HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes SpecStdy 03-25-03 Special Meeting
City of Carmel
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE
MARCH 25, 2003
(Special Meeting)
The special meeting of the Special Study Committee met in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall at 6:00 PM
on March 25, 2003.
Committee members in attendance were: Jerry Chomanczuk; Dan Dutcher; Ron Houck; Nick Kestner;
Dianna Knoll, Chairperson; and Wayne Wilson.
Mike Hollibaugh, Director, and Laurence Lilllig attended the meeting on behalf of the Department of
Community Services. John Molitor, Legal Counsel, was also in attendance.
The following items were considered:
(6:00 – 7:00 P.M.)
1. Clay Terrace
Docket No. 19-03 ADLS; Clay Terrace - All Buildings Except A-4, B-19, B-22, & E-1
Docket No. 20-03 ADLS, Clay Terrace - Building A-4
Docket No. 21-03 ADLS, Clay Terrace - Building B-19
Docket No. 22-03 ADLS, Clay Terrace - Building B-22
Docket No. 23-03 ADLS, Clay Terrace - Building E-1
The applicant seeks approval of five ADLS applications for the overall site and various buildings
within the Clay Terrace development. The site is located at the southwest corner of US Highway 31
th
and East 146 Street.
Filed by Mark Jang of Lauth Property Group.
Paul Reis, attorney, 5013 Buckeye Court, Carmel, appeared before the Committee representing the
applicant. Also in attendance: Joe Downs and Mark Jang of Lauth Property Group; Fred Simmons,
architect; Tom Witt, RTKL, lead design architect, Dallas, TX.
Tom Witt addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposed development. There are
three distinct areas behind this project: the master planning--the site work/townscape; the
architecture; and how the architecture works to create the graphics.
th
The project is spread along Range Line Road (US 31). 146 Street runs along the north side of the
project and is one of the entrances. What is being called “Main Street” is a stretch of storefronts that
run along the main boulevard of the project. The goal was to create a “Town Center” and a sense
of organization that people are familiar with in terms of a town, an evolution of towns—this also
translates itself into architecture. Some of the streets are vehicular, some are pedestrian—intended
s:\\1
PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SpecialStudiesCommitteeMinutes\\PC SS Minutes\\2003mar25
to help organize the visitor in a logical way that is similar in what a town would be. The bulk of the
parking is at the back-side. There are tree-lined, pedestrian ways, pathways between the buildings,
storefronts, and landscaping on the backside as well as the front. The landscaping to the rear of the
project is increased in density, and there are no storefronts toward Rangeline Road. There are two
round-abouts featured for traffic circulation. The intent is to create the environment of a townscape
and town center—not just “Main Street,” not just shops and a parking lot.
The architecture itself consists of two-story units with retail on the first floor, offices on the second
level, with single story buildings behind. Five proto-type architectural styles have been selected to
translate into today’s architecture and today’s lifestyle—building types that are friendly to
retail—big store fronts and a lot of glass.
A lot of care has been taken to give variety and texture to the backs of the buildings. Landscape is
being used, some graphics, and a variety of architectural materials and color palette to give the
texture that is needed to make it feel like a “collection of buildings” rather than one single block. The
units are masonry instead of brick with three variations of darker reds and three variations of tan.
Each building is divided vertically with a wainscot either in contrasting brick material or stone
material; some is red sandstone. The metal portions of the cast-iron allow for the selection of
varying palettes of gray, beige, brick red, and green, all typical of the time. The architectural styles
go to the early cast-iron phase, mid-century phase found in Chicago, with similar organization of the
façade on the building, either stone or masonry base, steel lentils, crisp detail, and metal storefront.
There is also a contemporary unit. The hardscape/landscape all tie into the overall project.
In most cases, a covered walkway is utilized with a variety of materials. While there will be no
continuous covering of the length of the project, there will be coverings to protect people. The side
of the block facing the parking area utilizes a contrasting masonry unit. From a construction point
of view, it is one building; however, the attempt is to create a sense of multiple buildings when you
look at the entire assembly.
The graphics become important with respect to the identity of the project, its logo and the way it is
applied to entrance points to a way-finding system, reinforcement of city blocks and pedestrian
streets, street signs. Finally, the notion in applying all of this, in addition to the landscape and
architectural definition, and the suggestion of additional storefronts by utilizing wall art, makes a
great deal of difference in terms of what is viewed from US 31 and the parking lots upon approach.
Laurence Lillig asked if the petitioner intended to file variances where the project does not meet the
architectural designs of the PUD Ordinance, an example being an articulated cornice on the
building—the Ordinance requires it.
Paul Reis responded that as the ADLS drawings are approved, if there are issues that need
variances, those will be resolved at that time—this situation has been discussed with Jon
Dobosiewicz.
Mr. Fred Simmons, architect, commented that the drawings will be amended appropriately that will
include and incorporate comments from the Special Study Committee.
s:\\2
PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SpecialStudiesCommitteeMinutes\\PC SS Minutes\\2003mar25
Comments from the Committee:
Wayne Wilson confirmed that rather than up-date the drawings to comply with the PUD Ordinance,
the petitioner will make the determination as to whether or not they will seek a variance or alter the
drawings to address the Ordinance.
Paul Reis said there are clearly issues, particularly regarding signage, that are not in compliance with
the PUD. The petitioner intends to go through the ADLS process, explain what they would like to
build, and once the Plan Commission had approved the ADLS package as submitted and as
amended, the petitioner would then go to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Wayne Wilson said the Department Report prepared by Jon Dobosiewicz had a lot of concerns,
building to building, as far as non-compliance. Future questions are reserved.
Ron Houck questioned the procedure. It seems odd that the same petitioner who created the PUD
would then seek a variance from that PUD. It would seem to be correct that if the Committee likes
the architecture, to amend the PUD rather than seek a variance.
Paul Reis responded to Ron Houck’s comments—it would probably take longer—the variances will
be very specific. In going through the rezone process, the emphasis is on design and once that is
approved, the specifics of the design is the main focus.
Dianna Knoll asked the purpose in the Committee review at this point. Is it for the “big picture,”
or to define specifics—we already have issues that need to be addressed.
Laurence Lillig then interjected some comments regarding the architectural design—specifically
those segments of the buildings that look more in style with the 50’s and 60’s. These buildings are
more horizontal with a metal face and there is probably a good reason why there is no preservation
effort seen for buildings such as this—this was a real low point in American architectural history.
There were varying comments from the Committee, but the consensus was that the architectural
design needs more work. The 50’s and 60’s look is definitely “out.”
Nick Kestner commented that from the drawings, it is difficult to discern the looks of the buildings.
Nick asked for more detailed specifics regarding materials and colors on actual buildings,
three-dimensional drawings, etc. Connectivity and pedestrian pathways should also be shown in
detail.
Ron Houck asked if there were existing developments similar to the one being presented. Ron
Houck was unsure if all architectural styles work within a given project.
Jerry Chomanczuk asked about signage for the project—apparently 5 different categories under the
PUD. Are these signs absolutely critical?
s:\\3
PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SpecialStudiesCommitteeMinutes\\PC SS Minutes\\2003mar25
Laurence Lillig commented that there is sign language in the PUD and it does not appear that the
range of signage is covered.
Ron Houck referred to comments made by Mr. Reis at public hearing, that the applicant will work
to reconcile the Ordinance to agree with the current sign package. Mr. Reis confirmed and said
there would be a need for variances along with the sign package.
Laurence Lillig suggested that even if other aspects of the PUD might not be amended, perhaps the
Sign Ordinance or the sign section of the Ordinance might be appropriate for amending. In this
manner, the package to be used in perpetuity could be matched with what is actually being
proposed. This would also make it easier for reviewing the permits rather than having to go before
the BZA every time a new tenant comes in.
Dianna Knoll stated several other issues for review at the next meeting. Those items are deliveries,
entrance to the parking lot, wall art—not advertisement, Clay Terrace signage, etc.
rd
The petitioner will return to the April 3 Committee meeting and address design concerns.
(7:00 – 9:00 P.M.)
2. Docket No. 177-02 OA, 178-02 CPA Docket No. 19-03 ADLS;
Amendment to the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance & Comprehensive Plan -
Mineral Extraction District
The petitioner seeks to add a new zoning district to the Zoning Ordinance.
Filed by the Department of Community Services.
Wayne Wilson announced that he had received a campaign donation from Martin-Marietta
Aggregates State Political Contributions Committee in Raleigh, North Carolina. Mr. Wilson said
the contribution preceded by several months the matter currently before the Plan Commission. Mr.
Wilson does not consider this to be a conflict of interest in any way, but asked for a definitive
statement.
John Molitor rendered a statement that under Indiana Zoning Law, if a person has a direct or
indirect financial interest on a zoning matter, they would be required to recuse themselves. In Mr.
Molitor’s opinion, Mr. Wilson’s situation does not constitute a conflict of interest.
As Chairperson, Dianna Knoll led the discussion and review of the Mineral Extraction Ordinance.
A review of the Comprehensive Plan as a working document would be continued.
Ron Houck had questions as to whether or not mining was clearly defined in the documents.
Laurence Lillig responded that mining is not a defined term in the Zoning Ordinance; Mineral
Extraction is a defined term. In the Ordinance that is being considered, there is a definition of
mining as well. Mining is a form of mineral extraction.
Mike Hollibaugh referred to the Draft Ordinance that contains a general definition of extraction of
mineral resources. There is also a specific definition for stone mining, surface mining, sand and
s:\\4
PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SpecialStudiesCommitteeMinutes\\PC SS Minutes\\2003mar25
gravel extraction.
Ron Houck commented that during this review process, some forms of mining are much more
obtrusive to the adjacent residential areas than others. The general term ‘mining” is inclusive of the
different types of mining—some types may be more objectionable than other types.
Mike Hollibaugh responded that “mining” as it is worded might mean different things to different
people. Some specificity should be added.
There was discussion regarding the 300-foot buffer currently recited in the Ordinance, that mining
will not occur within 300 feet of a residential area and whether or not that buffer would be sufficient
to mitigate mining noises and impact on residential areas. It was suggested that different buffers be
defined for different types of mining.
Laurence Lillig said that ultimately the City Council would have to approve the Ordinance, but the
Commission can deal with it now, specifically, in the Ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan policy is
the statement of general principles and policies to be used as a guide in deciding the approach to
achieve the desired Ordinance.
Jerry Chomanczuk said not only should some consideration be given to the type of mining but the
type of land as well. Laurence Lillig said this is a valid point, and the Consultant should definitely
have input on the approach—as far as the Comprehensive Plan, the language at present is enough
to get started in the right direction.
Vibration of seismic impacts has been discussed.
Ron Houck questioned a situation where there might be a residence on a parcel zoned differently,
for instance a residence on an agriculturally zoned parcel, the issue is land use. Laurence Lillig
commented that in a warehouse facility, the ordinance would allow an accessory dwelling;
technically someone would be living on the premises as a security measure, but it would not
necessarily be a residential use property.
Jerry Chomanczuk also asked if the 300-foot buffer included roadways. Laurence Lillig responded
that normally, rights-of-way are normally not subtracted out.
Mike Hollibaugh commented that the City has a pretty consistent policy about buffering between
different uses—commercial, residential, etc.—probably language would be “between the mine and
adjoining uses.”
Definition of mining areas was discussed—this will be defined by the zoning itself.
John Molitor clarified the Martin Marietta situation. The contract in 1997 dealt with acquisition of
right-of-way from (at that time) American Aggregates to construct Hazel Dell Parkway. The
contract did not apply to the Mueller property because they had no interest in the Mueller at that
time. A few years later, Martin Marietta acquired an interest in the Mueller property. John Molitor
then rendered an opinion that it appeared that at least part of the Mueller property was exempt from
s:\\5
PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SpecialStudiesCommitteeMinutes\\PC SS Minutes\\2003mar25
regulation by the City because it was exempt by State law for mining operations outside urban areas.
Kingswood Homeowners Association brought suit against Martin-Marietta and the City, and
disagreed with John Molitor’s interpretation of the State Statute and ultimately, the HOA of
Kingswood prevailed in Court on that point. The Kingswood HOA then agreed with
Martin-Marietta to settle the lawsuit whereby Martin-Marietta would not appeal the ruling by the
Court if Kingswood HOA would agree not to oppose their applications before the Board of Zoning
Appeals for mining expansion to the Mueller north property.
There were questions regarding the Environmental Stewardship Council—who are they, what do
they do, what types of enforcement? Do they police their membership, and what are the advantages
of membership as opposed to non-members? Are there tangible benefits of membership?
Reclamation policies were discussed. There were other proposals received, one from Tom Yedlick,
one from Kingswood HOA.
Nick Kestner suggested circulating the changes made thus far to those persons who had expressed
concerns, and allow those persons to give their input.
Ron Houck commented that from a policy perspective, the Committee has met the intent of
mitigating impact to the adjacent uses. Ron Houck referred to ground water supplies—these were
also touched on.
Jerry Chomanczuk suggested using the technical term for shock wave. Dianna Knoll pointed out
that the “Definition Section” addresses and clarifies those definitions.
Criteria for evaluating mining—type of mining? Nature and quality of minerals?
Comments from the public:
Larry Kane, Kingswood HOA, felt the term “adjacent” is too limiting; please reconsider this
terminology. Mr. Kane also referred to the Environmental Stewardship Council and cautioned the
Committee about referencing an extraneous document, something that will not be incorporated by
reference—there are all types of issues that could be raised.
Bill McEvoy, Kingswood Resident
Martin Marietta representative, Zeff Weiss pointed out that mining is a permitted use existing in a
residentially zoned district in the City of Carmel. The predecessors thought mining was
incompatible, and while certain of the neighbors think that, the Ordinance under which the mining
has operated for a long time is by a Special Use but it is clearly a permitted use within the residential
district. The intent of the Ordinance is to make a separate district and perhaps add some regulations.
The policy statement should be somewhat broader and recognize that mining is a necessary and
appropriate use within the community, and recognizing also that you must take into consideration
the impact of those uses. This is no different than any other use the Board generally considers. The
way this Ordinance is drafted, it is pretty subjective. The impact of mining just sand on the adjoiners
is going to be much different than if you are blasting limestone on the surface. The concern is that
s:\\6
PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SpecialStudiesCommitteeMinutes\\PC SS Minutes\\2003mar25
rigid language is being built into the policy statement that may be mis-used in the future. Regarding
adverse impact, it could be material or substantial, and the burden is on the remonstrator—people
may say that looking at their neighbor’s house has an adverse affect—they want to see the sunset.
Mr. Weiss asked that the language be reconsidered.
Mr. Weiss went on to say that the Department is requiring a reclamation plan to be submitted by the
developer. The developer must meet some pretty tough standards set forth by the City as to how
the plan will be implemented. Martin-Marietta has been around a long time, as has its predecessor,
and has been a good corporate citizen.
Tom Yedlick commented that mining has never been a use within a community that has been
studied—where regulations and guidelines have been enforced by the City. This is a new
opportunity for the City to perhaps bring some control to something that has not been under their
jurisdiction. Tom Yedlick referred to the Settlement Agreement mentioned earlier that the
Kingswood Homeowners had with the City. Kingswood did NOT agree to support a Special Use
for Martin Marietta that came before the BZA last April or May; after studying it, the Board did
agree to support it, but not as a condition of the settlement. The issue is that all mining that
currently exists within Carmel is a non-conforming use. If there is no Ordinance that mining would
be expanded under Special Use Regulations, then a policy statement and Ordinance to regulate
something that is on-going is appropriate. You cannot regulate something on new land and ignore
that same use on new land. Existing mining should comply with current standards, whatever they
may be. Tom Yedlick said he did not believe the Environmental Stewardship Council should be
included in the documents and gave his reasoning for that belief. The purpose of the Stewardship
program was to establish jurisdictions within Indiana as model mining regulations that could be used
because there are no regulations in Indiana.
Tom Yedlick referred to the subject of reclamation. After mining, the use of the land should not be
left “up in the air” and a use should be established in conjunction with the mining permit request.
An intended use could be destroyed during the mining process if it is not known in advance what the
final end use is going to be.
Janet Rodriguez, Board of Directors of Willliamson Run, said the main reason she was in attendance
and the major impact on her subdivision is the blasting done by Martin Marietta, and a 300-foot
buffer does not address this at all. The 180 homes in Willliamson Run are not being addressed as
well as the Kingswood Subdivision and other developments in proximity. Ms. Rodriguez believed
that the predecessor to Martin Marietta used the Mueller property as a buffer and that is why it is
listed as residential and it should remain as such. Ms. Rodriguez disagreed with item C. in the
document that says: “Owners of property where these natural resources are located should be
permitted to develop.” That statement says that the Mueller property should be changed from
residential to mining and that would allow Martin-Marietta to double their current size and impact
Williamson Run in very dramatic ways. Neither trees nor berms will help buffer the blasting. In
regard to the $10,000 fine, Ms. Rodriguez suggested seismographs, instituting the impact of the
blasts—starting now, and investigating where the blasts are. Ms. Rodriguez stated that Martin
Marietta is west of Gray Road, and under Gray Road. No amount of berm or trees offers
protection.
s:\\7
PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SpecialStudiesCommitteeMinutes\\PC SS Minutes\\2003mar25
Ron Houck commented that Mr. Kane’s reference to compatible use is really a question of
proximity. According to Ron Houck’s interpretation, the use IS compatible if the buffer or
separation is great enough—it can exist given certain restrictions. The adjacent uses don’t
necessarily mean contiguous, but nearby. Regarding Mr. Weiss’ comments, there is no intent that
the policy to be adopted would be biased favorably if the land were dedicated; it is merely the
consideration that it could be. Mr. Houck reiterated that he had asked for a log of the frequency and
any measurements conducted in terms of impact or seismic. It would be helpful to know what the
seismic blasting looks like from a frequency and seismic perspective.
Dianna Knoll suggested reviewing all of the information from a clean draft, take the feedback
received, and refine the document.
Jerry Chomanczuk reiterated his request for either an aerial photograph or some type of map that
clearly shows where the Mueller property is located and where the mining operation is.
Wayne Wilson said the issues mentioned (blasting and buffering) will be addressed in the Ordinance.
The language determined for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan will then be defined and
incorporated into the Ordinance.
Dianna Knoll suggested scheduling an additional meeting to review the feedback from this meeting
that will be incorporated into another Committee meeting. The Amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan will be reviewed at the next regularly scheduled committee meeting and the Ordinance will be
reviewed at the next Special Meeting of the Committee.
rd
Specifically, the next Committee meeting will be April 3; the next Special Meeting will be held
nd
April 22.
There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25
PM.
_____________________________
Dianna Knoll, Chairperson
_______________________________
Ramona Hancock, Secretary
s:\\8
PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SpecialStudiesCommitteeMinutes\\PC SS Minutes\\2003mar25