Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Sub 04-03-03 City of Carmel CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE APRIL 3, 2003 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel Clay Plan Commission Subdivision Committee met at 7:00 PM April 3, 2003 in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. Due to the number of public in attendance, the meeting was moved to the Council Chambers. Members in attendance: Marilyn Anderson; Stephanie Blackman; Dave Cremeans; Pat Rice; and Pam Williams. Mike Hollibaugh, Director, attended the meeting on behalf of the Department of Community Services. John Molitor, legal counsel, was also in attendance. 1. Docket No. 164-02 Z; Riverview Medical Park (PUD) The applicant seeks to rezone 11.09 acres from S-1 Residential to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. The site is zoned S-1 (Residential). Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson and Frankenberger for Plum Creek Partners, LLC. Charlie Frankenberger appeared before the committee on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Frankenberger reviewed the request for the rezone to a Planned Unit Development. Mike Hollibaugh reported for the Department. The staff report has been consistent in focusing on larger issues and larger questions related to the actual rezone. The Department invites comments and questions at this time. Marilyn Anderson asked about the landscape plan that does not show numbers of species. Generally, how many yews would be provided? The petitioner responded there is one yew approximately every 3 to 3 ½ feet. Pat Rice questioned a reference to the text of Land Use Planning and Zoning Ordinance that referred to Implementation of Neighborhood Commercial Areas. Neighborhood Commercial is always a concern—it is difficult to sort out what is appropriate and what is not. Ms. Rice would like to see this kept as closely to neighborhood serving as possible. Mike Hollibaugh said neighborhood commercial is seen as a positive; there is a matrix in the plan that establishes broad guidelines for what neighborhood commercial is expected to look like. There is certain criteria that goes along with it, including access from non-residential streets—it should be S 1 :\\{PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee\\subdiv2003apr arterial, major collectors, not cutting through residential areas, etc. Stephanie Blackman asked about the shape of this parcel of land and whether or not it would support residential development—what is the benefit of changing the zoning? Mike Hollibaugh responded that generally, the shape and proximity of this parcel make it a challenge to develop residentially because of the volume of traffic, the intersection—it would be difficult to market effectively for single family. It would probably be easier to market and sell a higher density product that might come in at a lower price point because of the benefit of the Carmel school system. Charlie Frankenberger agreed with Mike’s comments. This site would be a challenge for residential development. Mr. Frankenberger said the text of the Comprehensive Plan is clear that neighborhood commercial and low intensity office are appropriate at the intersection of two, major cross-county corridors. There is a matrix in the Comp Plan that indicates that low intensity office and neighborhood commercial are appropriate when properly buffered, even next to lower density residential if it is adjacent to a principal arterial or parkway and a secondary arterial or parkway. This particular proposal finds support not only in the Comprehensive Plan but also in the Zoning Ordinance by being designated as a permitted, special use. Pam Williams questioned the accuracy of the representation of the development from the perspective of a one-story occupiable structure—the exterior of the middle section looks like two stories. Charlie Frankenberger said the renderings are factual and ADLS approval is being requested. The landscaping on the renderings may not be factual—the buildings themselves are factual. The only area that appears taller is the center tower—the area at the top is not occupied. The only occupiable floor is the first floor, there may be high ceilings but the second floor is not occupiable. There is a basement, but it will be used for storage only. Pat Rice stated concerns with parcels 2 and 3. Charlie Frankenberger responded the architectural standards apply to the buildings on 2 and 3 as well—the maximum building height is 28 feet and they cannot come back at a later date for taller buildings. Dave Cremeans commented that typically, an entire PUD is reviewed and the committee is a little cautious about parcels 2 and 3. The committee is fairly comfortable with the commitments made by the petitioner. This property will never be developed as single family but it could go multi-family; the proposal is probably a good use for this property. Marilyn Anderson said she does not consider this to be “Neighborhood Commercial.” It is not as if the people in the immediate area are the only clients—they may or may not choose to go to these medical facilities. It the facility only serves the neighbors in the very immediate area, it will not be economically viable; it is obviously a wider area draw than neighborhood commercial. However, in th view of the major development approved by Noblesville on the north side of 146 Street, and given the two major streets at this intersection, the issue of whether or not this proposal would serve a broader area may not be unreasonable. Also, there is a limit of square footage on parcel 2 as to the S 2 :\\{PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee\\subdiv2003apr number of square feet the building could be. How much of parcels 2 and 3 can be covered by a structure? Brian Chandler of ACE Engineering responded that lot 2 is 133,000 square feet of land; parcel 3 at the corner is 82,000 square feet of land; the Riverview parcel is 250,000 square feet. Parcel 1 will have all of the detention. The building for lot 3 will contain 8,000 square feet. Members of the public were invited to speak to this proposal. Kathryn Russell, 14439 Plymouth Rock Drive, resident of Ashton Subdivision and a member of Citizens for Better Neighborhoods composed of residents from Noblesville and Carmel. The residents consider this proposal a high intensity use and not neighborhood use. There are major th concerns about the curb cuts on 146 Street. The plan is for two offices on the first parcel and requires 146 parking spaces. This would bring approximately 460 car trips to this site, 5 or 6 days/week. This proposal is a high intensity use when contrasted with a residential use or even townehomes. Secondly, the plan submitted does not include any detailed drawings of the bank the petitioner is proposing for the corner. The concern is that this will create an unsafe, traffic condition. At this particular corner, traffic heading north on Hazel Dell must move into one of three lanes; the proposed curb cut to exit and enter from Hazel Dell could lead drivers to cross three lanes th of on-coming traffic to reach the left turn lane for 146 Street. Recent national studies have shown and also predict that multi-lane intersections have the most accidents because motorists are both distracted and confused by the multiple options. Creating a serious traffic hazard would not be in the public interest of any City. This corner has a further hazard in that there are a number of dump trucks and concrete trucks that travel through it and they require long stopping distances and can injure car-occupants at low speeds. No curb cut should be placed on this section of Hazel Dell—to do so would invite tragedy. th Ms. Russell went on to say that the primary intent of 146 Street as a county road is to be a main conveyor of traffic crossing the county on an east/west access. Traffic routinely flows at the rate th of 55 mph—well above the posted speed limit but considered normal for 146 Street. Accelerating traffic trying to clear this intersection will not be looking for those who are slowing down to turn into this parcel. The entry point is only 183 feet from the corner and has no deceleration lanes. Public safety should be of highest concern to the Commission as they consider this petition. A low intensity use such as townehomes would remedy the problems this plan presents. Deb Kuhns , 14558 Dover Drive, Ashton Subdivision, referred to the Comprehensive Plan that calls for a concentration of retail and commerce on the main arteries of Keystone and Meridian. The Comprehensive Plan makes possible commercialization of main routes while leaving the neighborhoods quiet and providing residential areas that are not congested. This proposal will add to traffic congestion that will affect Hazel Dell and possibly the round-abouts. This request negates the plan and its design for living in Carmel. Ms. Kuhns said she has a letter from a potential buyer of this property who would like to put residential on this corner, and Ms. Kuhns asked that the Commission consider this in their deliberations. th Jodi Burtner , 5542 East 156 Street, Noblesville, also a member of Citizens for Better S 3 :\\{PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee\\subdiv2003apr Neighborhoods, expressed concern regarding the location of the retention pond in an area where there are many children in residence. The angle of the slope would make it impossible for a small child with wet clothing to climb up the steep bank and this would present a public hazard. The request to rezone from residential to office use on this corner has been denied on previous occasions. This proposed PUD is in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan for Carmel and the needs of the neighborhoods. The plan calls for residential use when there is no need to supplant the plan with ad hoc for zoning. The neighborhood currently has high value housing bordering both th sides of 146 Street and more commercial space is not needed at this corner, including medical offices. There are written protests and petitions that have been submitted to the Department of Community Services supporting a desire for low level development on this corner. The poor decision from the City of Noblesville and its Council to permit 40 acres of office space on the north th side of 146 Street does not require Carmel to follow suit. The proposed office buildings present serious drainage and wetlands destruction issues that have not been resolved. Breaking faith with the Carmel Comprehensive Plan would only further burden Carmel residents who invested large sums of money to purchase their property in Carmel and do not want to see this development constructed at this location. Gail King, 14710 Scarborough Lane, also a member of Citizens for Better Neighborhoods, reminded the Committee that on numerous occasions there have been members of the Committee that have asked the developer to explore other options for this corner. Also, from a business perspective we want to do what is right for the residents and also what is best for the City, economically. What is perplexing is why there hasn’t been any research to support specific types of development on this corner. Because of the poor decision from Noblesville, it is important that this particular corner become easily accessible and Carmel should demonstrate to surrounding cities how this should be done. Troy Martin , 14579 Whitehall Circle, Carmel, spoke as a representative of the Aston Subdivision Homeowners Association. Some important questions for the Committee is whether or not this development benefits the residential area, and does it add value to the City of Carmel and surrounding area. There are similar facilities to those proposed within 5/6 miles of this location; there is an existing emergency care facility within two miles of the currently proposed site. The zoning issues have been addressed. It should be noted too, that this is the third attempt for this developer to develop this corner. Carmel City Council members Snyder, Koven and Wilson are th clearly on record as being opposed to any commercial development along 146 Street. Charlie Frankenberger responded that the plan is the result of prior discussions, prior hearings, and prior proposals for this area and in large part, in deference to previous remonstrance against retail. The proposal is low intensity, medical office complex and a PUD Ordinance that dictates low intensity, similar buildings for the balance of the real estate. There were some comments about the intensity—this in fact is low intensity. Because of the low intensity use, there was no traffic study required. The trips generated are not multiple. It is important to note that these two cross-county th corridors (146 and Hazel Dell Parkway) are more than ample infrastructure to accommodate the traffic generated by this 11-acre development. There was some discussion about uses and suggestion has been made that the opinion of neighbors in the area might dictate the uses. The appropriate and needed uses are typically driven by the free market process—and Riverview’s intensive market analysis would disagree with the statements that this particular use would not be S 4 :\\{PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee\\subdiv2003apr a high demand and would fail here. Riverview’s market analysis indicates that the current proposal is something that is needed and it would succeed and prosper and become a good taxpayer of the City of Carmel. The pond would be built to all specifications and regulations that are applicable. There were statements made that the proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The petitioner believes he IS consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for reasons stated. The text indicates that this particular low intensity development is appropriate in this area, and the Zoning Ordinance, specifically the residential classification, implicitly recognizes the compatibility of this use with residential—it is a permitted special use. Charlie Frankenberger said they are willing to reduce the square footage of the building on parcel 2 and also willing to talk about the other terms and conditions of the PUD Ordinance that might cause concern. Input is welcome. Dave Cremeans asked if it would make sense to put fencing around the pond as a safety factor. Charlie Frankenberger responded they would be glad to confer with the neighbors. th Mr. Cremeans referred to the comments regarding lack of decel lanes on 146 Street. Mr. Frankenberger’s office reported that the Hamilton County Highway Department expressed concern with the originally proposed access; it was then aligned with a “future location” of a drive across the street. There was discussion regarding a letter written by a resident of Ashton who is also a realtor and would be willing to purchase the property for development purposes. The petitioner stated he is under contract with Riverview and proceeding full speed ahead. Back-up offers are made routinely. The letter is not looked at as a legitimate offer to purchase and develop; no earnest money has been tendered. Mike Hollibaugh addressed the Commission and talked about possibilities for this piece of ground. A townehome-type project might work, but it would come out with a similar level of service traffic wise. Obviously, we would have to look deeper if this were an option. It is a tough question—how to treat this corner—when you look at Ashton, a nice neighborhod, and say that single-family residential is not going to work on this piece and what does that mean to the long-term future of the neighborhood. We could “wait and see” as the Brenwick parcel begins to develop out, and how that is going to change the chemistry of land use in general and the character of the area. It might be interesting to see if the developer could come back with a sketch plan that shows what the ratio of building to green space and parking would look like at build-out. The developer might even be asked to commit to some sort of architectural design. We don’t want to give consideration to the Brenwick project, but we don’t want to pretend that it is not going to be there and what land use will result in an adequate transition from single family. Charlie Frankenberger said they were prepared to go over the PUD Ordinance with the Committee, perhaps at the next meeting or a special meeting. The petitioner would also be willing to bring some sort of footprint for lots 2 and 3 (how much of the parcel is covered by building and parking lot.) Docket No. 164-02 Z, Riverview Medical Park (PUD) was referred to the Subdivision Committee for further review on May 13, 2003 at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall, S 5 :\\{PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee\\subdiv2003apr Carmel, Indiana. Note: Items 2 and 3 were heard together. 2. Docket No. 29-03 Z; Clarian North Hospital Campus PUD (Rezone) The applicant seeks to rezone a 107.367 acre property from B-3, B-6, and S-2 subject to the US 31 Overlay Zone to a Planned Unit Development District. The site is located at the th northwest corner of US 31 and 116 Street. Filed by Joseph M. Scimia of Baker and Daniels for Clarian Health Partners, Inc. 3. Docket No. 30-03 DP/ADLS; Clarian North Hospital The applicant seeks Final Development Plan and Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping & Signage approval for a hospital and medical office building. The 68.164 acre th site is located at the northwest corner of US 31 and 116 Street. There is a proposal filed to rezone the site to a Planned Unit Development District. Filed by Joseph M. Scimia of Baker and Daniels for Clarian Health Partners, Inc. Prior to presentation by the Petitioner, John Myers of Parsons Brinckerhoff, 47 South Pennsylvania Street, Indianapolis addressed the Committee. Mr. Myers said he had reviewed the Traffic Operations Analysis provided by the petitioner and rendered the following report. There are also some remaining, operational issues that have to do with the larger system. Mr. Myers said he had reviewed the Traffic Analysis, starting out by looking at the land use and the trip generation rate and calculations based on those areas, making sure they are in accordance with ITE Guidelines (Institute of Transportation Engineers). Also, the internal pass-by trips were checked. The trip distribution was reviewed and found to be reasonable. The level of service calculations were reviewed and questions were resolved by the traffic engineer. There was one thth problem found with a round-about at 116 and Illinois Street. The unresolved issues are all on 116 Street. There is a single right-turn lane shown westbound from the new interchange at US 31 across th 116 Street and turning right toward this site on Illinois Street. If there is a round-about there, a by-pass lane is proposed so that those right turns would not actually occur within the round-about but at a special lane on the side, and only on Illinois Street approaching the hospital. Mr. Myers said he would be interested in seeing the actual detail as to how this is laid out and how the entrance extends to the hospital. The intent is to have a free-flowing right turn lane that would extend all of the way to the first entrance. This is a loose end, but a minor one. Mr. Myers said the other two issues are larger. A copy of the report was sent to Peter Doctors in Parsons’ Boston office. The important questions are: Does a round-about work at this intersection; does it work for Spring Mill Road? Does it work with the interchange at US 31? This will take a little more time to study. A third issue has to do with the proximity of these intersections, even if they are signalized. The closeness of Spring Mill, Illinois, what will probably become two, ramp termini signalized intersections, and Pennsylvania on the other side is also an issue—how those will best be treated. A vital component is the US 31 study and that is not available at this time—we still don’t know where the signalized intersections are, we don’t know if there are signals—they could be S 6 :\\{PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee\\subdiv2003apr round-abouts. These questions need to be answered, but in terms of the traffic study itself, down to the point of the intersection, questions are invited at this time. Mike Hollibaugh commented that John Myers is wrestling with some big issues and the input from Peter Doctors regarding more detail-oriented questions on the round-about(s) and how the intersections will function needs to be reviewed. Regarding the extension of Illinois Street north to Carmel Drive, the concept was to show the th southbound triple left turns at 116 Street. Ultimately when it is opened on the north side to Carmel Drive, all of the traffic will not head south, some of it will turn north, and it is likely the triple left will be converted to a double-left and have a second through lane. Sooner or later, there will be a need for the City to identify right-of-way requirements. This cannot be answered this evening. John Myers said he did not expect a lot of variations from the study; there are quite a few lanes—double turn lanes from the ramps—you just hate to “feel around in the dark” on something like this. When it comes time to make the ultimate decision, the best advice will be given based on the information available at that time—hopefully an INDOT study. The INDOT study should be available within the next 30 to 60 days. Pat Rice asked if the concern regarding the single right turn lane would be altered when the road goes through? It may create more traffic going straight through and less need for a double right turn. John Myers responded that is why he wants to take a look at the specific geometrics in mind. If there were a continuous right turn lane going into a through lane from the south, then it would not work very well—a dedicated lane would work better. This will be looked at along with the other situations at this intersection. After a short recess, the Committee continued with the review of the Clarian North PUD. Joe Scimia addressed the Committee and thanked them for scheduling a special session to address this PUD. There are some peculiarities of this site. The property to the west is not developed; it is not flanked by residential development like some of the other developments. This does create some opportunity with respect to what happens in the future or planning that can occur. The property is zoned R-2 and allows 3.5 units per acre on the west as well as the small strip on the property line. There are developments to the immediate south that are much more dense than one-acre lots or ten-acre lots. Unlike some areas typically seen, this site is not fully developed and this is recognized th by the Comprehensive Plan. 116 Street is the primary parkway for east/west traffic in this community; it is the largest parkway, it is four lanes, etc. This is where all of the traffic will be and th when the overpass is done on US 31, it will make 116 Street even more attractive for traffic. According to the Thoroughfare Plan, this is where the traffic is supposed to go, even more so than th 146 Street. This proposal does not deviate from the Comprehensive Plan—it would change the underlying zoning, but potential uses for this particular site are envisioned as offices, hotels, retail, full-table restaurants, and planned residential communities. All of these components are provided in the proposed PUD. We are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and we have gone to great lengths to incorporate those concepts into the proposed project. S 7 :\\{PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee\\subdiv2003apr In regard to discussions regarding zoning without final plans—this proposal is not speculative. The time and cost of going through the process prohibits some from going through the process. To couple a request for rezoning on top of an ADLS and a PUD request only adds more cost and time. Mr. Scimia suggested the Committee look at the project in its entirety—where the property is th located—its proximity to 116 Street and what the Thoroughfare Plan calls for and the close proximity to the major north/south arterial in the entire State, US 31. Marilyn Anderson said she understood there was undeveloped land to the west, and this is one of the reasons why she was concerned about what is developed on 2C. What goes on 2C will directly impact what goes in west of Springmill Road. The concept was that Illinois Street would divide the more commercial aspects from the residential. Ms. Anderson said she would like to see the transition from proposed uses happen within the Clarian parcel and not have offices in 2C. The parcel across the street would be directly affected. Joe Scimia responded there is a distinction between use and what is actually there. The transition is being created from Springmill Road back to Illinois Street. It is highly unlikely that this would be th developed as single family residential. Commercial development on 116 Street within the US 31 corridor is ideal. There was open discussion and review of the proposal and possibilities of use. Dave Cremeans said the Committee had talked about 2C at the previous meeting and residential facing Springmill Road was preferred. The Committee did not want Springmill Road to have the appearance of a commercial corridor. A service road between 2C and 2D was previously discussed at Committee; commercial should not face Springmill Road. The Committee is concerned about the use because of the signage. Mike Hollibaugh commented that there are forces at work that will change the character of this th portion of the City—primarily that will be the impact of the interchange at 116 and US 31. It is a situation to wonder, -- what is the long-term viability of single-family along Springmill versus having a use with similar character as respective of the residential character that we want to see, but is nicely-designed, low-intensity office. The traffic generated in these areas today at rush hour makes it perhaps less than desirable for residences. Springmill will start to change, and traffic will start to flow. Docket Nos. 29-03 Z and 30-03 DP/ADLS, Clarian North Hospital, were continued to the April nd 22 meeting of the Subdivision Committee at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. 4.Docket No. 32-03 Z; 11300 Block of North Michigan Road (B-2 Rezone) Docket No. 33-03 Z; 11300 Block of North Michigan Road (R-4 Rezone) The petitioner seeks to rezone a Parcel from S-1 Residential to B-2/Business & R-4/Residential. The site is located along the east side of Michigan Road ½ mile north of th 106 Street. Filed by Steve Pittman of Pittman Partners. S 8 :\\{PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee\\subdiv2003apr Steve Pittman and Neal Smith of Pittman Partners appeared before the Committee representing the applicant. Also in attendance was John Levinson. The Department had requested that Traffic Reports be submitted for distribution and that the commitments tendered by the petitioner should be in recordable form. An additional commitment regarding the exclusion of any type of mobile home park was also submitted. The petitioner believes he has complied with all requests and requirements of the Department. The public hearing remains open on this item. Pat Rice asked that the height of the building, the lighting and fencing be addressed for the benefit of the adjacent property owners. Steve Pittman responded that initially, they were providing street lighting; the neighbors preferred no street lights and the petitioner has made that commitment. The lighting allowed in the R-4 property would provide for lighting only on the units—dusk-to-dawn lights, and not streetlights. Originally, a three-story townehome product was proposed. The neighbors’ preference was for this not to be constructed on the perimeter of the property. The petitioner has agreed to a two-story product on the perimeter, with a three-story product in the interior (potentially.) The petitioner is reserving the right to make the entire development two-story rather than three-story structures throughout. If there were a three-story product, the materials would be brick and “Hardy Plank,” no vinyl on the three-story. If the two-story product were constructed, the petitioner reserves the right to have brick and vinyl, the quality and color of the vinyl to be consistent in color and quality to the vinyl used in “The Westons.” There was a major concern expressed regarding the detention ponds. The petitioner has agreed to run a six-foot shadowbox fence down the entire portion of the property zoned R-4 and adjacent to “The Westons.” The fencing would be similar to that existing in “The Westons.” Public Comments: James Lipe, 3824 VanGuard Circle, Carmel 46032, appeared before the Committee on behalf of “The Westons” neighborhood association. Mr. Lipe said the association had met with the petitioner and expressed concerns—those concerns have been addressed as much as possible, but the neighborhood association would like to see the written commitments for the public record. Also, the architectural design mainly showed the front of the buildings; the neighborhood association would like to see the remaining three sides and examine the details of the design. The road connection was also a concern. The proposal has certain similarities to the previous proposal for this site in that it has commercial/business uses in the B-2 portion of the property that fronts Michigan Road, and to the rear that backs up to “The Westons,” the site is residential. The neighborhood association agrees with comments made by Mr. Broerman of Hamilton County Highway that under the current mixed-use development proposal, the road connection to Monitor Lane is not required at this time or any other time in the future. The neighborhood feels very strongly that Mr. Broerman’s comments should still apply to this development S 9 :\\{PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee\\subdiv2003apr Steve Pittman responded that the details are being addressed—commitments have been provided in recordable form to the Department. The agreements with “The Westons” neighborhood regarding the height of the buildings and materials used are reflected in the commitments. A copy of the commitments is being furnished to James Lipe. Regarding the roadway connection to Monitor Lane, there is precedent—the County Highway is not requiring the connection—however, the petitioner will do whatever is required. Marilyn Anderson questioned the entrance off Michigan Road that would serve both the business use and the condominiums. It looks like a stub street into the north side that would also serve the business section. Steve Pittman commented that the Department is looking at the overall, regional planning of Michigan Road, 421, location of an entryway, potential stoplight, and how it could be done to serve the most properties and limit the number of curb cuts on 421. Wherever the entryway does locate, the Department wants to ensure access and contiguity for the adjacent properties. Right-of-way is being provided for the residential property to the north, but again, Pittman Partners is willing to provide whatever is requested of them. Pat Rice agreed that Monitor Lane should not be opened into and connect with “The Westons” subdivision. Copies of the commitments from the petitioner were to have been submitted to members of the Committee. Jon Dobosieiwcz said the commitments from the petitioner address most all of the concerns from the Department and the recommendation at this point is to forward this item to the full Plan Commission. If, for some reason, an item has not been addressed, the petitioner is willing to Table at the full Commission meeting. Jon Dobosiewicz commented that issues with particular site design will return to the Commission either in the form of a final Development Plan and ADLS review on the commercial section or a Plat or Development Plan. It is more a risk for the petitioner not to show the Commission as much detail as possible. The issue of two-stories or three-stories has been resolved in the form of commitments from the petitioner. However, referring to the language in the commitments, Jon felt a dimension should be established in the absence of a definition of perimeter; this should not be open for interpretation later. Jon Dobosiewicz suggested anything within 100 feet of the property line needs to be no taller than two stories. The Ordinance establishes a maximum height limitation of 35 feet, so no structure can be taller than that. If Monitor Lane does not connect, it will require a Subdivision Waiver requested by the petitioner. It was decided that the connection (or non-connection) of Monitor Lane be taken up at the Development Plan stage. return Docket Nos. 32-03 Z and 33-03 Z, 11300 Block of Pat Rice made a formal motion to North Michigan Road, B-2 and R-4 Rezones , to the full Commission with a favorable recommendation, based upon acceptable commitments submitted by the petitioner. Following a second by Stephanie Blackman, the motion was Approved 5-0. S 10 :\\{PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee\\subdiv2003apr Jon Dobosiewicz, Clarification: The site plan in the file does not necessarily reflect what will be built. The Department would like to see the entrance to the far, northern end of the site to align with Bennett Parkway on the opposite side of the street. There will be an automatic signal somewhere thth between 106 and 116 Street, and it should serve the best function possible—the most logical would be to align with Bennett Parkway. At the currently proposed location, it precludes that alignment. The rezone does not determine where the automatic signal will be—it will be determined at the time of Development Plan review. 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. TABLED There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 PM. ______________________________ Dave Cremeans, Chairperson _____________________________ Ramona Hancock, Secretary S 11 :\\{PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee\\subdiv2003apr