Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Sub 08-05-03 1 City of Carmel CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE AUGUST 5, 2003 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Subdivision Committee convened at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. Members present: Marilyn Anderson; Stephanie Blackman; Dave Cremeans, Chairperson; Wayne Haney; Maureen Pearson; Pat Rice. Mike Hollibaugh, Director, and Jon Dobosiewicz attended the meeting on behalf of the Department of Community Services. : The Subdivision Committee met to consider the following items Docket No. 77-03 Z; (03050030); Hearthview Residential PUD 1. 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 th corner of 116 Street and the Monon Trail. Filed by Filed by Joseph M. Scimia of Baker and Daniels for Hearthview Residential. TABLED by the Petitioner to September 2, 2003 2. Docket No. 93-03 Z; (03060010); Lockerbie Townhomes at Hunters Creek PUD (Rezone) The applicant seeks to rezone a 5 acre parcel from R-1/Residence and B-3/Business to a PUD (Planned Unit Development) District designation. The property is located at the southwest corner of Rohrer Road and Marana Drive. Filed by James E. Shinaver of Nelson and Frankenberger for Estridge Development Company. Jim Shinaver, attorney with Nelson & Frankenberger appeared before the Committee representing the applicant. The proposal is for a PUD for a townehome project located on the southwest corner of Rangeline Road and Rohrer Road. This parcel was previously the subject of a controversial rezone request for an office building; that proposal was not approved. 1 S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\Subdiv2003aug Estridge Development has purchased this property on contract. There have been some revisions to th the plan since the July 15 meeting. The original proposal provided for 9 buildings; building 9 has now been eliminated and as a consequence, there will be 31 living units as opposed to 34 units. The original landscape proposal was sufficient, however, Estridge has agreed to add five additional shade trees and 37 additional ornamental trees throughout the site. The density has been decreased from 6.8 units per acre to 6.2 units per acre. Additional open and greenspace has been created and landscaping has been added. The Estridge Company has worked with the Hunters Creek South HOA and they are in full support of this proposed development. The petitioner is seeking a favorable recommendation for the rezone as well as approval of the proposed development plan. Adrienne Erickson-Wade, Treasurer of Hunters Creek South HOA, spoke for the Homowners Board as being in support of this proposal. The Committee asked that the lighting be referenced in the PUD Ordinance—no up-lighting, no spillage, per example as shown in Section 8.1A. Also, Exhibit F will show the two photographs. The ground sign is lit externally. Jon Dobosiewicz stated that the Comp Plan map can be used to substantiate a reasonable analysis that this development would be compatible, but the language supports office use because of its location within the corridor. If a favorable recommendation is made to the Council, it should be understood that while this development does not conform to the Comp Plan, there are other issues involved that have been evaluated. This PUD is different than others because we know who the builder is and the end user. This will not come back to the Plan Commission again, it would go through TAC committee if the Council were to adopt this PUD. Jim Shinaver said there is a possibility that they may need to incorporate some limited use of retention walls along the site. Mr. Shinaver specified on the plan where those walls might be located if they have to be utilized. Reference to the retaining wall will be incorporated into the PUD and a revised exhibit will be included to show between 2 and 4 feet. Until final grading is done, it is not known exactly how long the retaining walls would be—they may not even be needed. Pat Rice moved to forward to the full Plan Commission a favorable recommendation of Docket No. 93-03 Z, Lockerbie Townhomes at Hunters Creek PUD, seconded by Marilyn Anderson; the motion was approved 6 in favor, none opposed. 3. Docket No. 79-03 PP Amend; (03050040); Treesdale Subdivision 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 Subdivision Waiver: 2 S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\Subdiv2003aug 79-03a SW (03050041) SCO 6.3.20 private streets Filed by Paul G. Reis of Drewry Simmons Pitts & Vornehm for Lucky, LLC. Paul Reis, attorney with Drewry Simmons Pitts & Vornehm, appeared before the Committee representing Lucky, LLC, developer of Treesdale Subdivision. Also in attendance was Craig Dobbs, developer. The petitioner is requesting approval for a Subdivision Waiver to allow private streets. The petitioner has already received approval from the Sheriff’s Department as well as the Carmel Fire Department. Mr. Dobbs displayed an aerial of the site and explained the reasoning for the private street. The adjacent property is used for “Theraplay” wherein handicapped children can ride or are led around on horses outdoors—therapy through play. One way for the horses to get out is through the main entryway that is gated and private access—the only other way is through Treesdale. The entire development has an existing, 10-foot high, wire mesh fence around the perimeter. The entry way gate is wrought iron, 10-12 feet high. There are between 35 and 41 horses on the property and it is a very controlled atmosphere. Maureen Pearson moved to forward Docket No. 79-03 PP Amend, Treesdale Subdivision to the full Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation, seconded by Stephanie Blackman and Approved 6-0. 4. Docket No. 11-03a Z; Danbury Common Area \[only\] (P-1 Rezone) Petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation of a rezone from R-1/Residential to P-1/Parks th and Recreation on 7.8± acres. The site is located generally south of 146 Street between Dublin Drive and Jason Street. The site is zoned R-1/Residence. Filed by the Department of Community Services. Jon Dobosiewicz appeared before the Committee representing the Department of Community Services. This item was forwarded to the full Commission who then separated this petition. There were three parcels—two triangular pieces east of the Danbury Common Area were forwarded to the City Council with a unanimous favorable recommendation. The remaining parcel is Danbury Common Area and previous comments made by the Department still stand. At the last meeting, the Commission had suggested that the owners of the real estate may come back with additional information to be considered at Committee before returning this item to the full Commission for an ultimate recommendation to the City Council. Homeowner, 4485 Dublin Drive, president of the Danbury Estates HOA, was unclear as to the purpose of the Committee meeting and what was to be done in preparation for the meeting. Danbury is definitely against this rezone. Pat Rice commented that discussion centers around dedicating a portion of this land. At this time, there is an opportunity for Danbury to dedicate some land so that the entire common area would not have to be rezoned. 3 S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\Subdiv2003aug Dave Cremeans stated that the Commission is trying to protect the flood plain. Greg Thompson, resident of Danbury Estates, reported the HOA Board had talked about offering a buffer zone and at one time had met with the Mayor in that regard. As a subdivision, Danbury was willing to offer a 50-foot buffer; the Mayor was not in favor. Dave Cremeans then confirmed that Danbury Estates would like to dedicate 50 feet of buffer from the middle of Cool Creek west. Jon Dobosiewicz commented that any use of the Danbury Common Area for anything other than what is being done today would require a rezone. The use of the real estate will reflect the zoning. This area was identified th previously as a candidate for this particular use and that rezone, along with the B-5 parcel to the north on 146 Street, provided a convenient time to bring this issue to the Plan Commission. The point that needs to be made most clearly is that the rezone of this property to P-1 restricts it in no way from the existing uses today. If there were a proposal in the future for the development of this site into anything other than Subdivision that exists today, that question would have to come before the Plan Commission and then forwarded to the City Council. We should not speculate today on what that might be because there is no proposal in front of us at this time. Today, we should look at the application of this zoning designation on a piece of ground that is required open space as a part of a subdivision and lies within the flood plain. The Comp Plan supports this request. The Commission should not put the owner in a position of dedicating or committing to an area, speculating that they will come in at a future date and request the area adjacent to the west be rezoned commercial. Stephanie Blackman said she was aware of the Department’s position. However, Ms. Blackman felt the determination should be made if one dedication is a desirable alternative to the Department and if so, we need to work something out with the Danbury Estates Subdivision. Specifics need to be worked out and commitments in writing before the situation can be adequately evaluated. There is nothing in writing from Danbury that is specific. Jon Dobosiewicz responded that there does not need to be any real estate dedicated—at the time the City is prepared to move forward on the implementation of the trail, the City will acquire the easement as it acquires all of its other easements for that use. The City would negotiate with the owner and acquire the easement. The idea of establishing some dimension today is pre-disposing the Plan Commission in the future or the City Council when they evaluate the proposal in the future. Pat Rice said that for her, that was not the total issue. The issue is giving the owners opportunity to provide a buffer. It appears that we are going into a neighborhood and saying “This is what we are going to do with your land,” and this is somewhat a compromise in both protecting the landowners and providing for the future. Stephanie Blackman concurred with comments made by Pat Rice. Dave Cremeans said he was very much opposed to filling in the flood plain and he would never vote for that. Any developer that would buy this parcel with the intention of developing would get that message. Dave Cremeans said he, too, was not comfortable with taking the HOA land and rezoning to P-1. Pat Rice felt that the homeowners should be making suggestions, and this was not being done. 4 S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\Subdiv2003aug Ron Carter, City Council member, said that from his point of view, this should be withdrawn and left as is and the Council would just send a message to the development community that this will probably never be rezoned. To use it as commercial property would require filling in the flood plain. Marilyn Anderson commented that one of the clear ways to say it is off limits is to rezone to P-1. However, Marilyn was not comfortable with taking common area for a subdivision and rezoning P-1 Parks. Maureen Pearson’s position is that if this is really important to the City and important to the Commission to make sure that developers understand that this property is off limits, it needs to have a designation such as P-1. Jon Dobosiewicz said the Comp Plan identifies this area as environmentally sensitive with the flood plain and tree cover that exists in the area. If the Plan Commission sends a message with an unfavorable recommendation, it is that we will work from the Creek as to what is acceptable as commercial rather than working from the common area towards the Creek. A really good argument would have to be made as to why you should encroach into the flood plain and 90% of this real estate is in the flood plain. Maureen Pearson reiterated that if the Commission is trying to make sure that everyone is on notice as to what the Comp Plan sees this parcel as being and what the City Council sees this parcel as being, leaving the property zoned R-1 does not send that message. Marilyn Anderson referred to an existing situation in her neighborhood, and because there is no written commitment, the developer is not following through. Ms. Anderson said she has trouble with “sending a message” as opposed to written specifics and commitments. Wayne Haney commented that this is totally inadequate to make a decision. Members of the Commission have walked this ground and tried to determine where the flood plain lies, who owns the various properties, where the tree coverage is, etc. With all of the resources available, there is no reason why there can’t be a more definitive plan showing flood plains, aerials showing tree coverage, developments, etc. Marilyn Anderson said she was not sure that would have changed anyone’s position. Otherwise, those materials would have been available months ago. Marilyn Anderson moved to forward Docket No. 11-03a Z, Danbury Common Area (P-1 Rezone) to the full Commission with a favorable recommendation, seconded by Maureen Pearson. The vote was two in favor and four opposed (Blackman, Cremeans, Haney, Rice.) There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 PM. _________________________________________ ______________________________ Dave Cremeans, Chairperson Ramona Hancock, Secretary 5 S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\Subdiv2003aug