.S. 421 Overlay Zone. Currently, the area has a mix of land use including commercial flex - space, office space, multi - family residential and single family residential, with the primary areas of residential being along 96th Street and continuing along Michigan Road. Two lots currently have a single family house located on them, and two lots are currently vacant. The four lots will be re- platted into one lot. The developer desires to provide for the highest and best use of this particular site and compatible with the spirit and intent of the Overlay Zone. The office area will comprise approximately 49,000 square feet of office space, 94,000 square feet of asphalt parking, and 6,000 feet of driveway. A small parcel of ground is to be dedicated to the solid waste district for the installation of a lift station that would serve the entire area of development. At present there is no sewer provided in the area and the solid waste district has agreed to build the sewer necessary to service the area. The buildings will be constructed of red brick material and in the Georgian architectural style. The building elevations were shown as well as a typical floor plan. The office space design will vary according to the needs of the tenant, but generally will be open and modern in style. The design of the sign located at the entrance to the complex off North Augusta Drive was shown. A preliminary landscape plan has been submitted to the Department of Community Services and is currently being reviewed by Scott Brewer. The petitioner anticipates that a final landscape plan from Altum Gardens will be in place within the next week. The Overlay guidelines will be followed to create a special sense of place in keeping with the concept. 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; no one appeared. Department Report, Laurence Lillig. The Department is recommending that this item be forwarded to the October 3rd Special Study Committee meeting. s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000Septemberl9 15 Madeline Fitzgerald asked that a more in -depth landscape plan be presented, more signage detail, and some sort of lighting plan. Pat Rice requested that the petitioner bring samples of the building materials to be used. Docket Nos. 134 -00 Z and 135 -00 DP /ADLS, North Augusta Subdivision, Section 2, Lots 29 through 32, were referred to the Special Study Committee that will meet at 7:00 PM October 3, 2000 in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. 5h. Docket No. 141 -00 Z, C.P. Morgan Communities ADMINISTRATIVELY REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA 6h. Docket No. 143 -00 OA, Ordinance Amendment petition for the City of Carmel. The petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation for amendments to Section 29.6.• Filing Fees of the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance. Filed by Steve C. Engelking of the Department of Community Services for the City of Carmel. John Molitor introduced this item. The City Council has requested that consideration of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment with respect to the Thoroughfare Plan be included with this Amendment. There is difficulty "lumping" the Ordinance Amendment and the Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; they are essentially different processes. Mr. Molitor recommended that by way of formal motion, these two items be separated and considered individually. Paul Spranger moved to separate the Ordinance Amendment and the Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, seconded by Pat Rice. APPROVED 13 in favor, none opposed. Steve Engelking, Department Director, then presented the Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 29.6 titled Filing Fees. Filing Fees were last changed in 1995; the Improvement Location Permit Fees and allied fees were last changed in 1988. It is requested that the Commission consider sending comments to the Council regarding a 40% increase in the fees. Incorporated into the Amendment is the authority for the Director of the Department of Community Services to annually review the indexes to determine whether or not an annual increase would be effected and to what percentage in the future. The Township Trustee and Board as well as the City Council have all stated a preference to have the Department of Community Services as self - supporting from revenues generated within the fee structure. 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; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000Septemberl9 16 Department Report, Laurence Lillig. The Department is recommending that the Commission suspend their rules to vote on this item this evening. Jim O'Neal moved to suspend the Rules of Procedure, APPROVED 13 in favor, none opposed. Jim O'Neal moved for the approval of Docket No. 143 -00 OA, Section 29.6: Filing Fees and to forward to the City Council, seconded by Ron Houck. APPROVED 12 in favor, one opposed (Bob Modisett). Dirctor Steve Engelking presented part B of the Resolution to the Commission which deals with the addition of the proposed freeway interchange at 131st Street and U.S. 31 and requiring the rights -of -way to be reserved in any development plans forthcoming. This Resolution is essentially a design presented to the U.S. 31 Task Force as part of a contract with Parsons, Brinckerhoff, consulting firm, under contract to the U.S. 31 Task Force to locate Illinois Street and the road configuration for north of 131st Street all the way to 136th Street. The City embraces this design as a possible alternative that is being considered by INDOT in their efforts to improve U.S. 31 to a limited access freeway status. The goal is to incorporate the proposed changes into the Thoroughfare Plan as a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan so that it can be planned around and thought about in the future as plans are submitted. 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: Bob Faulk, Manager of Development Services for Duke Realty, Carmel, appeared before the Commission. A letter was presented requesting that this item be continued until there can be further discussion. Duke Realty has a building in the southwest quadrant that has been through ADLS approval and it was the intention of Duke to begin construction this spring. Duke Realty is asking that this item be continued. Steve Engelking responded that it would be proper to send this item to the membership of the U.S. 31 Task Force for consideration. Department Report, Laurence Lillig. The Department is recommending that the Commission suspend the Rules of Procedure in order to vote on this item this evening and send it forward to City Council with a favorable recommendation. Paul Spranger, Chairman of the U.S. 31 Task Force, commented that a tremendous number of hours have been spent on this item by the Task Force and the consulting firm. The connectivity with 131St Street to the Carmel community is critical because of the location of the high school and the public library. An interchange at 126th Street prompted remonstrance regarding cut - through traffic from the Subdivision immediately to the west of 126th and an interchange would further exasperate the problem. s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000Septemberl9 17 Ron Houck moved to suspend the rules, seconded by Paul Spranger. MOTION DENIED 9 in favor, 4 opposed (Nick Kestner, Bob Modisett, Madeling Fitzgerald, Pat Rice). David Cremeans referred the Thoroughfare Plan Amendment for the 131St Street and U.S. 31 interchange back to the Special Study Committee on October 3rd to allow the affected property owners in the four quadrants of the interchange area an opportunity for comment. At this time, it was determined that the Commission would hear all Old Business items listed on the Agenda the following Thursday evening, September 21st, at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers. 7h. Docket No. 146 -00 DP /ADLS, Development Plan and Architectural Design, Lighting & Signage applications for Glendale Partners. The petitioner seeks approval of plans for a 125,000 square foot Home Depot home improvement store on 15.00 acres. The site is located southeast of West 106th Street and Michigan Road at West Carmel Center, Block F. The site is zoned B- 3/Business and is located within the U.S. 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by Kevin D. McKasson for Glendale Partners. Kevin McKasson of Glendale Partners appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Approval is being requested to construct a Home Depot store on 15 acres in the West Carmel Center. The style and design of the Home Depot store will be in keeping with the Target store previously approved by the Commission. The orange roof normally seen on a Home Depot store has been eliminated. The landscaping will be installed and maintained pursuant to the landscape plan submitted to the Department of Community Services. A privacy fence will be installed to soften the impact of this project from the existing neighborhood. The petitioner has made certain commitments with respect to the Home Depot store. All cart corrals will be constructed of brick similar to the building. All outside storage will be completely screened from view and enclosed by walls constructed of the same brick material on the north, south, and west facade. Storage areas will be completely screened from view and subject to Commission approval. The trash collection area will be enclosed and screened and there will be no outside, unenclosed storage of refuse or merchandise other than merchandise contained in the attached garden center, shall be permitted on any tract. The merchandise within the garden center shall not be stacked higher than the height of the exterior wall and all refuse shall be completely contained in the buildings. In regard to signage, the petitioner commits that the lighting brightness shall be adjusted in conformity to the adjacent signage of the U.S. 421 Overlay Zone as requested by the s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000Septemberl9 18 Carmel Department of Community Services. Sign brightness would be assessed from the 421 right -of -way and consistent with Target's signage. The petitioner is requesting that the Rules of Procedure be waived for a vote this evening. Kevin McKasson mentioned that there have been several meetings with the neighbors on the proposed project. The neighbors again requested that the petitioner look into the possibility of creating a cul -de -sac at Carwinion. Glendale Partners has committed to pay for the cul -de -sac and address all public safety issues for the benefit of the adjoining neighborhood. The neighbors support of the project has been very important and the petitioner has committed to attempt to achieve the cul -de -sac. 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; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. Department Report, Laurence Lillig. The Department is recommending that this item be forwarded to the October 3, 2000 Special Study Committee. Ron Houck requested details on the privacy fence. Mr. McKasson responded that he had met with a neighbor and had agreed to do some landscaping on the neighbor's property as well as install a privacy fence. There are 6 foot high mounds at either side of the entrance, but the neighbor's home is positioned in such a way that the fence will be installed for greater privacy. April Hensley, architect, explained that the light fixtures are wall mounted and consistent with the lighting previously submitted and approved with the Target package. The wall packs, however, are not the typical, glaring wall packs and are directed downward along the face of the structure. Ron Houck questioned whether or not the point one foot candle at the perimeter applies, given the proximity of the development to residential. Laurence Lillig responded that there is a thin strip of ground on the east side of Commerce Drive right -of -way, which technically puts this across from commercial property, not residential property. The way it is configured, the petitioner would have to be a 0.3 foot candles at the Commerce Drive right -of -way rather than 0.1. The original primary plat for this project does not show the strip and the right -of -way extends directly to the property line, adjacent to residential, and the lighting at Commerce Drive right -of -way would hold at point one foot candle. Technically, given the language of the Ordinance, it would allow three times the light intensity at the property line. Kevin McKasson stated a willingness to add to the commitments that the lighting plan adjacent to residential will meet the Code, no variance will be requested for the lighting. Madeline Fitzgerald requested a commitment from the petitioner that no 18- wheeler trucks would be parked on the property overnight. s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000Septemberl9 19 Marilyn Anderson asked for more detail on the landscape plan, i.e. species and variety. Also, the County is opposed to cul- de- saccing the through street (fire and safety issues.) Bob Modisett asked if 102nd Street would be a public, dedicated street built by the developer to City specifications, and whether or not there would be a traffic light at 10211d and Michigan Road. Laurence Lillig responded that the road will be built to County specifications. According to Kevin McKasson, the State is in the process of approving a traffic signal that will be installed to be consistent with the improved Michigan Road plan. Docket No. 146 -00 DP /ADLS, Home Depot, was forwarded to the Special Study Committee meeting on October 3, 2000, in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall at 7:00 PM. 8h. Docket No. 151 -00 DP /ADLS, Development Plan and Architectural Design, Lighting & Signage applications for Opus North Corporation. The petitioner seeks approval of plans to establish 3 multi - story, multi - tenant office buildings on 23.67 acres. The site is located on the northwest corner of Pennsylvania Parkway and West Carmel Drive. The site is zoned B -2 /Business and is located within the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone. Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm. Paul Reis, 12358 Hancock Street, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing Opus North Corporation. In attendance for Opus North Corporation: John Cumming, Director of Real Estate, Larry Spizenski, Director of Construction, Priscilla Barklay and Lee Rudah, architects, Norman Taylor of Woolpert, LLP, Engineers, Steve Fehribach of A & F Engineering, traffic engineers, and Mark Monroe of The Reis Law Firm. The project is located at Pennsylvania and 126th Street and is intended to be a high - profile three building office complex. The site is zoned B -2 and is within the Overlay Zone for U.S. 31. The site is bordered by a vacant, 4 acre tract to the north that will not be impacted by the proposed improvements. The site is bordered to the west by U.S. 31 and the Duke /Weeks office project; to the south is the Duke /Weeks, Hamilton Crossing retail project; the Meijers store to the east of Pennsylvania Street, and Summer Trace Retirement Community also to the east of the project. The complex is proposed for development in three phases. The northern-most building will be constructed first, the second and then third office building. The first two buildings are three stories in height, approximately 105,000 gross square feet. At the time the first building is constructed, parking areas, the entrance, and the first of two large retention ponds; the second pond is to be built at the time the third building is constructed. The third building is currently being planned as a four -story building, approximately 144,000 square feet. The signage plan includes center identification ground signs identifying the multi- tenant building complex. Secondly, there will be permitted building identification signs, and permitted tenant identification signs. s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000Septemberl9 20 Priscilla Barklay, architect, reviewed the design of the buildings and the materials to be used in the buildings and the signage for the project. The site plan utilizes the campus approach for the three buildings and optimizes the advantages from the Old Meridian Corridor master plan. A walkway has been created along Pennsylvania Parkway, architectural hardscaping and off that are walkways to the individual buildings and a walkway from the central building connecting directly to a walkway leading to the central portion of the Old Meridian Corridor master plan. The buildings have been arranged along Meridian, but configured to create outdoor spaces that are both people friendly and provide relief from the wall along Meridian. The configuration also allows some landscaping and pond features at the central access point. The deign for the "skin" of the buildings takes its foundation from classic architecture, the golden section principle, and is timeless in nature. The building is architectural pre - case concrete; the base is comprised of pre -cast panels and rusticated to expose the black granite aggregate. The top of the building is capped with an architectural roof screen of compatible materials. The glass is green, high performance with a slight reflectivity. The metal accents and mullions are primarily black, accented with clear anodized aluminum - -the anodized aluminum is also used at the canopy at the entry. The signage is of the same materials. Paul Reis reviewed the landscape plan which incorporates almost 600 trees and over 1100 shrubs. The required 30 foot greenbelt is provided along U.S. 31 and the significant water features are the two large retention ponds with aeration fountains. There are also landscape plantings around the buildings and in the parking areas as well as along Pennsylvania Street, 126th Street, and the north property line of the site. The retention ponds in the landscape greenbelt along U.S. 31 have been designed to accommodate emergency vehicle access to the west sides of the buildings and the species of the plantings have been selected and determined in consultation with the Urban Forester. The pedestrian walkways will facilitate pedestrian movement and also feeds into the proposed street to Old Meridian. The Traffic Operations Analysis by A & F Engineering has been submitted to the Department. There are three access points onto Pennsylvania Street. The southern-most point has two outbound lanes and one inbound lane; the middle point is a right in/right out; the primary entrance will be two outbound, one inbound; and a northern point with a right in/right out design. The Traffic Analysis indicates that no changes are necessary at the intersection of Pennsylvania Street with 126th Street, or 131st Street to maintain acceptable levels of service. In accordance with the recommendation of this analysis, the petitioner is willing to commit to the construction of a two way, left turn lane the length of Pennsylvania Street adjacent to the project, to provide left turns into the project without disrupting the through traffic on Pennsylvania Street. The petitioner is in continuing discussions with the City Engineer concerning certain right -of -way requirements and street improvement issues for Pennsylvania Street. It is hoped that these issue will be resolved within the next two weeks. The petitioner met s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000Septemberl9 21 with the Technical Advisory Committee on August 16th and with the exception of some of the right -of -way issues, it is believed that the engineers have addressed the concerns expressed at that meeting. The petitioner has also filed certain waivers from the development standards on the Overlay Ordinance. Paul Spranger moved to suspend the rules to hear the presentation on the waivers being requested. In response to questions from Ron Houck, Laurence Lillig stated that at the time the Agenda was prepared, there was nothing in writing from the petitioner formally requesting the waivers. The fact that the waivers are not listed does not violate procedure if the Commission were to suspend the rules. The published notice has been made properly, and all of the notices mailed meet the minimum. Mr. Reis stated that he had given notice in accordance with the State Statute, 10 days, however, notice did not meet the Plan Commission's rule of 25 days notice. The others were properly noticed by mail to the adjacent property owners and newspaper notice. The build -to line was the only waiver not properly noticed. The vote on Paul Spranger's motion to suspend was 11 in favor, 1 opposed (Leo Dierckman). The first variance is for the height of the light standards in the parking areas. The ordinance provides that they may be 25 feet or the height of the building, whichever is less, and the petitioner is requesting an increase of 12% to 28 feet in height. Based upon the lighting plan, the necessary light will be provided for the parking areas and less standards will be used. The second variance is regarding the planting strip along Pennsylvania and 126th Street and is to decrease the number of trees within the base planting unit by approximately one tree per 100 feet. Based upon the landscape plan presented, the petitioner feels the plan is more than adequate to meet the intent of the Ordinance along the roadways. The petitioner has proposed planting additional trees above that required by the Ordinance; however, in finalizing the design, the required number of shrubs was not met and approval is being requested to reduce the number of shrubs by 32 %. The fourth is the perimeter buffering required in the side yards of the project which are the north and south areas of the property lines. Approval is being requested to reduce the number of required trees by one per 100 feet. The final issue is with regard to the location of the buildings. The first building is 92.1 feet which is 2.1 feet above the "build to" line; this requires a variance of 2% for the first building. The second building is 4.9 feet farther or a 5% increase in the allowance for the "build to" line. s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000Septemberl9 22 Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petitions; no one appeared. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petitions, no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. Department Report, Laurence Lillig. The Department is recommending that this Docket be sent to the October 3, 2000 meeting of the Special Study Committee meeting. Ron Houck asked if the landscape rendering was representative or was it enhanced. The petitioner stated that at the time the landscape rendering was done, the plan was not complete. The rendering does represent the density, but not the tree location. Leo Dierckman asked for a legible landscape plan - -the one previously distributed is impossible to read. Dave Cremeans asked that the Committee specifically look at the requested waivers dealing with the landscaping. Docket No. 151 -00 DP /ADLS, Opus North Corporation, was referred to the Special Study Committee that will meet on October 3, 2000 at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. The meeting was continued to Thursday, September 21, 2000 at 7:00 PM. David A. Cremeans, President Ramona Hancock, Secretary s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \pc2000Septemberl9 23