HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Sub 01-07-03
City of Carmel
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
JANUARY 7, 2003
MINUTES
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission Subdivision Committee met
at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall on January 7, 2003.
Committee members present: Stephanie Blackman; Dave Cremeans, Chairperson; Wayne Haney; Ron
Houck; and Norma Meighen. Marilyn Anderson was present as an ex-officio member.
Jon Dobosiewicz attended the meeting on behalf of the Department of Community Services. Michael
Hollibaugh, Director, was also in attendance.
The Subdivision Committee considered the following items:
. Docket No. 152-02 PP; Cherry Creek Estates (Primary Plat)
1
The applicant seeks approval to plat a 273-lot residential subdivision on 149.562 acres. The
site is located on the east side of Hazel Dell Parkway north and south of Cherry Tree Road.
The site is zoned S-1/Residential – Low Intensity.
152-02a SWSCO 6.3.7
maximum cul-de-sac length of 600’
152-02b SWSCO 7.5.7
clearing of woodland areas
Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth & Associates, Inc. for Platinum Properties.
Paul Rioux of Platinum Properties appeared before the Committee representing the applicant. The
plans have been revised in order to address certain issues from surrounding neighborhoods.
In order to address concerns of Spring Creek HOA, the landscape and buffering plan includes an 8
foot shadowbox fence and approximately 80 trees, 35 of which are within the common area of the
southern boundary of Spring Creek property.
Commitments to Delaware Trace HOA: Brick-wrap on the buildings along the southern property
line; 3 additional trees per lot; the trail has been shifted from a point between lots to the property
line; the creation of a 20 foot conservation easement surrounding the property in order to maintain
the existing tree lines that border the 150 acres and allows for drainage and utility concerns without
clearing the boundary of the property.
At the request of the Subdivision Committee, 1 ½ acres of trees will remain in the corner of the
1
S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003jan
property. The revised plan details the specific area of the woods and gives the total area disturbed.
10.5 acres of trees will remain undisturbed and runs 340 feet in width along the entire boundary of
Hazel Dell Parkway. Vestal Creek is the larger of the two creeks that runs north/south on the site;
the Fremont Creek comes in from the northwest and leads off the Vestal (ditch) Creek.
Of the 16.6 acres to be cleared, approximately 6 ½ are noted in the tree survey as “invasive species,”
primarily Locust Trees. The new plan maintains the 10 acre buffer, perimeter tree rows are
preserved, and conservation easements are planned. There are over 1500 new trees planted as
spelled out in the re-forestation plan and buffer plan. Scott Brewer, City Forester, will approve the
type and distribution of the trees.
An 8 foot shadowbox fence runs approximately 800 feet along the roadway and 8 to 10 feet off the
property line. The fence has also been enhanced with three dozen additional trees on the Spring
Creek property.
Jon Dobosiewicz reported that the applicant has addressed many of the items felt to be unresolved.
The Department will provide the Plan Commission with two additional items at the time this is
returned to the full Plan Commission. One of the items is the commitment regarding the roadway
construction and the other is the commitments referred to by the petitioner this evening, specifically
the methods of tree preservation and the additional plantings discussed.
Marilyn Anderson referred to the conservation easement and asked if there were something in the
documents that would make it clear to all homeowners, present and future, that the area is a
conservation easement and not to be disturbed or utilized for any other purpose.
Paul Rioux responded that the conservation easement will be delineated on the plat, recited in the
covenants and restrictions of the neighborhood, and will show on a mortgage survey or plot plan.
Marilyn Anderson referred to the mitigation and asked how much of the planting being done is in
excess of what is required. Large parcels of woods sustain wildlife and if trees are scattered, it will
not matter where they are—they will not sustain the wildlife.
Paul Rioux was unsure how to respond except to say that according to Scott Brewer, the perimeter
conservation easement meets the buffer requirement and there would be no requirement to add
additional trees around the property. The three trees per lot on the home sites are above and beyond
the requirements as well as those trees that are above and beyond those along the boulevard that are
required by the Thoroughfare Plan.
Initially, there was an objection to the “eyebrow” and that has been resolved.
The tie-in to Cherry Tree Road to the north will be covered in phase one so there will be no break
in traffic service. Phase II will include right-of-way and tie in with the boulevard. Cherry Tree Road
will run straight rather than at an angle behind Spring Creek.
Comments from Members of the Public:
2
S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003jan
Frank LePlant, Spring Creek HOA, thanked the petitioner for being cooperative with the
neighborhood. Mr. LePlant confirmed that there will be 35 feet of plantings on the Spring Creek
property. The fence will run continuously from the middle of lot 16 to the end of lot 28, and that it
will be 8 to 10 feet from the staked survey line, the old fence line. The drawings do not indicate the
types of trees and Mr. LePlant asked that pine trees be planted. The most important item is that the
fence be at least 8 to 10 feet in to the petitioner’s property, since the fence line in Spring Creek has
some nice trees and these should be preserved. Lastly, a copy of the revisions is requested.
Marilyn Anderson commented that pine trees do not hold up well in clay soil. Some type of
evergreen or spruce would be preferable to pine.
Rick Schu, Delaware Trace, asked about written commitments from the petitioner that would be
available to the HOA.
Paul Rioux said there will be 6 trees per lot on those 11 lots that back up to Delaware Trace, and
3 trees per lot on the other lots. Paul Rioux also said he would draft written commitments that
include trees and landscaping, and those will be available to the Department approximately one
week to 10 days.
Chris Bush, Avian Glen, said the main concern is the intersection and future traffic generated by the
new east/west roadway
Dave Cremeans reiterated that the new east/west roadway has been on the Thoroughfare Plan for
some time and was adopted by the Plan Commission several years ago.
Jon Dobosiewicz reported that the traffic study that was prepared to address background traffic and
traffic generated from this proposal does not indicate a necessity to make additional improvements
to that particular roadway. Is it likely or is there a potential that the intersection will be improved
to something more than a two-way stop? The answer is that it is as likely as any other intersection
improvement within the community. This is certainly an issue that has been looked at and analyzed
as far as access and necessary improvements. Definitely, improvements will be made to Hazel Dell
in the future. When? When traffic warrants. At present, the study indicates nothing more than a
two-way stop is indicated at this time at that location.
Steve D’Ambro, Delaware Trace, inquired as to how the traffic study was done. Mr. D’Ambro
referred to previous comments regarding traffic backup around the elementary school.
Dave Cremeans read from the traffic study prepared by A & F Engineering. Traffic Counts were
made during the hours of 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM in August and October
of 2002.
Jon Dobosiewicz stated that the City relies upon the traffic study and has no reason to believe that
the information submitted by the traffic consultant is purposely or by accident in error. A casual,
visual observation of the traffic is not reliable, but an engineer’s study with data and analysis and
practical application in determining what is appropriate is relied upon.
3
S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003jan
Ron Houck moved to recommend approval of Docket No. 152-02 PP, Cherry Creek Estates
Primary Plat. The motion was seconded by Stephanie Blackman and approved 5-0.
2. Docket No. 144-02 PDP; Clay Terrace (Preliminary Development Plan)
The applicant seeks approval of a Preliminary Development Plan. The site is located at the
th
southwest corner of US Highway 31 and East 146 Street.
Filed by Jeff Clayton of American Consulting, Inc. for the Lauth Property Group.
Paul Reis, 5013 Buckeye Court, Carmel appeared before the Committee as attorney representing
the petitioner. This project came through the Plan Commission and was recommended for approval
as a Planned Unit Development and then forwarded to the City Council. The City Council did
approve the PUD Ordinance that essentially established the developmental standards for this
development. As a part of that Ordinance, it is required that the developer submit a preliminary
development plan for approval by the Department of Community Services and the Plan
Commission.
As required by the Ordinance, architectural design, lighting, landscaping and signage will be
submitted to the Plan Commission as this project proceeds. Essentially, approval is needed for the
overall preliminary elements of the project that include location of the new road to be built by the
Hamilton County Highway Department, parking areas, drainage issues and retention areas, parking
areas in general, and utility issues that are affecting the project.
The petitioner has met with the Technical Advisory Committee on two occasions, and has also met
with the Department and Scott Brewer, City Forester, towards the implementation of the various
aspects of the project. At the Plan Commission, there was some concern expressed regarding this
plan and essentially where the buildings would be located, the buffer, etc.
When the PUD was drawn up, the development standards prescribed that these buildings be brought
to the street, to Rangeline Road. There also must be a 50-foot buffer along the west perimeter and
the south perimeter. Also included was an extremely extensive reforestation and tree preservation
plan that was approved by Scott Brewer that essentially sets forth the total number of diameter
inches of the trees for the entire project. There are substantial trees on the property now, some of
which are being preserved to the extent that they can be. However, the INDOT and future
improvement of US 31 provides for connection of US 31 and the plan has been submitted to INDOT
and Parsons, Brinckerhoff as well as American Consulting Engineers.
Joe Downs and Mark Chang of the Lauth Property Group and David George from American
Consulting Engineers were also in attendance.
Jon Dobosiewicz clarified some of the comments made at public hearing. Many of the comments
at public hearing are not points for discussion as to whether or not they are adequate. The role of
the Plan Commission is to review for compliance with the approved zoning requirements,
particularly regarding the 50-foot buffer. There are a few issues to be addressed this evening by the
th
petitioner. One of those issues is access on 146 Street and the plat vacation and concerns
regarding drainage. The Surveyor’s Office and the City Engineer have been in review of the plans
and have determined that they are comfortable moving forward at this point with the preliminary
4
S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003jan
development plan approval. The final decision will be made when the roadway plans are more
complete.
Dave Cremeans said he was concerned that there was virtually no remonstrance from anyone in Clay
Township when the rezone went through. The Commission goes way out of its way to notify
persons regarding rezones. At Plan Commission hearing, people did not feel that they were notified,
and it is a little confusing. In double-checking, all proper notification has gone forth.
The rezone has already occurred and what is being discussed this evening is the preliminary
development plan. The building to the far north and west of the Rangeline Road segment is the only
marginal change. The building has been separated—it is closer to the residential side but within the
parameters of the PUD established. The rest of the building setbacks on the area west of Rangeline
Road have changed marginally.
th
There is a point of egress that is now east-bound only on 146 Street (right turn only.) The concern
of Mr. Sharon and others was that there would be a lot of cut-through traffic trying to get around
Rangeline Road by using the rear road as a through road.
Jon Dobosiewicz commented that the County has jurisdiction over how the road will be designed.
The concern of the Department is the more it is pulled to the east, and if the County determines that
based upon future traffic flow they need to install a dedicated right-turn lane, the situation will be
one of weaving to avoid exiting traffic. The traffic situation is being reviewed by the County. It
doesn’t permit a turn in, and it only permits exiting to the east—the existing location is preferable.
The location of the cut is as important as the concern for cut-through traffic.
Remonstrance:
th
(No name given) lives on John Street, separated by a 50-foot buffer. Since 146 Street is 45 MPH,
traffic actually travels 50 MPH and there is a lot of difficulty exiting the Subdivision. The major
concern was to avoid any “cueing up” past the subdivision exit. Also there was a concern regarding
full acceleration across the back property line. The distance from the road on John Street, one lot,
is not characteristic of all of the separation of roads within the subdivision. This proposal would be
something new. The roads in the subdivision are more than 225 to 275 feet apart. The additional
noise from the traffic is a concern. Requests moving or eliminating the exit lane. There is also a rise
th
in the road just to the west that was not removed when 146 was extended and traffic is not visible
when “cueing up” on John Street.
Ron Houck was concerned about traffic impact on the subdivision to the west given the proximity.
If it is going to be used a lot, it will be more problematic; if it is not used very much, does it provide
that much value in terms of its temptation to be used incorrectly?
There was open dialogue among the public and committee members regarding the traffic and the
point of egress.
Regarding drainage, Paul Reis said it is acknowledged that there is significant drainage from John
Street—there is a culvert pipe—it does not flood, it accepts the water that naturally flows, all the
drainage calculations will go through the City and County Engineer to make sure it works.
5
S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003jan
The existing topography would not interrupt the drainage pattern. The drainage, topography, and
elevations are submitted to the City Engineer and County Surveyor and they must sign off on them.
Ron Houck moved to recommend approval of Docket No. 144-02 PDP, Clay Terrace Preliminary
Development Plan. The motion was seconded by Norma Meighen and approved 5-0.
3. Docket No. 167-02 PV; Part of Walters Plaza Replat (Plat Vacation)
The applicant seeks approval to vacate a portion of the Replat of Part of Walter's Plaza
Replat. The site is located on the north and south sides of Walter Street (Tract "A" and "B"
of the Plat).
Filed by Michael C. Cook of Wooden & McLaughlin for Metro Acquisitions, LLC.
Mike Cook, 62 Bayshore Court, Carmel, said the current petition is to vacate two tracts of land that
lie on either side of Walters Plaza. Tracts A & B represent a part of the Subdivision. There are 17
residential lots that sit behind tracts A & B that constitute the subdivision. Nothing is proposed for
the 17 residential lots. Tracts A & B are already reserved for commercial purposes. The plat
vacation is necessitated by the relocation of Rangeline Road and also proposed for detention
facilities on both sides of Rangeline Road as it crosses US 31 and into the Clay Terrace
development.
Jon Dobosiewicz said the Department had made a recommendation that this item be approved. The
technical issues that surround this are really academic to the nature of going through the steps and
moving forward on the implementation of the PUD. Drainage will be addressed through the
Development Plan and we anticipate that the County will be submitting a request for plat vacation
of the property the hotel used to sit on.
Ron Houck moved to recommend approval of Docket No. 167-02 PV, part of Walters Plaza Replat,
Plat Vacation. The motion was seconded by Norma Meighen and approved 5-0.
After a short recess, the meeting resumed with the business at hand.
4. Docket No. 165-02 PV; Carmel High School Campus (Plat Vacation)
The applicant seeks to vacate a portion Carmelwood Subdivision in order to modify the
Carmel High School Campus. The site is zoned R-2 (Residential).
Filed by Allen J. Cradler, AIA of Fanning/Howey Associates for Carmel Clay Schools.
Present for Petitioner: Chuck Taylor of Fanning/Howey Associates; Mark Hartman and Dr.
Underwood, Carmel Clay Schools; Roger McMichael, School Administration.
Pedestrians and vehicles can be moved along the corridor at the same time by controlling the
intersection and remove the conflict points and provide access for cars in another direction. The
proposal is a good, workable system. The biggest point, though, is separating the traffic between
the school use and neighborhood use so there is no through traffic.
Mark Hartman appeared on behalf of the school and explained that the community had been
6
S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003jan
canvassed and four plans with two or three options were submitted. Plans were to be finalized by
the 65-member committee and the Superintendent and a recommendation given to the School
Board. That process started in 2001 ending in early 2002. The process was open to the public,
well-publicized, there were 5 meetings, and the final analysis came down to the need to build a
freshman center on Carmel High School proper, somewhere. Also, the recommendation was to
build another middle school and determine its location. Property owners were invited to attend the
meetings and offer public comment.
Dr. Underwood appeared before the Committee also on behalf of the school. The big concern was
the educational programs for the students. Initially, there was the thought that having a freshman
center with separation from the rest of the school was preferable. Also, having the freshman center
close to the High School had some merit and provided for an easier transition from middle school
to high school
Roger McMichael, Assistant Superintendent, said the school was in the process of advertising the
Averill home for sale. There were some right-of-way issues that were not addressed and a number
of issues that the plat vacation will allow the school to clarify, consolidate the property and allow
them to move forward.
Jon Dobosiewicz said that based on a number of comments delivered at public hearing in December,
the Department met with the applicant and suggested that they produce for the Plan Commission
and the BZA the exhibits presented this evening. To their credit, they have done a good job with the
document for review in determining the setbacks and buffers, and have made it easier to determine.
The development standard requirements will be a matter for the BZA to explore. However, it was
apparent at the Plan Commission meeting that a better understanding of the process was wanted.
At the end of this process, it would be good to have the Plan Commission make some kind of
representation to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
The Department’s position in regard to the plat vacation was to recommend approval to the
Commission, knowing that the BZA would have an opportunity to review the development
standards and setbacks and design requirements with the school when they came through with the
Special Use Amendment. At this time the Department is recommending that this item be forwarded
to the full Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation.
What was not specifically addressed was the provision in the requirements through this plan. The
Department is not asking that the Plan Commission approve the plat vacation subject to what is
shown, but the petitioner has made representations that the Plan Commission can rely upon. Part
of the plan being proposed to the BZA includes the installation of a privacy fence, and the
landscaping plan. It is not suggested that the Plan Commission approve the plat vacation subject to
the landscape plan shown or the tree replacement and mitigation efforts because the Plan
Commission could be stepping on the BZA’s toes. We can rely upon this representation that the
petitioner will move forward with this plan to the BZA. These representations, to the Department’s
mind, are adequate and meet the intent and spirit of plat vacation. The Department will reserve
additional comments for preview by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Remonstrance:
7
S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003jan
Marshall and Sandy Andish, 120 Sylvan Lane, Carmelwood, 32 years in the community and 14 years
in his current home, states his house has become unmarketable because of the school’s plan. If they
cannot sell their home, they may be forced to rent it. If this proposal is approved, it is a true inequity
because of the false representations by the school to Mr. & Mrs. Andish.
????, 135 Audubon Drive, has monitored this process and states that it has been open and
informative. Believes the proposal is a good plan and eliminates a number of current problems.
Mr. ???? agreed with Mr. Andish that his property is now becoming a buffer and that is a definite
issue. Perhaps some consideration should be given to Mr. & Mrs. Andish. Having the high school
as a neighbor is different than any other situation—having 3800 persons uniformly come into that
locality sandwiched between two neighborhoods is different, but it also has some nice
things—this is a wonderful neighborhood. The school is trying to do a number of things above and
beyond the norm to retain a number of the wonderful things about the neighborhood.
Bryan Borlick, 145 Audubon Drive, Carmelwood, said it was difficult to feel sorry for Mr. & Mrs.
Andish because when they purchased their home, there was a vacant corn field next door and the
likelihood is that it would be developed. Mr. Borlick said he had a problem with the school board’s
proposal. Mr. Borlick said he purchased his home because of the land, 2 ½ acres, and trees. Mr.
Borlick did not expect the high school to further expand and he is now dealing with traffic, noise,
(rap music) and football games and noise until 11 at night. Mr. Borlick believes the traffic situation
has now been addressed but still has three concerns: Light, Noise, and Trees. It is unique to have
residential properties with such old trees. It looks as if some trees will be saved and that is good.
Mr. Borlick said he was not notified by the school of their plans and only learned of the proposal
from his neighbors. Mr. Borlick finally received a registered letter from the school on January 3,
2003. One tree is worth one parking space, and for every tree we can save by getting rid of a
parking space, it is a good thing. Currently there is a big open field that is not used for
anything—let’s put 20 parking spaces back there and take 20 away from the current proposal,
thereby providing a larger buffer. A high school is an “incompatible use.” I have kids running
through my yard all of the time. Another item is nature/ wildlife. There are two-foot tall horned
owls, deer, etc. There will be an ecological impact in terms of the number of trees removed.
Wayne Haney asked about the berming and its location.
Jeff Bolinger, Landscape Architect, said there is berming occurring in some of the separation
between the garage and the residential properties. Mr. Bolinger pointed out those places where
berms will be located.
The parking in question replaces only the existing parking because it will be lost by the addition. One
of the designs of the freshman center is to have an identity and a front door that is separate from the
main high school. The school has tried to balance parking and re-location of existing trees as well
as saving as many as possible.
Dave Cremeans said it looked like the school was taking out about 50 trees.
Ron Houck commented it would have been more logical to acquire property along Sylvan Lane and
structure development around that road rather than crossing the road. Audubon Lane could have
8
S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003jan
been left as is and separated from the proposed development.
Chuck Taylor? Said the proposal takes advantage of the natural drainage and grading. Part of the
property is very low and the natural drainage goes right through it.
Jon Dobosiewicz reported the Department had talked with the school approximately 6 months
regarding this proposal and made sure that the school would be sensitive to the landscaping—the
minimum would not work! This particular plan could be implemented without the two parcels.
Two of the parcels the school has incorporated into the design. The two parcels enhance the buffer
from what is existing today, (130 to 170 feet) to over 300 feet between the structure and the nearest
homesite. Jon Dobosiewicz disagreed with the premise that the Andish home becomes the
transition—it is the adjacent lot and the adjacent area of a portion of the lot purchased by the school.
There are no buffers that exist within the community that are superior to the buffering and
transitioning provided by the school. It is vastly superior to the minimum required under the
Ordinance.
An unidentified member of the public said he supports the proposal and feels it is probably the best
alternative. When asked, he did not feel that his property would be devalued by this proposal.
Jon Dobosiewicz commented that the school has expressed their responsibility with regard to the
expansion of the facility, to mitigate negative impacts. The school has not used eminent domain in
proceeding with this because that is not their style and they do not want to force the issue. The
school will make it right with the property owners to the extent that their obligation is the difference
between the appraisal pre-change and an appraisal post-change. If the school were willing to
prepare a condition that Plan Commission attorney John Molitor could review and approve, it
would address the issue. The school attorney could interface with the Plan Commission attorney
and come up with language appropriate to satisfy the condition under which the Commission would
adopt the proposal.
Ron Houck moved to recommend approval of Docket No. 165-02 PV, Carmel High School
Campus Plat Vacation, subject to the condition that prior to the full Plan Commission meeting, the
attorney for the school and John Molitor work together to provide a written commitment that
mitigates any property value damage to the two remaining parcels on the south side of Sylvan Lane.
The motion was seconded by Stephanie Blackman and approved 5-0.
5. Docket No. 39-02 OA, 40-02 OA
Amendments to the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance –
Use Table Adoption & Definitions Amendment (Text Amendments)
The petitioner seeks to make amendments to the structure of the Ordinance relating to uses,
add definitions and group all definitions into Chapter three of the Ordinance.
Filed by the Department of Community Services.
Due to the lateness of the hour, the Committee decided to review this item at the February meeting.
There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00
9
S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003jan
PM.
______________________________
Dave Cremeans, Chairperson
_______________________________
Ramona Hancock, Secretary
10
S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003jan