Loading...
PC 11-20-18 / ,QaM1T=ERc ,( City rof 4°1014 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 20181 MEETING MINUTES Location:Cannel City Hall Council Chambers,2"d Floor,1 Civic Square,Cannel,IN 46032 Members Present: John Adams,Laura Campbell,Brad Grabow,Tom Kegley,Nick Kestner,Joshua Kirsh,Alan Potasnik,Susan Westermeier Members Absent: Michael Casati Staff Present:Alexia Lopez,Rachel Keesling,John Molitor,Joe Shestak,Mike Hollibaugh Time of Meeting:6:00 PM Declaration of Quorum: Brad Grabow: 8 members present,we have a Quorum Approval of Minutes: A motion made by Josh Kirsh and seconded by Laura Campbell to approve the minutes form the October 16,2018 PC meeting. Approved 8-0,1 absent Casati Communications,Bills,Expenditures,&Legal Counsel Report: John Molitor: Nothing new to report Reports,Announcements&Department Concerns: • Rachel Keesling: Announced the tabling of the Sherman Drive Townhomes to Dec. 18,2018 • Rachel Keesling: Outcome of Projects at Committees Commercial: • Docket No. 18030016 Z: Franciscan Health: S-2 to MC Rezone—Returning to full Plan Commission with a 3-0 Favorable Recommendation to City Council • Docket No. 18080015 DP Amend/ADLS:Noah's Event Venue—Approved 3-0 • Docket No. 18100009 ADLS Amend:Grand&Main Retail—Approved 3-0 Residential: • Docket No. 18010004 Z: Westbridge PUD Rezone—Discussed and Continued to Dec.4 • Docket No. 18070015 Z:2724 E 136th St.PUD Rezone—Tabled to Dec.4 • 2019 Plan Commission Calendar: we added the 2020 January dates to the calendar A motion made by Tom Kegley and seconded by John Adams to adopt the 2019 calendar dates. Approved 8-0,1 absent Casati • Alexia Lopez: Starting January 1,2019 we will be going digital for all of our plan reviews. We will require electronic submission for all Planning and Zoning projects. Plan Commission members will still receive hard copies of the info packets. Public Hearings Brad Grabow: Since more people are here to comment on the 106th&Ditch PUD Rezone we would like to revise our agenda to move Docket No. 18100001 PUD to the first item on tonight's agenda. A motion made by Josh Kirsh and seconded by Susan Westermeier to move Docket No. 18100001 PUD to the first public hearing item on the agenda. Approved 8-0, 1 absent Casati. Brad Grabow: • Introduced the rules of procedure for a public hearing • The petitioner will have 15 mins to present their project 1 Plan Commission Minutes 11-20-18 • There will be 20 mins allocated from members of the public,comments in support, in opposition,and any comments that are appropriate • The petitioner will then have 5 mins to respond to the public comments. • The public hearing portion is then closed,and then the Department Report is presented by Staff • We ask people who are speaking to avoid repetition and avoid restating comments that have been made by others and in other forms of writing. If you already sent in an email,we have read it and appreciate your input. 1. Docket No. 18100001 PUD: 106th and Ditch PUD Rezone The applicant seeks approval to rezone 22.43 acres to PUD/Planned Unit Development in order to develop approximately 36 single-family dwellings. The site is located at the NW corner of 106th Street and Ditch Road. It is zoned S-1/Residential. Filed by Tim Ochs with Ice Miller,LLP on behalf of,JJB Development LLC. Petitioner: Tim Ochs,Ice Miller: • The two owners of JJB Development LLC are residents of the Crooked Stick neighborhood and members of the Crooked Stick Country Club • The correct acreage for the property is actually 27.762 acres, instead what it was originally noted in the PUD • The actual density at 36 lots is 1.298 units per acre • The public notices that were published and sent out included the parcel numbers and a site map • Presented an aerial map of the development • The proposal provides an east and west access lane from Ditch Road to Crooked Stick Lane • We are proposing mounds,fencing and landscaping along 106th and Ditch • We will add a new path around the perimeter of this site • We are open to improving the architecture standards of the PUD • We want to have options for potential residents in this area who want to downsize their home and lot • A lot of letters have been submitted.The three issues noted are density,access to Crooked Stick Ln.,and traffic • The Comprehensive Plan for Cannel calls for density in this area to be between 1 and 1.3 units per acre. This development comes in at 1.3 units per acre. • The homes will be high quality and that's our objective • The site is laid out to have connectivity to other neighborhoods • We are willing to work with the access issues brought up by Crooked Stick residents • We have been made aware of an Amendment to the Covenants and Restrictions of the subdivision directly adjacent to this project,known as the greater Crooked Stick. This amendment prohibits the extension of a road from another subdivision. From my professional opinion,that's not enforceable against the City of Carmel. If the City wants to put a public road on real estate, it can do so. We will figure out what the best access to this development is and we are willing to work out these issues to find the best solution. • Staff would like to see a traffic report done and we will provide one from a traffic engineer • We don't think the addition of 36 single family homes will degrade the level of service of the surrounding roads and intersections • Staff asked for sample elevations of the proposed fencing and mounds • We are open for suggestions to improve the quality of this project Public Comments: Brad Grabow: Can I see a show of hands of those of you who wish to speak? 14 people raised their hands. I will allow 2 minutes per speaker. State your name and what area of Cannel you are from. Otto Frenzel,lives adjacent to the development: Is in opposition.The storm water on this property needs to be addressed. Buffering needs to be around my property. Dee Fox,lives in southwest Cannel: Is in opposition.The info packet didn't include the surrounding areas in the aerial map. This development shouldn't be built just because the market has a demand for houses on small lots. The houses are not small. They are large houses on small lots. That's not really downsizing. It's not making your life easier. There are other places for that. 2 Plan Commission Minutes 11-20-18 Jay Lesandrini,lives on Crooked Stick Lane: Is in opposition.My house backs up to this site. There's a faulty assumption that you have to have large houses on 1 acre lots. Crooked Stick already has large house on 1 acre lots. It appears the access drive on Ditch Road is roughly 250' from roundabout. If a driver is going north on Ditch and trying to make a left-hand turn into this subdivision,it will back up traffic. All 36 houses in this development are requiring 3 car garages,so that will be around 100 cars added to this area and will create traffic issues. Angela Conn, lives in Crooked Stick: Is in opposition. I own two properties within one mile from this development. I know this area is demanded by executives who want private estate style lots. This new PUD development would drop my home value. Bruce Hopkins,lives in Preston Trail: Is in opposition. This will diminish the entire 106th and Ditch area. Mr. Ochs best solution is to put this development in another area where there is a dense population. Fred Merritt, lives in Crooked Stick: Is in opposition.Headlights will come into my son's bedroom where the proposed entrance would be on Crooked Stick. There's already a street cut on 106th. Light pollution will be a problem. Jon Jessup,lives in Crooked Stick: Is in opposition.There are plenty of other options for these dense lots,high density homes. It's important to keep the existing feel in these existing neighborhoods. I was told by the Planning Staff they were aware of the CCRs. Do they have the legal ability to break those CCRs of Crooked Stick? The proposed 10' aggregate side yard setbacks are not consistent with the existing neighborhoods. The current zoning would be 30'setbacks and they talked about decreasing that by 1/3. The two developers don't live on Crooked Stick Lane. This development would not impact them from a safety standpoint. I would ask the traffic study to take in account the hill on 106th St. as you're heading east toward Crooked Stick Lane. This hill presents a geographic issue,not just a traffic issue. Ally Bobee, lives on Crooked Stick Lane: Is in opposition. We agree on everything that has been said. We have concerns about safety for the younger children due to traffic impacted on Crooked Stick Lane. Greg Stewart, lives on Crooked Stick Lane: Is in opposition.My property is adjacent to this proposal. This is an estate area. There's no reason to dice up the land like its being proposed. In 2002,access to Crooked Stick Lane was proposed and the amendment was mentioned. The Crooked Stick Golf Club owns the right to the land adjacent to Crooked Stick Lane and did not allow that access in 2002. I assume this still stands for today. Isabelle Cohen,lives on Crooked Stick Lane: Is in opposition. Our house backs up to this site. We invested a lot of money into our home. We seriously looked into the zoning of the property adjacent to our backyard when buying our home. We hope the zoning will remain the same. There are other places nearby that could be developed this way. Tom Slama,lives in Crooked Stick: Is in opposition. I am the HOA president. I have received many written and verbal comments about this development and it's all negative. Bob Thomas,lives in Laurel Ridge: I am the HOA secretary treasurer. We have 17 estate size lots. We are all opposed. I can understand the need for these types of homes,but to stick this development in middle of southwest Clay would be completely out of character of this area. To rezone it to this density would be in contradiction to the agreement the City of Carmel made when they decided to annex southwest Clay. There were commitments made to the people of southwest Clay that there would not be made any major zoning changes in the result of the annexation. Larry Spear,lives in Laurelwood: I am on the HOA board. Our development is opposed to this rezoning. How is density calculated? Its 27.5 acres and take out the 22%open area,and the density for the land that would be developed as lots would be less than.5 acre or 2 to 1. If you look at the lots that are facing 106th,the minimum lot size is 15,300 sq. ft. That's basically a 1/3 of an acre. So density would be 3 lots per acre. There's no plan for storm drainage. This development would create a mosquito haven. Rochelle Ritchie,lives at NE corner of 106th and Ditch: Is in opposition. We were shocked at this petition. My father built my house 30 years ago. This development would not fit this area. It would take away the uniqueness of the area. There will be a lot of construction debris in the streets. 3 Plan Commission Minutes 11-20-18 Petitioner Rebuttal: Tim Ochs • Drainage is required and will be provided by us. It has to be approved by the City of Cannel. • The smallest lot allowed in the S-1 district is 15,000 sq.ft. and our smallest lot is 15,300 sq.ft. • We will not sacrifice on the quality of homes • A traffic report will be provided • We will work to see what would be the best access points to this development Department Report: Alexia Lopez • This area was excluded from the most recent Comprehensive Plan, so we defaulted to what it was before • It was classified as very low density residential,which is characterized as single family,detached housing,with densities between 1 and 1.3 units per acre. This PUD would fall within this goal. • The proposed PUD is 36 lots,with the min. lot area 15,300 sq. ft. The current S-1 zoning allows 15,000 sq.ft. • Changes of zoning within the PUD are min.25' front setback and min. 5' side setback,with an aggregate of 10' • There will be one street that provides connectivity from Ditch Road to Crooked Stick Lane • There's potential to provide a stub-street to the 12 acre property to the east to provide that property an opportunity to connect to this neighborhood if it ever develops • Open spaces are focused along the perimeter of the subdivision to help provide some buffers and tree preservation to adjacent properties • A trail network is being proposed in the subdivision and we would need the wording of that added to the PUD • Architectural standards have been included in the PUD to ensure a high quality design for the homes • Min. 6' deep front porches and sidewalks from the front porch to the street are required • An anti-monotony standard could be added to the PUD • Min.22%open space required • Perimeter landscaping is provided along 106th and Ditch • Significant bufferyards are being provided along the sides adjacent to the neighboring properties • When we calculate density,we include the whole acreage of the site,including open space • We recommend this to be sent to the Residential Committee for further review Brad Grabow: Thank you,this now closes the public hearing for this petition. I will open the floor now for questions and comments from members of the Plan Commission. Committee Comments: Laura Campbell: If this didn't have connectivity to Crooked Stick Lane,what would be the other options? Tim Ochs: Referring to map, we could shut off completely,just leave it open to emergency vehicles,or could add access from 106th Street. There are options available and the developers are willing to discuss. Alan Potasnik: Is there a completed traffic study on this property? Tim Ochs: No. We were just asked to do that. We are working on it but it's not complete. Alan: Can this be done by Residential Committee? Tim: I don't know the answer to that. Alan Potasnik: Can you explain the quality of the building materials and the term `masonry wainscot'?It doesn't sound like materials of a high quality. When I looked this up it said it was an artificial stone and brick. Tim Ochs: We are willing to work through these standards. Alan Potasnik: Alexia,does this meet the lot size standards of the subdivision control ordinance? Alexia Lopez: Per the UDO,this is currently zoned S-1 and it permits 15,000 sq. ft. lots at a minimum. The total allowed density is 1 unit per acre.Alan: Does the City of Carmel have definite standards for anti-monotony standards. Alexia: We don't have adopted architecture standards,but we have guidelines that we provide to subdivisions. Alan: Can Staff present what they would like to see in regards to anti-monotony standards? Alexia: Yes. Tim Ochs: We have no objections to any anti-monotony standards. Tom Kegley: There is a lot of concern with the quality of product that's going to be used. There can be a wide-range of developers that could be involved in building this. What level of developer and builder are you considering? I'm not asking for an answer tonight,but I'm just stating this as a concern. I'm not familiar with Sexton Charitable Foundation. 4 Plan Commission Minutes 11-20-18 I'm assuming the name Sexton is the same family I've heard of. Cannel is running out of land. This is a very important parcel of land. At some point it needs to be developed and put to good use. If we don't approve this now,it will be brought up again. I've seen a lot of change and change is a necessity. We all need to learn to live with it and we want change to be done the right way. If this isn't developed by Sexton and JJB Development,and somebody else comes in with another proposal,what might that look like? I've seen that before and it could get worse. Outbursts from the crowd occur Brad Grabow: Folks,this is not a dialogue at this point. The public hearing is closed. Tom Kegley: You have a proposal in front of you today,a lot of issues have been raised here that have to be worked through and the Residential Committee is well prepared to deal with that. I would encourage you to let that process go forward. Josh Kirsh: Can you update the density map so the numbers currently reflect the current density numbers. I like to work through the problems and I see a lot of them. I want to know what Engineering and TAC has to say about it before it comes before the Residential Committee. John Adams: S-1 zoning specifies min. lot size is 15,000 sf,and max density is one lot per acre. You are supposed to get an advantage and gains in a PUD. I don't see any of this. I would ask the Residential Committee to look at what are the current advantages of this PUD compared to the S-1 zoning? I want a small lot but I don't want a large house. I'm not sure if I agree with the stated purpose of this subdivision.As a person who is older and has raised a family,this is not the type of home I'm looking for. Alan Potasnik: Referring to map,between lots 12& 13,there's a note for connectivity for a path. Where would a stub street be placed at to the east of the development? Tim Ochs: It would be close by the trail. We would need to keep the trail for an access point for residents,but we would have to lose a lot for a stub street. Brad Grabow: Can you show where the curb cut is along 106th street. Tim Ochs: Referring to map,along 106th street, west of the Ditch Road roundabout. Brad: That's where you would propose for an access street? Tim: The specific location would be worked through with the Engineering Dept. Brad: If we didn't have access to Crooked Stick,what would you put there? Would that result in a cul-de-sac or redesign of the lot layout? Tim: We would need the input from the Engineering or Fire Dept. It depends if you want an emergency exit there or not. If we did put a cul-de-sac there,we would lose more than one lot. Brad: Referring to the current aerial map, there are five lots proposed in the wooded area. This would result in the loss of those trees. A lot of the home construction would result in loss of large portion of trees. I would want the Residential Committee to discuss the preservation of those trees already existing in this area. Brad: With the anti-monotony,we would want the list of builders and developers. Tim: There is not an agreement with a single builder for this development. Brad: The language in PUD,Section 4.6 on parking; if the requirement is at least two parking spaces per dwelling unit, but there's also a requirement for a three car garage,then that limit should be at least three. There are also 25' long driveways,so there's room for at least two more cars in the driveway. I'm trying to reconcile all the parking capacity that is plan in the driveway and with a three car garage,while the minimum requirement of only two spaces seems a little out of balance. Tim: The notion is there will be two residents with 3 cars. We can look more into this and discuss. Nick Kestner: Seeing how this qualifies for a PUD,I'm hoping you get some advantages and amenities. My major concern you have all of the backyards along 106th Street. That's poor planning. I don't want to look at everyone's backyard while I'm driving on 106th.The fence and buffering should be compatible with others in the area. Traffic is a major concern. I live in this area and when 96th and 116th were closed earlier this year,everyone took 106th Street. To this day,people are still taking this route. Sometimes it takes me 10 mins to get out of my driveway onto 106th. There needs to be a larger setback on Ditch. I want to know the distance from the path to the fencing buffer. 5 Plan Commission Minutes 11-20-18 Susan Westermeier: Before PUDs existed,the options for this would be S-1,or ask for a rezone. What did we do prior to this? Tim Ochs: You would have to pursue a Variance from the BZA and then file for your plat approval or rezone. Susan: Are you more comfortable with this being a PUD then doing an S-1 with variances? Alexia: Yes,we are comfortable with the PUD because you get more architecture standards and buffers that aren't normally required. Susan: I want to see the density reduced and the lots made larger. The entrance off of Ditch Road is too close to the roundabout. We will ask more questions about drainage and traffic at the Residential Committee A motion made by Josh Kirsh,and seconded by Susan Westermeier to send Docket No. 18100001 PUD to Residential Committee on December 4,2018,with final approval for Full Plan Commission Motion passes 8-0, 1 absent Casati 2. Docket No. 18090010 OA: Legacy PUD Amendment The applicant seeks approval to amend the Legacy PUD text in order to adjust the maximum residential unit limitations and specify the location and facilities for the amenity area. The site is located south of 1461 Street and west of River Road. It is zoned Legacy PUD Z-501-07. Filed by Nelson&Frankenberger,LLC on behalf of Platinum Properties. Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewicz: • The Legacy PUD was approved by City Council in January 2007 • The amended PUD will provide more clarity regarding the amenity area and to modify the max. unit limitations • The original PUD does not provide for a specific location or site plan for the amenity area.The amended PUD will provide this info. • Referring to the map,the proposed location of the amenity area will be centrally located in the development • The amenities would require swimming pool,and a bath house with changing rooms and storage • Also required in the amended PUD are a pavilion,picnic area, sport court,playground, and a parking area • The amended PUD provides a time frame for construction to be completed by May 15,2020 provided that Cherry Tree Blvd is completed by June 30,2019. For every day this road is delayed,the developer will be allowed an additional day to construct the amenity area. • We would ask for any recommendations from the Plan Commission and counsel,to include any text about the timeline completions • The ordinance specifies the common areas that are currently irrigated directly by well water to be connected to City of Cannel water services for irrigation purposes • The central wooded area will be preserved • The amended PUD reduces the max number of all types of dwellings from 1344 units to 1250 units. The number of attached homes will reduce from 500 to 476. The number of permitted apartment units will be increased from 300 to 389. • Staff is in support and we ask the Plan Commission to forward onto City Council Public Comments: Sue Finkam,City Council member: I'm in full support. I represent the area that the Legacy resides in. The residents are in support. What's really important to the residents is the amenity center trigger date. There's no trigger date until the PUD is completely finished. I support this going straight to Council. Department Report: Alexia Lopez • The petitioner has addressed all of our comments • They are not increasing the total number of units permitted • The location of the apartments is not changing • We reviewed the additional wording that Mr.Dobosiewicz presented this evening and we are comfortable with it • We recommend you suspend the Rules of Procedure and forward it onto the City Council Committee Comments: Josh Kirsh: Is there a long term plan for rehab and upkeep of the amenity area? Jon Dobosiewicz: Yes. Josh: Does this amenity area meet the needs for the neighborhood or just puts a check in the box? Jon: The amenities being 6 Plan Commission Minutes 11-20-18 proposed exceed those that are required today in the existing ordinance. Josh: Does this pool meet the needs? Jon: Paul Rioux,from Platinum Properties,analyzed the size of pool that is required. The pool is 1900 sq.ft.which is a bit larger compared to other similar neighborhoods. This will satisfy the needs of the neighborhood. Josh: Bike parking? Jon: There will be bike parking if there's not already. Brad Grabow: With the increase in multi-family units from 300 to 389,how many exist today? Jon Dobosiewicz: 300 authorized,and 269 are constructed. The additional 89 will allow an additional 120 apartments to be constructed. It will authorize them,not require it. Brad: Is there something driving the increase of multi-units? Jon: 120 is the number the developer feels is necessary to accommodate additional development in this area. A motion by Josh Kirsh, and seconded by Laura Campbell to suspend the Rules of Procedure. Motion passes 8-0, 1 absent Casati A motion made by Brad Grabow and seconded by Josh Kirsh to forward Docket No. 18090010 OA with a favorable recommendation to City Council.Motion passes 8-0, 1 absent Casati 3. TABLED TO DEC. 18—Docket No. 18090012 Z: Sherman Drive Townhomes Rezone . .. p j. . I. • - 4. TABLED TO DEC. 18—Docket No. 18090013 DP/ADLS: Sherman Drive Townhomes . . 0. .. p •. . • . .. 5. Docket No. 18090015 DP/ADLS: Onyx Office Suites The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a new,two story office building,totaling 31,808 sq.ft.It will be about 30' tall with 132 parking spaces provided. The site is located at 10439 Commerce Drive.It is zoned B-5/Business and is not located within any overlay zone.Filed by David Klain of D.B.Klain. Petitioner: Mark Thorpe,Weihe Engineers: • There are existing offices to the north of the location • There are existing detention ponds to the east and south of the location • Ashbrooke subdivision is on the other side of the detention pond • This will tie into the office development to the north • We are pleased with the appearance of the proposed building that will face Commerce Drive Public Comments: Tom Behringer,lives across the pond,just south of the proposed building: We look at this property everyday out of our back window. I think the landscaping packaging is solid. I don't have any problems with it. Department Report: Rachel Keesling • This building would complete the Coastal Corporate Center office development • A vehicular connection will be provided to the existing office center along the west side of the property • They are proposing 132 parking spaces,when 106 are required • They are proposing 8 bike spaces,when 4 are required • There will be a new asphalt path installed along Commerce Drive and will connect this site to 100fi street • They are proposing 56.4%lot coverage,when 75%is allowed • The building will have a modern design,with stone,brick,and a mix of horizontal siding • The Urban Forester has approved the landscape plan • The site lighting meets the requirements of the UDO • The signage proposed is both a ground and an awning sign • We recommend to send this to the Commercial Committee on Dec.4 with them having final voting authority 7 Plan Commission Minutes 11-20-18 Committee Comments: Tom Kegley: Potentially,how many units can be occupied? Mark Thorpe: Around 100 units Josh Kirsh: Bike spaces? Rachel Keesling: 8 spaces. Josh: What shape are they?Rachel: U-shaped. Josh: Are they covered? Rachel: No. Josh: Do you have an indoor bike locker? Mark Thorpe: No,but we can accommodate. Josh: Can you do some kind of bike covering? David Klain: We have an inside space we can add some indoor bike parking,or we can add some outdoor covering. Nick Kestner: Is the drainage pond adjacent to the property? Mark Thorpe: The Ashbrooke ponds were developed in the 90's. These retention ponds cover 213 acres. The area drains into these lakes. We do have access to these retention ponds. Nick: Would you provide your share of maintenance and treatment to these ponds? David Klain: We committed with Ashbrooke subdivision that we would contribute to the treatment. Josh: Is that a written agreement? David: Not yet,but they said it was$500 a year. Josh: Can we make it a written agreement? David Klain: Yes David Klain: Do we eliminate the two bike spaces if we move two spaces inside? Rachel: We can look at what you can do,but we would like to keep it at 8 spaces. John Adams: Does your property extend to the edge of the retention pond? Mark Thorpe: It's a fairly steep bank that goes down to the water's edge. Refers to map, the property line goes to the water's edge. John: How do you ensure you have access to those ponds if you don't own the land? Mark: We brought the landscaping up to the property line. Refers to map,the dash line is the legal drainage easement,and is along our property's edge. The ponds are a part of the legal drainage easement. It's part of the Hamilton County legal drain system,so we petitioned to have legal access to their drainage. A motion made by Josh Kirsh and seconded by Laura Campbell to send Docket No. 18090015 DP/ADLS to Commercial Committee on December 4,2018 with final voting authority. Motion passes 8-0, 1 absent Casati 6. Docket No. 18100007 OA: UDO Patch Amendment The applicant seeks to amend the Unified Development Ordinance in order to(A)amend the standards for Fences,Bufferyards,Parking,Bicycle Parking,General Yard Standards and Waivers of Development Standards; (B)amend Article 9:Processes and Article 11: Definitions;and(C)correct a variety of errors and omissions from the conversion to the Unified Development Ordinance format. Filed by the Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling,DOCS: • Over the past year,we've been making notes of things that could be better and things that we missed • We are proposing 30 some amendments • Fence permitting started in January 2017. Over 500 permits have been issued and we believe a few adjustments would help with some common citizen requests while also maintaining the intended aesthetic standards. • Corner lots interior to subdivisions are treated as two front yards. We would like to allow existing 6' fences to be replaced along one of the local streets at the side/rear of a home • Fencing along the major streets,we would exempt fences from the 25%open visibility requirement if they do the 6' setback and landscaping option that would allow for a 6' fence rather than 42" • Along Keystone Parkway,allow fences up to 8' without the 25%open visibility. Allow director approval of additional 24"in cases where the topography is low. • For Commercial bufferyards,the Urban Forester requested a reduction in planting requirements due to limited space,competing with utilities and drainage, it's difficult to accommodate the amount of plantings prescribed • For Residential bufferyards,the Urban Forester requested adjustments in bufferyards widths and planting requirements, including proposed increases in bufferyard widths and shade/evergreen plantings,and reductions in ornamental tree and shrub quantities • Allowing the CRC to have full discretion over the parking requirements in the Cl &C2 districts 8 Plan Commission Minutes 11-20-18 • We are proposing 25%reduction in vertical mixed-use projects that have different peak use times(e.g.office& residential) • We are proposing to increase the short-term bicycle parking requirement for offices to 1 space per 10,000 sq. ft. • We are proposing short-term bicycle requirements for hotels to 1 space per 30 guest rooms,min.of 4 spaces. Long-term requirement for hotels to 1 space per 15 guest rooms,min.of 4 spaces. These standards are in line with other cities we researched. • We recommend to forward this item to the Commercial Committee meeting on Dec.4 for further review Public Comments:None Department Report:None Committee Comments:None A motion made by Josh Kirsh,and seconded by Tom Kegley to forward Docket No. 18100007 OA to the Commercial Committee,with Full Plan Commission having final vote. Motion passes 8-0, 1 absent Casati Old Business 1. Docket No. 18030016 Z: Franciscan Health Rezone,S-2 to MC(Meridian Corridor) The applicant seeks approval to rezone approximately 6.16 acres to the MC/Meridian Corridor zoning district classification. The site is currently zoned S-2/Single Family Residential. It is located at the southeast corner of 111th Street and Illinois Street. Filed by Robert Hicks of Hall,Render,Killian,Heath,&Lyman,P.C.on behalf of Franciscan Health. Petitioner: Robert Hicks: • We've addressed comments and our changes with Staff and at the Commercial Committees • The proposed parking garage has been shifted 90 degrees and it's now 100' away from the neighborhood • The purpose of moving the parking garage is to have it further away from the neighborhood and bufferyard • Staff asked us to show a proposed master plan of the larger area. Showed site plan. It's a conceptual plan of what it might look like if it's ever developed as a commercial parcel. • None of the homes in the neighborhood are currently owned by the developer. • We negotiated nine commitments with Staff. They are included in the info packet. • We committed to buildings no taller than 2 stories(on the north parcel) • We committed to a tree preservation plan. We hired an arborist to be involved and work with the Urban Forester to preserve the existing healthy,noninvasive trees in the bufferyards.We will also increase the landscaping so we can minimize the light spill onto the adjacent neighborhood to the east. • We agreed to light poles no taller than 15' • The entire campus will be subjected to property taxes for a term of 25 years • We committed to have screening of any unloading and loading docks that would be in view to the neighborhood • No outside trash storage and restricted hours for trash removal • Only daylight hours for any property maintenance that is 90 decibels or higher • Indoor bike parking will be provided • We would ask you to approve this and send to City Council Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • We wanted to address the future of the existing Meridian suburban neighborhood, because it's not certain that those homes will always be there • This land and subdivision was not rezoned to MC because we hoped to see a rezoning development proposal for the whole area • We hoped this would be developed as an Employment Node for the City • The petitioner did a master plan study in how their site can be expanded and connected to the other area • We are in favor of their changes • We are in support of the 9 commitments the proposed • We would like commitment#3 (deals with the taxable nature of the land)to be worked on at the Council level 9 Plan Commission Minutes 11-20-18 • Staff is now in support and we recommend you pass this on to City Council with a favorable recommendation Committee Comments: Alan Potasnik: Rachel included everything I had on my Commercial Committee report. They fulfilled everything we needed.Only Council could work out the taxes. Mr.Hicks,you did a fine job. Brad Grabow: Can you explain the concept? Robert Hicks: Staff wanted to see the buildings located more in conjunction with one another and not as spread out as we initially shown them. Since we are limiting the building heights to 2 stories only,we are within development standards of the UDO. Brad: What are the methods you would use to bring the employee parking in the garage and the surface parking closer to the buildings themselves for patient or visitor parking? Brad: Our priority is to have the patient and visitor parking as close to the primary use as possible to the buildings. Rachel Keesling: Through the master plan study,the reason why the building location moved was to facilitate future vehicular movement. Even though this is a conceptual plan,the location of the proposed buildings located on the south parcel,they are constricted by the pipeline easement. A motion by John Adams,and seconded by Tom Kegley to forward Docket No. 18030016 Z to City Council with a favorable recommendation. Motion passes 8-0, 1 Absent Casati Meeting Adjourned at 8:33 p.m. 0 3,14165- J,.hestak Plan Commission Secretary Bra rab e'sidentI I 10 Plan Commission Minutes 11-20-18