HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 12-19-00CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
December 19, 2000
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel /Clay Plan Commission was called to
order with the Pledge of Allegiance at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall,
Carmel, Indiana.
Members present: Marilyn Anderson; Kent Broach; Dave Cremeans; Leo Dierckman;
Wayne Haney; Ron Houck; Nick Kestner; Norma Meighen; Bob Modisett; and James T.
O'Neal.
Director Steve Engelking; Terry Jones; and Laurence Lillig were present representing the
Department of Community Services. John Molitor, counsel, was also present.
The minutes of the November meeting were approved as submitted.
F. Legal Counsel Report:
John Molitor said item li. under Old Business, Wingate Inn, Docket No. 109 -99
DP /ADLS, remains tabled and is still involved with pending litigation with the owner of
the property. There should probably be an Executive Session scheduled to up -date the
members of the City Council on this litigation. Hopefully, an Executive Session can be
scheduled prior to next month's meeting. Mr. Molitor's recommendation is that this item
be left on the table until such time as an Executive Session can be held and there is some
indication as to whether or when the litigation may be resolved.
G. Reports, Announcements & Department Concerns
Item lh, Docket No. 141 -00 Z, Rezone for C.P. Morgan,is tabled.
Item 2h, Docket No. 184 -00 Z, Town Centre West, is tabled.
H. Public Hearings:
1 h. This Item Currently Tabled Pending Amendment of Application:
Docket No. 141 -00 Z; Rezone petition for C.P. Morgan Communities. The
petitioner seeks favorable recommendation of a rezone from the R -1 /residence
district to the M -3 /manufacturing district on three parcels totaling 7.4 +- acres_
The site is located at 1306 & 1342 East 116th Street. The site is zoned R-
1 /residence.
Filed by Mark Boyce of C.P. Morgan Communities.
2h. This item Currently Tabled Pending Amendment of Application:
Docket No. 184 -00 Z; Town Centre West
Petitioner seeks favorable recommendation of a rezone from the
s: \PlanCommission \Minutes \pc2000dec 1
S -1 /residence district to a PUD /planned unit development district on 34.825+ -
acres. The site is located in the 110000 block of North Michigan Road. The site
is zoned S -1 /residence within the US 421 /Michigan Road Overlay Zone.
Note: This Item is paired with Item 2j. under New Business.
Filed by Paul G. Reis of the Reis Law Firm for American Village Properties.
3h. Docket No. 193 -00 DP /ADLS; Newark Addition, Lots 9 -11— Stewart
Place
Development Plan and Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping & Signage
applications for Thompson Thrift Development. Petitioner seeks approval to
construct two multi- tenant retail buildings on 1.255 + - acres to be known as
Stewart Place. The property is located at 821, 831 & 841 South Range Line
Road. The property is zoned B- 7/business.
Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson & Frankenberger for Thompson Thrift
Development.
Mr. Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way spoke on behalf of Thompson Thrift Development,
and began by displaying a photograph depicting the subject property. The real estate
fronts on Range Line Road opposite the old Kroger shopping center, and is situated
between the Knowles Office and the law office of Vaughn Wamsley. The real estate
today consists of three lots in Newark Village, which when combined to a single parcel
comprises 1.255 acres, and is zoned B -7 /business district. The proposed uses are retail
and office, both permitted in the B -7 classification. Currently there are three houses on
the property, two of which are vacant. The third is being used as a business. These
homes will be removed as part of the development plan for Stewart Place. As part of the
roadway improvement project for Rangeline Road, we now have sidewalks in front of the
parcel, and the existing curb cuts have been reduced to One. The development plan for
Stewart Place provides for 15,300 square feet office and retail uses allocated between two
buildings, to be built in phases. The first building will be the site for Sherwin Williams
when it relocates from the old Kroger shopping center as part of the City Center project.
In the initial planning for Stewart Place, we were directed by the city to consult Les Olds,
architect, for part of the City Center project. Mr. Olds assisted us in establishing the
parameters and guidelines for architectural design, various site components, and special
features of the plan. The next series of drawings depict the special features of the
architectural design. A composite drawing showing both buildings identifies one as
facing Range Line Road, the other facing north. The predominant features of the
building, which is conservative in design, consists of pitched roofs, balustrades, and
dormers. The predominant material on the front elevations will be brick, and on the least
visible elevations will be textured, split -faced block dyed the same color as the brick.
There are certain special features of the plan — there will be two clock towers -- one on
the north end, the other on the south end. The other special feature is a 30 -inch high,
brick knee wall, that will run parallel to Range Line Road and down the north property
line in front of what is called building number one. The knee wall has the visual effect of
bringing the building forward and creating a courtyard effect. The concept of this
s: \P1anCommission \Minutes \pc2000dec 2
architectural design, as well as the initial meetings, were to provide a development plan
that would be consistent with what might occur on the opposite side of the street.
Building number two, as well as the clock tower on the south end of the site, will be
presented for final review and approval at a later date. It is being presented now to
establish its consistency with building #1. Another drawing represents a view of the
clock tower, as well as all elevations of building #1. It depicts the brick and split -faced
block, the balustrades, and the dormers. The orientation of the buildings is shown on the
site plan, along with the landscape plan. This exhibit identifies the orientation of both
buildings. Building #1 is the largest, situated along the north property line, and set back
from Range Line Road. This building will be approximately 9,000 square feet in size;
the
larger part of this building will be occupied by Sherwin Williams.
Building #2, the smaller of the two, will be part of phase 2 construction, and
will be 3,400 square feet in size. It was suggested that this building be placed forward of
building #1 nearest the right of way of Range Line Road. The landscaping along the east
property line includes the 30 -foot greenbelt required under B -7 zoning, providing a solid
visual screening.
The lighting plan and fixtures are included in booklets provided to Plan Commission
members. The lighting plan is very conservative. Lighting for the parking area is located
on the western half of the site, and away from the east property line. Sample signage will
be individual letters, mounted on a raceway in keeping with the Carmel Sign Ordinance.
A trash enclosure was shown with masonry sides and a vinyl gate on the front.
Vaughn Wamsley, neighbor to the south, provided a letter to the Plan Commission
members in which he expressed concern about the placement of building #2. The
petitioner has worked with Les Olds, advisor to the City, and Building #2 is being placed
nearer the street and sidewalk. This type of design feature will be in keeping with design
in the City Center project. However, building #2 will be back before the Commission at
a later date.
It is possible, upon the establishment of an Overlay Zone for Range Line Road, that there
will be a common theme of placement closer to the right of way. For these reasons, the
building has been placed as depicted. Mr. Wamsley feels the placement of building #2
impacts his building visually, and that it may pose a safety hazard for persons entering
and exiting his site. If the Plan Commission determines the building should be placed
farther east, it is something we could agree to.
The Chairman asked for public comments favorable to the proposal. There being none,
he asked for any organized remonstrance unfavorable to the project.
Vaughn Wamsley, Attorney, appeared, and expressed his concern that his building,
which is set back about 100 feet, would be like being in a tunnel. Most nearby buildings
s: \P1anCommission \Minutes \pc2000dec 3
are also farther set back, and the new building would stick out like a sore thumb - -Mr.
Wamsley would be looking at the back of the building. Also, when people would exit his
building, their view would be almost completely blocked, and might cause an accident;
hence, there is a public safety concern. Mr. Wamsley said neighbor Bill Knowles has
the same concerns. It will affect his building appearance and signage as well. It would
preserve continuity if the setbacks were the same.
Nicholas Buschman, Attorney, spoke on behalf of Bill Knowles. He respectfully
requested that Building #2 be moved back from its proposed position.
Paul Adams, to the east side of this property, has a concern that if he is in his back
yard, he wants to be sure he is not looking at cars, and wonders if there is anything
proposed that would block his view, either a fence, berm, or some type of landscape
screening
Rebuttal: Mr. Nelson believed that the concerns expressed by Vaughn Wamsley and
reiterated by Nicholas Buschman had been addressed. In regard to landscaping along the
east property line, under the B -7 classification, the petitioner is required to provide a 30
foot greenbelt for solid, visual screening. Mr. Nelson requested a meeting with Mr.
Adams to discuss plans for the portion affecting his property. The petitioner has chosen
plant material as screening in lieu of a fence, and this can be discussed.
Laurence Lillig confirmed the understanding that the petitioner was guided to the
placement of building #2 by a city consultant. There is no way of knowing what the
Range Line Overlay requirements may be in the future. In order to develop the site as
currently proposed, the petitioner will have to go through a variance process with the
Board of Zoning Appeals. The site plan is consistent in the way of guidance given the
petitioner by the City Consultant. It is the Department's understanding that building #2
will not be constructed immediately; building #1 is the priority. It is the Department's
recommendation that this item be forwarded to the January 9, 2001 meeting of the
Special Study Committee.
The public hearing was then closed. The Chairman asked if this might be sent to
Subdivision in order to distribute the load between Special Study and Subdivision.
Therefore, this item will be placed on the agenda of the Subdivision Committee for
the January 9, 2001 meeting.
Ron Houck asked the petitioner why there are two buildings rather than one; there is also
a question regarding the light standards. The front of building #2 faces north, and Ron
questions how this building will be serviced by delivery trucks during normal business
hours, since there is parking along the east side of the building. This can be further
explored at the Committee level.
O.J. Stocker of Ossip Development, spoke for the petitioner to answer the questions
posed by Ron Houck. The idea for the curb cut location is specifically designed to
s: \PlanCommission \Minutes \pc2000dec 4
accommodate deliveries. Trucks will turn east into the development, pull in to the south
toward the back end of building #1.
I. Old Business
1 i. Docket No. 109 -99 DP /ADLS; Wingate Inn
Currently Tabled due to Pending Litigation
2i. Docket No. 109 -00 PP; 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 (ROSOII) of the Subdivision Control Ordinance.
Filed by Paul G. Reis of the Reis Law Firm for Kosene & Kosene.
This item was referred to the full Commission by the Subdivision Committee on
December 5, 2000.
Nick Kestner offered comments to the Commission. Although the petitioner meets the
minimum standards under the Residential Open Space Ordinance, the intent was to have
something unique or special when the petitioner was given the right to put in small lots.
Mr. Kestner said there is nothing special about this project and he would not be proud of
it.
Dave Cremeans said he was on the Residential Open Space Ordinance Committee and
there were a number of discussions about creating something unusual. In a lot of parts of
the country, ROSO is used because of unusual land, ravines, water, hills, etc. This is not
the case with this development.
Ron Houck moved for the approval of Docket No. 109 -00 PP, Guilford Park
Subdivision, seconded by John Sharpe.
In answer to Pat Rice's question, Ron Houck said that the Committee recognized there is
probably a deficiency in the Subdivision Control Ordinance and John Molitor has been
asked to address this in an up -date of the Ordinance At this point, with the current
language in the Ordinance, the petitioner has met the requirements of the Ordinance
Ron Houck's motion was APPROVED by a vote of 9 in favor, 5 opposed (Madeline
Fitzgerald, Bob Modisett, Jim O'Neal, Nick Kestner, and Paul Spranger).
3i. Docket No. 154 -00 Z, Parkwood Crossing West PUD
This item is being "skipped over" for the moment, awaiting the arrival of John
Myers of Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas.
4i. Docket No. 157 -00 PP Amend; Little Farms Addition, Lots 14 & 15
s: \PlanCommission \Minutes \pc2000dec 5
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 E. 105th Street. The site 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 & gutters
157 -00b SW SCO 8.9.1 to forego installation of sidewalks
Filed by Stan Neal of Weihe Engineering for David R. Harbison.
Ron Houck gave the report of the Subdivision Committee. The petitioner was asked to
add language to the subdivision waivers as follows: At the discretion of the Director of
the Department of Community Services or the Plan Commission, or at such time as a plan
for curbs and gutters or sidewalks is implemented in the area, the plan for curbs and
gutters or sidewalks would be implemented on these parcels. The Committee voted
unanimously in favor of recommending approval.
Laurence Lillig said the Department has prepared the documents as requested and they
are being made available to the petitioner.
The Department confirmed for Jim O'Neal that at such a time as curbs, gutters, or
sidewalks are implemented for the area, this commitment will require them to be installed
on these two lots.
In response to questions from Bob Modisett, Ron Houck said the owner of the properties
committed to building a single family residence for himself, and the property owners will
sign the commitments.
Ron Houck moved for the approval of Docket No. 157 -00 P Amend, Little Farms
Addition, Lots 14 & 15, seconded by Leo Dierckman. The vote was 14 in favor none
opposed. APPROVED.
Laurence Lillig explained that the commitments will be recorded along with the
Secondary Plat, and the conditions will be placed on the Primary Plat. The approval is
conditioned upon recording of the subdivision waivers.
5i. 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. The site is zoned R -3 /residence. The petitioner
also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waivers:
159 -000a SW SCO 8.8 to forego installation of curbs & gutters
159 -00b SW SCO 8.9 to forego installation of sidewalk/multi -use path
Filed by Stan Neal of Weihe Engineering for Daniel Cage.
Ron Houck gave the Committee Report. This item is much the same as the previous item
except the petitioner is not the same. The Committee asked that this petitioner also add
language that commits to installing curbs & gutters and/or sidewalks at a later date,
s: \PlanCommission \Minutes \pc2000dec 6
subject to the discretion of the Plan Commission, Director of DOCS, or City /County.
The committee recommends approval of Docket 159 -00 PP Amend.
Ron Houck moved for the approval of Docket No. 159 -00 PP Amend, Dixie Highway
Addition, Lot 7, seconded by Marilyn Anderson.
Laurence Lillig explained the difference in wording between the subdivision waivers for
this item and that of the preceding item (Little Farms). One refers to a property fronting
on a residential street, while the other includes frontage on a secondary arterial as well as
on a residential street; hence, multi -use path is included.
Findings of Fact were completed on Docket No. 159 -00 PP Amend, Dixie Highway
Addition, Lot 7. APPROVAL was unanimous (14 in favor, 0 opposed) for the primary
plat. Subdivision waivers were approved conditioned upon the recording of
commitments on sidewalks and gutters.
Note: Before continuing with item 6i, Alan Klineman, Ventana Court, asked that the
Parkwood Crossing West PUD Docket No. 154 -00 Z be continued to next month, due to
the lack of information as to when the traffic engineer would arrive. Dave Cremeans
reported that John Myers airplane had landed, and Mr. Myers is en -route to the meeting.
6i. Docket No. 165 -00 PP; Meadowlark Office Park Subdivision
Primary Plat application for Dauby O'Connor LLC. The petitioner seeks
approval to plat five lots on 6.064 + - acres. The site is located southeast of the
intersection of West Smokey Row Road and Pro -Med Lane. The site is zoned
B -6 /business.
Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger for Dauby
O'Connor LLC.
Committee Report, Ron Houck. Meadowlark Office Park Subdivision was tabled at the
committee level, at which time the petitioner was asked to supply answers to viable
options for use of this parcel. After due consideration, the committee recommends
approval of Docket 165 -00 PP as presented. The Chairman explained that this situation
is unusual and unique in that subdivision of the property is taking place after
development rather than the reverse order.
Department Report, Laurence Lillig explained the Department's negative
recommendation. Five general office buildings are either complete or are under
construction currently. The depot anent advised the petitioner prior to filing that it would
be better to establish a horizontal property regime, which would render the petition
unnecessary.
Pat Rice asked about ramifications. Mr. Houck said the petitioner originally intended to
construct all five buildings, then later decided to subdivide and sell off parcels. A
horizontal property regime would be similar to a condominium in that purchasers would
own the buildings, but not the land on which they sit. The committee determined that
s: \P1anCommission \Minutes \pc2000dec 7
type of situation could be a detriment. Had the property been subdivided originally, it
would not have been possible to establish the buildings on the parcel as they are now.
Since it was one lot at the time of approval, the buildings were permitted to be placed
closer together. There seems to be no history of this in the community. All landscaping
and maintenance will be undertaken by a common organization. The nature of the
development and its quality would not be negatively impacted, and it would give
flexibility to the petitioner to sell the individual parcels. They have obtained a
Developmental Standards Variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Norma Meighen moved for the approval of Docket 165 -00 PP, Meadowlark Office
Park Subdivision, seconded by Pat Rice. APPROVED with a vote of 14 in favor, 0
opposed, conditioned upon landscaping being maintained by a common group.
7i. Docket No. 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 & 3800
Bauer Drive West. The site is zoned B- 3/business.
Note: Original secondary plat approved April 19, 1994, as 39 -94 SP.
Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson & Frankenberger for World Wide
Motors and Indiana Basketball Academy, LLC.
Committee Report: Ron Houck said issues such as lighting and automobile alarms were
addressed at the Committee level. The Committee's recommendation is for approval of
the petition.
Department Report: Mr. Lillig said that following subdivision committee, there was
some question as to whether the sideyard requirements on the Indiana Basketball
Academy block were adequate to meet the requirements of the B -3 classification that
requires a minimum sideyard of 20 feet for lots adjoining a residential district. The west
side yard setback will now be 10 feet. It has been determined that the sideyard is a
minimum of 30 feet, with a 30 foot aggregate sideyard. This means you could have a
minimum of 30 feet on one side, and zero on the other side.
Norma Meighen moved for the approval of Docket No. 169 -00 PP Amend, Richard L.
Hayes Two Level Luxury Townhouses, Block A, seconded by Ron Houck. The written
Findings of Fact were completed, and the motion carried with a vote of 14 in favor, 0
opposed.
8i. Docket No. 171 -00 ADLS Amend; West Carmel Center, Block A.
Petitioner seeks approval of the sign package for a Walgreens pharmacy. 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.
s: \PlanCommission \Minutes \pc2000dec 8
Dave Coots of Coots, Henke & Wheeler, 255 East Carmel Drive, appeared before the
Commission representing the petitioner. Walgreens has opted for two wall signs, one on
the west elevation, the other on the north elevation, along with the drive- through
pharmacy sign.
Committee Report: According to Paul Spranger, Kevin McKasson submitted a sign
package for this building with multiple signs. The Committee made some
recommendations that the signs be reduced. Once the signs were reduced, the Committee
unanimously recommended approval.
Department Report: Mr. Lillig reported the department favors approval, as recommended
by the Special Study Committee; Laurence Lillig also gave an update on the landscaping
for this property. The Department has met with the landscape architects regarding this
property and that of adjacent Wendys. The Department has received plans for a third site
that is to be developed, and these plans are being reviewed by the Urban Forester and the
Landscape Architects. Only the signage is being considered tonight.
Mr. Spranger said there was some question about ownership of the parcels, and whether
they were to be recorded individually, since it sits on two parcels. Mr. Cremeans again
reiterated that only signage is under review this evening, but the Department should make
sure that information on the other issues are considered at an appropriate time.
Ron Houck moved for the approval of Docket No. 171 -00 ADLS Amend, West Carmel
Center, Block A, seconded by Norma Meighen. APPROVAL was unanimous (14 in
favor, 0 opposed).
F. New Business:
1j. Docket No. 183 -00 ADLS; Hazel Dell Corner, Lot 6 — Children's World
Petitioner seeks ADLS approval in order to establish a Children's World
day care center on 1.46 + - acres. The site is located at 13320 Hazel Dell
Parkway. The site is zoned B- 3/business.
Filed by Darren T. Pittman of Falcon Engineering for Aramark Educational
Resources.
Darren Pittman, Project Engineer for Falcon Engineering, 8906 E. 96th St, Fishers, IN.
appeared. He reported this project received Special Use approval at the BZA in
November, at which time they were granted a sign variance for the size of a monument
sign. The site is on the northwest corner of 131St Street and Hazeldell Parkway. A
daycare center is proposed for 173 children and 19 staff members in a one -story building
of 10,989 square feet, with a building height of 22 feet 6 inches. The building will have a
residential theme, and will blend in with the surrounding structures. It will have a brick
exterior and shingled roof; samples of the materials were shown. Forty -nine parking
spaces, including two handicapped, are being provided, one more than the ordinance
requires. The trash dumpster will be enclosed and well - concealed from neighbors with
landscaping. Two playground areas are provided adjacent to the building and away from
s: \P1anCommission \Minutes \pc2000dec 9
the road. One curb cut is proposed and will be aligned with existing Ivy Hill Drive
across the street. This curb cut will also provide access for lot #5, which is south of the
daycare site. Site lighting will be two arm- mounted lights about 20 ft. in height,
rectangular in shape with recessed bulbs, details of which are being worked out with Mr.
Lillig and the architect. The building itself will have several wall packs mounted on the
building to provide lighting for the walkways that surround the building.
Signage includes one monument sign located just south (to the left) of the proposed
entrance, approximately 52 square feet. This will be the same brick as the building, with
limestone caps on the top. Inclusion of the A,B,C, letters on the signage is being revised
at staff request, due to possible confusion for emergency response units. Extensive
landscaping around both sides of the entrance and along Hazel Dell Parkway is planned,
and at the north end of the site there is an existing mature tree line, which extends down
the west border of the site. The site is bounded by Hazel Dell Commons Subdivision,
whose developers took care in providing buffer between the subdivision and the
commercial segment. A 30 foot greenspace area is provided on the north and west
boundaries of the daycare site. The only thing in those areas will be the playgrounds.
The petitioner is currently working with staff on some building revisions, which include
additional dormers, roofline, and lighting details.
There were no questions from commission members. Mr. Lillig reiterated the petitioner
is working on some revisions that will be presented at committee. At the time this
property was rezoned B -3, the developer committed to bringing ADLS approval to the
Plan Commission, and to having architecture of a residential character. What has been
presented this evening is substantially in compliance with those recorded commitments.
Docket No. 183 -00 ADLS, Hazel Dell Corner, Lot 6 - Children's World, was referred
to the Special Study Committee on January 9, 2001.
2j. This item Currently Tabled Pending Amendment of Application:
Docket No. 185 -00 ADLS; Town Centre West.
3j. Docket No. 189 -00 ADLS Amend; Pearson Ford
Petitioner seeks ADLS Amendment approval for the sign package at Pearson
Ford. The site is located at 10650 North Michigan Road. The site is zoned B-
3/business and is located within the U.S. 421 Overlay Zone.
Filed by E. Davis Coots of Coots Henke & Wheeler for Pearson Ford.
Dave Coots, 255 E. Carmel Drive appeared on behalf of the petitioner requesting
approval of a new sign package under the 421/Michigan Road Overlay Zone
requirements, and to ask approval on a band of light to surround the building.
The sign package was submitted to the Board of Zoning Appeals and approved at its
October meeting in terms of the size of signage and number. Information on the seven
signs, their size and locations, was forwarded directly to the Commission members. The
various components in the dealership make up the overall dealership. These include new
s: \P1anCommission \Minutes \pc2000dec 10
car, pre- owned, collision, parts, etc. The variance was necessary due to the B -3
allowable size requirement of 10 square feet for signs, and for the number of signs
requested.
The second portion of this application is for a "blue light band" to illuminate the
perimeter of the building and tie it in with the internally lit sign package. The signs are
the typical Ford blue color. There is one sign submitted to the Plan Commission that was
not taken care of at the October meeting because it was unknown at that time whether the
pole sign would be moved or removed. Subsequent to that meeting, it has been
determined that the pole sign will be removed, and a monument sign containing the Ford
oval (part of the ADLS approval) submitted for consideration. We are asking that the
sign package be approved, including the coloring, also the illumination of the band
around the building perimeter, which is the same color as the signage.
Mr. Lillig confirmed this has been to the BZA for approval of variances for the number
and size of signs, and they will return for consideration of the monument sign. Staff
recommends this be sent to Special Study Committee on January 9, 2001.
Ms. Rice asked whether the band is considered signage or lighting, and the Chairman
suggested this be addressed at Committee.
4j. Docket No. 191 -00 ADLS Amend; Parkwood Crossing, Building 1 —
Verizon Wireless
Petitioner seeks ADLS Amendment approval of a sign for Verizon
Wireless. The site is located at 250 E. 96th Street. The site is zoned B-
6 /business.
Filed by Philip A. Nicely of Bose McKinney & Evans for Verizon Wireless.
John Smeltzer of Bose McKinney Evans, 600 E. 96th St. spoke on behalf of the petitioner.
Steve Granner is also present. Verizon One was formerly known as GTE and had
signage on the north face of this building. Their offices utilized several floors
comprising approximately 39,084 square feet of this building. With the construction of
Building 7, their signage is blocked. The Verizon sign will be on the west face of the
building. The location and size will be complementary and compatible with others in the
I -465 corridor. Buildings 5, 6, and 7 of Parkwood Crossing have received variances for
identification signs similar to the one requested this evening.
The sign is 32 feet in length, 33 %2 inches in height, simple, tasteful black letters, and red
"Z." It will be reverse illuminated, black during the day and white at night; a sample of
the lighting was demonstrated. The staff has recommended approval of the petition.
Mr. Lillig reported this sign will be going to the Board of Zoning Appeals for
consideration of its location on the building. The frontage of the building does not have
public right -of -way exposure. In all other respects the petition meets the sign criteria.
The department recommends voting and approval this evening.
s: \PlanCommission \Minutes \pc2000dec 11
Jim O'Neal moved for the suspension of the rules, seconded by Leo Dierckman,.
APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
Jim O'Neal moved for the approval of Docket No. 191 -00 ADLS Amend, Parkwood
Crossing, Building 1 - Verizon Wireless, seconded by Bob Modisett.. APPROVED 14
in favor none opposed.
Ron Houck asked about allowable square footage as compared with the requested
amount. Mr. Lillig said the requested 65 square feet is permissible, and given the
distance of greater than 250 feet from Highway 421, the sign could conceivably be larger
than requested.
5j. Docket No. 191 -00 ADLS Amend; Parkwood Crossing, Building 7 —
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter
Petitioner seeks ADLS Amendment approval of a sign for Morgan Stanley
Dean Witter. The site is located at 280 East 96th Street. The site is zoned
B- 6/business.
Filed by Philip A. Nicely of Bose McKinney & Evans for Morgan Stanley
Dean Witter.
John Smeltzer, Attorney for Bose McKinney Evans with offices located at 600 E. 96th St.
appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
Mr. Smeltzer noted that Morgan Stanley Dean Witter is leasing almost an entire
floor in Building 7, with a total space of 23,562 square feet. CSO is the other major
tenant in this building. The sign dimensions are 19 ft. 6 inches by 40 inches. This
includes both lines of print in the sign, the individual letters, 18 inches in height, with a
total sign size of 65 square feet. A rendering of the proposed sign and location was
shown, and described as tasteful, with black letters and reverse illumination with a white
halo effect. Offices in the surrounding buildings have similar signs as that being
proposed.
Mr. Lillig reported this petition will come before the Board of Zoning Appeals because
of the request for two signs on a single frontage, and in all other respects requirements
are met. The department favors suspension of the rules and approval. In response to
questioning, Mr. Lillig stated that each individual sign meets ordinance requirements, and
is similar to that on building 6.
Mr. Houck inquired about signage for CSO, and suggested the two businesses have
similar types. It was determined the signs are the same in design with reverse
illumination.
Leo Dierckman moved for the suspension of the rules, seconded by Ron Houck;
Unanimously Approved.
Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of Docket No. 192 -00 ADLS Amend,
Parkwood Crossing, Building 7, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, seconded by Pat Rice.
s: \P1anCommission \Minutes \pc2000dec 12
The vote was 14 in favor none opposed. APPROVED.
6j. Docket No. 196 -00 ADLS; First Indiana Bank
Petitioner seeks Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping & Signage
approval for a bank. The site is located at 2168 East 116th Street. The site
is zoned B -8 /business.
Filed by David B. Huffman of CSO Engineers for First Indiana Bank.
John Smeltzer, Attorney with Bose McKinney & Evans with offices at 600 East 96th
Street represented First Indiana Bank, owner of the property located at the corner of
AAA Way and Merchants Square Drive in the Merchants Square development. (Mr.
Huffman's flight is delayed, and he will not be present this evening.)
First Indiana Bank has been in this location for approximately thirty years. The building
was constructed when Keystone Square Shopping Center was first developed. City
engineers determined that AAA will be curbed and the offset of AAA Way and
Merchants Square Drive will be eliminated. A plan was developed in which additional
land was acquired, certain property was conveyed to the city to eliminate the offset
problem, and the bank is to be re -built on essentially the same site. Because the building
is zoned B -8, rebuilding the bank requires ADLS approval by the Plan Commission.
Since the last approval, First Indiana has changed its prototype building, and would like
to construct this prototype on the site. The old site plan and the proposed location were
shown to commission members. Alignment is slightly different. The two buildings are
comparable in size with the proposed building 2,884 square feet compared with 2,772
square feet currently. Primary building material will be brick with wood and frame
windows, and building height approximately 19 feet. Twelve parking spaces are
proposed, including one van - accessible. Landscaping and lighting, and elevation plans
are included in packets distributed earlier to commission members. Two curb cuts are
shown off Merchants Square Drive, the westernmost of which allows only one -way exit
from the bank. The sign package shows simple black letters with the First Indiana logo.
Lighting is traditional and is illustrated in the packet.
Mr. Lillig explained that due to deadline peculiarities, this project comes to the Plan
Commission before it goes to the Technical Advisory Committee. The Department
recommends the petition be sent to Special Study Committee on January 9, 2001.
Mr. Houck asked if this is the prototype built on 86th Street, and was given an affirmative
response. There is one located in Nora.
This project will be reviewed at the Special Study Committee on January 9, 2001.
After a ten minute break, the meeting reconvened at 9:10 PM.
I. Old Business
s: \PlanCommission \Minutes \pc2000dec 13
3i. Docket No. 154 -000 Z; Parkwood Crossing West PUD
Rezone petition for Duke -Weeks Realty. The petitioner seeks favorable
recommendation for a rezone from the B- 5/business and S -2 /residence districts to
a PUD /planned unit development district. The site is located on the northwest
corner of West 96th Street and North Meridian Street. The site is zoned S -2/
Residence and B-5/Business within the U.S.31 Overlay Zone.
Note: The Public Hearing on this Item has been held open at Plan Commission.
Filed by Steven B.Granner of Bose McKinney & Evans for Duke -Weeks Realty.
Committee Report: Paul Spranger explained that the Commission saw this project a
couple years ago, at which time the petitioner was asked to reduce the density. That has
been done. The petitioner was also asked to shift the buildings farther north, away from
the residential areas, and to include the parking. This too has been addressed. They also
have incorporated some of the department's concerns. The committee realizes this has a
significant impact on traffic; peak time traffic is a concern. Traffic has been a key item
in this project. The Plan Commission has engaged the services of John Myers of Parsons
Brinckerhoff, a national traffic and road - designing engineering firm. Mr. Myers has a lot
of experience on US 31, and on INDOT interchanges. The petitioner also engaged an
engineering firm to develop a traffic report. In addition, Brad Yarger (from the
remonstrators) also has done a study of this site.
John Myers was asked to do a review of all these studies, and establish a base line to
level the playing field.
In the interim there was a special meeting to study the Planned Unit Development
Ordinance. Following this, the committee recommended approval of this 8th revision of
the PUD Ordinance.
Tonight John Myers will report to the entire Plan Commission, to help judge this issue.
Mr. Spranger also gave an explanation of new design issues of 96th /Meridian, which
came about as a result of recent discussions pertaining to the traffic studies.
Mr. Cremeans acknowledged the due diligence of the Special Study Committee on this
project. Tonight's continuation of the public hearing will adhere to the regular rules of
procedure. Counsel suggested the petitioner present a summary of technical changes and
any new information at this time. Mr. Kirby questioned whether there is indeed new
information, as he felt the traffic study had been retired two meetings ago.
Mr. Cremeans asked if the petitioner would like to make any clarifying statements. Chris
Seger of Duke Weeks, 600 East 96th Street, Carmel said there is no new information.
There are two minor changes in the ordinance.
Mr. Greg Silver, attorney, (on behalf of the remonstrators) asked for acknowledgement
that there will not be new traffic data, since Mr.Yarger would not have the advantage of
responding to it. This was confirmed by the chairman.
s: \PlanCommission \Minutes \pc2000dec 14
Steve Granner, zoning consultant with offices at 600 East 96th Street, Suite 500,
explained there is a small correction to the ordinance, and one small correction to the
commitments. Page 5 of the ordinance, section 4.3, has an addition of language in the
second line, "upon the real estate ... and proposed rights of way" and deletion of a
portion of the second -to -last sentence, and adding the word "anticipated." to the last
sentence. In the commitments, page 2, item D, the two words "if' / "and" are added.
Additionally, no right of way will be taken on the south side of 96th Street, but there may
be real estate needed for right of way at intersections that is not part of the parcel
included in this petition. The proposed roundabout at Spring Mill Road has been shifted
farther north so there is no right of way needed on the south side of 96th Street in the
existing residential areas. There is the possibility of needed right of way on the west side
of Spring Mill, on the Eiteljorg property.
Mr. Cremeans said his understanding is that Duke -Weeks is donating right of way to the
city of Carmel for improvements to 96th Street on the north side from Spring Mill to
Meridian. Mr. Seger later explained that actually there is a commitment for acquiring the
right of way land through the vehicle of Tax Increment Financing. The anticipation is
that infrastructure road improvements will be made by using approximately $6 million in
bonds that will be floated from incremental taxes generated in the TIF area. The land has
been put on the table at the Redevelopment Commission as part of the TIF process.
Mr. Kirby reiterated that these efforts are to ensure that road improvements for this
project will not be paid out of public funds or tax payer dollars, that they will come from
funds generated by the construction of this project, funds which would not accrue without
the project.
Mr. Spranger said there had been some concerns about variations in state right of way
requirements for the I- 465/Meridian interchange. It has been determined that the
document is consistent with what we are doing. This was confirmed by John Molitor,
Counsel.
Mr. Engelking said he has found the changes to be acceptable, as has Counsel.
General public comments favorable to the petition were invited. No one appeared.
Organized remonstrance was invited. Mr. Greg Silver of 342 Massachusetts,
Indianapolis, appeared and asked that individuals be allowed to speak prior to
representatives of organized groups. Mr. Houck made a motion to suspend the rules and
allow Mr. Silver's request; this motion failed.
Mr. Silver appeared on behalf of the Heartland Coalition, and called upon Alan
Klineman, 398 Ventana Court (the Reserve). He spoke in opposition to the project,
believing it would do no good for the quality of life in Carmel, that it falls far short of
desired standards. This is a massive office project, not a campus style. The theory that
this will provide tax money is misleading. The monies generated would go right into the
s: \P1anCommission \Minutes \pc2000dec 15
project. The project is still too big, the underlying landowner wants too much money for
his property, so Duke -Weeks is required to build a massive project, and is bringing a
"piece of coal" to Carmel.
Gerald Wagner, Chairman of Heartland Coalition and Belle Mead Civic Association, 211
W. 96th Street, spoke. Approval of this project is a retraction of earlier commitments by
Carmel governmental officials to maintain the property zoned as residential. Rezoning to
commercial will have an adverse impact on existing residential properties. Preliminary
discussions with residential appraisers suggest his property and others in the affected area
will experience significant devaluation. The area will experience significant increase in
traffic congestion, and a decrease in the overall quality of life for residents in the area.
He and others plan to hold any governmental entity accountable if this project is
approved.
Mr. Silver, counsel for Heartland Coalition, stated this project is an oversized, oversold,
overbearing one for the adjacent neighborhood, and for anyone who uses the intersection
of 96th and Meridian and I -465 at Meridian. Its negative effect on Spring Mill Road, 96th
Street, and as far as College Avenue, 116th Street, and 86th Street will be felt by us, our
children and grandchildren, and as long as we exist here. The change from residential to
less dense commercial (not opposed by us) is a grab for the false promise and hope for
"Shangrila," and for the treasury of Carmel to increase. The price to pay in traffic, noise,
pollution, and congestion far outweighs the profit for Duke -Weeks and Carmel's tax
base. The decision to approve this as good land use is a farce. It (the commission) has
petitioned its own engineer who says all will be fine with traffic, not listening to the
remonstrators' experts. John Myers has agreed with their figures, that 1 -465 at Meridian
in the a.m. will not work, and that the level of service at 96th and Meridian will be level
D, where your binding law requires at least a level C. The quality of life will be damaged
by your approval tonight. Residents were prepared to accept development with part
residential and part commercial. Can't you see what these developers are doing? Is there
no limit? What are you doing to yourselves and to us? The action of this planning
commission violates the state - enabling act by increasing traffic congestion in a public
way, and creates private and public nuisances in the guise of legal zoning. Doing so
diminishes the residential values of the area so that your actions will be arbitrary and
capricious. Residential communities are not compatible with 5 -story commercial
buildings and the ensuing train of cars pouring into it. This has got to stop now.
Approval tonight is illegal, and we will not stand for it. Today Mr. Silver met with the
Mayor of Indianapolis through his emissary. Mr. Silver read a letter dated today, in
which the request is made to delay a decision for at least 60 days in order to allow the
City of Indianapolis traffic engineers their first opportunity to evaluate the traffic
projections associated with this development, and to assess the effect on Marion
County's transportation plan as it relates to infrastructure requirements. As good
neighbors there is a need to work together when considering a development of this
magnitude that will impact both of our counties. This letter is signed by Bert SerVaas,
President of the Indianapolis City Council. Mr. Silver asked that his comments and this
letter be entered into the record.
s: \PlanCommission \Minutes \pc2000dec 16
Bud Wilson representing the Reasonable Residential Roadways Committee, an
unincorporated association of petitioners acting with the right of the constitution to
petition, a right that can bring a community together as Clay West is doing. A position
statement is presented this evening, requesting the plan commission reject the petition to
rezone the land for Parkwood West, citing quality of life issues, traffic congestion at
96th /Meridian and I- 465 /Meridian, reasonable traffic distribution in roads surrounding
residential communities. Traffic studies presented by Dukes -Weeks are not consistent
with those presented by the remonstrators. Common sense would indicate that allowing
over 2,000 more vehicles to a commercial property would be like adding fuel to an
already out of control fire. The neighboring residents have a substantial investment
already, and can only be negatively affected. Carmel government needs to retain the
current zoning. Smart growth and smart government must maintain zoning standards.
Clay West is a crown jewel, and a high tax - paying community. It doesn't make sense to
endanger the long -term growth of Clay West to satisfy an aggressive developer.
The Chairman asked for individual remonstrance.
Mark Ratterman, 11257 St. Andrews Lane, Carmel addressed the Commission. He
distributed material showing the TIF district will pay for road improvements, purchasing
the land, landscaping, etc. If the TIF pays for all this, they are getting a tax -free ride for
ten years, or however long the TIF term is. The money is being reimbursed right back to
them. It is very "Clintonesque." He hopes Mr. Granner will clarify. Mr. Ratterman said
it looks like either a gift by the citizens or a tax -free benefit for ten years, which upsets
him. He thanks Pam Lambert for discovering this, which he considers a very serious
breach.
The Petitioner was given an opportunity for rebuttal. Chris Seger addressed the TIF first.
For over two months he has been having conversations with the proper channels; namely,
the Redevelopment Commission, and nothing is finalized at this point in time. Having
not seen what has been distributed, he can only assume it is a list of what is legally
allowed in a TIF district. In a potential TIF agreement, Duke -Weeks would guarantee the
bonds, and as part of the process, they are currently gathering data on accurate
projections of tax revenues generated by Parkwood West, and what improvements are
allowed by state statute. The taxes being used in the TIF are generated by this particular
project. Without the project, there are no additional taxes, and these taxes will go
specifically to pay for infrastructure items. Concerning the comments about the massive
project, Duke -Weeks has been here since 1972 as a major presence in the Indianapolis
area. The project is not high density, and is similar to Parkwood Crossing, a very
successful project for the city, for the companies located there, and for Duke. Mr. Seger
reiterated they have really tried to listen, have made concessions, and it is now time to
move on. We would like to see a favorable vote tonight.
John Myers of Parsons Brinckerhoff located at 47 S. Pennsylvania, Indianapolis, said
we've had a bit of trouble getting the base traffic numbers.
s: \PlanCommission \Minutes \pc2000dec 17
There are some differences in the underlying assumptions of the two traffic studies that
have been done. Rather than focus on those, he will make some general observations.
First, they did all agree on what was going to be generated from the site. Also agreed on
is that the roundabout proposed at Springmill will operate effectively, that the lanes
between Springmill and Meridian will serve the traffic generated by this development.
The intersection at 96th and Meridian brought a level of service C from one study, a D
from the other. There is variation in interpretation. There is general agreement, and the
city of Indianapolis uses D as its standard.
The issue has always been the interchange, and will continue to be a critical area until the
interchange is rebuilt as part of INDOT. We are really talking about a temporary
condition here. No one knows when that interchange will be built, likely near the end of
this ten -year period at a cost of perhaps $100 million. I -465 will also be rebuilt during
that timeframe. We realize while the project is being done, there will be problems in the
area.
Referring to simulations of traffic failures, he has respect for that tool, but with changes
in turn lanes, back -ups went away. It is sensitive to signal timing. There is a potential of
problems in the mornings during this ten -year time, and there are variations that may
affect the situation. Is it acceptable to approve this development, realizing there may be
problems dependent on vacancies, and what happens during that time.
Are the treatments acceptable, with additions of lanes at 96th and Meridian? Vacant
properties is an important issue. The interchange will take a large part of the property on
the north at I -465. There will be relatively little property available for development,
mostly at Springmill Road. It will take half of the property between Meridian and
Springmill. Timing of the improvements is important. It is difficult to determine
whether improvements will be completed prior to full occupancy.
Ron Houck suggested that since this does not require any right of way into Marion
County, this would be strictly a Hamilton County /City of Carmel jurisdictional issue,
with no need to involve Marion County.
Mr. Cremeans asked for a motion to postpone this for 60 days. There being none, it
failed.
Mr. Cremeans asked for clarification of some intersection ideas, since not all members
may have heard them. This is not new information, simply an informational explanation
of information that has been presented before. Steve Fehribach showed some drawings
and aerials of 96th and Meridian. He showed southbound lanes on an aerial, with possible
directional signage leading traffic into the Dukes -Weeks development. Additionally,
there can be a second left -turn lane heading north, utilizing a 16 -foot wide existing
median. There could also be another lane by Shell, using existing right of way, so that
traffic could turn right and go eastbound on 96th Street, or go straight through. Signage
s: \P1anCommission \Minutes \pc2000dec 18
would direct drivers to the correct lane. He showed examples of signage improvements,
some of which could be implemented today to improve drivers' ability to know where
they need to be. He also showed the roundabout out of the 96th Street Study, moved to
the north.
Mr. Cremeans stated, as he did in the committee meeting, that some of these things
should be done now.
Ms.Rice asked if the petitioner would be responsible for the "out of the box lane
improvements," or whether this is part of the TIF, realizing that the state will take care of
signage changes.
Mr. Seger said they (Duke) do not have the right to make road improvements - -they must
work with the jurisdiction. The developer can only help influence their being included as
part of the overall TIF package. It is not within the authority of his organization to do
them independently.
Mr. Kirby said some of these improvements would require the City of Carmel to go to
INDOT with the message that "These really need to be done." Most of the improvements
on Meridian would need to be induced by the city to the state. He went on to explain that
many improvements needed in this area are beyond the scope of what can be required of
the developer. Some members of City Council and also of the Redevelopment
Commission are not looking much beyond the pavement. There is a negotiation process
going on to determine exactly what the TIF will pay for. Ice Miller is assisting the city in
this. The TIF requires approval of the Carmel City Council. Internal road improvements
in Merchants Square were made through use of a similar tool, by way of comparison.
The bottom line is that the road improvements will be done, one way or another.
Ms. Anderson questioned the permitted uses section of the PUD Ordinance. Would a
photocopy facility be used internally, or could the general public come in to use it?
Mr. Spranger said under the ordinance, most of these uses are intended for internal use,
but as an example, you cannot prohibit someone from coming in to use a copier. The
intent is for ancillary support of those inside the building, not a retail endeavor for people
outside the facility.
Mr. Molitor identified the portion of the ordinance depicting maximum square footage of
ancillary uses (35,000 square feet). If the primary purpose were to serve people outside
the facility, it would violate the ordinance.
If the number one (primary) purpose is to serve people outside the building rather than
those occupying the building, then they would be violating the ordinance, according to
Mr. Molitor, Counsel. Also, the definition of an accessory use is one subordinate to the
main use; the main uses would be the offices and the restaurant under this PUD.
s: \PlanCommission \Minutes \pc2000dec 19
Ms. Anderson asked how primary use would be determined. A hospital was given as an
example of this type of situation, with gift shops, cafeteria, copiers that might be visited
by people coming in from outside. If it starts to become a problem, it would become
obvious by the amount of traffic. That is how the department would look at it in
determining violations.
Mr. Spranger said often the ancillary uses help reduce the number of trips outside the
building by those working in the building, while it might at the same time encourage
people to come in to use a feature available inside the building.
Ms. Anderson asked for clarification along Springmill Road. Mr. Lillig said the
ordinance specifies a sidewalk (rather than footpath) because we don't want to encourage
walking traffic across the bridge that cannot accommodate it.
Mr. Houck inquired about changes in language to exhibit B, page 2 and in the
commitments, exhibit B, page 2. Mr. Kirby said the nature of Springmill Road may
change. Eventually the plan is to take Springmill Road north over the bridge, then curve
to the right and join the Illinois Street Corridor. The entrance to Springmill Road then
would be a T, and would effectively channel northbound traffic over the bridge wanting
to access 31, or farther north into the commercial district. Then that stretch of Springmill
Road would be for residents who live there. This plan gives the later option to open up
an additional exit . The alignment of Illinois Street is available for inspection in DOCS.
The realignment of Springmill Road may happen before this project is complete.
Mr. Houck also inquired whether the road improvements to 96th Street at 31 would be
paid for by the developer if the TIF district is not approved. Mr. Spranger said
commission approval needs to be subject to the road improvements being made.
Mr. Houck also asked if all issues have been addressed. Mr. Spranger acknowledged a
multi -page sheet given by Pam Lambert to the committee and to DOCS. The committee
reviewed it page by page, and also reviewed the 12/13/2000 draft of the proposed
ordinance, which was provided to Ms. Lambert as well. There was a decision for staff to
review these for any inconsistencies.
Mr. Engelking confirmed his understanding that staff was asked to review Ms. Lambert's
material for any inconsistencies with the PUD and /or the process, aspects over which
staff has jurisdiction. These were discussed at committee. The language of the PUD
itself is more appropriately discussed with the petitioner.
Mr. Houck asked for resolution of Ms. Lambert's concerns. Mr. Spranger said all
committee members had a copy of her list during the deliberation at committee. We are
on the eighth generation of the document.
Ms. Rice complimented Mr. Klineman on his remarks as a resident and attorney, and also
indicated she learned only tonight about who will pay for land and for the infrastructure
improvements. She cannot support the project knowing the petitioner remained silent
s: \P1anCommission \Minutes \pc2000dec 20
when queried about this, and also because of the possibility of a time lag between
INDOT's road improvements and the Carmel improvements to intersections and
roadways related to this project.
Madeline Fitzgerald wondered about making the approval subject to the roadway
improvements. It is difficult to do this, since the petitioner doesn't have control over
implementing the roadway improvements, and it has to be approved by INDOT and the
TIF has to take place. We would be placing the approval of a petitioner's project on
another body of the city approving something.
Mr. Spranger stated we are recommending this on to the body that has the authority;
namely, Carmel City Council. In our process, when we make our approval conditional,
we make that a part of the record in the City Council deliberations. The TIF is outside
our purvue to approve. The City Engineer gets involved in that. We need to show some
confidence in our legislative body to follow through. We are recommending it from the
planning body to City Council. Remonstrators and the City of Indianapolis, if they want
to communicate with Council, will have the opportunity to present their views at that
time.
Marilyn Anderson said approval should certainly be contingent with road improvements,
but Meridian is not exactly in Carmel's domain to do anything about. Marilyn asked for
the Special Study Committee's vote.
Paul Spranger said the Committee voted a unanimous approval on the PUD Ordinance,
and carried the traffic issue forward to this evening's meeting.
Leo Dierckman said we, as a Commission, need to be concerned with the width of the
road and the right -of -way, not necessarily with the economic decisions made by elected
officials. We aren't the body to make that decision, but can express other concerns to our
councilperson. The petitioner has gone a long way to make this a viable project.
Dave Cremeans called for the question.
Terry Jones asked for clarification from Counsel on how a condition should read, and
what effect it would have on the rezone itself. Mr. Molitor said commitments being
made are enforceable against the owner of the real estate, and on those who acquire an
interest in the real estate. The current owner and the petitioner, and anyone else who
might succeed at a later date (ex. through the sale of an office building). Commitments
can be enforced by the plan commission itself, and a phrase was added to allow owners
of adjoining parcels to enforce them as well. With respect to the right of way, it is a
commitment that the right of way will be taken from the subject real estate, and any
improvements will be made within or to the north of the existing paving area. It does not
state the ground will be dedicated without cost to the city.
Ms. Rice asked if the petitioner would like to reword to include a dedication.
s: \PlanCommission \Minutes \pc2000dec 21
Mr. Molitor said the commission is able to ask for, or to demand, additional
commitments, as part of this process.
Mr. Houck asked about signage, Exhibit B, items 3a and 3b, and asked whether the
Special Study Committee considered the monument sign at a maximum of 10 feet tall, 15
feet wide and 10 feet deep. Mr. Lillig said the overall signage must come back to the
Plan Commission for ADLS consideration at a later date. The monument sign will be
considered again at that time.
Mr. Kirby said City Council can also ask for commitments. This body may want to send
a strong signal that we don't want to pay for the right of way. This commission can
certainly tie it down to having the road improvements start when the development begins.
Mr. Molitor said commitment letter J addresses the intent for improvements to proceed
contemporaneously with the project development.
Mr. Cremeans thanked the committee. Mr. Spranger made a motion to approve PUD154-
OOZ with an additional memorandum to the Carmel City Council to "look closely at the
commitment/dedication to TIF and that road improvements be done concurrent /or prior to
issuance of an occupancy permit, to assure an orderly flow of traffic, to review all
improvements with INDOT and pursue the negotiations with INDOT on the right of way
of US31 as it pertains to this project, as well as any MPO coordination on 96th street' and
that this is considered by this body to be a condition to approval. Mr. Dierckman
seconded the motion. The motion carried with a vote of 11 in favor, 3 opposed
(Fitzgerald, Rice, Kestner).
Mr. Engelking thanked commission members for their hard diligent work throughout the
year.
Mr. Cremeans acknowledged the assistance of the department.
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned
at 11:15 p.m.
Dave Cremeans, President
Ramona Hancock, Secretary
s: \PlanCommission \Minutes \pc2000dec 22