HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Sub 10-07-03
City of Carmel
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 7, 2003
MINUTES
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Subdivision Committee met at 7:00 PM on October 7, 2003 in the
Caucus Rooms of City Hall.
Committee members present were: Marilyn Anderson; Stephanie Blackman; Dave Cremeans; and
Wayne Haney, thereby establishing a quorum.
The Department of Community Services was represented by Jon Dobosiewicz .
The Subdivision Committee will meet to consider the following items:
1. Docket No. 77-03 Z; (#03050030); Hearthview Residential PUD
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.
th
Joe Scimia, attorney, Baker & Daniels, 600 East 96 Street appeared before the Committee
representing the appliacnt. Kelli Lawrence and Jim Thomas were present representing Hearthview
Residential and Engineer Greg Rasmussen with Terhorst, Lansom & Fisk.
The PUD Ordinance is crafted to pull in and identify the exact plans for the units as well as landscape
plans and tie them all together to plans submitted for review. The plans have gone through two
committee meetings, and it is believed that all comments have now been addressed.
Mr. Scimia circulated the revised landscape plan that addresses comments from the TAC
Committee. There are no substantive changes; only more detail has been added as to the types of
plants to be planted and some of the plant species have been changed at the request of Scott Brewer,
Urban Forester.
Joe Scimia referred to letters received from surrounding property owners in opposition. These
letters came from basically two groups: those located to the east of the property, and those located
from the west—all within the Dura Development. There were two letters from persons on Ralston
Street and two letters from persons on Donnybrook, immediately adjacent to the property. None
1
S:\\PlanCommision\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee-2003\\sub2003oct
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
of the properties directly abut the subject site. Representatives from the Donnybrook Subdivision
were present to reiterate their approval of the development.
Joe Scimia referred to a statement in the letters regarding recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan 20/20 Vision. Joe Scimia wished to make it perfectly clear that this is a mis-statement of what
the Comprehensive Plan actually recommends for this area. Joe Scimia circulated a copy of the land
use plan for the 20/20 Vision document. The site is highlighted as being between two
classifications: medium intensity and low intensity, relative to recommendations between 1 and 3
units per acre for low intensity, and 3 to 5 units per acre for medium intensity. The density of the
proposed development is roughly 3.2 units per acre. The bulk of the opposition or remonstrance
seen in the letters is probably based on the belief that maybe the density is not appropriate for the
area or is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Some of the concerns have been addressed and incorporated into the PUD Ordinance. The density
has been reduced from 29 units total to 21 total units—a density reduction from 4.5 units per acre
to roughly 3.3 units per acre. The original plan showed 4 units per structure or more. The revised
plan limits duplexes to two units per structure or a single-family attached dwelling with one
common wall.
The materials have been changed to require all brick exteriors except for the gables, previously brick
with lap siding. The garage configuration has been changed to a more aesthetic, appealing look.
The square footage of the units has been increased so that the minimum square footage will be 1800
square feet or more. The architectural elements have been re-designed so that there is a different
appearance towards the Monon Trail to make the rear entrance look like frontage on the Monon.
The price point has been increased from an average of $225,000 to approximately $300,000. The
type of product being proposed for this site has changed dramatically. Currently, the product
proposed is similar to that built at Sycamore Springs in Indianapolis. Some of the traffic concerns
have been highlighted and the applicant has agreed that all units will be “For Sale” units.
Jim Thomas with Hearthview Residential stated that a realistic figure would be $275,000 for this
development as opposed to Sycamore Springs. This particular site has access to the Monon and
does not sit next to million dollar homes; $299,000 would be where we want to start.
In addition, Joe Scimia presented an alternative development scenario that discussed what could
happen on the site today with the current zoning in place. The current R-1 Zoning and the cluster
development would allow the construction of 20 units on this site with a minimum of 1100 square
feet and no architectural standards whatsoever. This is not something being proposed, but
something that could be developed on the site.
At the last meeting, there was discussion regarding landscaping along the Monon and what would
occur along the western boundary/property line. Photographs taken of this particular stretch of land
show the area is heavy in natural vegetation. In some areas that are less dense, the City has
supplemented the Monon Trail with shrubs. The commitment regarding landscaping is the original
commitment that was requested by the City at the time the land was acquired. The applicant intends
to honor this commitment and duplicate the language; this has been referred to the Urban Forester
for approval. Also, the inclusion of heavy canopy provides a complete visual barrier for a good part
of the year as well as that provided by the additional landscaping already provided by the City.
2
S:\\PlanCommision\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee-2003\\sub2003oct
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
There was also a concern raised about whether or not it would be appropriate to connect the project
site to the property to the east. From the applicant’s standpoint, the property to the east is in
floodplain and very unlikely that this property would be developed. A stub can be provided; a
commitment can be made to provide for a stub in the unlikely event of development. Proposed
commitments have been provided to address two specific concerns raised at Plan Commission
meeting. Ms. Rice wanted to make sure that no loopholes were created where the initial developer
of this site could basically rent or lease units. The first commitment provides that the initial
developer cannot lease or rent any of the units on this site. There was also a request from the
Donnybrook HOA that in the event this developer or any affiliate of this developer were to gain
control of the flood plain property to the east, the applicant would submit a proposed development
plan to the Donnybrook HOA for their review. The plan would be submitted prior to filing any
application or petition for rezone or redevelopment of the adjacent real estate.
The elevations and architectural points of the development were discussed as well as the revised
PUD Ordinance that incorporates the proposed project. Mr. Scimia summarized the proposed PUD
Ordinance and questions/comments were invited.
Mr. Scimia said the intent is for the property to be owner occupied and not rental units. Joe Scimia
said he would be glad to move this commitment into the PUD Ordinance.
Regarding the lighting and light spillage—the lighting will be coach lamps, no up-lighting. Also, the
revision date on landscaping will be changed to be commensurate with those revisions requested by
Scott Brewer, Urban Forester.
“DBH” Diameter Breast Height needs to be specifically drawn out—Scott Brewer would prefer
that “DBH” not be used in the description for size of trees. The Urban Forester will put a
memorandum together for the sake of clarity.
Jon Dobosiewicz, clarification requested, attach photos of homes to PUD as Exhibits. Will attach
pictures and elevations. Also pictures of light fixtures.
Joe Scimia talked about the pedestrian connection/pathway to Monon Trail. The applicant will
connect, subject to Board of Public Works approval. The applicant cannot connect to public
property, especially the Monon Trail, until the appropriate permit is obtained. The applicant intends
th
to connect to the trail at northern end of property close to 116 Street, requested by Donnybrook.
th
There will be sidewalks along the south side of 116 Street.
Joe Scimia also stated that trail connectivity would have to be below the “eyebrow,” on property to
the east and adjacent to Donnybrook.
Marilyn Anderson stated the current plan is an improvement, but is still bothered by garage doors
th
facing 116 Street—the better façade is seen from the Monon Trail.
3
S:\\PlanCommision\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee-2003\\sub2003oct
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
School bus access was questioned—Greg Rasmussen referred to comments made at TAC meeting
and a letter received from the school corporation. The school would not take a bus to the interior
of the property.
Joe Scimia said the applicant is committing to the construction of the sidewalk. Due to a slope issue
on the west side, the sidewalk may have to go along the east side along the detention area.
Jon Dobosiewicz referred to letters received from the public and said he did not necessarily
subscribe to the generalization that property values would be reduced because of this proposal. The
concern is that this particular letter is duplicated, time and time again. This particular letter does not
appropriately convey the project being proposed.
Input was received from the following members of the public:
Bruce Barker
, 1575 Freeport Drive, Carmel, property owner to the west, questioned the intensity
of the proposal when looking at the Comprehensive Plan definition of low intensity. Rental units are
definitely a concern, and the PUD Ordinance does not stop that.
Scott Unger
, 11618 Rosemead Drive, developer of Rosemead Commons, opposite the proposed
development, said the last time he fought this kind of development he was told by some members
of the Plan Commission that this would remain R-1 Zoning and there would be no changes from the
Monon to the Inner-Urban. Mr. Unger has been fighting these kinds of developments for 15 plus
years. The neighbors do not want it.
Bill Wiggam
, 11714 Gables End Court, (Fairgreen Trace) stated concern with the neighbors that
would be affected if this goes through. Petition/letter presented to the Committee from residents
of Fairgreen Trace in opposition to this proposal.
Deborah Pickett
, 11668 Rosemead Drive, (Rosemeade Commons, said she had submitted a
petition to the Department for tonight’s meeting. Dave Cremeans read the petition as presented
with signature of neighbors opposed to this project.
Bill Frey, president of Donnybrook HOA
, said that Donnybrook supports this project based on
commitments made by Hearthview with firm guidelines.
There was no additional input from the public at this time, and the committee was ready to bring this
item to a vote.
At the conclusion of comments from Commission members, Marilyn Anderson made formal motion
forward Docket No. 77-03Z, Hearthview Residential PUD to the full Commission with
to a
favorable recommendation
, seconded by Stephanie Blackman. The vote was 2 in favor, 2
opposed (Dave Cremeans, Wayne Haney) No Recommendation.
2.Docket No. 78-03 PP Amend (03050038)
4
S:\\PlanCommision\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee-2003\\sub2003oct
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
The Lakes at Hamilton Place (formerly Eagle Ridge Subdivision)
The appliacnt is requesting approval of an amended Primary Plat to allow a private street.
th
The site is located on the north side of West 116 Street, ¼ mile east of US 421. The site
is zoned S-1/Residence – Estate. The petitioner also seeks approval of the following
Subdivision Waiver:
78-03a SW (03050039) SCO 6.3.20 private streets
Filed by David Sexton of Schneider Engineering for Dura Development, Inc.
TABLED
3. Docket No. 118-03 PV (#03080004) Walter's Rolling Acres- Plat Vacation
The applicant seeks to vacate lots within this subdivision in order to develop the Clay Terrace
Development. The site is located at southwest of 146th Street and US 31. The site is zoned
PUD/Planned Use Development.
Filed by Joe Downs for Clay Terrace Partners, LLC.
Mike Cook, attorney, One Indiana Square, Suite 1800, Indianapolis, appeared before the
Committee representing Clay Terrace and Lauth Properties. The applicant would like to vacate lot
lines along the north side of 5 lots (lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) within Walters Rolling Acres, and
easements along the north side of lots 1, 2, and 3 and back along the west side of lots 3 and 4. The
easements are primarily for electrical purposes; there are also utility easements along the north side
that will be relocated as a part of the work being done in connection with Range Line Road
relocation.
At present, attempts are being made to put some of the lots in Rolling Acres under contract for
commercial development. However, at this time, there is no development plan and nothing known
that is meaningful. No action by the Committee this evening would be a part of any such proposal
or future development plans for this area for commercial purposes.
The Plat Vacation is necessary to execute the PUD and commit to redevelopment or relocation of
Range Line Road. Currently, Range Line Road as relocated is being constructed and it will cross
US 31 into the area that is sought for vacation on the north side of the five lots. The area will be
used for retention/detention purposes in connection with the redevelopment—it is also part of the
overall drainage plan for Clay Terrace development. The Carmel City Council vacated Walter
Street to permit the relocation of Range Line Road and also permit ingress/egress into Walters Plaza
Subdivision.
Jon Dobosiewicz, referred to concerns expressed at the Plan Commission meeting. Jon also talked
about public notice and how this relates to Clay Terrace. Some of those issues have been worked
through—others need to be clarified. At the time Clay Terrace came through the process, the
parcel, the former site of the Carmel Motel, was not a part of this development and never a part of
the rezone. The parcel was included with the plans submitted for Development Plan for this
site—the drainage for the road project was located on that parcel. The petitioner today is vacating
the lots the Motel used to sit. The parcels left to the front are where the Eagle Creek Nursery is
today. After the vacation of the parcels, they would be combined with those to the north, 3 single
tracts. There are approximately 12 parcels that make up Clay Terrace and those parcels will be
5
S:\\PlanCommision\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee-2003\\sub2003oct
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
combined with one parcel on the east side of Clay Terrace, and one parcel on the west side of Clay
Terrace. We cannot combine the metes and bounds because of the plat. The vacation will bring this
into one single legal description. Nothing is being changed about the Clay Terrace development.
Ann Ezreal
, 12 Circle Drive, Carmel, expressed concern with increased traffic less than 100 feet
behind the plot with no provision for berming, landscaping, retention—absolutely no protection
from the construction. Ms. Ezreal stated that the neighbors were not noticed and not informed.
Ms. Ezreal has spoken with Rick Martin at Lauth Property Group who could not say what would
be on this parcel—no one knows! As a neighborhood that has been long established, there should
at least be fencing, some form of protection from the construction for the neighborhood.
When asked if there were any attempt to berm, plant, or protect this neighborhood, Mike Cook said
that the relocation of Rangeline Road is a County project and the neighbors should look to the
County to put something in place. Mr. Cook said landscaping was included as a part of the PUD
Ordinance only.
Jon Dobosiewicz suggested a 6-foot board-on-board fence to protect the adjacent neighborhood
NOW. The fence would serve as protection until the project is finished. Fencing should be between
Walters Street south to the edge of the Eagle Creek Nursery landscaping business.
Ann Ezreal asked whom the homeowners should look to for permanent resolution of the situation.
Jon Dobosiewicz gave a brief synopsis of the process. If something comes back in the future, and
the assumption is correct that there are lots under contract, some development project would be
presented to the Department, probably within the next 12 months. Based on any proposal for
expansion into the neighborhood of the development, not the street, the owners would all receive
notice. The owners would then have an opportunity to come into the Department and negotiate
transition between their neighborhood and the development.
Jon Dobosiewicz invited the homeowners to submit their names, addresses and phone numbers, and
Jon would get them to the Lauth Property Group.
Mike Cook said he knew that Lauth had met with property owners in Walter’s Rolling Acres. The
essential message to the property owners was that unless and until it is determined that Lauth will
be involved putting together a parcel large enough for development purposes, there are no plans that
can be given other than speculation at this point. Lauth is not the only one trying to purchase these
lots—there are others actively involved.
Dave Cremeans explained to the Walter’s Plaza and Walter’s Rolling Acres neighbors in attendance
that the future proposal for Clay Terrace will bring notice and possible requirements for
neighborhood protection, detention, buffer, etc. Formal application would be filed with the Plan
Commission.
Marilyn Anderson made formal motion to forward Docket No. 118-03 PV, Walter’s Rolling
conditioned upon
Acres-Plat Vacation, to the full Commission with a favorable recommendation,
a six (6) foot board-on-board fence
being established As Soon As Possible between Walters Street
6
S:\\PlanCommision\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee-2003\\sub2003oct
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
south to the edge of the landscaping business (Eagle Creek Nursery) in order to protect the adjacent
neighborhood during construction; the motion was seconded by Wayne Haney and approved 4 in
favor, none opposed.
4. Docket Nos. 126-03 Z (#03080012); 127-03 Z (#03080013)
Burlingame Subdivision Rezone
The applicant seeks to Rezone 67.295 acres± from S-1/Very Low Intensity Residence to
R-2/Residence and also seeks to rezone 9.13 acres± from S-1/Very Low Intensity Residence
to R-4/Residence. The site is located at 13619 Shelborne Road.
Filed by Steve Pittman on behalf of Shelburn Family Limited Trust.
Steve Pittman and Neal Smith of Pittman Partners appeared before the Committee representing the
applicant. Also in attendance: Dennis Olmsted, Stoeppelwerth & Assoc.; Bill Fehribach, A & F
Traffic Engineers; Paul Rioux, Platinum Properties; Alan Goldsticker, Ryland Homes; Brad Little,
Bruce Lindstrom, and Diedrick Wambol, Carmel Dad’s Club.
The applicant seeks to rezone approximately 77 acres to R-4/Residence. The property is north of
st
131 Street and adjacent to the new Carmel Street Fleet facility, and east of Shelburn Road. The
proposal provides for rezone into two different uses—12.5 acres to R-4, 64.5 acres to R-2. The
product on the south end next to the Street Fleet facility is Ryland Townehomes. A key element to
this proposal is the Carmel Dad’s Club in a state-of-the-art football facility. There will be an area
to the north proposed for empty nester housing in an affordable price range average of $175,000.
Continuing north would be a family area.
Also, as a part of this project, the empty nester area farthest to the east is termed the “flex” area
where flexibility is maintained. Based upon market demand, there would be flexibility to build
empty nester homes or less lots, wider lots, and construct a family area.
Steve Pittman addressed specific questions posed at the September Plan Commission meeting as
follows: The density proposed is not to exceed 290 units on 76.43 acres—3.79 units per acre. 29%
open space is being provided. The area requested for R-2 zoning is proposed for density not to
exceed 210 units on 64.277 acres—3.27 units per acre. Based upon the R-2 zoning with the amount
of open space provided, 4.41 units per acre would be allowed. The required open space is 20%--the
applicant is providing 28.8% open space. Under the R-4 area, the applicant is proposing 12.15
acres for rezoning to R-4—a density not to exceed 80 units—6.58 units per acre.
Within the R-4 zoning and the amount of open space being provided, 8.56 units per acre would be
allowed. The open space required is 25% and the applicant is providing 29.63%.
There were also detailed questions about the Dad’s Club utilization of the ball fields. The plans are
for a “state-of-the-art” football facility providing 3 football fields. Practices would start July 28 and
run Monday through Thursday, 5:30 PM to 7:15 PM—Friday the field is vacant. Saturday, the
fields would be used 8:00 AM to 3:30 PM for games—Sunday the field is vacant. The season would
end October 15. The Spring utilization and use has not been determined.
7
S:\\PlanCommision\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee-2003\\sub2003oct
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
Currently, the plans are to enter into a 99-year lease with the Carmel Dad’s Club for $1.00 and other
valuable consideration. The applicant will build the facility; it will be a turnkey operation and the
Dad’s Club will be able to use the fields as they see fit.
Parking Requirements: The Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 27, Additional Parking and
Loading Regulations, requires one space per 200 square feet of interior area plus one space per
5,000 square feet of outdoor area. If the entire football field area were measured—parking lots,
courtyard area in the townehomes, 88 spaces would be required. There will also be a concession
area, bathroom facility for men and women, and storage area that would require an additional 5
parking spaces. The total parking required per the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance is 93 spaces; the
applicant is providing 165 spaces.
The applicant also counted the number of players on each football team, cheerleaders, coaches,
referees, expected number of spectators. Based upon one field being used, 46 parking spaces per
field would be required—multiplied by 2 fields—92 spaces would be needed. An additional 30%
was added for parking spaces—a grand total of 120 spaces. Calculations were based on only 2
fields because the Dad’s Club plans and policies of “resting” one field while two fields are in use.
Steve Pitttman said he had visited Badger Park field and actually calculated the number of players
and the number of cars parked at the time the players were there. There were 151 participants, 8
soccer fields, no cheerleaders, and one referee per field. The ratio of cars per field participant is
1.31. Based on those figures, for two fields, the applicant would provide 98.8 spaces.
There was also a question from Ron Houck regarding perimeter lots for development and making
perimeter lots match up with the adjacent lots. This proposal is clearly a different way of looking
at open space. One form of open space is a meandering subdivision with open space behind the lots
that one could argue is not even useable. In this proposal, the open space is aggregated in one area
and provides the football fields. Appropriate buffering will be provided adjacent to other
neighborhoods.
Another question involved the differentiating of product when the average price point for the
townehomes, to the empty nester area, to the family area is from $175,000 to $200,000. Clearly, the
product is differentiated—it is not a price differentiation, it is a product differentiation. Based on
marketing information and Ryland’s experience, the townehome area will contain married couples,
singles, divorcees, etc., but it does not cater to the family. Moving north to the empty nester area,
the majority of buyers will be those whose children are grown and gone—not necessarily retired, not
necessarily inactive, but their family is now smaller and they do not need the additional space—they
do want extremely low maintenance. Farther north, the family area is different from the empty
nester and townehome area.
What do football fields have in common with empty nesters? Input from people questioned and
worked with indicates that they love the idea of being around youth. They do not necessarily want
to “hang out” and have the grandkids around all the time, but they can still be around young people
and see the activity. Some people that would live in the empty nester area would love the
opportunity to work in concessions and also help oversee some of the ground maintenance.
8
S:\\PlanCommision\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee-2003\\sub2003oct
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
Input was invited from members of the public in attendance.
Mike Claytor
, 13881 Shelbourne Road, on the northern border of the subject parcel, spoke of
concern regarding density. The proposal is an innovative plan and will help the Dad’s Club, but the
project is too dense. Steve’s concept with R-4 and the southern part of the property takes care of
that issue with the Carmel Street facility. However, do not understand the reasoning for the R-2
zone on the balance of the property. The property, with the exception of the townehomes could be
developed under S-1 without much difficulty. The current proposal would allow 15 nice, close,
intimate neighbors with a 20-foot setback against the Claytor’s 10-acre property as opposed to any
other plan. This proposal is probably the most dense of any other in western Clay Township.
st
Mary Lou Hyatt
, Shelbourne Road, was opposed to closing off 141 Street access. Ms Hyatt
questioned the use of the open space and the wisdom of rezoning to R-2 and R-4.
Debbie Winchester
, 13881 Shelbourne Road, had two issues with the proposal—the use of
greenspace and lack of attempt to maintain the rural flavor of the area. The proposal does not blend
with the neighborhoods in the area. The buffer between her home and the 15 houses is still a
question—suggests the Committee look very closely at the commitments.
Justin Kam
questioned the proposed location of the football fields and accompanying traffic.
Lee Ramey
said he liked the overall concept, but feels the project is too dense when compared with
the adjacent neighborhood.
Steve Pittman said a landscape plan has not been done but will be presented at the Primary Plat
stage. The parking provides for 30% overlap as players are coming in and some are leaving—this
computes to 120 spaces.
Paul Rioux stated they had built three football fields in Fishers and provided 120 parking spaces in
a stone and gravel lot. There were three games going the entire time; the first weekend people
parked on the road and in the yards. As a result, 80 spaces were added for a total of 200 spaces, and
a drop-off area was added. The problem was a mini-van would drop off six kids, and mom would
come back later for the game. Everyone does not show up and park and stay for the game. It was
more a problem of flow than spacing and it was resolved by adding the drop-off area, 80 more
spaces, and lining the parking spaces. That is with three active fields, and this is with two active
fields. Based on the experience with the Fishers facility, 175-180 spaces with proper flow would
provide an efficient way to move people in and out.
Marilyn Anderson commented that for her, traffic is still an issue. Marilyn Anderson did not feel
that the traffic study was accurate—the proposed use was not factored in when the study was done.
th
Jon Dobosiewicz stated that there is not a problem at Shelbourne and 116 Street; there is a problem
at the intersection that is not aligned. It is not a level of service issue—as far as lot sizes between
the proposal and those homes next door, there should be a differentiation. From all previous
developments seen, with this one added on top, there is only one intersection that works any
th
differently as far as level of service and that is 136 Street and Towne Road.
9
S:\\PlanCommision\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee-2003\\sub2003oct
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
Bill Fehriback, traffic engineer with A & F Engineering, then addressed the Committee and
explained the study and peak hours. If there were 192 more cars, actually one-half going in,
one-half coming out, it would not change the level of service. This is not a rush hour situation.
Rush hour in the evening begins at 5:00 PM. The cars would be coming from all directions and the
extra two or three cars per approach would not change anything in the study. The numbers are just
not there. We looked at 9 intersections, and some of those 92 cars will come through all 9 of the
intersections or an average of 10 additional cars per intersection.
Steve Pittman asked the Committee, “If this were just open space, would that mean you are not
concerned anymore? What do you do in a situation like this? These fields would be in use 16 ½
hours per week, 2 ½ months out of the year. The City constructed two buildings that are over 40
feet tall around the parking lot—storage areas—and a 150-foot water tower.
Jon Dobosiewicz said the City and the Department had been working with this petitioner and the
Dad’s Club to come up with plans for a facility. The whole concept and idea has been a lot of
working with the Department. From a traffic standpoint, the question should be, “What is the
impact of these units and how can it be mitigated?” Developers pay hundreds of thousands of
dollars to mitigate intersection improvements where there is poor level of service. Level of service
can be improved—not that they are contributing all of the traffic for that, but hearing that this is not
a good place for a recreational amenity….. The City will be in a position to make as significant an
improvement to this area mainly because the Street facility will be located there and eventually a
new fire station. There will likely be a plan in place in the next 9-10 months. Level of service issue
is not a density issue.
Steve Pittman commented that as a part of this proposed development, the City would gain an
th
extension of 136 Street all the way through the project. It would have been nice for the developer
to just stub it. However, there are 2100 feet of 3600 feet of back-to-curb that will be installed for
this project. In addition, pursuant to the master plan on Shelbourne Road, the developer is willing
to step up and contribute $200,000 for off-site road improvements. The community benefits from
this. Significant things will happen as far as this project partnering with the City is concerned.
th
Bill Fehribach said that traffic coming from the south at 116 and Shelbourne IS included in the
study. The study could not be done without this intersection. On the single lane intersections, there
is only one-lane approach; therefore, you can only have level of service for that one approach. If
you had a right-turn lane and a through lane, then you could have a higher level of service. All of
these intersections are basically one-lane approaches today. We have recommended left-turn lanes
on all approaches at just about every intersection.
The consensus of the Committee was to Table this item until the November meeting.
Marilyn Anderson moved to Table Docket Nos. 126-03 Z (#03080012) and 127-03 Z (#03080013)
Burlingame Subdivision Rezone, until the November Committee meeting, seconded by Stephanie
Blackman and Approved 4 in favor none opposed.
10
S:\\PlanCommision\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee-2003\\sub2003oct
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10
PM.
___________________________________
Dave Cremeans, Committee Chairperson
___________________________
Ramona Hancock, Secretary
11
S:\\PlanCommision\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee-2003\\sub2003oct
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417