HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 11-21-00CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
November 21, 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 on November 21, 2000.
Members present were: Marilyn Anderson; David Cremeans; Leo Dierckman; Wayne
Haney; Ron Houck; Nick Kestner; Kevin Kirby; Norma Meighen; Bob Modisett; James
T. O'Neal; Pat Rice; John Sharpe; and Paul Spranger
The minutes of the October 17, 2000 meeting were approved as submitted.
F. Communications, Bills, Expenditures, & Legal Counsel Report
John Molitor announced that Agenda item 3i., Docket No. 109 -99 DP /ADLS;
Wingate Inn property is involved in some litigation of long standing with the City,
Counsel and the Commission. The owners recently amended their Complaint and an
answer has been filed to the amended Complaint, but it has not yet been discussed with
the Council or the Commission in Executive Session; this should be done before any
action is taken. An Executive Session is recommended.
Ron Houck then moved to Table Docket No. 109 -99 DP /ADLS, seconded by
Marilyn Anderson. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. This Docket will be Tabled for 30
days until the next Plan Commission meeting in December.
G. Reports, Announcements, & Department Concerns
1 i. Item 4i., Meridian Mark I, Liberty Mutual Insurance, has been
WITHDRAWN
2i. There is a special meeting of the Special Study Committee on November 30,
2000, to study traffic proposals on 96th and Meridian. This meeting has been moved to 5
p.m. in Council Chambers of City Hall to accommodate the Greater Home Place Task
Force, scheduled for a meeting at 7:00 PM in the Hensel Government Center.
3i. Commission members will be receiving a Questionnaire regarding our current
practice for mailing information to the Commissioners. A prompt response would be
appreciated.
H. Public Hearings:
lh. Docket No. 141 -00 Z, Rezone petition for C. P. Morgan, Currently
Tabled
s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \2000nov 1
2h. Docket No. 155 -00 PP; Five -Ten Subdivision
Primary Plat application for Ruth Marie Bolt. The petitioner seeks
approval to plat 4 lots on 1.95 acres. The site is located at 510 First
Avenue Northwest. The site is zoned R -1 /Residence.
Filed by Stan Neal of Weihe Engineering for Ruth Marie Bolt.
Dave Barnes, Weihe Engineers, appeared before the Commission and was
assisted by Mark Jarvis. Mr. Barnes explained the proposal for platting a four -lot
subdivision at First Avenue, just north of Main Street, opposite Fifth Avenue N.W. A
total of 1.95 acres would be divided into four lots on this site. There will be no
improvements at present. The large house on First Avenue N.W. would be lot 1; there is
an existing home on lot 2; behind those two homes, to the north and south, would be lots
3 and 4 to total 4 lots.
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:
Arthur Baxter, attorney from Yorkshire, Baxter, James and Rose, outlined five reasons
why he feels the project should not go forward. These are concerns about safety,
property values, harm resulting to the Monon Trail, difficulties with the structure of the
sewer line, and the issue of fairness.
First Street is very busy already, and this project will bring additional traffic and hazard
to children in the area. Property values will diminish due to a decrease in privacy. This
area goes parallel to the Monon Trail, and is a green space, not an alleyway. This area
has been a great buffer zone to residents close by. Development here is contrary to the
intent of the City of Carmel and the Monon Trail.
There are also considerations of the sewer line that may diminish property values in the
area. Development of this buffer area would be very unfair to homeowners up and down
the tract. Mr. Baxter urged the Commission to deny the petitioner's request.
Terry Anderson, 440 First Ave. N.W., is concerned about the traffic, and also about
where the access to these homes will be, since his home abuts the alley.
Connie Plummer, 420 First Avenue N.W., just south of the (abandoned) alley, which her
household has maintained for approximately 15 years. Ms. Plummer's bedroom is right
on the alley, perhaps 10 feet away, and her property goes to the Monon Trail. They
bought in Old Towne Carmel because of the feel of the area and the privacy at their
location. If this property is developed, all privacy would be lost.
Lance Harting, 641 First Ave. N. W., along with his wife, started the Old Towne
historical neighborhood association, and during that process, met the neighbors. Mr.
Harting had met the owner of this property and there was no mention of any intent to
develop this property. Ms. Bolt mentioned that she wanted to build a garage; however,
s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \2000nov 2
there is already a garage on the property and it appears the only access could be via the
aforementioned alley. This area has been in transition, and the city has made many
improvements, including streets, brick sidewalks, and streetlights. There is an effort to
curb a trend for homeowners to split up single family dwellings and convert them into
apartments. Mr. Harting would like to see this petition denied in order to protect the
residents and preserve the character of the area.
Amy Harting, 641 First Ave. N.W., has the same concerns already stated. Ms. Harting is
involved in the Range Line Road Task Force and the Old Towne Task Force. These
bodies are striving to develop a certain character to the district and this current proposal
would be in opposition to those efforts.
Ray Rice, 131 Fourth Street, N.W., located at the south side of the property in question.
Safety is his greatest reason for opposing this petition. Mr. Rice has two small children,
and increased traffic concerns him, as well as property values. His front door looks into
the area. Mr. Rice feels the commission should focus on the integrity of the community
and putting new houses in somebody's back yard is not desirable.
Shirley Anderson, 440 First Ave. N.W., asks that members look at their back yards
before any decision is made on this petition.
Ruth Bolt (Swartz) stated she spoke with Terry Jones and Laurence Lillig of the
Department of Community Services before purchasing this property in an effort to
understand the zoning. There are two homes on the property; the smaller home has no
access and if a garage were to be added, there is no access. Ms. Bolt has no intention to
build houses back there. Having grown up on a farm, they prefer larger spaces and
wanted the entire parcel. They were trying to capture the small house on its own lot so if
they wanted to put up a garage at some time, it would be possible. The intent was to
enable the people in front to purchase more land, not sell off the lots to the rear for
development. There is no access aside from the alley, and they are not trying to put up
additional houses. Ms. Bolt was told that if they attempt to obtain a building permit for a
garage now, it would probably be denied (presumably because the property is not
properly platted).
Ronald Renkin, 610 First Ave. N.W., stated his property abuts to the north of the area in
question. He sees no problem as it is, but if developed, there is no access unless through
his property, and that is not going to happen.
Rebuttal: Dave Barnes of Weihe Engineers summarized that there is no intention to build
homes on either lot 3 or 4, but rather the intent is to be able to present the opportunity to
those people abutting the platted lots to purchase those adjoining lots at some future date.
Department of Community Services, Laurence Lillig said that when this project initially
came in, we were aware that the smaller house in the back was being occupied as a rental
and the 2 '/2 story house in front was the property owner's residence. Staff was asked
what would be necessary to sell the other home separately, since there are presently two
s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \2000nov 3
homes on this parcel. The owner was told that the property would need to be platted.
There were certain problems with the way it was developed, since there was no way to
plat a lot for the house to the rear that would have proper street access. The property
adjoining the Monon is intended to remain in its current state as a buffer between the
Monon and the street. In helping the owner plat the land, they virtually and intentionally
made lots 3 and 4 unbuildable; the building division could never issue a building permit
on these lots the way they are laid out. As presented to the Department, it has never been
the intention of the petitioner to develop the property but rather to find a way to preserve
it and parcel it in such a way that it could be sold to individuals who do own frontage on
First Avenue. This can be discussed in detail at the Committee meeting.
The public hearing was closed.
This item will go to Subdivision Committee for review and recommendation on
December 5th, after which it will come back to the full Plan Commission for action.
3h. Docket No. 157 -00 PP Amend; Little Farms Addition, Lots 14 & 15
Primary Plat Amendment application for David R. Harbison et al. The petitioner
seeks approval to replat Lots 14 & 15 into three lots on 1.21 acres. The site is
located at 1196 East 105th Street, and is zoned R -3 /residence. The petitioner also
seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waivers:
157 -OOa SW SCO 8.8 to forego installation of curbs and gutters
157 -00b SW SCO 8.9.1 to forego installation of sidewalks
Filed by Stan Neal of Weihe Engineering for David R. Harbison.
Dave Barnes of Weihe Engineers explained that this project is in Home Place, just south
of 106th St. and east of College Ave. It includes lots 14 and 15, along with a tract of
ground purchased by the client on the north side of it, 120 feet in size. There are two
existing homes on the lots. The client would like to plat this into a 3 -lot subdivision so
he can obtain a building permit for his home on the north 120 ft. side, at least two lots.
The waivers to forego installation of curbs and gutters and sidewalks are to conform with
the area surrounding in Home Place.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition:
Paul Merriniger, stated he and his wife own the two adjoining lots north of the subject
parcel. The previous owner probably did not go through proper procedure in platting this
land. The only problem is that it is zoned R -3 and he would urge that it be replatted to
single family residence. Surrounding properties are valued close to $200,000, and a
double would not serve that area well. Combs is a very busy street, and this parcel is at a
valley in the road. If a duplex were allowed, it would create more traffic in the area.
Again, Mr. Merriniger urged the Commission to replat to a single family residence.
Eric Serbey, 1196 E. 105th St., a lifetime Carmel resident, said he has no problem with
building a single family dwelling here. His concern is with the reliability of the realtor
s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \2000nov 4
holding the property. Mr. Serbey agreed that Combs Street is narrow and busy, and very
dangerous for children because of the traffic. A double in the area would be hazardous
for everyone. Are there any assurances that it doesn't become a double?
No further remonstrance on the petition was presented.
Mr. Harbison stated his intent to build a single family home, and expressed willingness to
discuss his plans with interested parties. He has no problem with a single family, R -1
designation, if possible, and has the best intentions for the neighborhood and welcomes
neighbor input.
Mr. Barnes again reiterated the fact that this is to be a single family home.
Staff recommends this be sent to the Subdivision Committee meeting on December 5th
4h. Docket No. 159 -00 PP Amend; Dixie Highway Addition, Lot 7
Primary Plat Amendment application for Daniel Cage. The petitioner seeks
approval to replat Lot 7 into two lots on 0.59 + - acres. The site is located at 10810
North College Avenue and is zoned R -3 /residence. The petitioner also seeks
approval of the following Subdivision Waivers:
159 -00aSW SCO 8.8 to forego installation of curbs and gutters
159 -00b SW SCO 8.9.1 to forego installation of sidewalks
Filed by Stan Neal of Weihe Engineering for Daniel Cage.
Dave Barnes of Weihe Engineers, with Mark Jarvis, Assistant, explained this lot is
situated between College Avenue and Broadway Street. The petitioner would like to
replat into two lots, with the 8,000 square foot tract on Broadway having access off
Broadway. There is an existing home on the College Avenue side of the tract and
nothing is planned on this side. A variance is being requested to forego the installation of
curbs and gutters and sidewalks.
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.
General public comments:
Jack Edwards, 105th Street and Cornell, has no problem with the intent of the petitioner;
however, he feels that sidewalks may be desired in this area at some time in the future.
Perhaps a commitment could be made for future installation of sidewalks. The Home
Place Task Force is discussing various topics, so he wonders if there is a way of
addressing this with a commitment. The Chairperson said a proposal could be made
contingent upon installation of sidewalks, curbs, and gutters at a future time, if
applicable.
Staff recommends this item be referred to the Subdivision Committee meeting on
December 5, 2000.
s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \2000nov 5
5h. Docket No. 168 -00 DP Amend /ADLS Amend; Meridian Technology
Center
Development Plan Amendment and Architectural Design, Lighting &
Signage Amendment petitions for Indiana Municipal Power Agency. The
petitioner seeks approval for a 17,210 square -foot expansion of the
existing Indiana Municipal Power Agency facility on 4.404 + - acres. The
site is located at 11610 North College Avenue. The site is zoned B-
6 /business. (originally approved 3/15/88, as 16 -88 ADLS).
Filed by Adam L. DeHart of Keeler Webb Associates for Indiana
Municipal Power Agency.
Adam DeHart, Project Manager at Keeler Webb Associates, 486 Gradle Drive, Carmel,
explained this facility has been in operation since 1988. The existing structure is at the
northwest intersection of 116th Street and College Avenue, an intersection under design
and consideration for expansion and improvement. There is parking on the west and
north sides of the facility. There have been discussions with the City Engineer and City
Planners as to how this development plan amendment will the roadway, its impact, and
future improvements. Additional materials have been distributed this evening. The
petitioner is basically committing to work out the issue of the existing 60 foot,
greenstrip/buffer area along the entire north side of 116th Street. Currently, there is a
mound, tree plantings, and a Meridian Technology Center identification sign that is not
part of the Indiana Municipal Power Agency, but is on their property. If there is a right -
of -way taking within this area, the petitioner will accommodate the right -of -way for the
benefit of the residential area across the street; this was the original intent for the
installation of the greenstrip. The petitioner will continue to work with the City of
Carmel on the right of way, and with Meridian Technology Center on the relocation of
the sign and landscaping.
The other item in the commitments concerns the installation of sidewalks on College
Avenue. A concrete walk would be installed immediately adjacent to the curb. There is
a limited right -of -way, and the petitioner is committed to working with the City of
Carmel and the Carmel Technology Center, once a plan is forwarded to them, or when a
neighbor installs sidewalks. The reason we are not presenting a plan for this now is that
there are no finalized plans for improvements at the intersection of 116th and College
Avenue, (there is a fiber optic line to be worked around) and there are no other sidewalks
anywhere in Meridian Technology Center.
Indiana Municipal Power has been in operation since 1988 and is a conglomeration of
power agencies providing power to local municipalities in 32 cities throughout the State
of Indiana. Indiana Municipal Power works similar to a co -op in that their services,
availability and fees to provide an economical power source to smaller communities
throughout the State. This particular facility currently serves as a meeting place for the
32 directors, and houses accounting and controls for all the communities served. The
proposal is to install a 17,000 square foot addition on the north side of the existing
facility. Plans are for a 2 -story addition matching the existing building of masonry and
s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \2000nov 6
dryvit as closely as possible. The proposed addition will accommodate the current needs
and for several years in the future. The additional parking required is shown on the
rendering presented this evening. Some parking will be adjacent to the new main
entrance, some to the north. The entrance onto College Avenue will be right - in/right -out
only. This College Avenue entrance provides an additional entrance (the other entrance
is on Technology Drive, which is used by this company and the one across the street) and
was designed to allow board members efficient entry. It will also permit entry by the Fire
Department for their fire protection system. The parking lot is winding in order to reduce
"cut through" traffic; it also permits additional landscaping in the islands, in the middle
portion of the site.
Adam described the landscaping, security fencing during construction between this site
and the daycare next door, maintenance of the tree line, and drainage. Focus of
landscaping is along the new parking lot and entrance area on the east and west sides, and
with the islands in the center of the project. Lighting and signage will be similar to what
is seen today. Pole lights are scattered throughout the parking lot, with down - lighting in
a shadow box effect. There is an existing wall sign on the west elevation, and a ground
sign is being requested. There are two dedicated rights -of -way, and they may file for a
variance for the Technology Drive sign because this right -of -way was never dedicated
even though there is a third street on that side. This sign matches other ground signs
throughout the park.
The petitioner will be requesting a waiver of the rules of procedure for a decision this
evening.
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. None
appeared. The public hearing was closed.
Staff Report: Laurence Lillig reported the Department of Engineering and Department of
Community Services have both reviewed these commitments and are satisfied with the
content. Neither Department has an objection to a suspension of the rules.
Ron Houck asked if all concerns reflected in the September TAC minutes have been
addressed (greenbelt, parking lot landscaping, and removal of dead landscaping).
Mr. Lillig reported that Scott Brewer, Urban Forester, has reviewed this project and all
concerns have been addressed.
Nick Kestner moved to suspend the rules, seconded by Paul Spranger. Motion Approved
12 in favor, Leo Dierckman in opposition.
Nick Kestner moved to approve Docket No. 168 -00 DP Amend /ADLS Amend,
Meridian Technology Center, seconded by Ron Houck. APPROVED 12 in favor, Leo
Dierckman opposed.
s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \2000nov 7
6h. 169 -00 PP Amend; Richard L. Hayes Two Level Luxury Townhouses,
Block A
Primary Plat Amendment petition for World Wide Motors and Indiana
Basketball Academy, LLC. The petitioner seeks approval to divide Block
A into two blocks on 3.439 + - acres. The site is located at 3774 and 3800
Bauer Drive West. The site is zoned B- 3/business. Original secondary
plat approved 4/19/94, as 39 -94 SP.
Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson & Frankenberger for World Wide
Motors and Indiana Basketball Academy, LLC.
Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing
World Wide Motors and the Indiana Basketball Academy in connection with their
request to divide Block A into two blocks.
World Wide Motors (Mercedes dealership of Horst Winkler) has agreed to purchase a
part of the real estate owned by the basketball academy represented by the common
address of 3800 Bauer Drive West. The request is to amend the primary plat to permit
the division of the 3.439 acres of real estate into two lots, to be known as Block A -1 and
Block A -2. Mr. Nelson further described the location of the real estate as being at the
north end of Bauer Commercial Park on Bauer Drive West. The real estate under
discussion is located between the basketball academy and the self - storage facility. World
Wide Motors plans to use this site in conjunction with its existing facility, as a location to
prepare new cars for delivery to buyers, or for placement on the showroom floor. The
minimum number of employees would be 6, and there would be no surface lighting, no
signage, and the building would be single story, 7,500 square feet in size.
This parcel is currently zoned B -3 business, and therefore will also require the approval
of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to the petition;
none appeared.
General Comments:
Jennifer Engler, 3505 East 98th Street, lives directly behind this parcel. Her two concerns
are lighting, which has been addressed, and noise, such as car alarms. She wonders who
will monitor this situation, especially at night.
Mr. Nelson responded that World Wide Motors has the services of a private security
patrol, and he assumes this same service would monitor the additional site at night. He
suggested Ms. Engler meet with Mr. Winkler to discuss this situation.
Staff Comments: Mr. Lillig recommends referral to the Subdivision Committee meeting
on December 5, 2000.
The public hearing was closed.
s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \2000nov 8
7h. Docket No. 177 -00 OA; Park Impact Fee Amendment
Petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation to the City Council for an
amendment to increase the impact fee for parks.
Filed by Stephen C. Engelking of the Department of Community Services
for the City of Carmel.
Sue Dillon, 507 Cornwall Court, Carmel, appeared before the Commission as president
of the Carmel Clay Parks Board. The Parks Board is requesting approval of an increase
in the Park Impact Fee. Randy Auler, Parks Director, was then introduced.
Randy Auler explained the Park Impact Fee as a one -time fee imposed on new
development to defray or mitigate the capital cost of infrastructure needed to serve new
development. The current impact fee is $84, and is collected by the Dept. of Community
Services at the time a building permit is issued. The Impact Fees may not be used to
correct existing deficiencies within the parks and recreation system.
The Park Impact Fee Ordinance has a limit of five years; it went into effect in May of
1997, and has not been reviewed since that time. The Park Board requested the Carmel
City Council review the appropriateness of the Impact Fee Ordinance and all related
documents. The City Council then directed the Department of Community Services to
conduct such a review.
The Department of Community Services, the Department of Engineering, and the Parks
Department have worked together to review the information. Findings were presented to
the Impact Fee Advisory Committee and to the Parks Board, both of which approved a
favorable recommendation to increase the fees based on the data submitted.
Following a favorable recommendation by the Carmel Plan Commission, this would
advance to the Carmel City Council for a final determination of the Park Impact Fee.
Mr. Auler explained the procedure followed to determine how much an impact fee should
be. First, the current level of service is determined — a quantitative measure of service
provided by the existing infrastructure to support this development. In order to arrive at
the quotient of $527.53, the community's investment of $12,054,651 in our park system
through 12/31/99 was divided by the number of households during that time period.
Secondly, a quotient representing the community level of service is determined. The Park
Board felt the community level of service should equal the current level of service. This
means new development should pay no more than the current level of service.
Infrastructure needs are then determined by first finding a nexus between a development
— in this case the location of new development - and the need for parks to be developed
within those areas. The Parks Board then identified the following costs to be projected
for development of the infrastructure over the next ten years - Cherry Tree Park,
Founders Park, Hazel Landing Park, and West Park - with a projected development
investment total of $10,670,000.
s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \2000nov 9
Using these projections, the community level of service would be $1,185, arrived at by
dividing the projected number of new households (9,003) into the projected infrastructure
costs needed. The recommendation would be to use the current level of service of
$527.53.
Members of the public were asked to speak in favor of or opposition to this proposal; no
one appeared and the public hearing was closed.
Staff comments: Mr. Lillig said staff recommends a suspension of the rules and a
favorable recommendation.
Paul Spranger moved for the suspension of the rules, seconded by Bob Modisett, Motion
Unanimously Approved.
Paul Spranger moved for the approval of Docket No. 177 -00 OA, Park Impact Fee
Amendment, seconded by Bob Modisett. Approval was unanimous with a vote of 13 in
favor, 0 opposed.
8h. Docket #178 -00 CPA; Thoroughfare Plan Amendment
Petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation to the City Council for a
resolution to adopt the plans for the Illinois Street Corridor into the
Thoroughfare Plan.
Filed by Stephen C. Engelking of the Department of Community Services
for the City of Carmel.
Michael Hollibaugh of the Department of Community Services explained the lengthy
process of this Thoroughfare Plan, including the change in consultants part way through
the study. The objectives included defining the issues all along the 31 corridor, and
ending with an alignment with which the 31 task force would be comfortable. Michael
introduced John Myers of Parsons Brinckerhoff to present the results of the study.
John Myers of Parsons Brinckerhoff, 47 South Pennsylvania, Indianapolis, presented a
series of slides on the Illinois Street thoroughfare. John indicated at the outset that some
references would be made to U.S.31, since there would be some impact from bridges, etc.
on that thoroughfare.
Alternative alignments are still included in some areas, but an overall single alignment is
being offered this evening.
Beginning at I -465 and Springmill Road, a five -lane roadway is proposed, with 120 feet
of right -of -way, to accommodate commercial and commuting traffic. This 5 lane
roadway would be the link from the south, moving into a left turn lane, and heading
north; the priority movement would be to Illinois. It follows an existing roadway to the
existing traffic circle at 103rd Street. It is very likely that there will be an interchange at
106th Street - -a single -point diamond. Even a single -point diamond is too close. At this
point the proposed roadway suggested is a little west to avoid the medical offices nearby;
s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \2000nov 10
however it does impact the residences south of this area. There are alternates for this
particular point.
From here the roadway runs due north, through a residential area to 111th Street; this is
one of the areas in final design where the right -of -way could be narrowed. From 111th
Street north is pretty straightforward to 116th Street. An interchange at 116th Street is
almost assured, and a realignment of driveway connections should be to Illinois Street.
North of 116th Street, several options are shown because there are some complications at
the back of the Ritz Charles in terms of impact on the parking lot, and a dam near the
lake. This is another area where the road may be narrowed, and it is a matter of working
with the owner of the Ritz Charles.
There are other options here. At 126th Street there are two roundabout options shown.
While there is not likely to be an interchange at this location, it is close to a bridge and
the western alignment looks better and the right of way has been set aside for the
approach as a connection.
Interchanges were planned by INDOT at 126th and at Smoky Row. This would not work.
An interchange at 130 Street would take the place of the two that had been projected at
126th Street and at Smoky Row. This plan has been shared with INDOT. The plan
brings together Pennsylvania on an overpass, and Penn and Illinois join together as they
head north to Westfield. It makes sense for 131St Street not to make the connection
between Penn and Illinois. There would not be people on the bridge across US 31 on
131st Street unless there were a specific origin or destination.
It simply makes more sense in terms of local road to have 131st Street be the priority
roadway than it does for Carmel Drive and 126th Street that stubs into 131st Street. In a
way, it is the centerpiece, it relates to 31, to Illinois Street, and the Penn. From this point
north, Illinois would be joined by Pennsylvania, and follows along U.S. 31 where it
reaches Oak Ridge Road. It never actually ties back to Springmill Road.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to the petition; no
one appeared.
General public comments: Richard Hadley of Indiana Farmers Insurance, 10 W. 106th
Street, said they will be impacted by Illinois Street. Generally they are pleased with the
proactive effort Carmel is making. Indiana Farmers has approximately 15 acres at 106th
and U.S.31, in terms of their main insurance company, and a little farther to the west is
residential property owned by Indiana Farmers Insurance and currently rented. The third
alternative /recommendation under consideration is the best, however it still bisects their
property. If it could be moved 200 -300 yards to the west, the actual Illinois Street would
parallel their north /south property line. Everything to the east would then be open area,
and would allow for future expansion and parking for this firm. This plan also comes
close to Dr. Perkins' west parking lot, although he is not speaking for the doctor. A slight
s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \2000nov 11
move to the west would be more favorable to Indiana Farmers, and they would be willing
to work with Mr. Myers, etc.
Adam DeHart of Keeler Webb Associates indicated he will be representing a client who
is bringing an ADLS /Development Plan for approval. The property is immediately
adjacent to the Oak Ridge Road and 136th Street intersection. Adam understands no
roundabout is planned in the area of the Beeson Surgery Clinic, and would like
clarification of this, as well as the floodway for Little Cool Creek. There is also a
question about the high pressure pipe line, and Adam wonders how it will be treated;
these things will impact his project.
Neither Mr. Myers nor Mr.Hollibaugh had rebuttal.
Staff comments: Mr. Lillig recommended this be placed on the agenda for the December
5, 2000 Special Study Committee meeting.
The public hearing was closed.
Ron Houck commented he attended the last three U.S. 31 task force meetings where this
was discussed. He feels although this is a draft, some areas need to be addressed further.
First, the cost estimate is missing. There seems to be some sentiment for how much
Illinois Street should serve this versus Spring Mill Road, the impact to the Ritz Charles in
the current configuration, and limited right -of -way between 106th and 111th and its effect.
Ron said Les Locke of the Hamilton County Highway attended the last meeting and
expressed serious reservations about "serving the area versus being a traffic magnet,"
also routing the traffic north of 136th Street onto Oak Ridge Road was a concern. Mr.
Locke did not feel it appropriate to route high volumes of traffic into a residential area,
nor did he feel residents would be likely to use Illinois Street in terms of the way it is
designed here.
Bob Modisett would also like to see the cost estimate, and how it will be funded.
Kevin Kirby feels this really should not go to Special Study Committee. He suggests that
this has been "studied to death" in the 31 Corridor Study. The City Council who will
eventually have to pay for this road and the right -of -way wants to secure this right -of-
way as soon as possible. Right now, we are impacting one house (John Kirk's) and one
business, the Ritz Charles. The longer we wait to reserve this, the higher the cost will be
to reserve the right -of -way. He sees little the Special Study Committee could add that
has not been addressed to this point.
Mr. O'Neal has attended all of the meetings of the U.S.31 Task Force and agrees with
Mr. Kirby. Mr. O'Neal commends Mr. Spranger, Mr. Myers, and other members of the
Task Force and Special Study Committee as well.
Bob Modisett wonders if we know how much this will cost, and how it will be funded.
s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \2000nov 12
Mr. Kirby stated the City will have to fund this road, some may be funded through a
COIT Bond, TIF funds, some by developers - -but it needs to be built and the City will
fund it. It will be expensive, but the longer we wait, the more expensive it will be.
Dave Cremeans commented he likes the west plan the most (outlined in red.) Whenever
a road is built, he is concerned about the homes that remain, since they are close to the
right of way, but not close enough to be "taken out." This is somewhat of a "curve ball"
in the Thoroughfare Plan, as we try to get 20 years out. He would like to see the Ritz
Charles accommodated adequately, too.
Paul Spranger sat on both the U.S.31 Task Force and the Special Study Committee. Paul
feels the rights -of -way can be narrowed, and some accommodations made for residential,
including buffering. This is not to be a commercial road, rather a parkway type, with
curb cuts in non - residential areas although very few curb cuts once the road goes into
residential sections. This needs to be explained to City Council. One of the reasons for
the right -of -way is so that landscape buffers can be used in residentially sensitive areas.
At this point, he feels this can move to City Council. What we are discussing here is the
concept of the Thoroughfare Plan, not the specificity of design.
Dave Cremeans said the right of way can do the figure 8, but the roadway must not.
Laurence Lillig stated the Department would like to amend its recommendation, agreeing
it has been studied enough. Therefore, the Department is recommending that this item be
forwarded to the Carmel City Council with a favorable recommendation.
Kevin Kirby moved for the suspension of the rules, seconded by Jim O'Neal. MOTION
APPROVED.
Kevin Kirby moved to forward Docket No. 178 -00 CPA, Thoroughfare Plan
Amendment, to the City Council with a positive recommendation, seconded by Jim
O'Neal. MOTION CARRIED. Ten in favor, 2 opposed (Ron Houck and Bob Modisett)
one no vote (Pat Rice).
Steve Engelking took this opportunity to announce that Michael Hollibaugh has accepted
a position with the Town of Zionsville. Steve Engelking acknowledged all of the hard
work that Michael has done for the City of Carmel, and wished him well in his new
position.
I Old Business
li. Docket No. 106 -99 SP, Carmel Science & Technology Park, Block 14,
Lot 3
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, and is zoned M -3 /manufacturing. This item is paired
with Item 2i under Old Business (Docket No. 107 -99 DP /ADLS).
s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \2000nov 13
2i. Docket No. 107 -99 DP /ADLS; Carmel Science & Technology Park,
Block 14, Lot 3
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 3.533 + - acres to be known as Carmel Drive Storage. The site is
located at 550 West Carmel Drive, and is zoned M -3 Manufacturing.
Filed by Keith Bonham of the Tower Design Group, PC.
Ken Keltner, 3530 Timber Springs Court, thanked the Special Study Committee for their
professional guidance in bringing this project to its present status. He noted an additional
landscaping plan which staff has approved. Also, the office building has been moved
from the 20 foot build line to 25 feet. Additionally, a requested plan for an access and
drainage easement is being filed with Hamilton County Recorder's office, a copy of
which is available for the file. Mr. Keltner feels this project is in compliance with all
requirements and ordinances of the M -3 zoning, and of the Carmel Science and
Technology Park
Committee Report, Paul Spranger: The Special Study Committee has reviewed this item
for the past six months. Paul Spranger complimented the petitioner on making aesthetic
and design changes, particularly in regard to materials, to make this development as
attractive as possible, since it is located on one of the premier streets in Carmel, Carmel
Drive. There was still a concern regarding the setback issue, but perhaps additional input
could be given by the Department. The Special Study Committee vote was 6 — 0
favorable recommendation.
Leo Dierckman noted the use is permitted in M -3, but he believes the building is too
close to Carmel Drive and should blend and balance with the properties on either side.
There has been some improvement in design, but Leo still feels it would have a negative
impact on the area and the building should be setback farther.
Bob Modisett asked if all commitments have been finalized with staff. There had been
some open items regarding irrigation, drainage, and landscaping.
Laurence Lillig reported that the on -site issues with drainage have been addressed. There
was some concern about an easement for drainage that needs to be placed on the lot
adjoining to the south; they also need to place an access easement on that same lot. The
landscape plan has now been approved by Scott Brewer, Urban Forester. However, the
adjoining lot needs to be platted to include those easements.
Steve Engelking said that at the Special Study Committee, the petitioner was asked to
show an access easement and drainage easement on the property to the east of the
property under consideration.
s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \2000nov 14
Mr. Keltner said he had been asked to file and record the easement in the Hamilton
County Recorder's Office; otherwise, no building permit would be issued. Mr. Keltner
said he did record the easement.
Nick Kestner said he, too, has a problem with the setback. This project sits right on the
road, and the area would be much nicer if all buildings have the same setback.
Paul Spranger said Mr. Keltner committed to irrigating the landscape area. This needs
follow -up to be sure a commitment is on file. In lieu of that, we need to have the
petitioner restate that and place it in writing.
Pat Rice asked how much farther the setback is now compared with the first submittal.
Ken Keltner confirmed that the site will be irrigated. In regard to the setback, the site
was staked showing the building length of 140 feet. There is no parking to the front of
the storage facility. On the south side of the street there are variations in setbacks. The
proposed office building is now set back ten feet from the previous design and the bump -
outs are set back five feet. Mr. Keltner reminded members that they have received
approval letters from the Carmel School of Performing Arts, Dick Pollack of Browning
Investments, and Amy Penman, ATAPCO (who previously had opposed the project).
Bob Modisett asked the status of the curb cut, the removal of the island in the middle of
the curb cut, and the widening of the curb cut.
It is Laurence Lillig's understanding that the widening of the curb cut is acceptable to the
Department of Engineering. It was originally proposed to be much wider than the
current, 8 foot widening of the existing curb cut.
Mr. Keltner explained to Mr. Modisett that the original curb cut design was to be 24 feet.
They are asking for an additional 8 feet, but the petitioner must present it to the Board of
Public Works after Plan Commission approval. This is agreeable to the City Engineer.
Leo Dierckman confirmed the office building is five feet from the building setback line,
and the wall is ten feet from it except for the bump -out areas. Mr. Dierckman still feels
visibility is impaired on Carmel Drive.
Pat Rice feels the petitioner has cooperated with the committee in modifying the
development and making it acceptable. Pat recommended strong consideration be given
to approval of the project.
Kevin Kirby said the petitioner has done a lot with the building and does not see any way
we can deny this petition.
Dave Cremeans said the Commission is not voting on zoning but rather architectural
design of the project which does include placement, and he deferred to Mr. Molitor,
Counsel to the Commission.
s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \2000nov 15
Mr. Molitor acknowledged we have not really tested our ADLS rules; instead, we
basically work with petitioners to make sure they comply with our standards. If
development standards are met, approval is usually a given.
Laurence Lillig explained we are considering a Development Plan as well as ADLS.
Grounds for denial would be in the Development Plan, which includes the site plan,
rather than in the ADLS. There are findings in our own ordinances that would allow you
to deny a project (Chapter 24.2.5 sets out five findings).
Mr. Molitor said if there is a factual basis to deny, one could defend such action. We
usually work with developers to reach a favorable conclusion.
Laurence Lillig said this petition was at public hearing in January, and setback has been
on the list of concerns since the beginning
Mr. Dierckman asked for clarification. The Chairman said we do not make
recommendations to City Council on this type of issue. We either vote for or against
this project tonight. If the outcome led to a lawsuit against the Plan Commission, the city
could either decide to fund a defense, or not to do so.
Mr. Keltner referred to the defeat of a storage facility project behind McDonalds, and that
a statement was made at the time, that if this project were on West Carmel Drive, it
would be a "done deal." There is a heavy need and use for residents in this area for
storage facilities. The Special Study Committee has done a wonderful job articulating
the
building, refurbishing the building materials, etc. It is next to his corporate headquarters
and he is happy with the final result. It is time to bring this to a vote.
Pat Rice moved for approval of Docket No. 106 -99 SP, Carmel Science & Technology
Park, Block 14, Lot 3, seconded by Norma Meighen. APPROVED 13 in favor none
opposed.
Pat Rice moved for the approval of Docket No. 107 -99 DP /ADLS, Carmel Science
Technology Park, Block 14, Lot 3, seconded by Ron Houck. APPROVED 9 in favor 4
opposed.
Mr. O'Neal exited at this point and did not return to the meeting.
3i. Docket No. 109 -99 DP /ADLS; Wingate Inn
Withdrawn
4i. Docket No. 92 -00 ADLS Amend; Meridian Mark I — Liberty Mutual
Insurance
Withdrawn
5i. Docket No. 108 -00 PP; Long Branch Estates
s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \2000nov 16
Petitioner requests approval to plat 150 lots on 119.6 acres. The site is
located on the northwest 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 II). 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)(6)to clear more than 30% of young 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 of Ice, Miller, representing Pulte Homes of Indiana, explained that to be a
qualifying subdivision under ROSO, the site would need 33% of the area to qualify as
open space. About 36% of the area qualifies, and the base density would allow 164 lots.
The petitioner is proposing 150 lots. The subdivision committee voted favorably, with a
couple of conditions. Members were provided an addendum to the original traffic study,
to include charts reflecting level of service for 116th /Shelborne Road and 126th /Shelborne
Road. This is in addition to the original study which included Michigan Road/421 and
121st Street, 421 and 116th Street, and entrances to the subdivision on 116th and 121st
Streets.
The second revision came as a result of meetings with Mr. Brewer, Urban Forester, and
changes in wording in the proposed covenants and declarations by taking out the word
"dying" trees, and placing a separate prohibition against earth moving and grading.
Committee Reports: Ron Houck reported the two changes referred to earlier. The
Committee arranged for inclusion into the Traffic Study the areas of 116th Street and
121St
and Shelborne Road which were omitted from the original traffic study. The Committee
had also asked for changes in the covenants and restrictions. The requested changes have
been reviewed by the Department of Community Services and found to be acceptable.
The committee also looked at the subdivision waivers requested, and found in favor of
the petitioner.
Ms. Anderson said it is difficult to compare the various studies. In the future, we
should not permit a two -year old study to be used. Usually when a traffic study is
requested, it is a current version, and in the future, she felt we should expect current data.
Ron Houck said he is concerned from the report how or when the changes at
121St /Shelborne would be made. He would like clarification from the petitioner.
s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \2000nov 17
Mr. Steve Fehribach of A &F Engineering said the left turn lane analysis was done based
on future traffic volumes. The left turn lanes and traffic signal are necessary in order to
achieve the acceptable level of service. The timing is unclear.
Ron Houck said that if left turn lanes are a factor for a level of service C or better, he
would expect some sort of mitigation from the petitioner if the impact from the
development is a factor.
Ms. Anderson lives on Shelborne and says that traffic has really ballooned. Mr.
Fehribach said indications are the level of service can be maintained until 2013 with
existing conditions. Some discussion ensued about interpreting the charts, and how
approach delays and average intersection delays are to be interpreted.
Mr. Lillig said this was forwarded from the November 14 Subdivision Committee with a
unanimous favorable recommendation. The Department recommends negative
consideration of waivers 108 -00aSW and 108- 00bSW, and recommends the cul de sac be
extended to the east property line, eliminating the need for both those waivers. If the
waiver for the stub street is granted, the department recommends that the cul de sac
waiver be denied, and that the cul de sac be redesigned within the requirements of the
Subdivision Control Ordinance.
Dave Cremeans confirmed his understanding that the Department is recommending
denial of the first two waivers. Ron Houck said the committee is comfortable with the
waivers, and that this was thoroughly covered with the primary plat discussions. In terms
of the request for the traffic study, the committee agreed to accept the recent county study
along with the petitioner's additional work, even though there was some difference in
horizons. By complying with the amendment to the covenants and restrictions, and the
addendum to the traffic study, the petitioner has met requirements.
John Sharpe moved for the approval of Docket No. 108 -00 PP, Long Branch Estates,
including Subdivision Waivers a, b, c, and d, seconded by Ron Houck.
Marilyn Anderson announced the manual count shows unanimous approval for all the
waivers, and for the primary plat as well; hence, 12 in favor, none opposed,
APPROVED.
Pat Rice exited the meeting at this time and did not return.
6i. Docket No. 109 -OOPP; Guilford Park Subdivision
Petitioner seeks approval to plat 109 lots on 36.72 + - acres. The site is
located at the southeast corner of East 116th Street and South Guilford
Road. The site is zoned R -1 /residence and is being developed as a
Qualifying Subdivision under Chapter 7 (ROSO II) of the Subdivision
Control Ordinance.
Filed by Paul G. Reis of the Reis Law Firm for Kosene & Kosene.
s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \2000nov 18
This project was forwarded from the November l4th Subdivision Committee meeting
with a 6 -1 favorable recommendation. The Department recommends favorable
consideration of this petition.
Paul Reis, 12358 Hancock St, Carmel, reported that all requested changes were made
prior to the committee meeting. Landscaping had been previously approved by the
Urban Forester, the covenants had been revised in consultation with the Urban Forester.
Other issues were addressed at the subdivision committee meeting, including the addition
of a walk to connect the 10 foot multi -use path along 116th Street to be constructed by the
city.
Mr. Houck said the Subdivision Committee had asked for reconfiguration of open space
and green space. At the last committee meeting for this project, the sensitivity to the
Wood Park subdivision to the west was discussed. Also, the Ordinance was looked at
and some of the focus revolved around language in the Ordinance. The Committee
looked at the size of the lots in Wood Acre adjacent to this subdivision and the
configuration of lots in Guilford Park adjoining those lots.
Mr. Kirby inquired about buffering against non -open space subdivisions. Mr. Houck said
counsel provided information since the last committee meeting, and feels it is within the
scope and purview of the committee to seek a buffer and arrange compatability with the
adjacent subdivision.
Paul Reis said this has been discussed at least three times with the Committee. It was his
understanding that the size of the proposed lots is compatible with the cluster ordinance
applicable to Wood Park subdivision. He feels there shouldn't be a need to go through
this a fourth time, as lot sizes adjoining Wood Park have been adjusted.
Mr. Houck acknowledged the petitioner has worked with requests to meet sensitivity
requirements on this issue, and has reconfigured the open space and size of lots on the
east side of the subdivision; however, there is still diversity in what the petitioner sees as
a remedy on the west perimeter compared with our interpretation of how to remedy the
concern.
Norma Meighen inquired about the status, and Mr. Houck explained that at a previous
meeting the committee felt more information was needed to make an accurate
determination. Mr. Houck felt they didn't have enough information on adjacent lots and
suggested the petitioner work with staff and provide factual information on lot sizes, so
that this can be brought to a speedy conclusion. Perhaps a mailing can be provided to the
committee ahead of their next meeting.
Docket No. 109 -00 PP, Guilford Park Subdivision, was returned to the Subdivision
Committee for further review on December 5, 2000.
7i. Docket No. 131 -00 DP /ADLS; Mayflower Park Subdivision, Block 6,
Lot 2.
s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \2000nov 19
Petitioner seeks approval to establish an automobile dealership on 7.351
acres. The site is located on the southwest corner of West 99th Street and
Michigan Road. The site is zoned I -1 /industrial and is located in the U.S.
421 Overlay Zone.
Filed by Paul G. Reis of the Reis Law Firm for Chrysler Realty.
Paul Reis, 12358 Hancock Street, explained there have been concerns about compliance
with the 421 Overlay Zone requirements. They have met with the Special Study
Committee and with staff on this issue.
At the last committee meeting, there was considerable discussion of the design aspects of
the building and the materials to be used. Facing U.S. 421, the building has been
designed to meet the Federal style of architecture. A balustrade has been designed across
the top to facilitate a flat roof design, suggested b Scheer & Scheer in Cincinnati. The
coin features on the corners were added and the pilasters were removed. The windows
were also changed, and will no longer extend to the ground. Cut stone and a base
element have been added around the entire building. The entrance way was also
modified in design to separate the fan light and to add side lights and also change the
proportion. The cornice of the building has a dental feature. The building is brick all
around, with cut stone along the base. The dryvit material has been reduced to 20% so
that it is predominately a brick building. The split -face block has been eliminated. The
mullion color around the windows was previously blue and has been changed. The glass
is clear, the driyvit color remains the same, and the brick color and block have been
changed to fit the new materials. The sign color is the same blue as on the facade of the
building.
In regard to the landscape design, numerous plants have been added.
Committee report: Paul Spranger recalled this came through as a contemporary building,
and since that time Scheer & Scheer and staff have made recommendations. The project
came out of committee with a 4 -1 vote. The block or stone had some differences; they
are now similar in color to the brick. The windows are more conforming to the
architectural standards.
Staff Report: Mr. Lillig said that as far as the landscape plan is concerned, the planting
counts are still deficient and the Variances are still necessary. We anticipate comment
from the Urban Forester next week. Mr. Lillig has not yet had the opportunity to review
architectural style (gray brick) He suggested projects like this stay at committee for
review until a design is found to be fully acceptable rather than referring back to the full
commission.
Mr. Kirby said it was evident they were not going to meet the letter of the ordinance. He
also knew the staff was probably not going to concur. This was a judgment call, per Mr.
Spranger. This particular building does not exactly comply with the ordinance. This
building is a difficult one, and one the full commission may question.
s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \2000nov 20
With the changes in the brick, Mr. Kirby feels it does meet the ordinance. The changes
bring it close enough to meet the federal style, and it is acceptable for this building and
for the Overlay.
Marilyn Anderson wants to be sure a vote tonight is contingent upon approval of the
landscape plan by the Urban Forester.
Ron Houck said this is an improved building over what was initially presented. If the
commission is satisfied the petitioner has met the intent of what the committee was trying
to do, it is appropriate to have a vote tonight.
Dave Cremeans wondered if Scheer & Scheer had reviwed the final design of the
building and the materials.
Kevin Kirby said Scheer & Scheer has reviewed it, and the design carries the elements
that Scheer & Scheer had asked for. The final design was not sent back to them, but
Scheer & Scheer specified what they wanted to see on the building.
Mr. Spranger thanked the petitioner for going to masonry brick, even though it will raise
the cost of the building. It is in keeping with the federal style.
Mr. Engelking said this was sent back two times to Scheer & Scheer for consideration of
the design elements. Our most recent request to the petitioner, following the last Special
Studies Committee meeting, was to negotiate the percentage of the building facade which
would meet the ordinance with regard to the materials used. Once requirements were
met, staff didn't feel Scheer & Scheer needed to be consulted. The ordinance asks that
80% of the building be other than dryvit.
Mr. Spranger expressed concerns about the color. Mr. Dierckman asked if a color
rendering is available. It is not. The petitioner said the feeling at committee seemed to
favor a color other than red brick. Mr. Kirby said the gray brick concept came from the
feeling of a federalist limestone courthouse. He compared it to the meeting place in the
Village of West Clay. The basic themes of what we've asked for are in the building.
Paul Reis said the items Scheer & Scheer had requested have been included in the design
of the building, with the exception of the double hung windows. The materials on the
facade were changed following the Special Study Committee. The petitioner is willing to
utilize red brick rather than gray, if that is the will of the Plan Commission.
Marilyn Anderson said she did not want to see red brick all up and down the corridor,
and the gray would be a nice change.
Kevin Kirby moved for the approval of Docket No. 131 -00 DP /ADLS, Mayflower Park
Subdivision, Block 6, Lot 2, conditioned upon the approval of the landscaping plan prior
to the issuance of a building permit, seconded by seconded by Bob Modisett. The motion
carried with a vote of 9 in favor, 2 opposed (Leo Dierckman and Nick Kestner).
s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \2000nov 21
Mr. Reis said they have filed variances on the landscape plan, and wonders about the
status of these variances.
Mr. Lillig said the BZA has tabled the variances, pending the outcome of this ADLS
process. The variances may be heard at BZA once the Urban Forester approves the
landscape plan.
8i. Docket No. 139 -00 DP /ADLS; Newark Subdivision, Lots 4(part) -7 and
Newark Village Subdivision, Lots 2 & 3
Petitioner seeks approval of an expansion of the Ace Hardware. The site
is located at 731 South Range Line Road. The site is zoned B- 7/business
and R -2 /residence.
Filed by Paul G. Reis of the Reis Law Firm for Carmel Ace Hardware,
Inc.
Paul Reis, 12358 Hancock Street, has had the adjacent properties rezoned, and has been
to Special Study Committee. The landscape and architectural designs for the Garden
Center have been reviewed.
Mr. Spranger said the Special Study Committee voted 5 -0 in favor of the design, subject
to any conditions of the Department. Staff had questions about the buffering and/or
cover of the outdoor storage. Both concerns have been addressed.
Bob Modisett moved for the approval of Docket No. 139 -00 DP /ADLS, Newark
Subdivision, Lots 4(part) -7 and Newark Village Subdivision, Lots 2 & 3, seconded by
Ron Houck. The motion carried by a vote of 11 in favor, 0 opposed. APPROVED
9i. Docket No. 161 -OOPP; Merchants' Pointe Subdivision
Primary Plat application for the Linder Group. The petitioner seeks
favorable consideration to plat seven lots on 14.378 + - acres. The site is
located on the southwest corner of East 116th Street and North Keystone
Avenue. The site is zoned B- 8/business and is located within the S.R. 431
Overlay Zone.
Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson & Frankenberger for the Linder
Group.
Jim Nelson said his comments would be limited to the Department's report which
accurately states that the matter was referred to the Subdivision Committee for review
and following the review, the Committee gave its unanimous approval for the plat.
Ron Houck confirmed that this was reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and
unanimously recommended for approval.
Laurence Lillig stated staff recommends favorable consideration of the project.
s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \2000nov 22
Kevin Kirby moved for the approval of Docket No. 161 -00 PP, Merchants' Pointe
Subdivision, seconded by Ron Houck. The motion carried with a vote of 11 in favor, 0
opposed. APPROVED
10i. Docket No. 162 -OOZ; North Haven Rezone
Rezone petition for CPM Family Trust and C & J Company. The
petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation for a rezone of 43.083+ -
acres from the S -1 /residence district to the R -5 /residence district. The site
is located northwest of the intersection of East 96th Street and Gray Road.
The site is zoned S -1 /residence.
Filed by Mark Boyce of C.P. Morgan Communities for CPM Family Trust
and C & J Company.
Charlie Frankenberger, 4983 St. Charles Place, reported that on October 17, 2000, the
Rezone application request carne before the commission. On November 14th the
petitioner met with the Special Study committee and reviewed the same plans and
elevations and building materials. Tonight they return with unanimous approval of the
committee, as well as the continued support of the Williamson Run community.
Committee report: Mr. Spranger said this is a mixed use development - -there are some
commercial office buildings mixed in with the residential - -and the site is bordered by the
quarry. The petitioner has worked with the neighboring residents of Williamson Run and
they have given their support of this project. The Committee was happy with the final
outcome and voted a unanimous recommendation of 4 -0.
Mr. Lillig said staff recommends favorable consideration of this petition and that it be
forwarded to the City Council with a favorable recommendation. A copy of the most
current site plan needs to be provided for the file and Mr. Frankenberger agreed.
Bob Modisett moved for the approval of Docket No. 162 -00 Z, North Haven Rezone,
seconded by John Sharpe. Unanimous APPROVAL 11 in favor, 0 opposed.
J. New Business
lj. Docket No. 171 -00 ADLS Amend; West Carmel Center, Block A
Petitioner seeks approval of the sign package for a Walgreens pharmacy
and seeks approval to alter the architectural package approved for the
structure as part of Docket No. 47 -99 DP /ADLS. The site is located at
10595 North Michigan Road. The site is zoned B- 3/business and is
located within the US 421 /Michigan Road Overlay Zone.
Filed by Kevin D. McKasson of Glendale Partners for Walgreens.
Dave Coots, 255 East Carmel Drive, appeared representing the applicant, who appeared
before the Special Study Committee on November 14, 2000.
s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \2000nov 23
Committee report: Paul Spranger explained this was the building on 421 that was
constructed outside of the approval that was granted. A stop work order was issued on
the partially completed building, including the brick facia. The petitioner came back
with a proposal to conform. The brick had come up to the eave. One change was to get
some break -line and some dryvit. This building has a major presence on 421, so there
was an attempt to tie this building in with those in the strip development (by the same
developer), behind it.
There was also a change in the drive - through. It is improved, though not the best that
could be done.
Department Report: Laurence Lillig feels the sign package has been neglected with the
focus instead placed on architectural design. The Department feels the signage is
excessive.
Mr. Coots said there is a total of 10 signs on the 4 elevations of this building, including a
ground sign at the corner of 106th and 421. The signage on the 3 elevations that have
traffic visibility, the west elevation on 421 has a Walgreen's sign, a pharmacy sign over
one of the archways, and a one -hour photo sign over the other. The north elevation has
Walgreen's, Pharmacy, and One -Hour Photo over those different elevations. The east side
of the building has the drive - through pharmacy identification and the Walgreen's wall
sign. In essence, this building has three elevations. The sign material will all be
internally lit, red in color, and the return is a bronze, anodized, and will be a white return.
The petitioner agreed with the committee to turn down the brightness if the sign is too
bright, the same commitment made with the Target approval. There are variances
pending with the Board of Zoning Appeals, due to the number of signs, and due to the
Special Use B -3 restriction of 10 square feet in a project under 5 acres. The number of
signs and size of signage need their approval.
Ron Houck asked about the history of this particular project and why this issue is
currently before the Commission. Mr. Engelking explained the stop work order was
issued because construction was in progress, and not in compliance with the approved
development plan. One of the planners noticed the discrepancy.
Mr. Coots explained that basically, it was a misunderstanding between Walgreens
contractor and the permitting application process. However, the situation is being
corrected and they are back on track.
Mr. Kirby stated basically that the petitioner made a mistake, and we are trying to rectify
what has been started. Personally, he feels this rendition is better than the original one.
Mr. Spranger asked how many inches of dryvit are planned. He suggested the eighteen
inches be increased to twenty -four inches.
s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \2000nov 24
Mr. Coots said eighteen inches of driyit band was determined to accommodate the
proposed sign. Mr. Coots also assured the Commission that new plans will reflect exactly
what is determined as the approved version.
Ron Houck suggested that this item be returned to Committee for review.
Department Report: Laurence Lillig suggested approval of the architectural features to
allow the petitioner to move on those issues.
Ron Houck moved for the approval of Docket No. 171 -00 ADLS Amend, West Carmel
Center, Block A, with the provision that approval is for the Architectural Design
portion only, and that it include an increase in the top band of dryvit from 18 inches to 24
inches, also the Landscaping and Signage should be reviewed by the Plan Commission
prior to the petitioner's appearance before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Seconded by
Paul Spranger. Motion carried 11 in favor, none opposed. APPROVED
Mr. Coots said they are advertised and noticed to be on the BZA agenda in November.
Mr. Lillig said an announcement can be made at the BZA meeting explaining that the
variances will be tabled to the January meeting. The Special Use petition can still be
heard.
2j. Docket No. 172 -00 ADLS Amend; West Carmel Center, Block A
Petitioner seeks approval of the sign package for a Wendy's fast food
restaurant and seeks approval to alter the architectural package approved
for the structure as part of Docket No. 47 -99 DP /ADLS. The site is
located at 10585 North Michigan Road. The site is zoned B- 3/business
and is located within the US 421/Michigan Road Overlay Zone.
Filed by Kevin D. McKasson of Glendale Partners for Wendy's.
Dave Coots introduced John Thaxton, Real Estate Director of Cedar Enterprises,
Columbus, Ohio (parent corporation of Trident Foods) to make the presentation. Trident
owns and operates about 20 restaurants in Indiana.
The building had been designed to meet the criteria furnished by Olympia/Glendale
Partners, by Kevin McKasson. The plan, based on ADLS requirements, is a very
different Wendy's. Mr. Thaxton feels the architecture should meet needed requirements.
He has obtained state building permits for this plan.
Depai tment Comments: Laurence Lillig asked the Commission to realize the side
elevation for this facility will be on Michigan Road and the front faces north. The
building materials will be the same as those on Walgreens.
Mr. Cremeans asked about the pitch of the roof, suggesting it should be greater. Mr.
Lillig said no landscape comments have been received on either Walgreens or Wendy's.
Next month, Ritters Frozen Custard will be considered, and Laurence will ask the Urban
Forester to review all three projects.
s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \2000nov 25
Mr. Thaxton would like some decision on the architecture. Mr. Lillig said he saw
different drawings previously. The Department is recommending this item be referred to
Committee for consideration.
Ron Houck suggested that the Committee look at the window treatment on the building;
Marilyn Anderson asked the Committee to review the landscape plan.
Docket No. 172 -00 ADLS Amend, West Carmel Center, Block A, Wendy's, was
referred to the Special Study Committee on December 5, 2000.
Ron Houck reminded the Commission of a Greater Home Place Task Force Meeting
following the Special Study Committee meeting on November 30th
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned
at 11:45 PM.
David A. Cremeans, President
Ramona Hancock, Secretary
s:\ PlanCommission \Minutes.pc \2000nov 26