Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Sub 07-01-03 City of Carmel CARMEL CLAY PLAN COMMISSION SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE Minutes for July 1, 2003 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT Marilyn Anderson Stephanie Blackman Dave Cremeans Wayne Haney Maureen Pearson Pat Rice DEPT. OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPRESENTED BY: Jon Dobosiewicz Docket No. 69-03 DP/ADLS; Carmel Cemetery Filed by Ronald L. Bussell for the Carmel Cemetery Association REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER: Ron Bussell, BUSSELL & BUSSELL Todd Andrews, CEMETERY ASSOCIATION BOARD The applicant seeks approval to construct an addition to the Carmel Cemetery. The site is located at 1000 North Range Line Road. The site is zoned R-1/Residence within the US 31 Overlay Zone. BUSSELL: We have made extensive changes to the plans as well as landscaping. We have modified the setback requirements for every side of the expansion area. Along US 31 we have meet the ordinance setback of ninety feet (90’) for expansion. Modified the setbacks fifteen feet (15’) for the south and east “L” shaped border with a thirty feet (30’) setback on the southwest diagonal portion along the Monon Trail. The ordinance requires forty-five feet (45’) not thirty (30) and we have filed for that variance. We have requested another variance on the south end setback requirement of fifty-five feet (55’) to thirty feet (30’). We would also like this diagonal area designed for the Cool Creek extension to be transferred this property from the Cemetery Association to the City of Carmel. We have also filed for a Special Use variance from residential to cemetery use. The major modification to the road and driveway has been to move it out of the ninety feet (90’) range westerly portion of 1 S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003\\2003jul01 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 the original portion. The road will be on a twenty feet (20’) bed with eighteen feet (18’) of pavement with one feet (1’) gravel shoulders. We did meet with Engineering with good results. DOBOSIEWICZ: Was the conclusion of the meeting with Engineering to dedicate fee simple the area or provide an easement? BUSSELL: Fee simple. DOBOSIEWICZ: That would require one modification of the Variance that the Department is in support of—that is the setback along the south property line creating a property line, but it does not change the layout of the site in reducing the setback. The Department considers the Monon Trail and future extension of a trail system that would head north and east to be a significant transition or buffer between the adjoining residential properties and the cemetery. They would request a deduction in granting fee simple the real estate for the construction of the trail as opposed to providing an easement and constructing the trail. We accept that as a reasonable trade for the City to maintain the ability to construct it in the future. The appropriate setback from the property to the west has a significant grade change. The standard setback of forty-five feet (45’) does not seem appropriate to apply in this situation—the trail provides a more significant barrier transition between the residential uses on the west and the proposed expansion of the cemetery. As indicated, the petitioners have made several changes including an increase in the proposed setback along US 31. At some point in the future they may return to the Plan Commission to request approval of encroachment into that area for future development upon the State’s determination of the level of improvements that will occur along that area. The Department did receive a letter from the State regarding that area; the State asked that for the time being, the required 90-foot setback line be maintained, and no encroachment allowed beyond that point. ANDERSON: You show you are planting twenty (20) White Pines. I would like to see those changed to something that thrives better and longer. RICE: I have a question about the standard of upkeep for your cemetery. I would like to see standards and commitments regarding upkeep, repair, re-sod, whatever is needed. What are the standards in effect now? BUSSELL: We will prepare and provide the current standards in place. There have been significant efforts to up-grade standards of repair. The petitioner will address Ms. Rice’s comments. DOBOSIEWICZ: The Urban Forester has reviewed the landscape plan and has made recommendations on species. ANDERSON: I move we recommend approval of 69-03 DP/ADLS Carmel Cemetery to the full Commission with commitments from the petitioner as aforesaid, seconded by Pat Rice, Approved 4-0. 2 S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003\\2003jul01 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 Docket No. 77-03 Z; (03050030); Hearthview Residential PUD Filed by Filed by Joseph M. Scimia of Baker and Daniels The applicant seeks to rezone a 6.5 acre parcel from R-1/Residence to a PUD (Planned Unit Development) District designation. The property is generally located at the southeast corner of th 116 Street and the Monon Trail. TABLED Docket No. 79-03 PP Amend; (03050040); Treesdale Subdivision Filed by Paul G. Reis of Drewry Simmons Pitts & Vornehm REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER: Craig Dobbs, Developer and member of TREESDALE HOA The applicant is requesting approval of an amended Primary Plat to allow a private street. The site is located on the east side of Towne Road, 1/2 mile south of 106th Street. The site is zoned S-1/Residence - Very Low Intensity. The petitioner also seeks approval of the following 79-03a SW (03050041) SCO 6.3.20 Subdivision Waiver: private streets. DOBBS: I was one of the former developers of this subdivision, current homeowner on lot 10; business partner’s home is located on lot nine. Lots six, seven and eight have homes currently under construction with the remaining lots for sale. We also own the roads now in Phase Two. In response to department concerns—what is the standard used for the private street? As a former resident of Copper Gate, a reserve was used to keep the road up to standard. Another concern was public safety access, and in response, Mr. Dobbs has forwarded to the Department a letter received from Hamilton County Sheriff’s department stating they are not opposed. We have not received copy from Fire but expect to meet any requirements they have. Bear in mind my home is located in this neighborhood as well. When completed the subdivision will have twenty-one lots. DOBOSIEWICZ: The petitioner has addressed the issue regarding access to public safety. The real issue is a philosophical one allowing private streets. In the past the Commission has granted waivers to allow private streets. It appears as though all owners of lots within this subdivision are like-minded in the request for the street to be gated. The petitioner has agreed to provide us a commitment with language on the reserve of dollars for the maintenance or improvements. If the subdivision were expanded to the south, streets would be required to be constructed to public standards, even though privately owned. PEARSON/RICE/ ANDERSON: We agree with Jon’s comments—it is a philosophical thing and we are not in favor of private streets and gated communities. We are seeing this a lot in western Clay Township, and I’m not in favor of it. A gated community implies a lack of friendliness, lack of community—we are separate little islands—and it also implies an unsecure area that needs to be gated. As far 3 S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003\\2003jul01 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 as vehicular travel, we all have those same issues of cars being where they do not belong or security of our children playing in the streets. DOBBS: The big difference is this Subdivision does not have an outlet. Most subdivisions have a way in and a way out. If we had to do this all over again, we would have done this up-front. HANEY: I lived in a gated community in California and our vandalism was nil; casual visitors were also nil. We felt far more secure and the children could play wherever they wanted. CREMEANS: The issue of private streets started a long time ago. The developers would install one-inch asphalt, make it a private street, and not tell anyone. The subdivision was approved, then perhaps two years later, the street would crumble and residents would be calling the Mayor’s office wanting to know when the City was going to pave their street. Of course, the response was “Never,” because it was a private street. From a philosophical standpoint, that it not the issue. I don’t have an issue with gated communities—if people want to have a gate, that is something they can have. If they don’t want a gate, they don’t have to have one. DOBOSIEWICZ: I would like to explore this from the Subdivision Control Ordinance standpoint. If all the other surrounding subdivisions with access to each other decided they too wanted to be gated, there are other issues involved. We will also look at whether or not it is breaking a point of access for other th subdivisions to access primary arterials such as Towne Road or 96 Street, and if there is separation, is public safety addressed? Are the streets built to public specifications? Also, if and when the private street becomes a public street, we need to know that the funds are there and improvements have been made in keeping with City standards. Also the connectivity with the path system is to promote community not exclusivity. The Department is not opposed to this request but would like the Committee to consider all these issues before rendering a decision. There was continued discussion on the pros and cons of gated communities and private versus public streets. RICE: Pat Rice made formal motion to forward this item to the full Commission with a favorable recommendation, seconded by Wayne Haney. The vote was 3 in favor, 3 opposed (Anderson, Blackman, Pearson.) No Decision BLACKMAN: Stephanie Blackman made formal motion to forward Docket No. 03050040, Treesdale Subdivision to the full Plan Commission with No Recommendation, seconded by Marilyn Anderson, Approved 5 in favor one opposed. Docket No. 11-03 Z; Danbury Common Area and other parcels (P-1 Rezone) Filed by the Department of Community Services Jon Dobosiewicz, Planning Administrator CITIZEN AUDIT: 4 S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003\\2003jul01 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 Carl Sampson, Danbury Estates Homeowner’s Association Petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation of a rezone from R-1/Residential to P-1/Parks and th Recreation on 13.69± acres. The site is located generally south of 146 Street between Dublin Drive and Jason Street. The site is zoned R-1/Residence. DOBOSIEWICZ: No modifications have been made to this request by the Department We are here tonight to discuss the concerns raised at the Plan Commission meeting. The Department is requesting the Committee forward this item back to the full Plan Commission and ultimately forward to the City Council for the request of the Rezone. RICE: Can you clarify/explain in detail the P-1/Parks and Recreation Zoning? DOBOSIEWICZ: The P-1/Parks and Recreation Zone permits other uses that are not exclusive to Golf Courses. The P-1 zoning was seen as a means of guaranteeing to the public that areas designed and utilized as open space would be maintained as such. The P-1 Zoning provides a guarantee to the adjoining and surrounding property owners that without the benefit of public notice and a rezone procedure through the Council, the property owner would not be able to change the use on the area identified as open space, whether it be open space as a common area within a subdivision, a golf course, or lots surrounding open space to a golf course. Today, the P-1 Zoning permits as a Special Use, a Church, Temple or place of worship—Permitted Use is a Public Service Facility. Specifically, with regard to these three parcels, the area owned by the Danbury HOA is common area within the subdivision. None of the common area could be developed today without a re-plat of the subdivision or a rezone of the property by the City Council to allow greater intensity of use on the site. While the Danbury neighborhood is zoned R-4, the common area is zoned R-1 and is platted as part of the subdivision CREMEANS: If it can’t be developed now, why change it? Secondly, what areas, other than golf courses, have been rezoned P-1? DOBOSIEWICZ: At the time the P-1 zone was generated and forwarded to Council, the Department created a list and a list of priorities as far as the need to address those areas—Golf Courses was the highest priority as identified. Other areas identified were this area as well as Church sites, School sites, sites owned by Carmel Parks and County Parks Department—all were a part of the discussion at the time the Ordinance was created. Initially, the area of highest concern was existing Golf Courses whose use might be changed to residential. This particular site, the Danbury Common Area, is the first application of the P-1 Zone outside of uses identified as Golf Courses. The entire subdivision could be re-platted and the common area could be developed residentially with appropriate approvals—not a legislative decision. ANDERSON: What is driving the rezone? DOBOSIEWCIZ: The parcels adjacent to this property are owned, one by the City, the other by a private entity. The private entity that owns the parcel to the south has 5 S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003\\2003jul01 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 indicated it is not their intent to develop the property and they do intend to put a deed restriction on it. So the rezone of that parcel falls in line with our intention to maintain that parcel as open space. The City owns the parcel to the farthest north, where the Water Tower is situated. This parcel may become a future trailhead site for extension of the Cool Creek Trail. ANDERSON: The trail will not take up the whole parcel so why are we rezoning the entire parcel? DOBOSIEWICZ: The intention of the rezone is not to allow for the trail to be constructed. The only way the trail could be constructed across Danbury’s property is if the City were to procure an easement, by purchasing from the HOA, or purchasing the ground in fee simple title. The City has no way of imposing a trail on that property without the consent of the owner. CREAMENS: And would they have it with the P-1? DOBOSIEWICZ: They wouldn’t have anything. I’m wondering what is envisioned by the Neighborhood Association that would be put on this property that is not permitted under the P-1 Zone. BLACKMAN: Perhaps Commercial? DOBOSIEWICZ: Either way you still need the Rezone. Nothing is going to happen in Danbury without action from the City Council. If a rezone were to occur of Danbury property, we would have commercial ground, a buffer of P-1 Zone ground between the commercial and the existing residential to the east. Either way, the property that is currently Danbury must come before the City Council for a rezone request. There cannot be commercial development of any ground that is part of the Common Area or part of the Subdivision under the current zoning. Ultimately, we are asking the Commission to forward a recommendation on this rezone to the City Council. The rezone is an effort on these other two parcels as well as the common area to create an area that will connect the Use Map to the Zoning Map. Currently, the common area in Danbury may utilize all the uses in the P-1. If the owner of the property wants it to be something else, for instance, commercial, that question must be posed to the Plan Commission. Would that question be more productive or less productive if there were adjacent owners remonstrators against a commercial zone or would it be more appropriate that there would be a buffer between the two zoning classifications of the P-1 Zone. This is speculation. However, the public needs to know that nothing is going to happen within Danbury or its common area or the adjacent ground to develop commercially without that question being answered by the City Council. BLACKMAN: I think they understand that. But, the whole buffer thing—we deal with buffering between commercial and residential all of the time. We are always pushing the developers to give more trees, more buffer, a fence, etc. Isn’t the buffer issue more properly addressed that way rather than just blocking off the whole P-1 thing? DOBOSIEWICZ: We don’t have a request in front of us today to have that discussion. We are taking that discussion up today as a part of this P-1 rezone. 6 S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003\\2003jul01 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 ANDERSON: If what I am hearing is correct, a reason for the rezone is essentially to protect this neighborhood from having happen to them exactly what happened to Danbury—to make sure it won’t happen to them. Understandable; however, in the meantime, by protecting this neighborhood, I don’t want to make the situation for the people in DOBSIEWICZ: I was not with the City when the Lowes’ Development came in. It is my understanding that ultimately Danbury did not remonstrate against the Rezone on the Lowe’s parcel. Citizen Audit: Uproar of denial. One resident of Danbury said she had spoken out three times. Another resident said they weren’t sure how they felt about it and they had very few options. Another resident said they are only a 40-lot subdivision, and there is not a lot they could do without the money. CREAMENS: Quieting the commotion; I was on that Committee and I did not here you. Let’s have your spokesperson speak on behalf of Danbury today? Note: A letter was received from Albert Koeske, president of the Foster Estates Homeowners Association. The letter has been distributed to all Committee members. Citizen Audit: Carl Sampson, 14485 Dublin Drive, President of Danbury Estates Homeowners Association. We would like to submit some pictures from last weekend that will show Foster Estates and the Lowe’s parcel. The first picture is from the end of our street that has been cut off and now dead-ends. The next is from the Keystone off-ramp. The third is from a backyard closer to the front of the subdivision. As you can see there is quite a buffer of trees and natural barrier between Foster Estates and Danbury Estates. We tried but could only see one home in Foster Estates from Danbury. There is quite a natural barrier—several feet of trees, Cool Creek, and more trees on the other side. The Council has recently approved a 50 foot buffer between residential and commercial/retail development. It seems reasonable that this natural barrier would remain between the subdivisions. We have no offers to buy the neighborhood and we believe no threat to buy this land. As previously mentioned, we could not develop anything on this area—even if we wanted—without a rezone request being initiated. At this time, the rezone does not seem to be well-advised and a pre-emptive strike to prevent anything from happening to our neighborhood that could affect Foster Estates or other subdivisions. We have had interest in the past, but at this moment, there is no one wanting to buy this neighborhood---no one has approached homeowners or the Board with offers recently. There is no imminent threat of anything happening to this land. The question we have is why now? There is nothing slated to happen to this land and why now? To quote Mr. Cremeans from the Plan Commission meeting, “It was unprecedented for a rezone to happen without an anchor to support the rezone request and an intended use”. CREMEANS: That is true, but it has never applied to P-1, but so far, we have only looked at five P-1 projects. Basically, if someone wants to rezone property, they can always submit a proposal. We are looking at 13.69 acres for the rezone—Danbury is a total of 24 acres—roughly 8 acres for Danbury’s rezone. Danbury consists of 39 homes thus far. 7 S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003\\2003jul01 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 BLACKMAN: And your thought is that if this were zoned P-1 that would decrease the amount of commercial land available and a hurdle for commercial developers? Sampson: That’s correct. P-1 zoning would create much more of a hurdle than there already is for this land to be rezoned and used for another purpose. The P-1 Zone is being mis-applied in this situation. Instead of rezoning for greenspace or common area, it is for prevention of something that might not happen. ANDERSON: Jon, what is the worst-case scenario if this is not rezoned? DOBOSIEWICZ: I am not sure what hurdle is being discussed or use intended by the owners under the current situation that are not permitted under P-1. Currently it is zoned R-1 with the rest of the subdivision being zoned R-4. If a proposal comes forward in the future, both property owners will need to be included in the rezone request. RICE/ DOBOSIEWICZ: Discussion of the P-1 compared to R-4. PEARSON: Why do we want the rezone to P-1? Is the reticence because P-1 is new? Because P-1 is a tool that we have used in specific instances versus? Let’s say, 15 years from now when there is not that same feeling and someone comes in with an intangible sort of sensitivity—this would be in black and white, very clear intent. ANDERSON: We want the rezone to P-1 because we believe the land there is sacred and we want to protect it as a park-type zoning. BLACKMAN: I would like to think that in 15 years, if I am still on this body, I would still have that mind-set. CREMEANS: The other thing about a rezone is, if there were a lot of remonstrance, it changes the balance. PEARSON: I am trying to figure out precisely what the objection is, and if it is because there might be more flexibility to change R-1 to something commercial—so leave it R-1. DOBOSIEWICZ: I agree that there is a recognition by the Plan Commission and the Department that if we were to see a proposal on this ground in the future, there would be discussion of where that line falls, and we will decide where the line falls at that time. Knowing that everything east of that line is zoned Parks and Recreation—we are building predictability and not establishing an impediment to rezoning—we don’t have the authority to do that. Foster Estates Resident: My name is Teresa Muldoon, resident of Foster Estates, member of Greenspace, and a member of the Carmel Street Tree Committee. Our committee fought to keep the trees along Cool Creek. DNR and Soil & Water wanted to remove them to help the flow of the creek. I speak for my subdivision when I say we are for the protection of the green space between the subdivisions and want protection away from commercial development, especially in the wake of successfully fighting to keep the trees. We would like to see it all rezoned P-1. If they sell out, P-1 offers some protection and buffer. Danbury Resident: My name is Marita and I live in Danbury Estates. There are a lot of “ifs” 8 S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003\\2003jul01 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 in this. We have talked to three different developers, and they have said if this is rezoned, the residents must walk—move. No one knows if they want to take away the trees. We have been left in the dark on every issue regarding Danbury Estates. HANEY: First of all, we would not approve removing any of the trees or doing detriment to Cool Creek—that is not an issue. DOBOSIEWICZ: I believe the P-1 takes something away and we need to articulate what that takes away. I am suggesting that the Council articulate what the P-1 takes away from the existing use and potential for future development. Ultimately the Plan Commission is going to forward a recommendation to the City Council with a list of their concerns. This is going to be forwarded intact and Plan Commission is going to vote it up or down. I would want the Plan Commission to provide the City Council with a list of concerns to take under consideration. If we pass it along with a negative recommendation without outlining concerns, we are not being responsible. RICE: I think there is another important concern and that has to do with the ownership of this land. I have a problem with a legislative body coming along and telling homeowners “Your land has now changed—the zoning has changed.” I have a problem with that. CREMEANS: The history is that when someone brings a project in, we look at it, we look at the surrounding property, we talk to surrounding property owners, and we make decision based on all of the input. If this were a golf course, we probably would not be having this discussion. A perfect example of the rezone process is item 2 on our Agenda this evening. We did not hear that item tonight because we told the petitioner, “Talk to the neighbors, meet with them before you waste our time.” HOLLIBAUGH: The neighbors are in favor of this proposal—the homeowners are against. This is unprecedented, and we very much agree. I think the conversation on this is very healthy. We are certainly not trying to undermine Danbury’s bargaining position, only to the extent that this is residentially zoned land today. I’m not sure the Comprehensive Plan would support a commercial rezone. Obviously, they are in a precarious situation given all the development that has occurred. I think we would want to look at any kind of rezone petition with serious eyes—we would when that would occur. The proposal to rezone the common area, largely floodplain, is absolutely consistent with the Comprehensive Plan that talks about preserving natural areas and protecting natural areas from development. To say that this request to rezone this portion to P-1 is not maybe as far-fetched as it may seem, other than the fact that it rezones privately owned residential land, not privately owned, commercially operated residential land. We can certainly send a strong message that Cool Creek is very important to the community and protection of green space as well. This proposal would certainly send that message. Any rezone petition would be seriously looked at, whether it is zoned P-1 or not. But, we may not all be around at that time; there may not be the same concerns at the time a petition comes in. I certainly can 9 S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003\\2003jul01 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 address statements made by Danbury residents—three developers have told them if this were rezoned, they would walk. I could probably find some fairly sophisticated developers that would look at this site as a whole. Danbury Resident: Mike Wilson, 14470 Dublin Drive. We have heard that Parks are held to a higher standard, and we have heard that if this were changed to Parks, it may or may not be able to be rezoned. A biologist and a bird person and the Department of Natural Resources, Fish and Game have said that if this green space were changed to Parks, and then requested for rezone, everyone would say you are tearing down our park, our green space—it wasn’t meant to be zoned parks. If commercial were brought in, a new proposal for buffer would be brought before the Commission, whatever the intended use, it would have to be approved—no one would be able to touch Cool Creek, and we wouldn’t want to see those trees downed. So, it is almost pre-emptive to come in and say, “let’s rezone now.” Having this come up now, we are saying, we would rather not see it go that way. ANDERSON: Let’s say we do not rezone and someone wants to come in with a commercial plan—what is it about not splitting the parcel? DOBOSIEWICZ: We do not split-zone parcels. It creates two distinct zones on one piece of ground. RICE: If a developer comes in and we say we want this section dedicated as a buffer, (which we do all the time) we would be more than happy to accept that. CREMEANS: We just did that with Clarian. We took one piece of ground and said west Illinois street is going to be residential and east is going to be commercial. DOBOSIEWICZ: Perhaps the message we can send as part of the discussion of this rezone request is where is that line to fall? What are the characteristics outside of the intended use? Are we going to send a message to the neighborhood—“Don’t come back with a plan or don’t forward a recommendation to someone who might be willing to purchase the ground? Or a message to a developer to come back with a plan that gets no closer than “X” relative to the flood plain, relative to the trees, grounds, etc. We are not making a yes/no decision—we are just forwarding a recommendation to the City Council. FURTHER DISCUSSION: CREMEANS: I just want to be sure that the Department knows—if we are talking about Developing, re-developing this property, the Flood Plain is to be left intact. DOBOSIEWICZ: That just tells the neighbors that they have no deal. The flood plain intersects…… CREMEANS: Mechanically, there is no difference between rezoning P-1and R-1, or S-1 or B-3. I think the issue is the definition of P-1. I would like to ask for a recommendation to the full Plan Commission on Docket No. 11-03 Z. Mike Wilson: We met with the Mayor last Thursday about the compromise of the zoning and what we could do with our eastern edge. Nothing was resolved at that meeting, but we are definitely talking about it. We want to be good neighbors and citizens of Carmel. We like the trees, the creek, and we are willing to continue discussion. 10 S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003\\2003jul01 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 Regarding the proposed Cool Creek extension to the Monon—it is my understanding that the Trail would cross under US 431 and 31 and run along Cool Creek, wouldn’t the actual trail become a barrier? Where are we in that process? DOBOSIEWICZ: The City is going to move forward on final design on a trail system. If that trail system includes purchasing real estate that is owned by Danbury, the City would need to negotiate with Danbury Homeowner’s Association to procure either an easement across your property for the trail or the purchase of fee simple area to place the trail. The trail itself does not create a buffer. The characteristics of the real estate around the trail would serve to create a buffer. With the Cemetery property we talked about earlier, the grade of the Monon is significant along this area, and the barrier created by the grade of the Trail is what establishes a transition or buffer between the cemetery use and the adjoining residential. The trail in and of itself does not create a dividing line or buffer between two adjacent uses. At this time, Committee members are encouraged to put their thoughts in writing to share with the rest of the Commission. I would be willing to sit down with anyone to discuss and help articulate those comments so that we can get this before the th Plan Commission on the 15 for their consideration before referring to City Council. PEARSON: I move to forward Docket No. 11-03 Z, Danbury Common Area and other parcels (P-1 Rezone) to the full Commission with a favorable recommendation, seconded by Pat Rice. The vote was two in favor, four opposed--NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION to the full Commission. Docket No. 12-03 Z; 146th/just east of Danbury Subdivision (R-4 Rezone) Filed by the Department of Community Services CITIZEN AUDIT: Carl Sampson, Danbury Estates Homeowner’s Association Petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation of a rezone from B-5/Business to R-4/Residence on th 4.22± acres. The site is located generally south of East 146 Street between Dublin Drive and Jason Street. The site is zoned B-5/Business. ANDERSON: So, the idea behind this is, as it currently stands, someone could come in with a B- 5 use—small commercial, retail—and go through the process DOBOSIEWICZ: This is not a small parcel by any means. The Lowe’s building—the site itself—is on approximately 7-8 acres. The site could support a substantial use. ANDERSON: Someone could come in today, meet our rules, and be approved? DOBOSIEWICZ: If they could overcome the obstacles—a good possibility, with the flood plain. ANDERSON: And by changing the zone to R-4, there would not be that kind of commercial use? If someone were to purchase the entire site, the common area parcel would be looked at as commercial? DOBOSIEWICZ: With an overall plan addressing the entire site. 11 S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003\\2003jul01 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 RICE: It looks like part of the P-1 desire. DOBOSIEWICZ: The R-4 zone is identical zoning to Danbury. CREMEANS: How does the HOA feel about this rezone? Danbury Resident: Carl Sampson, 14485 Dublin Drive. We are essentially against this rezone. Part of the intent was to make the zoning consistent with Danbury Estates, while the previous rezone request was to make part of Danbury Estates land inconsistent with the other part and this ground. We think there are some definite inconsistencies. It does seem like it is a part of the P-1 rezone request. As previously mentioned, this seemed like “ganging up” on Danbury Estates—take part of the R-1 land, change it to P-1, and change the B-5 Business parcel to R-4 Residential. CREMEANS: I understand your concerns, but I think if I were in your shoes, I would want this to be R-4. ANDERSON: Left as is, you increase your chances of a commercial development on everything. DOBOSIEWICZ: If a commercial development does come in, we would want to see a comprehensive approach to this whole area. The majority of the area on the north side of the street is in the Flood Plain, the same as this property. In Westfield, they went through the BZA and got approvals to do certain things to develop in the Flood Plain. So as a Legislative matter we are addressing it on this side of the street to predetermine a comprehensive plan on this side of the street. CREAMENS: I am in favor of this petition. Docket No. 12-03 Z PEARSON: I move we send to the Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation , seconded by Stephanie Blackman, Approved 5 in favor, one opposed. (Haney) Docket No. 39-02 OA, 40-02 OA Amendments to the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance – Use Table Adoption & Definitions Amendment (Text Amendments) Filed by the Department of Community Services. 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. BLACKMAN: I would like to see the word “group” defined. DOBOSIEWICZ: We are working through this dilemma. We want this forwarded with all uses—religious uses, antenna, and communications. RICE: A Group-home is not defined as family nor defined as a hotel, club or nursing home. BLACKMAN: Under the State of Indiana, a Group-home cannot be excluded from single-family dwellings. RICE: Number three reads, “A facility that provides residential services for mentally ill individuals and programs described in IC.” ANDERSON: I do not see the conflict but I do see the ambiguity distinguish between 12 S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003\\2003jul01 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 group-home, hotel. RICE: Home occupation is deleted? DOBOSIEWICZ: Moved. RICE: Regarding the definition of Pond--see334—then see Lake or Pond artificial. Why is swimming pool omitted? DOBOSIEWICZ: We set parameters under accessory use. I would like to suggest that we further define these areas, family, group-home, telecommunications, churches and retention ponds, either through the Patch-IV currently reviewed at committee or under new ordinance. There are characteristics that currently the BZA has authority to review such as traffic and all this but we want to define it more fully. The Public Hearing for this was held last year and the committee has discussed it at least half dozen times over the past months. I think the discussion has been educational at least and more complex than anticipated. It took us six months to come up with the use table. To go through this high level of discussion throughout the period has been beneficial. Once this is implemented this will provide us a tool that is far superior to looking through the Ordinance. ANDERSON: I move to forward Docket No. 39-02 & 40-02 OA amendments to the Carmel Clay Zoning Ordinance; Use Table Adoption & Definitions Amendment (Text Amendments) to the full Plan Commission with favorable recommendation, seconded by Wayne Haney, Approved six in favor, none opposed. There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 PM. __________________________ Dave Cremeans, Chairperson ___________________________________ Ramona Hancock, Secretary 13 S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\2003\\2003jul01 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417