Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Sub 06-12-03 Special Meeting CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE Thursday, June 12, 2003 The Subdivision Committee met for a Special Meeting in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 6:30 PM on June 12, 2003. Members present: Marilyn Anderson; Dave Cremeans, chairperson; Pat Rice; Pam Williams. Jon Dobosiewicz attended the meeting on behalf of the Department of Community Services. Also in attendance were Mike Hollibaugh and John Molitor. The Subdivision Committee met to consider the following item: 1.Docket No. 29-03 Z, Clarian North Hospital Campus PUD 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 northwest h corner of US 31 and 116tStreet. Filed by Joseph M. Scimia of Baker and Daniels for Clarian Health Partners, Inc Pat Rice requested the Committee review/revisit the Development Plan and Strategies of the U.S. 31 Corridor Amendment to the 1996 Comprehensive Plan dated August 1997 prior to proceeding this evening. This review would be for the purpose of clarification and/or understanding. Marilyn Anderson referred to pages 14 through 18 on the U.S. 31 Corridor Plan. This particular area is referred to and the reasons why it is “potentially” an area to be expanded beyond Illinois Street westward; there is specific criteria for that to happen. Ms. Anderson thought that what was initially planned was more in keeping with the Village of WestClay or Providence on Old Meridian where the parts all fit together. Ms. Anderson said she was having trouble seeing the proposed plan for Clarian as a “comprehensive whole,” rather than if everything west of Illinois were “lopped off,” there would be a complete plan that could stand on its own. The part that is west of Illinois Street is not clearly integrated and Ms. Anderson was having difficulty seeing how if the Overlay were expanded, these are the things that need to happen—and Clarian does not fully meet that. Ms. Anderson referred to page 18 of the U.S. 31 Corridor and the following sentence: “This roadway (the arterial proposed—Illinois Street) will serve as a boulevard bisecting the office/hotel/specialty/retail component to the east and the high intensity residential uses to the west.” Ms. Anderson believes that this is what the residents have been saying. It is clear that this is what the residents of the area have been saying—it is clear-cut. Page 16 says …..”Regardless of the specific design that might be employed, several basic development standards should be adhered to on this site if expansion of the Overlay District is to be considered.” Ms. Anderson 1 S:\\PlanCommissioMinutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003jun12 said she would have trouble looking at a plan that does not adhere to one of the criteria of expansion. Pat Rice responded with the following comments: Between page 16 and what Marilyn read, it says, …..”A well-conceived, planned, single family, residential family community probably situated along the western Springmill Road portion of the site. “ Continuing reading, “…..Bisecting high intensity residential uses to the west.” This was a little confusing and contradictory. Marilyn Anderson said the map on page 17 helped with the confusion because the words over-lapped the lines for the roadway. What was read is why the area residents are adamant that they have been promised and commitments made that no commercial retail go west of Illinois Street. Marilyn said it is troubling that area residents believe that they have done over and over what is required, obtained a commitment, and then have it ignored--Marilyn said she is not willing to do that. th Dave Cremeans said the study identifies the northwest quadrant of 116 and US 31, it begins with a potential expansion area and includes 106 acres, exactly the parcel being discussed. The specific requirements of that quadrant are clearly delineated in the Comprehensive Plan. Jon Dobosiewicz responded that the document as a Comprehensive Plan provides direction to the Plan Commission. There have been times the Plan Commission has not followed the Comp Plan—it acts as a guide. In terms of a rezone such as the Old Meridian Zone, there was a Comp Plan amendment that came along with the rezone, and the Commission addressed both the rezone and the Amendment. The Commission has the opportunity to review what is felt to be a well-conceived plan, taking into consideration the relevant planning documents. There was also an opportunity to review the 1997 study. The Comp Plan is a guide to be considered as a decision-making tool. The one comment heard repeatedly is that a non-residential use west of Illinois Street is not acceptable. Dave Cremeans said he is concerned that the Comp Plan is a little too loose and not a master plan which is what is called for—master plan being “what project goes where.” It is not fair to the petitioner or the City to have a plan that no one can “wrap his arms around.” Dave also said he is and continues to be comfortable with everything proposed east of Illinois Street and most of the Committee members agree. The hospital part of the project is wonderful. Dave Cremeans agreed with Jon Dobosiewicz that it would be helpful to see a diagram of what could happen on the other west side of Illinois, even though it might change. Dave Cremeans also said that at the inception of this project, there was commercial on Springmill Road and after so many hours of public hearing and review, we have forgotten where we came from. The loose ends are troubling, for example, the wooded area has been carved out and left blank. Area 2A delineates residential, area 2B has been talked about as commercial, and area 1B is of less concern. Dave said he does not necessarily want foundations, but he wants sketches of what the end result will look like. In all committee discussions, it has been agreed that west of Illinois Street would be residential. Pam Williams commented that some of that has already been submitted. In particular, the most recent version of area 2A was OK. There were issues the last time, and perhaps we need to look at area 2B before re-visiting 2A. 2 S:\\PlanCommissioMinutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003jun12 Ms. Anderson said she does not see the same type of coherency between the parcels on this proposal as she has seen on the Village of WestClay and Providence on Old Meridian. This particular proposal still seems to be pieces arbitrarily put together rather than pieces that naturally complement each other in ways we see in other places. This is really a hospital plan with some other service tacked in—the bulk of it is not services for the residential component. Marilyn reiterated that she really had trouble with the community believing that they got commitments regarding an important issue and trouble saying that that part can be overlooked because there is conflicting information and to disregard it. Jon Dobosiewicz commented that the Department and the petitioner should act first, rather than responding to public comments. Joe Scimia of Baker and Daniels appeared before the Committee representing the applicant. Mr. Scimia struggled for words because he felt he had been led down the path and “bushwhacked!” However, Mr. Scimia said he was willing to address issues. The applicant has addressed issues, made corrective changes, and negotiated with neighbors. Based upon that, we came back with plans to address each issue, and then more issues were raised. Now, we are to a point where a plan believed to address each issue does not address a new issue of concern. Mr. Scimia spoke about the Comprehensive Plan dated 1997 being a living document. The Plan is no more than a statement of objectives, policies, and issues considered in making actual decisions. By State Law, the Comprehensive Plan says it is a document that is to be given reasonable regard. No one has ever been cited sued. The Plan is a very good document and the applicant falls within its parameters. Ms. Rice asked to see the plan and then approve it. The process requires a development plan to be presented before any development occurs in addition to ADLS review. The problem is, the Commission wants all of the detail up front. Following page 24 of the Comprehensive Plan, it makes it very clear that there are two types of situations where the Overlay Zone would be expanded. The overlay boundary is where non-residential development is to occur. It basically says that in the event the north/south road is not exactly 600 feet from the highway, the actual Overlay will be where that road is. The Overlay is between wherever Illinois and Meridian Street are. In other words, it should be the greater of 600 feet or the distance between the highway right-of-way and the parallel roadway. Overlay boundary expansion areas should be considered for expanded development if the criteria design guidelines outlined in Section 4 of the report are met. This means it should go beyond Illinois Street if they are met. If that is not clear narrative, the map that is attached clearly identifies expansion area all of the way to Springmill Road. The logical step is that the Overlay would initially start out at Illinois, but if the criteria were met and satisfied, it would go all of the way to Springmill Road. There are some contradictory statements, but all of those things pointed out were present on the first day. Secondly, it is agreed that the Clarian plan should meet all the design criteria set forth in Section 4. Page 18, the first full paragraph recites …”Approval of development in this expansion area, the area between Illinois Street and Springmill should be contingent upon the City receiving a proposal that addresses these criteria and that demonstrates excellence in overall design. The use of a Planned Unit Development zoning designation with a sunset clause for receiving the development proposal could be used to obtain 3 S:\\PlanCommissioMinutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003jun12 this. The zoning comes before development plan approval occurs. No one will spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars you have to spend in Carmel to get a Development Plan approved without knowing the zoning is there. It is logical to get zoning first, then seek proposals, bring in plans, and you don’t have to approve any of them until the criteria are satisfied. Clarian has created the framework for area 2 that says: “These are your basic guidelines, these are the pictures.” At this time, Mr. Scimia could not give road circulation because if the buildings look different than proposed, the road will not look the same internally. We have now talked about providing a plan for a 107-acre project that will be built tomorrow. The level of detail is not done up front, ahead of time—you let the normal process take place. It is as hard as a leap of faith, but you have done it, for example, with the Carmel Science & Technology Center. The Comprehensive Plan says that. Zone it first and return with a full Development Plan. This project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The statement referred to Ms. Anderson is in the Plan and makes perfect sense if you don’t expand it. If you don’t expand the area to Springmill, then that would be the dividing line. How can you talk about expansion and say Springmill will still be the dividing line—then you have just said there will be no expansion. Pat Rice said she too had raised the question about expansion. It isn’t that Ms. Rice wants ADLS handed to the Commission now, but she didn’t want a blank check either. There is a compromise. Ms. Rice again questioned the term “expansion” and asked the City Attorney why that term would be used if this area were going to be residential. It could be an oversight in how the Comp Plan was written. John Molitor responded to Ms. Rice’s questions. The Comprehensive Plan is a guide and it is not unusual for a Comprehensive Plan to have language that looks like it contradicts itself in different locations. The only thing required to be in the Comprehensive Plan are thee elements: 1) The Statement of Objectives for future development (the jurisdiction) 2) A Statement of Policy for the land use development of the jurisdiction and 3) A Statement of Policy for the development of public ways and other infrastructure. (Section 502 of the State Statute. The next section of the law gives at least 25 optional elements that communities may include in their Comprehensive Plans if they choose. The one that would be the most particular would be the maps, plats, charts, and description material presenting information about land use. To some extent, they say two different things. Pat Rice then commented that is why there is confusion. The shaded map calls it expansion, but the narrative says “Not past Illinois.” John Molitor concurred. The legal effect of the Comprehensive Plan is to state that each governmental entity shall give consideration to the general policy and pattern of development set out in the Comprehensive Plan when you adopt Ordinances, Rezones, etc. If you do not give any consideration, if you do something arbitrarily, then you are probably acting unlawfully. But, if you give consideration and then have a reason for making a different judgment, that is lawful. We don’t have any case law where communities have been reprimanded by the courts for failing to follow their Comprehensive Plan. Other states are much more strictly regulated than Indiana. Pat Rice said it is quite clear that the Committee has given a lot of consideration to this application, and there is still no good road map. 4 S:\\PlanCommissioMinutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003jun12 Jon Dobosiewicz reported for the Department. Can it be interpreted through the Comprehensive Plan and this study that it is not intended for commercial use to be on the west side of Illinois Street? The answer is “Yes.” Does the plan proposed by the petitioner conform to that which could be interpreted to the plan? “No.” Is the Plan Commission able to forward a recommendation after considering all of those things to the City Council? “Yes.” Does the Council have the ability to approve a rezone that is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? “Yes.” Should they? That is left to be decided and the Plan Commission will make a recommendation to the Council and the Council will deliberate the same things being deliberated this evening. The Council will ultimately make the decision because they are the final arbiter. The Plan Commission’s role is to examine the document and make a recommendation to the Council. Pam Williams referred to the statement on page 18 in the Comp Plan, specifically the “high intensity residential uses to the west,” would appear to support whatever is west of wherever Illinois is placed. Comparing the statement on page 18 with the second bullet point on page 16 which says “a well conceived planned, single family, residential community probably situated along the western portion of the site, means something different. In applying the second bullet to the plan before the Commission, 2A seems to meet that, if you are interpreting this “probably situated along the western portion of Springmill.” Assuming it does meet the criteria, what does that leave for the rest of the parcel, 2B? What else falls into high intensity residential uses? It becomes less clear as to what types of residential uses would be west of Illinois and does that second bullet narrow that in anyone’s mind? Dave Cremeans said he never envisioned this being large lot, single family homes. A well conceived plan for a residential community can be brownstones, townehomes, owner/occupied, and be very high intensity because there is very little green space. Pam Williams wondered whether the bullet suggesting that type of use along the western portion of the site then opens the door for a different kind of use along the eastern potion of the western portion, (west of Illinois Street.) Is it just another ambiguity? Marilyn Anderson responded that it doesn’t define where the western portion starts. Whether the western portion is along the plan in being or along Illinois Street, the bullet point does not address that. Marilyn Anderson reiterated that she has troubling with people believing they have commitments, and then the commitments are not followed. What the neighbors fought for from the 20/20 Vision Plan through various Plans, it is a problem to go against that. Pat Rice again commented that the Commission is looking at a “possible” use. There is a proposed collector road coming off of Springmill, but the narrative says absolutely nothing coming off of Springmill—the Thoroughfare Plan does not show that, but the map shows it as proposed. Ms. Rice said the Committee does not have all materials needed. Dave Cremeans thought they had adequate materials for review. At this point, the petitioner should be given some clear direction rather than changing the rules. Marilyn said they had talked about trading retention ponds east of Illinois for some of the non-residential uses west of Illinois Street, and that did not happen. That is one of the things that violate commitments made to the neighbors in the area that only residential would be west of Illinois. 5 S:\\PlanCommissioMinutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003jun12 In response to questions from Pat Rice regarding the re-location of the ponds, Joe Scimia’s recollection was a request for more residential and less commercial development. Previously, the plan was for 16 acres of residential development and 19 acres of commercial development. This has now been reduced significantly to provide for over 26 acres of residential development. Physically, the pond cannot be th moved for less than one million dollars; the outflow is at the corner of the site at 116 Street and US 31. The water would have to be moved all the way around the site and then, to get it to that corner would require a huge underground pipe, and you cannot build on top of the pipe. We reduced the commercial down to 12-14 acres from over 20 acres. We actually took eight acres, the size of the pond, out of commercial so the effect would be the same as if we had moved the pond. Pat Rice asked for clarification. The owner of the project, the petitioner plans the whole project, not necessarily builds it, but plans the entire project. Ms. Rice was not sure that this is actually what is before them at this time. Jon Dobosiewicz said there have been approximately six or 7 PUD’s over the last eight years the Plan Commission has forwarded to the City Council for ultimate approval. Of those, there was only one project the Commission knew exactly what was going to built there at what it was going to look like at the time of zoning—that was Lowe’s. The other petitions such as Village of WestClay, Providence at th Old Meridian, came in as a PUD. Parkwood West along Springmill at 96 Street, showed a layout of what could happen, then they returned to the Commission with their DP/ADLS approximately one year after zoning approval. Pat Rice was concerned about a coherent plan and wanted to see what the area would not look like. The woods is now an excluded area, but it is something else if it comes back with the woods stripped and residences planned on the ground. Jon Dobosiewicz said the petitioner could file a subdivision plat, and the Department would review it as they do all subdivision plats. The petitioner is not asking to change the zoning tomorrow. Someone could file a subdivision plat on that acreage. What the petitioner is saying is that tomorrow, you have the same expectation you do today. Jon thought that Pat Rice was asking for a layout similar to a layout on 1A, of what 2A and 2B may look like in the future. If that would happen to change in the future, the petitioner would return and submit a final Development Plan that may not conform to a preliminary. What the petitioner does know today is that area 1A reflects what is before the Committee today. If the Committee would like the layout attached to the PUD as an exhibit that provides that information, the petitioner could probably submit that. In reality the petitioner is taking a big risk—they are saying here are the general uses and the development standards to be employed, but the risk being taken is there are a million ways to get there. The one presented to the Plan Commission in a year may not be the Plan Commission’s vision, and the Plan Commission is the ultimate arbiter. Marilyn Anderson commented that if the petitioner were to come forward with more detailed drawings for those areas, it would be the same when a developer comes before the Board and says “Here is what the houses will look like.” We know they may not look like that because they are not locked into that. The uses are what really count here—what the permitted uses are. When the petitioner returns with their final plan, and if the Commission does not like their plan, the Commission can object. But, if the use is permitted—it’s done—we can’t object to a use that we say is permitted. 6 S:\\PlanCommissioMinutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003jun12 Dave Cremeans said the Committee would be a lot more comfortable with S-2 Residential on the west side of Illinois Street, rather than high intensity residential. Pam Williams requested more information from the petitioner this evening. Joe Scimia thought the discussion as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan was over. We have all acknowledged that there are things that can be construed differently. Joe Scimia’s only point was that if the Commission decides no residential on the west side of Illinois Street, then the expansion discussion, the map, everything is emasculated, taken out, because it would not make any sense. If you can’t have residential on the other side, you cannot have expansion. Dave Cremeans offered his opinion—Illinois Street should move westward. Joe Scimia said some people feel that the separation between Illinois and Springmill should be looked at again. The road could be bumped out and move all of the way to Springmill, but then, you are back into the discussion if Springmill should be the major road. Pat Rice referred to the map and the location of the landscape buffer. Joe Scimia thought it suggested the buffer between residential and commercial, and everything on the east side of the buffer would be commercial—otherwise it is buffering residential from residential. Dave Cremeans was of the firm belief that Illinois Street should definitely be the dividing line. West of Illinois Street should be residential—east of Illinois Street should be commercial. The Committee was more comfortable with area 2A, 2B, and the excluded area were all the same zone designation. Illinois Street could then fit the petitioner’s needs. Dave Cremeans was adamant that something had to be done to soften this project west of Illinois Street; the general opinion of the hospital itself was favorable. Pam Williams commented that the petitioner really has no control over the location of Illinois Street—the City will have to “sign off” on where the road is located. Dave Cremeans agreed and said the City Engineer would be involved. Also, the road is delineated on the Thoroughfare Plan as a serpentine boulevard and it will meander and wander and by design, not look like an interstate. Who is to say that part of the snake can’t “bulge out” a little? The road moves probably 150 street to where it goes into the Ritz Charles property. Jon Dobosiewicz clarified Dave Cremeans’ comments. If Illinois Street were to become the dividing line th between area 2A and 2B, and shift closer to Springmill at the intersection on 116 Street, area 2B could still exist as long as it was on the east side of Illinois, closer to Meridian Street—not on the other side of Illinois Street. If that were to occur, when the Pittman property south of the proposed Clarian site came in for development, we would be having this exact discussion—the location of Illinois Street. As long as everything on the east side of Illinois Street is NOT residential and everything on the west side of Illinois IS residential, that is OK. If that is the situation, then why is there an Overlay boundary expansion on this property and not anywhere else. Jon said he was having trouble in interpreting what the intent was in the Development Strategies document that paid special attention to this site. If the intent along the whole corridor was that everything on the west side of Illinois was residential and on the east side, commercial, 7 S:\\PlanCommissioMinutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003jun12 then it is OK everywhere. But, at this particular location, there is an expansion, but for no reason. John Molitor modified Jon’s comments. The Comp Plan seems to speak of the possibility that the Overlay Zone can be expanded beyond the 600-foot line of demarcation in three places. Two of those places are at I-465 and have already been dealt with; the other one is here at the northwest corner of this interchange—it would not apply to the southwest corner. There is no support in the plan to expand the Overlay Zone beyond 600 feet. It doesn’t matter where Illinois Street goes, it could be 900 feet from US 31, but there is no support to expand the Overlay Zone beyond 600 feet once you get out of this parcel. Dave Cremeans again gave his comments that the intent and vision of the 1997 Comp Plan was that there would be residential on Springmill and commercial towards US 31, and that it would all fit together. Theoretically, Simon could file a plan for a shopping mall there, but it probably would not be approved. However, that would still fit the requirements of the Overlay Zone and we could expand it to Springmill. Dave Cremeans said he would like to see the hospital at this location and that it could bring industry, jobs, and lots of positives for the City. Medical technology is certainly a good thing. At this time, members of the public were invited to speak and offer comments; the following appeared: Judy Hagan, Township Trustee, said the whole point of this expansion of this property and the other two is because it is a single-owner property with an opportunity to do a master planned, integrated project so that development is not done piece-meal. The problem is there is no master plan in front of you for 106 acres. This petitioner has been asked consistently during this process to provide that and has not or is unable or what has been presented is not acceptable. The Commission does not have to approve this—there are or will be other petitioners who will be very happy to meet the requirements of this Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan done in 1997 that addresses this site. It is a very important, significant, expensive corner. Do not be afraid to say “No.” Ms. Hagan suggested that if the Committee wished to discuss this further, they might want to follow through with the rest of the language regarding the PUD. Perhaps give the petitioner a one-year PUD with an opportunity to come back within that year with a preliminary development proposal for the entire site. If they are serious about the site, they will get their act together and come back with a plan. The reason the expansion language is written the way it is, is because of Springmill. It continues to include residential and that is specifically listed in the bullet points referenced tonight and it took into account the history, the neighbors, etc. There is nothing wrong with the document—the petitioner does not meet the intent of the document. Dave Cremeans responded that this could be approved, and they have one year to come back with their master plan development. Judy Hagan said that is potential, they could, and if they do not meet the criteria, the rezone (PUD) goes away. Ms. Hagan wanted to go on record with the following comments: “As Township Trustee and as an appointing authority to this body, I am dismayed that this document (the Comp Plan) was not in front of you immediately and initially when the petitioner came before you. I cannot begin to tell you how irritated I am—this is a total failure of this system. It seems to me the short solution is to cut it loose and start over again with everybody plugged in and a workshop with all the basics covered by Staff before a petitioner comes back. We have had a number of pieces of property in this community where there have been two or three petitioners in that were not successful. Don’t worry about that, deal with the issue before you. In my opinion, this petition does not meet this expansion area, and I think that is why you are 8 S:\\PlanCommissioMinutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003jun12 all struggling with it. You are trying to make it work, trying to give him suggestions, and it gets more and more cobbled up the longer you go because more and more questions get raised. Those questions need to be raised in a training session as to what your Ordinances means and you need to have that in front of you when a petitioner comes in. That way you can hold him accountable and we don’t get down the pike with everybody struggling with it and it doesn’t feel right but we don’t know why. No Harm in Cutting Them Loose.” Kathy Statler, 349 Mallard Court, Carmel, said she was not opposed to the revised PUD as it is being offered today with the 500 plus feet of woods excluded. The woods have been excluded from the proposed PUD Ordinance, and therefore in good faith, we are not remonstrating. Ms. Statler was not in favor of moving Illinois Street any farther to the west. Ms. Statler thanked Clarian and Steve Valinet for working with the area property owners and continuing to do so to create a conservation area by deeding it to the Parks Department and the City of Carmel. The woods are important to the community and the Mayor is in support of preserving the woods. We look forward to the woods becoming a future nature preserve. Dave Cremeans asked Ms. Statler if there were written commitments in existence for deeding the property and a future nature preserve. Ms. Statler said the residents were hoping for that. Joe Scimia said there is no commitment, but Mr. Silvers had talked with Clarian about finding a way to dedicate the tree area and make it park-like. Mr. Scimia said it depended upon whether or not it would count as open space for a cluster development. There is no commitment, but Mr. Silvers would like to see that happen. Jerry Golden 308 Springmill Court in Springmill Place, said he agreed with all comments made by Judy Hagan. Mr. Golden said he had attended meetings for two years regarding Illinois Street and buffer issues. The key issue here is Illinois Street and residential west of Illinois Street. There is amendment language regarding the size of buffer between Illinois Street and residential as well as the buffer on the other side. There is not consistency between the map and the narrative in the Comp Plan. The key is in terms of the language of the document. The neighbors being talked to are all developers; the residential neighbors have not been approached. Mr. Golden felt that if this property were rezoned, it would have the domino effect—the key is not to allow the rezone and not allow commercial west of Illinois Street. Mr. Scimia responded to the public comments saying they have worked a long time to get to this point and have followed the directions of the Committee. If they could move Illinois Street, they would do so. Mr. Scimia said they have worked with the Dept of Public Works and with Kate Weese, City Engineer. The road has already been designed and the petitioner would not have proceeded if they had not been told generally where the road was to go. In fact, Clarian used the same consultant the City employed. If you move the road to the west, you end up with a parcel, particularly 2A, with major frontages—one on Springmill and one on Illinois. That makes it difficult to develop when flanked on two sides by a major road. Mr. Scimia said he actually agreed with a number of comments made by Judy Hagan. One of the comments made by Ms. Hagan was the suggestion to approve the PUD, give the petitioner time to bring in plans, and if the Commission does not like the plans—the petitioner cannot build it. That is exactly what is before you! If the east side is OK but the west side doesn’t muster, then you would say no to the 9 S:\\PlanCommissioMinutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003jun12 plan! It has been six months reviewing the plan, and Mr. Scimia said he had no way of measuring how close they were—this is a good process and a good product will come out of it. You must remember that this is Clarian’s front door too, and we would not let something happen there that is not compatible with the project. Mr. Scimia said they had met with the adjacent property owners directly affected by this project. Mr. Pittman, Mr. Hilbert; correspondence has been received from Mr. Frenzel in support of this plan. Mr. Frenzel has the most to risk because he is on the other side of Springmill Road—that is all of his property—the full length of our frontage. Mr. Frenzel will be in attendance at the full Commission meeting later this month. It is always a tough decision to rezone. This is a big piece of property and a valuable piece. You have to weigh the benefits of the entire community against the impact it has on a few, and the people most directly impacted adjacent to the project are not opposing this. We have walked through this Ordinance page-by-page and at that point, everyone was comfortable with what was in there—the objectionable uses have been pulled out. If we don’t provide something in 2B that would be acceptable, then you would not approve it. However, we have totally encapsulated that piece of ground with residential development. The effect or impact has been diminished by what has been required as far as encapsulated by residential. It is impossible to make everyone happy. Following a short recess, the Committee continued with its review. Joe Scimia continued with his comments. There have been significant changes, some of which we have already talked about. The entire wooded area west of Illinois Street that is now the area marked “excluded” was excluded based upon negotiations and discussions between Greg Silver who represents the property owners to the north as well as Clarian. Mr. Silver said single family residential that would back up to Springmill and conform to S-2 zoning would be preferable in this area. Because the wooded area is separate, it is a possibility, but Mr. Scimia said at some point, he believed it would be combined with Area 2A and there would be a development plan to cover the entire parcel. Given the open space requirements and residential zoning classifications, there are provisions that would make it a successful development if the wooded area could be counted as open space toward the density requirements toward the cluster concept. However, the neighbors say that until that happens, they are uncomfortable and they want to make sure that the whole process will occur if that were to be done. That would require a rezone plus the development plan approval process. th When it was realized that the pond along 116 Street could not be relocated in a practical or economical way without creating some chains, and that there would have to be a canal in that area to run water to the corner, the area that is wooded, and the area that would be picked up by relocating the lake would be approximately the same. It because clear that the smart thing to do would be to make the partial area smaller and also help the people to the north. We could make 2A include the excluded area, but it was the neighbors’ desire to exclude it altogether. Based upon that and the fact that the amount of commercial area was being increased, Clarian agreed to exclude the area. The result of the exclusion was that it gave the property owners to the north what they wanted, and it decreased the amount of commercial development. Early on, there was a desire that said the entire project should be encapsulated by residential and isolated. Clarian has accomplished that by basically excluding the area and leaving it S-2 and making parcel 2A 10 S:\\PlanCommissioMinutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003jun12 larger and decreasing 2B. The point was that we could control the buffering around the entire commercial area in a way that would meet the design criteria of the Comprehensive Plan as well as the PUD Ordinance. It would ensure that anything surrounding or contiguous was touching residential. Clarian also took to heart some of the suggestions regarding the height of the structure. Area 2B has been reduced to 60 feet. By lowering the height, the visual barrier would be created that would maintain the residential character along Springmill. The parking is now behind the building and not on Illinois Street. Also, the hotel, conference center, and sit-down restaurant totally out of the west side of Illinois Street and it would be confined to the east side of Illinois. Only professional office/medical office would be on the west side; any retail would be on the lower level. Use and Development Standards, landscaping, etc. have been incorporated into the plan. Out of 5 or 6 PUD’s approved in the last year, only one had the entire plan for the entire site set out, and that was Lowe’s. The plans for Buckingham Properties were conceptual, and they are now coming back before the will actually build. Clarian will bring back what they will actually build and the Commission will have a change to vote thumbs up or thumbs down. The Hamilton County Assessor was asked to do a pro-forma on the benefits of this facility. The total assessed value applied at the current tax rate provides for an annual tax total on Clarian of $1.6 million annually. As a comparison, the entire Parkwood Development, corporate headquarters complex, pays annual taxes of $1.2 million. The figures are computed on area 1A only that has been proposed for development. There is no one in Area 1A that will create a burden on the schools. Those dollars will be pledged to pay for infrastructure until those are paid off. You can do a lot with $1.6 million annually in debt service. US 31 will be going forward with their limited access plan. At some point, all of that traffic will have to go somewhere. If Illinois Street is not built before the limited access plan is in effect, the traffic will end up on Springmill Road. Clarian does provide the benefit and impetus to get that started. The other issue was the traffic analysis, and this will be gone into further next week. The proposed development results in the decline of a number of trips at AM peak hours of over 680 trips. At PM peak hour, the decline is over 2,000 trips—that means there are 2,000 less cars coming and going I the evening as a result of this plan as compared to the originally submitted plan. There was a question with the original plan as to how long it would work. John Myers of Parsons Brinckerhoff said the plan would work initially but he was concerned at build-out if an automatic signal at one of the intersections would be necessary. The situation has improved, and Bill Fehribach of A & F Engineering believes the round-about will work. Stephanie Blackman asked for clarification on the traffic analysis. Mr. Scimia said the original plan had retail components and a lot more office components. At the worst case scenario, the highest intensity level generated in the morning was 1936 trips; in the evening, 3,493 trips were generated. The new plan decreased both of those, morning and evening, round trip, by the numbers referenced earlier. That means 1253 in the AM and 1429 in the evening—a major decrease. Pat Rice asked what would happen if this complex were to go to a not-for-profit in terms of the tax base. 11 S:\\PlanCommissioMinutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003jun12 Mr. Scima responded that two things would happen. During the T.I.F. period that bonds are utilized, Clarian would guarantee those. Dave Cremeans further clarified that the $1.6 million annually will go to retire bonds and infrastructure. Taxes will not be paid to the City until the bonds are retired. Pam Williams suggested reviewing the PUD beginning with 2B on page 16 and focus attention on that area, since that appears to be the issue. Dave Cremeans was firm in that area 2B would be black-lined and become part of area 2A. All of the area west of Illinois Street would become 2A. Joe Scimia said he did not have the authority to accept that. Regarding a daycare, the Spring Lake HOA was concerned about this facility and Clarian agreed not to put in the daycare until they came back and showed the HOA how it would be positioned and what the transition would actually be. Dave Cremeans clarified that the vote this evening would be on the proposal, as is. Marilyn Anderson moved to forward Docket No. 29-03 Z, Clarian North Hospital Campus PUD, back to the full Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation. The motion was seconded by Pam Williams and voted 2 in favor, 2 opposed. The MOTION FAILED. Docket No. 29-03 Z, Clarian North Hospital Campus PUD Pat Rice moved to forward to the full NO RECOMMENDATION Plan Commission with . Following a second by Marilyn Anderson, the APPROVED motion was 4-0. Dave Cremeans took a “straw vote” and the Committee was in favor of eliminating the 2B area. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:30 PM. _______________________________ Dave Cremeans, Chairperson ___________________________________ Ramona Hancock, Secretary 12 S:\\PlanCommissioMinutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003jun12