HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes SpecStdy 04-22-003 Special Meeting
City of Carmel
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE
TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 2003
(Special Meeting)
The Special Study Committee of the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission met on April 22, 2003 at 6:00
PM for a Special Meeting.
Committee Members present were: Jerry Chomanczuk; Ron Houck; Nick Kestner; Dianna Knoll,
chairperson; and Wayne Wilson.
Mike Hollilbaugh, Director, and Laurence Lilllig, City Planner, attended the meeting on behalf of the
Department of Community Services.
The Special Studies Committee considered the following items:
(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. Paul Reis requested a meeting of the Special Study Committee with a single item Agenda
for Clay Terrace so that all questions and issues could be addressed.
Fred Simmons, Site Architect with Simmons & Associates was also in attendance. Mr. Simmons
went over changes in the site plan. The building elevations were also reviewed. The changes along
Range Line Boulevard, now to be called Clay Terrace Boulevard, were to re-locate some trees at
the front of the buildings. The major changes are a break in block B that has been moved to
accommodate some tenants as well as some grading issues; the walkway has now moved to the
south—this also necessitated a change in some of the islands. Trees have been added to the islands
in front of “Anchor B” tenant and additional parking has also been added.
1
S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SpecialStudyCommitteeMinutes\\SS2003apr22
Fundamentally, the overall plan has not changed. However, the purpose of reviewing this evening
is to get an idea from the Committee about the overall architecture as it relates to “free- builts.”
Block F is a two-story; Block E is a single story with an elevation to US 31, and Anchor B, one of
the larger “boxes” have been selected for specific review this evening. At the next Committee
meeting, hopefully a two-hour session for review, all of the comments and suggestions will be
incorporated into the development.
thth
As a reminder, originally there were four proto-types: the late 19 Century, the early 20 Century,
th
mid-20 Century, and the “Contemporary.” Along with that was an in-fill that would help pull the
buildings together and single, two-story versions. The “Contemporary” design has been eliminated
and some of the other buildings have been modified to be more compatible with the overall
development.
The palette of materials remains the same other than the elimination of anything granite—cast stone
remains. The storefronts will be by each individual tenant and they will appear before the
Committee for ADLS approval.
There was some confusion as to the labeling on some of the blocks—it was determined that the key
plan is correct and Mr. Simmons will submit revised sheets to the Committee.
Building F is a two-story structure with the second level being predominately offices and the first
level being retail. There will be storefronts along what used to be Range Line Road and the cross
street, as yet unnamed.
The Committee will be receiving color elevations of each of the buildings; however, they are
predominately brown-brick with green accent wherever there is steel, and where there is EFIS or
th
stone, there will be light color brick. The late 19 Century design is the “cast-iron” look. The
two-story building has a lot of glass because of the office use; the single-story version is visibly
different. The lower level along the west side is mostly masonry walls, articulated with different
colors of brick, insets, wall art, landscape trellis, etc.
In response to questions from Dianna Knoll, Mr. Simmons said the petitioner is looking for
acceptability from the Committee as to the type of architecture before proceeding.
Ron Houck felt the Committee had pretty much looked at the architectural styles and the main
concern was the modern or contemporary style that has now been eliminated from the design. Mr.
Houck commented that the other architectural styles are acceptable, but he was unsure what detail
the Committee was supposed to be reviewing. Ron Houck said it would be most helpful if the
architect would label the different designs of architectural style on the drawings.
Jerry Chomanczuk asked what the sequence would be, in other words, will every third building be
the same style? Does the size of the frontage determine the style/design? The individual
store-fronts instituted by each tenant should complement the design of the building rather than take
away from the design so that it will not look redundant.
2
S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SpecialStudyCommitteeMinutes\\SS2003apr22
Mr. Simmons said the whole idea of the architectural style is to take a very large project and
organize it so that it is not monotonous. There will be variety not only of styles but colors, texture
and materials. The architecture should not be the dominant element but rather the retailer; the
windows are 16 feet tall. This development is a totally unique flavor or feel—different than any
other retail environment.
Jerry Chomanczuk asked if the second-story businesses would be allowed to have window signage.
Paul Reis responded in the positive, because they will be independent from the first floor tenant.
Nick Kestner said he did not have a problem thus far, but would like to see something
three-dimensional that shows other amenities such as landscaping, sculpture, etc. It is difficult to
look at a flat side and determine what it will look like.
Paul Reis explained that examples of signage will be presented at a future date along with the
location of the signage on the building. Fred Simmons said some tenants will be encouraged to use
awnings, particularly on the north and east elevations, with signage on the awnings.
Dianna Knoll commented that the addition of the landscaping to the parking lot was a definite
improvement—it breaks up the “sea of asphalt” look. It would make a difference if the Committee
th
could get the sight-line views from US 31 and 146 Street.
Jon Dobosiewicz said there were still some questions—what is the maximum height of the parapet
wall to rooftop equipment?
Fred Simmons said if the Committee were comfortable with the approach the developer is taking,
they would like to proceed, present, look at each building, and isolate concerns on each particular
building. Ron Houck suggested reviewing a block at a time; Fred Simmons was agreeable to this
approach.
Paul Reis addressed the Committee saying that the petitioner will be going before the Board of
Zoning Appeals to allow those items approved by the Committee—those items NOT approved by
the Committee will not be included in the Variance request for the PUD.
The Committee requested that the Department have adequate time for review and comments on the
re-designed/updated drawings, and that the Committee also be furnished with the re-design and new
drawings well in advance of the next Committee meeting.
nd
The Committee agreed to meet at 7:00 PM on Thursday, May 22 for an additional review, subject
to polling the Committee for availability.
(7:00 – 9:00 P.M.)
2. Docket No. 177-02 OA, 178-02 CPA
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.
Mike Hollibaugh, Director, Department of Community Services, and Greg Sovas, Consultant with
3
S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SpecialStudyCommitteeMinutes\\SS2003apr22
Spectra Environmental Services appeared before the Committee on behalf of the applicant.
Also in attendance were Bill McEvoy, Kingswood HOA, Larry Kane, Kingswood resident, Tom
Yedlick, Kingswood resident, and Zeff Weiss representing Martin Marietta.
Greg Sovas said the attempt was to coordinate the mining ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance.
The chief point is that the Mining Ordinance would regulate existing operations, i.e. Martin
Marietta’s existing operations; the Zoning Ordinance would regulate anything prospectively. They
are complementary, in other words, what you do for the zoning ordinance you have to do for the
mining ordinance, but the mining ordinance will stand alone for the existing operation. This
approach seemed to make the most sense, and this is explained in the summary of key provisions.
Mike Hollibaugh explained that the Mining Ordinance will only be at the City Council level and that
the Ordinance would become part of the City Code, the zoning is what it is—zoning.
Jerry Chomanczuk questioned the mining ordinance and the zoning ordinance, which one has the
preponderance of determining distance and proximity, etc.
Greg Sovas thought the zoning ordinance has more than the mining ordinance because the mining
ordinance is already in place, there is nothing to be done about setbacks from the existing mining
operation. To the extent that the zoning ordinance is designed to look prospectively at setbacks,
other kinds of things, that is really where that belongs. There are inconsistencies between the two
documents with some of the definitions. We didn’t do a lot of work with this because we wanted
to make sure that the Committee and the Council agreed we were on the right track before we
started to get down and dirty and clean up some of those definitions. This is a working
document—not a 99% finished product—it is a good product, but there are always good
suggestions that come out of discussion and review.
Greg Sovas shared with the Committee some of his background. Mr. Sovas worked for the
Department of Environmental Conservation in New York State for 33 years in a number of different
capacities. The last 20 years Mr. Sovas was Director of the Division of Mineral Resources that
regulated all of the mining within the State of New York and all of the oil and gas development in
the State of New York. Mr. Sovas is generally credited with writing the amendments to the Mine
Land Reclamation Law that is seen in the Mining Ordinance and to some extent, in the Zoning
Ordinance. This is not something that was just thought up off the top of our heads—it is something
that works, the mining ordinance is a regulatory system that works and the zoning ordinance is really
designed as a complement to the mining ordinance.
Point of Clarification: The Mining Ordinance is not under the purview of the Committee—it falls
under City Council.
There was discussion regarding the modification; rather than wait until the mining is complete, that
reclamation can be a concurrent process.
Laurence Lillig commented that the Mining Plan itself defines the limits of the mining.
4
S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SpecialStudyCommitteeMinutes\\SS2003apr22
Greg Sovas said that in the submission of plans, a mining plan and reclamation plan need to be
submitted together (the mining ordinance.) The submission would have to indicate where they are
going to mine within say the next five-year period and what reclamation they will do within that
five-year term. Secondly, there is an annual report requirement and as submissions are made, the
City would be doing monitoring inspections in regard to mining and reclamation.
Ron Houck asked how it would be determined if mining were complete—what would be objective
criteria to determine when an area is no longer actively being used for mining?
Greg Sovas responded there should be a relationship with the mining officials. There is more a
problem in a sand and gravel operation where there are different gradations of sand, in other words
they may not need sand for their projects this year but would want to keep the area open for future
use. Like anything else, they need to justify why they are keeping it open. It really comes down to
economics and demand for products. After cessation of a mining operation, there is a two-year
period in which to either begin or complete reclamation. What you are really trying to do is define
“abandonment.”
Ron Houck asked what “reclamation” really means? When mining operations are complete, are you
left with a hole in the ground?
Greg Sovas responded that at the end of its useful, economic life, there needs to be a final land use
objective for the land. Whether it is open space or wild life or a lake—the reclamation plan would
establish how deep the mine is, where the water level will be, whether there will be any plantings,
whether the ledges would be planted, etc. What is the scope of the final reclamation? What is the
site going to look like upon complete abandonment? Up front, they will tell you what the
reclamation plan will be—a hole in the ground would not be accepted, it would either be a lake or
open space, etc. Quarries in particular are valuable for a variety of reasons. There are quarries
outside Austin, Texas where they put amusement parks inside; there are quarries that are golf
courses.
th
Jerry Chomanczuk asked what the ultimate plan is for the 96 Street “hole?”
Greg Sovas said it is not known at this time what the plan is—there is no information from Martin
Marietta to establish that—we have heard it is a lake. We have asked for mining and reclamation
plans from Martin-Marietta; at this point, we do not have the information, although it has been
promised.
Ron Houck thought the focus should be on a community benefit without necessarily some feeling
of coercion or dedication. Perhaps there could be a commercial use—income producing—without
all mining operations becoming open space. The language may be too restrictive.
Jerry Chomanczuk suggested inserting language for commercial options available. Laurence Lillig
thought the commercial uses are still an open option under the policy.
Tom Yedlick referred to a section of the draft—health, safety, and welfare of the City, including
nuisance and trespass. Quality of Life is different than Adverse Impact; Quality of Life is a general
5
S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SpecialStudyCommitteeMinutes\\SS2003apr22
term; nuisance and trespass define means. Policy should state that what we are trying to do is to
accomplish without creating a nuisance. Nuisance is a happening that impacts your ability to enjoy
your property the way it was designed to be enjoyed. Trespass is aggravating, like blasting. The
policy statement should spell out the objectives, i.e. to minimize the creation of nuisance and
trespass.
Bill McEvoy of Kingswood said he had dropped off material at the DOCS office, but there were no
copies available. Laurence Lillig asked that the comments be emailed to him if possible.
Zeff Weiss, attorney with Ice Miller representing Martin Marietta said he continued to be troubled
by the comments made by Mr. Sovas directed at Martin Marietta. Regarding the Comprehensive
Plan and its policies, Mr. Weiss wanted to remind everyone that these are just policies and some of
the specific requirements have been extracted that are more appropriate in the Ordinance. Mr.
Weiss said he continued to be concerned about the language ……”may not adversely impact the
quality of life….” There should be a qualifier. Mr. Weiss suggested adding the word materially so
that it would read ….”may not materially adversely impact the quality of life…” Otherwise,
adverse could be the slightest, adverse impact. “Materially” is subjective and you can argue that,
but adverse can be anything at all.
Zeff Weiss referred to the discussion on reclamation dedication for public use. Mr. Weiss pointed
out his understanding of the process. Under the proposed Ordinance, a proposed miner could come
in and present a plan for extracting minerals or other resources from a certain area and say “When
I’m done, this is what it will look like—I would reclaim it at the appropriate time.” The sentence
being considered should be addressed as follows: “To the extent that the policy of the City is to
encourage a useable site following reclamation for commercial or other purposes, and if, to the
extent that upon reclamation the site cannot be commercially developed, then it should be
considered for dedication for public use.” As a community, we want to encourage reclamation in
a fashion that when the user is done, the property has an alternative use—is isn’t just a “hole in the
ground” as has been suggested. There is a concern that this only addresses public use and that as
a community, you would want to encourage an alternative commercial use that would pay taxes. If,
in fact, the user does not have a plan to leave the property in a useable condition when operations
are completed, THEN consider giving it to the public.
Mr. Weiss said that reclamation in stages would make sense if, in fact, you don’t know—a certain
type of mining is done when there is a need. You don’t always know if this will be a one-year,
two-years, five-years or ten-years, based on demand. When mining is complete, the reclamation
needs to be completed. If the “hole in the ground” is used as a lake as an amenity for a subdivision,
you would want to slope the sides of the lake for safety reasons and install infrastructure such as
water, sewer, streets. You would not do that piece-meal—you would wait until you are finished
with mining activities as a whole and then install the infrastructure. You have to look at the use of
the property upon completion to decide when the appropriate time is to do the reclamation. There
is the procedure for bonding in place, the issue is the timing and also, during the mining timeframe,
there is the buffer. To recap, come in with a plan that says what you are going to do with the
property upon completion and when you get to that stage, it will be quickly implemented. In the
end, if there isn’t a plan for an alternative use, it would be appropriate to consider it for dedication
to public use.
6
S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SpecialStudyCommitteeMinutes\\SS2003apr22
Bill McEvoy took exception to Mr. Weiss’ use of the word “materially.” Materially is rather
limiting as far as types of damage and based on comments from Mr. Yedlick, materially would not
eliminate his suggestion for nuisance and trespassing. How does one measure nuisance and trespass
if you add “materially.” There are other issues in the mining process. Under “F” buffer is not
necessarily just the landscaping between the mining operation and a community. Depending upon
the operation, i.e. blasting, that is distance and you cannot buffer just by trees or shrubs alone—you
have to be cognizant of the type of mining and what the respective distance should be.
Larry Kane has additional comments on buffering, seismic impacts, etc.
Laurence Lillig offered some clarifying comments. The setback or distance is not necessarily a form
of buffer; in terms of the Ordinance—that is not what the buffer language speaks to. The Ordinance
does not typically use the word buffer in that way. In referring to appropriate setbacks, the proper
term to apply is to address it as a setback that would act as a buffer for vibrations.
There was discussion among the Committee members regarding the level of noise and seismic
impact and the distance. The policy should not hinge on one word such as “materially” and it might
be appropriate to have counsel input regarding Comprehensive language and policy versus
Ordinance language.
John Molitor said that the Statute requires the three elements in the Comprehensive Plan: Statement
of Objectives and Future Development; Statement of Policy with regard to Land Use Development;
and Statement of Policy with regard to Development of Public Ways. We are clearly not talking
about number 3, Thoroughfare Plan, utilities, etc. We are not talking too much about Statement of
Objectives and Future Development—to some extent you might call mining “Future Development.”
It is very nebulous and open-ended. The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to promote public
health, safety, and general welfare. The more general, the less you would use language that would
“nail down.”
Ron Houck had some additional comments. Reclamation should really represent a positive impact
on the community be it open space, a commercial venture, etc. We just need to make sure that
reclamation produces a good product for the community. It wouldn’t necessarily mean something
with a tax base, whether residential or commercial. Dedication for open space in the reclamation
process might be construed to be coercive.
Jerry Chomanczuk said items C and D cover the last sentence and the last sentence is not necessary.
Nick Kestner commented that if the property could not be developed, it would “dumped on the
Parks Department” and that is a problem.
Ron Houck asked about rezoning the land through the reclamation process. Is this a “de facto”
rezone?
Mike Hollibaugh responded the Mineral Extraction zone would be the area where the development
7
S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SpecialStudyCommitteeMinutes\\SS2003apr22
plan would be proposed—the rezone would already have occurred and it would be like rezoning
ground to business with a development plan. The only difference is the mining plan and the
reclamation plan constitutes the total package—there would be “in progress” and “end result.”
Greg Sovas said the goal is to have is good planning up front, that is good mine planning and good
reclamation planning. On the other hand, if something is going to be there for 40 or 50 years, it is
not uncommon for the reclamation plan to change—it might change once or it might change 2 or
3 times. You would zone the ground for mining for the life of the mine, and then at the end, you
would rezone for whatever purpose at that particular time.
Greg Sovas commented the reclamation plan would show the land use objective, a more generalized
term. The future intended use would be commercial or retail or residential.
Dianna Knoll summarized the comments from the Committee. There are still some issues that
Committee members need feedback; this should be reviewed prior to the next meeting with the
intent of some concrete document as the goal. There are still some areas that need to be revised.
Ron Houck interjected the caveat that if we can’t meet the criteria, it should be considered for public
use.
Greg Sovas commented the public should not take on property that cannot be used for something
else. It takes property off the tax rolls and we’ve seen that happen time and time again. You just
have to be careful about how you word this—you don’t want to say that you will take property that
cannot be developed for another purpose. What Mr. Sovas heard was, “If it can’t be used for
commercial or industrial use, it would automatically come to the City”– this is very troublesome.
The Committee suggested that a process should be established for the public to submit comments
and suggestions to the Committee. It was decided that additional copies of the drafts be circulated
to the public so that input could be more productive, submitted thru the Plan Commission Secretary.
At this time, the Committee discussed the Ordinance for the Mineral Extraction District.
As a point of clarification, the mining ordinance has to do with Martin-Marietta—the zoning
ordinance has to do with future zoning requirements for mining.
Greg Sovas commented the long and short of it is, there is one mining entity in the City and
therefore, the Mining Ordinance could only apply to the existing operation. If there were another
existing operation before this were passed, (the Mining Ordinance) obviously that would be part of
the Ordinance as well. At this point, it would only apply to the existing operation as opposed to the
zoning ordinance that would apply to any prospective, future operation.
Tom Yedlick suggested terming the documents Mining Regulations instead of Mining Ordinance.
Ron Houck responded this is not a Mining Ordinance, it is a zoning ordinance; the other is Mining
Operations.
Mike Hollibaugh commented the “M.E.” Zone would not apply to the existing hole (on the map) but
on the adjoining areas; if they wanted to expand, those would need to be zoned to “M.E.”
8
S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SpecialStudyCommitteeMinutes\\SS2003apr22
th
Zeff Weiss said the Mueller north area is north of 106 Street, west of Hazel Dell Parkway, and
generally east of the Park and the water wells. Nothing presently being discussed would regulate
th
currently existing operations between 96 Street north and north of the Mueller north property on
Hazel Dell and also on the east side of Hazel Dell. There is at least a potential dispute as to whether
or not the existing applications filed on December 13, 2002 are affected. Martin Marietta’s position
is that those applications should be considered under the existing ordinances.
Ron Houck thought the focus should be to forget that Martin Marietta even exists in the community
and if mining were to exist in the community, how would we want that zoned.
Dianna Knoll suggested moving on to the Ordinance and reviewing at this time.
In response to questions from Ron Houck, Greg Sovas said he had drafted the Mining Ordinance;
John Molitor drafted the Zoning.
Laurence Lillig stated that decibel is clearly defined in the Ordinance (Section 3.7) as a unit of
measurement of the intensity or loudness of sound. Sound level meters are used to measure such
intensities under power graded decibels. If words are not defined in the Ordinance, the general
dictionary definition prevails.
There was a clarification on some mining terms—shock wave is not a mining term, air blast is a
mining term. The current Ordinance defines Mineral Extraction as “Any process used in obtaining
from the earth naturally occurring substances.” Do we want to repeal “Mineral Extraction” in favor
of extraction of mineral resources? These should mean the same thing.
Ron Houck asked if a Reclamation Plan could be filed by a different entity than the mining
operation. Greg Sovas responded in the negative.
The Committee finished reviewing the definitions.
An additional meeting date of May 22, 2003 was set aside to review the Mineral Extraction
proposal.
There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15
PM.
____________________________
Dianna Knoll, Chairperson
____________________________
Ramona Hancock, Secretary
9
S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SpecialStudyCommitteeMinutes\\SS2003apr22