Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 09-21-00 Plan Commission September 21, 2000 Minutes The Plan Commission convened Thursday, September 21, 2000 to hear Old Business continued from September 19, 2000. The meeting opened at 7:00 PM with the Pledge of Allegiance in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. Members present: Marilyn Anderson; Dave Cremeans; Leo Dierckman; Madeline Fitzgerald; Wayne Haney; Ron Houck; Nick Kestner; Norma Meighen; Jim O’Neal, Sr.; Pat Rice; John R. Sharpe, Sr.; Paul Spranger, thereby establishing a quorum. The Department of Community Services Staff attending were Steve Engelking, Director, Terry Jones, Mike Hollibaugh, and Laurence Lillig. G. Reports, Announcements, & Department Concerns Dave Cremeans reported that the Plan Commission members would meet at the Korean st Church parking lot, 101 and College Avenue at 5:15 PM to look at the Bon-Bar Development site rd prior to the October 3 Committee meetings. Commission members should save any and all comments for the Committee session. Dress appropriately—the area is muddy, wild growth, and underbrush. Dave Cremeans announced that items 1i. and 2i. were Tabled by the Petitioner for this evening. Old Business: Docket No. 106-99 SP 1i. ; Secondary Plat application for Tower Design Group, PC.  The petitioner seeks approval to plat one lot on 3.533 acres. The site is located at 550 West Carmel Drive. at Carmel Science & Technology Park, Block 14, Lot 3. The site is zoned M-3/manufacturing. Note:Docket No. 107-99 This item is paired with Item 2i. under Old Business ( DP/ADLS ). Filed by Keith Bonham of the Tower Design Group, PC. TABLED Docket No. 107-99 DP/ADLS 2i. ; Development Plan and Architectural Design, Lighting & Signage applications for Tower Design Group, PC. The petitioner seeks approval to construct seven self-storage buildings with office totaling 69,300 square feet on  Carmel Drive Storage 3.533 acres to be known as . The site is located at 550 West Carmel Drive on Block 14, Lot 3 of the Carmel Science & Technology Park. The site is zoned M-3/manufacturing. Note:Docket No. 106-99 SP This item is paired with Item 1i. under Old Business (). Filed by Keith Bonham of the Tower Design Group, PC. S:\\1 PlanCommission\\Minutes\\PlanCommission\\2000\\2000sept21 TABLED 3i. This Item Currently Tabled: Docket No. 109-99 DP/ADLS ; Development Plan and Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping & Signage applications for Meridian Hotel Partners. The petitioner seeks Wingate Inn approval to construct a 57,500-square-foot on 4.066± acres. The site is st located at 1460 West Main Street (northeast corner of East 131 Street and North Meridian Street). The site is zoned S-2/residential within the US 31 Overlay Zone. Filed by Philip A. Nicely of Bose McKinney & Evans. Docket No. 57-00 PP 4i. ; Primary Plat application for Mark Stout Development. The petitioner requests approval to plat 31 lots on 23.945± acres to be known as Hazel Dell Pond at Waterstone Subdivision . The site is located northwest of the th intersection of East 116 Street and Hazel Dell Parkway. The site is zoned R-2/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: 57-00a SW SCO 6.3.7 to plat a cul-de-sac in excess of 600 feet in length 57-00b SW SCO 6.3.19(1) to taper the required landscape easement to under 20 feet in width 57-00c SW SCO 6.5.7 to orient dwellings fronting on a thoroughfare towards the street of lower functional classification 57-00d SW SCO 6.3.6 to plat local streets with 45-foot rights-of-way Filed by Eric W. Penland of American Consulting for Mark Stout Development. TABLED Note: Items 5i. and 6i. were heard together Docket No. 77-00 OA 5i. ; Ordinance Amendment petition for the City of Carmel. The petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation to amend the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to adopt the OM/Old Meridian District Ordinance. Filed by Michael P. Hollibaugh of the Department of Community Services for the Old Meridian Task Force. Docket No. 78-00 Z 6i. ; Rezone petition for the City of Carmel. The petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation of a rezone from S-2; R-1; R-3; R-5; B-1; B-2; B-3; B-5; B-7; I-1; M-3; and PUD to OM on 370.35± acres. The site is zoned S-2/residence; R-1/residence; R-3/residence; R-5/residence; B-1/business; B-2/business; B-3/business; B-5/business; B-7/business; I-1/industrial; M-3/manufacturing; and PUD/planned unit development. Filed by Michael P. Hollibaugh of the Department of Community Services for the Old Meridian Task Force. S:\\2 PlanCommission\\Minutes\\PlanCommission\\2000\\2000sept21 Paul Spranger appeared before the Commission as a member of the Old Meridian Task Force and as Chairperson of the Special Study Committee. The Special Study Committee considered the Old Meridian District over multiple meetings and many hours of work. There was a lot of discussion regarding frontages, building sizes for single buildings, etc. The Committee made a positive (7-0) recommendation to the full Commission that the rezone of the districts specified to “Old Meridian District” and the accompanying Ordinance Amendment would be approved by the Commission and forwarded on to the City Council. Terry Jones referred to Overlays that would give some idea of the changes. Terry Jones said he considered the changes technical by nature and very important to some of the area property owners that attended the meetings and more definition came out of those meetings. Docket No. 77-00 OA, Ordinance Amendment Paul Spranger made formal motion to forward to adopt the OM/Old Meridian District Ordinance to the City Council with a positive recommendation seconded by Norma Meighen and approved unanimously. Docket No. 78-00 Z, Rezone Norma Meighen made formal motion to forward petition for various properties currently zoned S-2/Residence; R-1/Residence; R-3/Residence; R-5/Residence; B-1/ Business; B-2/Business; B-3/Business; B-5/Business; B-7/Business; I-1/Industrial; M-3/ to OM/Old Meridian District Manufacturing; and PUD/Planned Unit Development, , seconded by Paul Spranger and approved unanimously. Docket No. 82-00 OA 7i. ; Ordinance Amendment petition for the City of Carmel. The petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation for amendments to Chapter 7 of the Carmel/Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance (ROSO). Returned to the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission by the Carmel City Council. Ron Houck reported to the Commission on behalf of the Subdivision Committee. The ROSO was thoroughly reviewed and discussed. There was some language that was added by the City Council that the Committee generally concurred with—there were some clean-up items that were typographical in nature, and the majority of attention was focused on the formula for calculating density. The City Council reverted to the old formula for calculating density and in doing so, the proposal did not revert to the previous level of calculation of density. The table was changed on which density is based—by reverting to the old formula, it served to increase density. Members of the public and the development community who appeared at the Council level (Steve Pittman, Mark Rattermann, and others) as well as members of the Subdivision Committee agreed that there was no intent by the Council to increase density. The formula was adjusted to show the density at current levels. Dave Cremeans will be appearing at the Council on behalf of the Commission in order to make known and understood a full explanation of the modification of the formula for density. The Committee vote was 4-3 for approval. Marilyn Anderson commented that she agreed with Ron Houck, however she had voted against the proposal at Committee. Marilyn Anderson was concerned that the compromise of 1.5, leaving it essentially as is, is still a problem and would like to see a compromise lower than 1.5 S:\\3 PlanCommission\\Minutes\\PlanCommission\\2000\\2000sept21 sent to the Council. The traffic is an issue. When the traffic is planned—thoroughfares and intersections—and developers of subdivisions submit traffic studies, the studies are based on the zoning in the Comprehensive Plan, not on the density that ROSO allows, and there are th discrepancies. The 96 Street corridor study is a good example of what will happen with the round-abouts by increasing the density. Ms. Anderson felt strongly that 1.5 density is still too high and it is creating a problem that taxes will have to solve. Currently, under the Open Space Ordinance, 50% open space nets a density of 1.64; with the compromise, it would be 1.53. If the factor is 1.25, instead of 1.64 it would be 1.44 density and that would be preferable. Leo Dierckman agreed with comments made by Marilyn Anderson regarding reducing the density further. Marilyn Anderson pointed out that there are two other ways that change the effect and the bar for beginning open space bonuses was 33% in the S-1/Residential, it is now 15%. So, there is more land that is going to get a bonus density increase and this again impacts overall what will happen. Ron Houck further explained that before this proposal, the developer had to dedicate a minimum of 30%, now they can achieve a density bonus with as little as 15%, but the base was lowered in terms of allowing for what the density is calculated from. What exists is 1.64 units per acre under the existing Ordinance. What City Council returned to the Commission would have allowed 1.7 units per acre. What is being sent to Council this evening, using 1.5 units per acre would allow 1.53 units. Marilyn Anderson countered that the figures are offset by the fact that land previously ineligible for density bonus is now eligible. The bar is only 15% instead of 33%; Marilyn Anderson again suggested 1.25 units per acre. At this time, Dave Cremeans asked Mark Rattermann for comments. Mark Rattermann said he would not speak to the numbers because everything Marilyn Anderson said is exactly correct. Mr. Rattermann preferred to speak to the politics of this proposal. In the last three months, one of the things that came up at City Council’s Land Use Committee was the criticism that the builders were excluded and not able to participate in the process, and that Steve Pittman, the builders’ representative, was more or less excluded. Steve Pittman was in attendance at the sub-Committee and did agree to these numbers. Mr. Rattermann said he would love to see Marilyn’s proposal implemented, but there is an agreement. However, if it is taken to the next level and the proposal is revised and compromised to 1.75 units per acre, Mr. Rattermann said he would be very upset, but the point is there is an agreement—Steve Pittman as representative of the builders did agree to this. Mr. Rattermann cautioned changing the agreement without further representation from the building community. Ron Houck stated that at the initial Committee meeting, he had announced that public input would not be taken. However, all subsequent meetings were openly attended by anyone who wanted to attend, and the public was able to speak. The Builders Association and Steve Pittman chose not to attend any subsequent meeting, then went to City Council and said they were “shut out of the process.” This was simply not true. Their strategy seems to have been to deal with it S:\\4 PlanCommission\\Minutes\\PlanCommission\\2000\\2000sept21 at the City Council level. Steve Pittman did attend the Committee meeting at the time this proposal was voted on. Steve Pittman understands that he and the builders of this area will get a density bonus at lower levels of open space commitment than previously allowed, and that off-sets any tweaking of the numbers that are very, very slight at best. There is a marginal reduction in some areas as great as 10%. In concept, we have done a little of what we wanted to do and that was to reduce the density slightly. In general, this will have to be palatable to the interests of City Council and also the interest of the building community. With appropriate representation at City Council, this is a “sellable” ordinance. Paul Spranger commented that at some point, when this issue is revisited, if there is anything left “unbuilt,” we should look at adding language in the Ordinance to require the open space, as much as possible, to be facing the streets—even to a greater degree than it is now. Another point worth re-visiting is building materials. Do we want a proliferation of vinyl and non-masonry chimneys in the balance of Clay Township? We may want to consider this in the future. Terry Jones clarified that from the date the Council acted, the Plan Commission had 45 days in th which to respond. If the Commission fails to act this evening, the 45 day, it will take effect as the City Council passed. If the Commission would like to modify the proposal through some sort of compromise or another number, you must act on that tonight—it goes back to the City Council, and then the Council has 45 days to respond. It could volley back and forth. Ron Houck responded that in general, the Commission achieved about a 7% reduction. We are not quite there. Even though we give credit for lower amounts of dedication of open space, it is important to realize that at 30% a developer would get 1.23 density—before, they started at 1.3 as the base density for computing. The density levels or amounts of open space generally seen in a subdivision at those levels were in the 4 to 7-8% reduction—that is in the S-1 residential estate. In the S-1 very low intensity, we achieve closer to 10% and that encompasses most of Clay Township. If you average it out across the board, we are probably in the 10-15% if you look at collectively western Clay Township. Dave Cremeans commented that the reason BAGI bought into it was the compromise of the conservation lots that was reduced to 5 acres from 10. As a Plan Commission, we passed what we wanted. The building community said they didn’t like that—we have to go to “Plan B.” John Molitor directed comments toward the process. The way the process works is that it is like a ping-pong match, but it can only go back/forth once. It goes to the Council after the initial Plan Commission recommendation, the Council can then “pong” it back to the Commission and the Commission can either agree with the action of the Council or send it back with yet another recommendation. The next time it goes to the Council is the final stop. The nuance here is that Council has the absolute right to pass it again the way they just passed it and sent it back to the Commission. If the Council chooses to ignore the recommendation of the Plan Commission, they are free to do that. However, the Commission can give the Council another choice, essentially an opportunity to compromise between what they just passed and what the Plan Commission may think would be the most virtuous position. Really, then, the Council will have a choice of whatever they did the first time they had it, or whatever the Commission does tonight. The Commission just has to be careful what they ask for because they might get it. S:\\5 PlanCommission\\Minutes\\PlanCommission\\2000\\2000sept21 Pat Rice thought there was an oversight and asked for some clarification. Under 7.9, Standards for Designed Open Space, paragraph i., j may need to be added; there is no definition or description of a “living lake.” This definition is essential. Terry Jones said that at this time, the only modifications that can be made are those that were sent back by the City Council. If this definition needs to be addressed in the Ordinance, we would have to start the process again with a public hearing, notice, etc., etc. John Molitor thought that any amendment that would be germane to the subject matter would be acceptable. Anything currently in the Open Space Ordinance could be part of a recommendation back to the Council at this time. The other caution is that if we were to change the rules on what counts as Open Space in the middle of a pending application would be a difficulty with vested rights. Pat Rice then said the proper term is probably “wetlands.” A lake, a living lake, would qualify, but that needs to be defined by Staff. There was discussion about lakes being counted as open space and where it falls in the Ordinance. John Molitor said he had been researching this issue and does not, as yet, have an answer but will continue to research and get back to the Commission if an opinion is needed. Docket No. 82-00 OA, Ordinance Amendment, Chapter 7 of Ron Houck moved to forward theCarmel/Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance (ROSO) to the City Council with a favorable recommendation, seconded by Paul Spranger. The vote was 9 in favor, 3 opposed. (Anderson, Dierckman, Fitzgerald) Note : Items 8i. and 9i. were heard together. Docket No. 83-00 PP Amend 8i. ; Primary Plat Amendment application for Estes North American Park, Lot 3 Chevrolet. The petitioner seeks approval to replat . th The site is located at 4102 West 96 Street. The site is zoned B-2/business and is located within the US 421 Overlay Zone. Note:Docket No. 84-00 This item is paired with Item 9i. under Old Business ( DP/ADLS ). Filed by Brian Newman of the Schneider Corporation for Bill Estes Chevrolet, Inc. Docket No. 84-00 DP/ADLS 9i. ; Development Plan and Architectural Design, Lighting & Signage applications for Estes Chevrolet. The petitioner seeks approval to establish North American Park, Lot 3a an automobile dealership at . The site is located at th 4102 West 96 Street. The site is zoned B-2/business and is located within the US 421 Overlay Zone. Note:Docket No. 83-00 PP This item is paired with Item 8i. under Old Business ( Amend ). Filed by Brian Newman of the Schneider Corporation for Bill Estes Chevrolet, Inc. S:\\6 PlanCommission\\Minutes\\PlanCommission\\2000\\2000sept21 Ron Houck reported for the Subdivision Committee. These items were discussed at length and Steve Engelking also had researched this at great length. The focal point came down to it was a good thing that the Dairy Queen building went away. The problem was that the proposal from this petitioner does not, in the strictest sense, comply with the 421 Overlay Zone in terms of architectural design. However, in researching, it is the understanding and interpretation of the Ordinance by the Department and the Committee that this really applies, as currently written, to new buildings. Since the petitioner is modifying an existing building, they are not required to comply with the architectural design called for in the 421 Overlay Zone. Given that the Ordinance is the “Rule Book,” the Committee was faced with agreeing that this proposal did comply with the Ordinance. The Committee voted unanimously to approve these petitions. Marilyn Anderson noted that the petitioner was to submit a revised landscape plan. Laurence Lillig responded that the petitioner has not yet complied with that request, but they have committed to do so. The petitioner has also committed to reserve right-of-way and has made other commitments as well. Docket No. 83-00 PP Amend, North American Park, Lot Ron Houck moved for approval of 3,for Bill Estes Chevrolet , conditioned upon reservation of right-of-way commitments, approved 12-0. seconded by Paul Spranger and Docket No. 84-00 DP/ADLS, Development Plan and Ron Houck moved for approval of Architectural Design, Lighting & Signage applications for Estes Chevrolet , seconded by Paul approved Spranger and unanimously 12-0. Docket No. 102-00 PP 10i. ; Primary Plat application for DYC Realty. The petitioner East 96th Street requests approval to plat 4 lots on 38.23± acres to be known as th Auto Park Subdivision . The site is located on the northeast corner of East 96 Street and Randall Drive. The site is zoned B-3/business. Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger for DYC Realty. Paul Spranger reported for the Special Study Committee. DYC and the attorneys worked to re-design this proposal and make materials changes. The Committee was complimentary of the petitioner and the re-design, and voted 7-0 for approval. Charlie Frankenberger, attorney, then addressed the Commission. The Tom O’Brien building was revised after Commission comments and sent to Committee for review. It was hoped that the re-design would address comments and suggestions. The front of the building remains substantially the same and is white dryvitt material with glass and polished, stainless steel columns. The primary difference is the back of the building and that was the focus of comments and concerns. The back no longer slopes and it consists of brick and concrete masonry. The west elevation is the same as the east with the exception of incorporating windows. Dave Cremeans was extremely complimentary of the revised plan, stating that it befits the O’Brian S:\\7 PlanCommission\\Minutes\\PlanCommission\\2000\\2000sept21 family and the Chrysler Dealership. Docket No. 102-00 PP, Primary Plat for DYC Realty Paul Spranger moved for approval of , APPROVED seconded by Jim O’Neal, 12-0. Docket No. 131-00 DP/ADLS 11i. ; Development Plan and Architectural Design, Lighting & Signage applications for Chrysler Realty. The petitioner seeks approval to establish an automobile dealership on 7.351± acres. The site is located on Block 6, Lot 2 of Mayflower Park Subdivision. The site is on the th southwest corner of West 99 Street and Michigan Road. The site is zoned I-1/industrial and is located in the US 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for Chrysler Realty. Paul Spranger reported that this item came out of Special Study Committee with a 5-2 favorable vote. There were some issues, and the Department is required to produce a landscape report with the revisions promised on this project. There were some design element issues as well as landscape issues. Madeline Fitzgerald said she had voted in opposition and was uncomfortable with “pushing it through” because the petitioner had not been timely with submissions to the Department. Paul Reis spoke as a representative of the petitioner. The plan meets the elements of the Federalist Style through the cornice, the arched entryway, the cut-stone appearance, column features, and the base element. Laurence Lillig was asked for his comments on the style of the building. In his opinion, the design does not meet the spirit of the Ordinance. Architectural review and comments were essentially made in the Greek Revival style because it could not be identified as a Federalist inspired building. The window proportions do not seem to meet those that would be found in a Federalist style building, the columns don’t appear to resemble any of the classical orders, the cornice is significantly under-stated—opinions of a planner, not an architect. Paul Reis read from a review letter that “no preferred style was indicated,” so the Greek Revival style was chosen for review. Secondly, Paul Reis had offered to send the design to Scheer & Scheer for their review—Mr. Hollibaugh said it was not necessary and he felt that massing, detailing, and other general architectural items had been addressed. Docket No. 131-00 DP/ADLS, Development Plan and Ron Houck made formal motion to send Architectural Design, Lighting & Signageapplications for Chrysler Realty to Scheer and Scheer for architectural review and their suggestions and comments in writing. Comments from Scheer and Scheer should indicate those elements of the design that do and do not comply with the Federalist Style, seconded by Marilyn Anderson. The vote was 5 in favor, 7 opposed, MOTION DENIED. Prompted by questions from Dave Cremeans, there was discussion regarding the landscape plan. S:\\8 PlanCommission\\Minutes\\PlanCommission\\2000\\2000sept21 Laurence Lillig said the petitioner had filed for a variance from the landscape requirements with the BZA. The landscape plan was reviewed by Scott Brewer; his review letter states no special need for the landscaping standards of the 421 Overlay to be varied. The landscaping should be made to comply with the requirements of the 421 Overlay Zone. Madeline Fitzgerald recommended returning this item to Committee rather than trying to do the Committee work at the full Commission meeting. Marilyn Anderson then made formal motion to return Docket No. 131-00 DP/ADLS to the Special Study Committee, seconded by Leo Dierckman, approved 9-3. Madeline Fitzgerald offered apologies to the petitioner for putting them through this. Paul Reis said there were issues raised tonight that were not raised before during the Committee review. However, every effort will be made to address the issues. Docket No. 133-00 PP 12i. ; Primary Plat application for Reserve at Springmill, LLC. The The petitioner seeks approval to plat 25 lots on 45.3± acres to be known as Estates of West Clay Subdivision . The site is located on the northwest corner of st West 131 Street and Ditch Road. The site is zoned S-1/residence and is being platted as a Non-Qualifying Subdivision under Chapter 7 of the Subdivision Control Ordinance (ROSO). The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waivers: 133-00a SW SCO 6.3.4 forego connection of stub to Village of WestClay 133-00b SW SCO 6.3.6 26’ pavement width st 133-00c SW SCO 6.3.19 plat lots within 50’ of a Collector (both West131 Street and Ditch Road) 133-00d SW SCO 6.3.20 to plat a private street 133-00e SW SCO 7.4 to plat 18.8% open space Filed by Steve Pittman of Pittman Partners, Inc. Ron Houck reported the findings of the review of the Subdivision Committee. The Primary Plat was unanimously approved, and all but one of the waivers was approved. The waiver that received the most discussion was the request for 26-foot pavement width. The proposal does not meet County standards for pavement width—County standards are 28 feet, City standards are 30 feet. The Committee did not feel that the 2-foot reduction requested by the petitioner was materially important to his development. The additional 2 feet would provide an added measure of standpoint. The Committee voted 3 opposed and 3 in favor of the pavement width. The name “West Clay” is copyrighted or trademarked, and at some point, the petitioner will be changing the name of this particular subdivision. Laurence Lillig reported for the Department that they are uniformly opposed to all of the waivers. Paul Spranger commented that vehicles are getting wider (Ford Expedition, Suburban, SUV’s, etc.) and the additional two feet is probably appropriate. S:\\9 PlanCommission\\Minutes\\PlanCommission\\2000\\2000sept21 Docket No. 133-00 PP, Primary Plat application for Norma Meighen moved for approved of Reserve at Springmill, LLC, together with Subdivision Waivers as follows: 133-00a SW, 133-00b SW, 133-00c SW, 133-00d SW, and 133-00e SW, seconded by Jim O’Neal. The vote on the Primary Plat was 12-0 Unanimous Approval. The package of Subdivision Waivers was unanimously approved with the exception of 133-00b SW which was voted 11 in favor, one no vote. Docket No. 138-00 Z 13i. ; Rezone petition for Carmel Ace Hardware, Inc. The petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation for a rezone from the R-2/residence district to the Newark Village Subdivision B-7/business district on Lots 2 and 3 of . The site is located on the northwest corner of Pawnee Road and Winona Drive. The site is zoned R-2/residence. Note:Docket No. This item is paired with Item 11h. under Public Hearings ( 139-00 DP/ADLS ). Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for Carmel Ace Hardware, Inc. Paul Spranger reported for the Special Study Committee. The vote was 5 in favor, two opposed. (Pat Rice, Leo Dierckman) Leo Dierckman said he felt the development protruded too far into the residential neighborhood, (2 lots) and a better situation would be only one lot zoned for business—less imposing on the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Dierckman felt that the petitioner could achieve his goal without expanding into the second lot. Mr. Spranger said the Committee requested that the buffer between the neighborhood be increased. Several area residents were in attendance at the Committee meeting and were persuasive in their argument for increased buffer. The Committee requested a reduction in the commercial area and the creation of a “pocket park.” The neighbors would then look onto the park rather than commercial, thereby preserving the residential feel. Jim O’Neal said he had looked at the adjacent neighborhood and his reaction was that it was a wonderful neighborhood and the commercial venture is an intrusion. However, looking at the entire area, including Civic Center, and realizing the expansion that will occur, it is probably a good thing that ACE Hardware wants to stay in the area and expand. When Civic Center opens up, the value of the Ace property will escalate as well as the adjacent neighborhood. Dave Cremeans said the most serious task of the Commission is a Rezone. Ron Houck asked about two other lots in the area that back up to Pawnee that have already been converted to commercial use. Did the Committee there was a conversion in the area from residential to commercial/retail use? Paul Spranger said it was the sense of the Committee that this is a residential area and a viable one. Any rezone must be taken with a high degree of seriousness and the Committee did that. Mr. Spranger was complimentary of the petitioner in terms of his willingness to mitigate effects of S:\\10 PlanCommission\\Minutes\\PlanCommission\\2000\\2000sept21 commercial into residential. Ace Hardware has been a good neighbor as a business. Mr. Spranger asked to see any design changes the petitioner was prepared to make. Ron Houck said he was concerned that if this rezone were to occur, it would be a de-stabilizing influence on a residential area because the commercial will change the character of the property adjacent and make it more amenable to a non-residential use. This may provide a “ripple effect.” If this is, in fact, a viable residential area and the property is rezoned, it would seem that we are promoting the conversion along that street to retail or commercial use—that is a concern. Paul Spranger said the lot that intrudes into the neighborhood is access and fully screened parking—no building structure. There is always the future risk of setting some precedent to the encroachment of commercial into a residential area. However, Jim O’Neal’s point is also correct that as City Center is expanded, this area is an extremely viable, convenient location to live, and with its close proximity to the Monon and other points, it should be a desirable area—long term residential. Paul Reis stated that the petitioner prepared a new landscape plan for the site in response to the request for additional buffer. The concern was additional landscaping and screening, and this has been done. A small, park-like feature was added and includes benches and pavers. The park-like area might even be schoolbus stop/pick-up point. Privacy fencing will be utilized to block off cars in the parking lot so they will not be seen from residential. A statement of commitment is also being submitted from the petitioner. The developer commits to use the real estate only as a garden shop and as a private parking area as defined under the zoning ordinance. Again, the issue discussed with the Committee and the petitioner has accepted—the building will not come back to the east—the area is primarily parking and an expansion of the garden shop into the lot immediately to the east of the store. Paul Spranger asked if the drainage issue had been addressed. Paul Reis responded that the drainage calculations were filed with the Department shortly after the Committee meeting. Also, the Urban Forester has reviewed this project and had four items of concern, one being the utility and drainage easements being together. Those easements are existing—the petitioner did not create those. Species of street trees: Currently there is a swale existing and the Urban Forester agreed that it would be inappropriate to plant trees in the drainage swale. Details on the fence section were also requested for review—this has been submitted but not yet reviewed. The landscape plan showed carpet junipers in the landscape islands—the Urban Forester suggested some shade trees, also ornamental grass would be acceptable. The petitioner is willing to work with the Urban Forester and decide on appropriate species. Laurence Lillig reported that the drainage plan is still under review by the City Engineer. The Urban Forester has seen the detail and is satisfied with the fence, although no written comments have been received. Laurence pointed out that from the picture, it looks as if the back of the fence is facing Paunee—perhaps the back of the fence could be toward the parking lot. S:\\11 PlanCommission\\Minutes\\PlanCommission\\2000\\2000sept21 Dave Cremeans suggested a shadow-box fence that has no back—no front. There was further discussion regarding the pocket park. The land between the fence and the sidewalk is approximately 25 feet on the northern portion, 15 feet as it wraps around the corner. The additional 10 feet is included in the entire section. In order to get the additional 10 feet, some of the parking spaces were reconfigured (employee parking.) Pat Rice said she had voted against this project at the Committee level. However, the changes presented this evening are impressive and there are possibilities that this could work. Leo Dierckman asked if the fence could be moved back to accommodate the additional landscaping at the corner; the petitioner was willing to do that. The fence will follow the north and west boundary and will be included as part of the pocket park. Leo Dierckman made formal motion to forward Docket No. 138-00 Z, Rezone petition for CarmeL Ace Hardware, Inc. to the City Council with a favorable recommendation, seconded by Pat Rice, APPROVED 12-0. There was no further business to come before the Commission and the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M. ______________________________ Dave Cremeans, President ___________________________ Ramona Hancock, Secretary S:\\12 PlanCommission\\Minutes\\PlanCommission\\2000\\2000sept21