Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Subdivision 03-31-2015Ei OF CAa city 0 r I'M t 1 � Carmel Plan Commission SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE March 31, 2015 Meeting MINUTES LOCATION: CAUCUS ROOMS CARMEL CITY HALL, 2ND FLR ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, IN 46032 Members Present: Joshua Kirsh Acting Chairman Dennis Lockwood Michael Casati Tim Moehl Staff Present: Alexia Lopez Planning Administrator Mike Hollibaugh Planning Director Maggie Crediford Secretary Legal Counsel: John Molitor TIME: 6:00 P.M. (DOORS OPEN AT 5:30 P.M.) Agenda Item number 1 was moved to the end of the meeting. The petitioner was not present at 6:00 p.m. to start the meeting. Docket No. 15010002 Z: North Augusta, Lot 19, Rezone. The applicant seeks approval to rezone 0.81 acres from S -I /Residence to 13-5 /13usiness. The site is located at 3808 W. 96th Street, west of Commerce Dr. It lies within the US 421 Michigan Rd. Overlay Zone. Filed by Gopal Rao, land owner. VAM.CARMELDOCS.COM 1 CIVIC SQ., CARMEL, IN. 46032 317 - 571 -2417 March 31, 2015 Meeting Minutes Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee 1 2. Docket No. 15020007 OA: Johnson Addition Overlay Zone Ordinance Text. The applicant seeks to amend the Carmel Zoning Ordinance to establish Chapter 23J: Johnson Addition District Overlay Zone in order to encourage the preservation, maintenance and rehabilitation of existing homes and to encourage new homes to complement the character and context of Johnson Addition. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. 3. Docket No. 15020008 Z: Johnson Addition Overlay Rezone. The applicant seeks to Rezone properties in the Johnson Addition neighborhood, generally located south of Main St. and west of 4th Ave SW, comprising 88 parcels in the R -2 /Residence District, to be included within the Johnson Addition District Overlay Zone. The properties are identified by the following addresses: 400 -825 Emerson Rd., 110 -149 Lantern Ln., 100 -148 Park Ln., 7 -158 Sherman Dr., 55 -148 York Dr. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. Docket No. 15020007 OA and Docket No. 15020008Z are being heard together as they are related to each other. Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling Planning Administrator Carmel DOGS. • Several questions were raised at the March 17, 2015 Plan Commission meeting about why Johnson Addition was being singled out instead of other neighborhoods of similar age and style. • The answer is that a survey done on behalf of the Carmel Historic Preservation Commission in 2013 & 2014 designated Johnson Addition as one of 7 potential neighborhoods eligible for designation as a local historic district. • The executive summary from the survey states the 7 neighborhoods were chosen because they contain a unique plan or are those that retain a high level of integrity in layout and original resources. • The survey was formally recognized by the Carmel City Council in the form of Resolution CC 11-03-14-04 this past November Copies have been provided to the Committee members and is also located on our public Laserfische system. • The Councils recognition and the interest of several neighbors is why we are pursuing the Overlay Zone. • I do not see other Overlay Zones for the other 6 neighborhoods listed coming to fruition or being proposed. • There were also questions about whether the properties along Main Street would be included or not. • The zoning is residential along Main Street. • The City does not foresee supporting any kind of commercial along Main Street west of the gateway arches. • Two items of communication were distributed to the members this evening by the department. A letter signed by Kelley O'Rouke and Penny Robbins. The other is a letter WWVU.CARMELDOCS.COM 1 CIVIC SQ., CARMEL, IN. 46032 317 - 571 -2417 March 31, 2015 Meeting Minutes Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee from Bruce Berry. These letters can also be found on Laserfische. a The public has submitted another version of one of the handouts this evening. Their version has highlighting on the front and two additional letters in the back. One signed the Pattyn Household and the other signed Jonni. ® A revised draft has been included for your packets dated 3 -24 -2015 here is a brief Overview. • The reference to exterior renovations has been deleted from the new draft Section 32J02C. • Building additions and Accessory buildings are subject to platted building lines and the height and area requirements of the existing zoning. They would still be subject to the Characteristics List though. • New construction setbacks now reference the platted building line and existing zoning requirements instead of the dominate average of the neighborhood previously suggested. • New construction materials clarifies that any combination of the listed materials is allowed and should be constantly applied on all sides of the building. • New construction building height is a two story maximum building height to allow 25' measured to the mid -point of the corns and ridgeline. That is how we measure building height in the Zoning Ordinance rather than to the peak of the building. • For a reference the house at the southwest corner of Mains Street and 4th Ave. S.W. does meet that height requirement. o We are proposing to delete that 7' comparison language so that someone in theory is not bound by how tall the house is next to them. • In the demolition section there was previously a section about rehabilitation. We propose to delete that section which discusses exterior renovations and removal of siding, windows and architectural features. • In the demolition section regarding destruction by fire or disaster we clarified that homes can be reconstructed as the previously existed (option 1) this option would just require a building permit. • If they choose to build a completely different new home. They would follow the standards for new construction and seek SDR Approval. • SDR (Site Plan Design and Review Section) we have proposed to delete the automatic involvement of the Carmel Historical Preservation Commission. Commissioner Comments and Questions: Tim Moehl: • If there is a disaster or Fire nothing ever goes back to the way it was. • There has to be some leeway for minor changes and how the house goes back. o (Adrienne)There will be instances where the old home did not meet the current building codes and certain things might need to be adjusted. • The State says if 50% or more is damaged it has to go back to the current codes. ® The local building official would make the determination whether it was 50% or more damaged. • If it is not 50% damaged I think we should not force them to go back exactly the way it was. WWW.C.ARMELDOCS.COM 1 CIVIC SQ., CARMEL, IN. 46032 317- 571 -2417 March 31, 2015 Meeting Minutes Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee Joshua Kirsh: ® The way I understand this is if a house has 49% damage they are not bound by the same rules as new construction. • (Tim) That is correct. • Many times it is the electrical system that gets replaced and upgraded to current standards. Dennis Lockwood: It seems like there is already something in place to get an occurrence like this resolved with the Building Inspector and probably the Insurance Company. The Overlay needs to have more concern for replacement than to an exact rebuild. Tim Moehl: The 50% number I gave you earlier isn't actually written down anywhere. It is a judgment call by the local building official and it is a rule that they apply, but it is not written down anywhere. John Molitor: ® We have it written down in the Ordinance it is 40% for Carmel. Josh: ® To be consistent with our recommendations I would say we adjust our recommendation to 40 %. Public Hearing: Rules for Public Portion of the meeting; anyone who is going to speak tonight will need to sign in for the record and you will be limited to 5 minutes. Please don't repeat from the previous meeting and please do not repeat things others may say here tonight. Chuck Ford: Resident of Johnson Addition by attrition the chairman of the neighborhood committee that has been addressing this issue. • In favor of conserving the character of the neighborhood. • The Historic Commission backed us up on this idea in November of 2014. • I think they were interested in our subdivision initially because of its proximity to Old Town. • Since the last meeting Wes (former Director of DOGS) and I consolidated our notes into what were the primary disagreements with the opposing neighbors. • We went through the Overlay and tried to address each one of those issues. • We met with Adrienne and Mike. We then passed the changes along to Adrienne who put those into words for us. • In the amended blue and red addition of the Overlay are the changes that are a result of what we saw regarding concerns from the Plan Commission meeting held a couple of weeks ago. • There is no petition on this Overlay. • There was one for the Historic Conservation District. • This is the only neighborhood I have ever seen that has its own Facebook and email list. WWW.CARMELDOCS.COM 1 CIVIC SQ., CARMEL, IN. 46032 317 -571 -2417 March 31, 2015 Meeting Minutes Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee • We made every effort that we could to put everything on the Facebook page and also to send email blasts to everyone on our email list. • Anyone that wanted to be communicated with certainly had the opportunity to do so. • We addressed the issues of siding, arched windows, height requirements, demolition and Main Street properties. • We looked at the original plat and the three or four longer properties on Main Street were never included in the Johnson Addition. • The two lots on either side of Yorkshire Street and the two lots on the other side of Sherman are included. • We looked at what was reasonable and practical and the east boundary line of Friends Church was a logical place to draw a line and those people in those lots were not interested in being in the Conservation District, and I assume would not be supportive of the Overlay so we eliminated them from the Overlay Plan. • On either side of Sherman there is a natural entry into our subdivision. I thought they should be included and so did Mike and I assume Adrienne and the Mayor. • No changes in Covenants and Restrictions were made. • I am in total support of the new recommendation as it sits. Jim Garretson: Resident Johnson Addition a I live in the first house built in Johnson Addition. o I take issue with those that say this is a historical district; to me this is not historical. Irvington is historical. a I think this is being brought on by fear that people like Justin Moffitt and Old Town builders are getting closer and closer. a They are within 3 houses of 4th Avenue now. a 1 am concerned for the value of my property. a I am opposed to doing anything. One reason being when you look at Indianapolis through the years and areas that have decayed badly. It took a huge infusion of money to regenerate them and make them more expensive then the people who were there could afford them. However the people who owned those properties did make some money on them. a I think Johnson Addition will move increasingly toward rentals. a In the 4 houses around me 2 are currently rentals, and the third one was for a period of time. a What you are going to do is freeze the size of the homes, and they will be homes for people getting their first homes or people like me who can't afford a more expensive home. a You are interrupting the natural evolution of how properties change. a You mentioned that this is predicated on the survey from 2013 that identified 7 neighborhoods. a You say you don't anticipate the other 6 but you picked out this one. Who is to say a couple of years from now people won't put pressure to pick out another one. So you would do this with 7 all over the township. That is a bad precedent to set. a This whole thing is just to circumvent the failure of the proposal to become a conservation and historical district. a I am opposed to throwing at people in my neighborhood another layer of hoops they have to go through with their properties. a I am opposed to the Overlay WWW.CARMELDOCS.COM 1 CIVIC SQ., CARMEL, IN. 46032 317 -571 -2417 March 31, 2015 Meeting Minutes Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee Kelly O'Rouke: Johnson Addition ® I am the repetitive of neighbors on York, Emerson and Sherman Oaks. ® Since the last meeting, a number of us have combed over this proposal several times. m We worked to suggest additions and deletions. ® We worked through deciphering the content that is already existing R -2 Zoning law to which we are already bound. ® We worked to move around the content that is aimed at commercial applications. ® We reviewed all past testimony from the public both for and against this proposal. • We listened to all questions from the Plan Commission. a We researched with some City Officials. We have spoken with one of the building inspectors. ® We were never able to satisfy why we were trying to change a word here or a sentence there when it was apparent that all the tools we needed are in the current R -2 Zoning. a We believe that this started to prevent a home of the magnitude of the one at 4`h and Main Street from entering our neighborhood. ® We do not believe that anything in this proposal rises to the level that would require the involvement of government. • We need to address two items with in our own neighborhood covenants. ® We need to insert language that would prevent the joining of two or more lots.. ® No one in this room knows what materials for siding or roofing are coming down the pike, we request that the special interest group be transparent and simply tell us what they oppose. ® The building inspector we spoke with said that covenants are differed to when there is no specific language in the current zoning. ® When we work within the structure provided to us by the people who built the neighborhood, the covenants this is where we will receive the same effect with the support of the neighborhood. ® This will ensure we continue to prosper in the least restrictive environment possible. ® We request the commission remand this issue back to the neighborhood where it belongs. ® We could do this with the guidance of Adrienne if she is willing to help. ® I am against the Overlay Zone. Jana Sowers: Johnson Addition ® At the plan commission meeting I offered myself as a liaison for the opposition. ® Anyone was welcome to reach out to me between that meeting and tonight. • Adrienne presented the revised plan and I sent those out and collected opinions of the neighbors as well. o I provided the packet to you that is the same as what Bruce had provided with the addition of two emails in the back. o The first email from the Pattyn household. They are not in favor of the Johnson Addition Overlay Plan. We have never even had a homeowners association since the development of the subdivision. We believe the Overlay is taking covenants and restrictions even further. We think the Overlay hinders existing residents and property owners from making improvements to their properties. We believe it would hinder the resale of homes as well. We believe that Mike and Adrienne have stated that they will work diligently with property owners if they rebuild due to natural disasters but it is important to realize that they will not always be in the positions they WWW.CARMELDOCS.COM 1 CIVIC SQ., CARMEL, IN. 46032 317 - 571 -2417 March 31, 2015 Meeting Minutes Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee currently hold. Especially during an election year that may happen sooner than later. It seems all of this started out of fear of a developer coming in and buying properties. It is imperative to realize that overlay does not stop a residential or commercial developer from buying properties within Johnson Addition rezoning the properties or getting a variance from the current R -2 Zoning or the possible Overlay and developing this into a subdivision or something else. ® The second email states that they do not like the idea of having a director deciding what they can do to their home. That is just like a homeowners association which we have all said from the beginning that we don't want. m I have met with Chuck and several other people. I heard what Penny and Kelly had to say. Personally I do not see a need for this plan. ® With the changes made and revisions in the second part of the plan we reference the current zoning so much and have changed it to Dennis' point from the original meeting, why are we even trying to do this when it seems like something is in place to protect it already. O In referencing the current zoning with the amendments I am fine with the plan if it must go through but generally I am still very opposed to it. I agree with Penny and Kelly that we should use the covenants to cover everything else. a There must be some other ulterior motive, not in a bad way, but something that is not being talked about or pointed out specifically as to why we need this. ® Throughout this entire process we have only had about 20 or so people involved in the decision making. When you talk about putting it back on the neighborhood. I think it is important to realize it appears that a lot of the neighborhood does not have a preference. Joshua Kirsh: a What do you think the motive is here? What are we trying to protect the neighborhood against? Jana Souers: ® Chuck and I talked about it at our meeting. I think the fear is you are going to have a lot of these large homes that come in and people do not want a large home next to theirs. Joshua Kirsh: • According to your covenants you believe that they protect you against that already? • You have hired and spoken to an attorney that also believes that? Jana Souers: S Yes, that is accurate. Michael Casati: ® If you want to change your covenants, how do you do that? Jana Souers: • In the covenants it states that it would take a 51 % vote of all the neighbors. • If this is something people want and we want to put it back on ourselves, alter the covenants. ® I don't think we need to get the City involved, I think we can self.- manage. ® To Chuck's point, let's get a 51 % vote of the things they would like to add to it and see if it really is a majority. WWW.CARA ELDOCS.COM 1 QVIC SQ., CARMEL, IN. 46032 317- 571 -2417 March 31, 2015 Meeting Minutes Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee Charlie Demler: Neighbor in Johnson Addition • Crime watch block captain for Johnson Addition and Wilson Village. • Lived in Johnson Addition for 35 years. ® I run the Facebook Page for Johnson Addition and Wilson Village as well as the email list. ® The Mayor told me that Carmel does not uphold neighborhood covenants. ® Covenants have things in them that are not upheld by law. ® The neighborhood has approx. 12% rentals. a We had 62% of people in Johnson Addition sign the petition for the Conservation District. (which is not what we are talking about tonight) ® Some people who had signed it like Jana have changed. their minds now. ® I personally have lived in an area where there were no regulations what so ever. ® My parents' house had a 3 '/z story house build next to them. It towered over our single storied house. That is my fear. ® I personally have the most under roof on my lot legally allowed by Carmel. I have added two additions onto my house. ® We tried to put in a homeowners association at one time and the neighbors were not interested. ® I am in favor of the Overlay. Committee Discussion: Kevin Rider (joined when Special Studies meeting ended) • Neighborhood covenants are not enforceable by the City. They are enforceable by an HOA if there is one. • If they do not have an HOA neighbors would have to sue neighbors to enforce covenants. Joshua Kirsh: • It sounds like no one in this neighborhood wants an HOA. John Huey: Neighbor Johnson Addition ® I am not positive that is accurate. I believe there is not a vehicle in the covenants to allow for an HOA to be formed. C The covenants run with the land then when you buy a lot. Those restrictive covenants come with the land and they are enforceable. Kevin Rider: C In speaking with our attorney you would have to amend your covenants to form an HOA, because right now it does not allow for one. Petitioners Response: Adrienne Keeling ® I could help give guidance when they are drafting amendments to their covenants but it is best left to an attorney to draft any amendments. ® City of Carmel does not enforce covenants. WWW.CARMELDOCS.COM 1 CIVIC SQ., CARMEL, IN. 46032 317- 571 -2417 March 31, 2015 Meeting Minutes Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee • There have been questions raised about motive. The City is bringing this forward as an offering to help maintain the character of the neighborhood. • We are just trying to use a tool that we have used in other locations such as the Old Town Overlay Zone to try to help this neighborhood if in fact it is deemed to be necessary here. • Overlay Zones are very useful when trying to maintain the character of places it would be in addition to the existing zoning. • Overlay Zones do not regulate outside of their boundaries, we want to be sure if this goes into place we have the right boundary and what area needs to be regulated. • An Overlay Zone boundary and a Plat Boundary can be different. Committee Discussion: Joshua Kirsh: • It sounds like the caveats are things like building heights, materials, new construction vs. existing construction. • It sounds like the neighborhood is trying to protect itself in some fashion from what Justin Moffitt was hired to put in at the corner of the round —a -bout. • We have the opportunity to give you some teeth to protect yourselves from such things in a non - overbearing manor. • There is a way we can protect you from the few things you want protection from. • If we don't protect your neighborhood then bad things can happen. I do not believe your covenants give you enough bite without an HOA. Tim Moehl: • I would love to see Johnson Addition regulate itself. • However I do not see the covenants without or an HOA protecting the addition. • This gives you some protection against what it seems like everybody wants to some degree. Dennis Lockwood: • This is an older neighborhood and there have been people getting along with people and properties being developed. I am trying to figure out what happened in the last 3 to 4 years that would cause this neighborhood to want to add another layer of protection. • It seems that the building heights and the characteristics of the neighborhood you could write this Overlay Zone in two statements and be done with it. • Are we setting a precedent for every other neighborhood to create their own overlay zones? That is a concern for me. • At what point does this become so burdensome that we don't know what we are doing? • Why does the Department of Community Services want this overlay zone? WWW.CARN ELDOCS.COM 1 CIVIC SQ., CARMEL, IN. 46032 317- 571 -2417 March 31, 2015 Meeting Minutes Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee Adrienne Keeling: • We are offering it as a tool to this neighborhood. • This particular neighborhood comes to mind this one along with the Old Town neighborhood listed in the survey. Because of their locations we could foresee that down the road someone could specifically want to buy a house there tear it down and rebuild. So this is the time to get something in place before that happens. Dennis Lockwood: The Director that is in support of this may not always be here as brought up in one of the letters here tonight. I can turn that around and say not all of you will be in this neighborhood forever and the next generation of people that comes in may not necessarily agree with what you want right now. Where do you draw the line? Jana Souers: ® In the packet from Bruce. He mentions a Sunset Clause that gives everyone a chance every three years to relook at the overlay so that it protects if this does go into place that every few years the neighborhood gets to relook at the overlay and see what is working and what isn't. Chuck Ford: o There is a reason the Historic Commission determined this neighborhood to be of historic value. ® Carmel as a suburb originated about the time our subdivision did. It has changed enormously since then. ® The Historic Commission saw some value in maintaining a degree of the historic integrity of the Carmel Community. ® It is not just the type homes. I did research ranch homes across the country and they are considered to be classic homes of that era. Kevin Rider: ® The Historic Society actually said it has no historical value. It has significance for what it was, but would never be classified as historical. ® I have a problem legislating somebodies property value. • One group of people doesn't want to sell so we are going to legislate that somebody who would want to sell and could get a very good price for their home out of that position. ® Government needs to be really careful on that line. ® We are using the definition of character. According to whom? ® It is not up for interpretation of the neighbors. It is not for interpretation of the staff or this commission. o The character of your neighborhood is the zoning when the neighborhood was built. ® I think it is an area that should stay around as long as it can. But you have to be careful legislating it. ® I am not saying I won't support an overlay but it should be to protect the things we want to protect and not create things maybe we need to protect. WWW.CARMELDOCS.COM 1 CIVIC SQ., CARMEL, IN. 46032 317- 571 -2417 r March 31, 2015 Meeting Minutes Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee Is there any home in the neighborhood that is taller than the 25' written in the covenants? o No. For me the overlay cannot be more restrictive than the original zoning. The only thing that got this going is the house on the corner. So why are we trying to protect from more than that? Michael Casati: What in this draft prevents somebody from coming in and buying one of these houses and tearing it down and putting up a two story structure with a full basement that is worth $500,000.00? is there anything here that prevents that? I share some of Woody's concerns about legislation that prohibits the natural evolution of a neighborhood. Adrienne Keeling: The standards are listed as the standards under new construction 23J03. But it can be a two story home; there is nothing that prevents a basement. A home can be built up to 25' high. There is language in there about having the Director's approval to demolish and existing home. If the existing home is ok to be demolished the new standards would not prevent a new two story home with a basement from being constructed. Kevin Rider: ® Have we written in that the Director can be overruled by the full Plan Commission? • The property owner should be able to appeal that to the full Plan Commission if they do not agree with the Director. ® Anything we allow administratively if the petitioner does not agree with the ruling they should be allowed to come to the elected or appointed body and appeal it. John Molitor: a Appeals would go to the BZA. Adrienne Keeling: ® I believe that is in place somewhere else in the Ordinance. Joshua Kirsh: ® Commissioners- do we want to go line by line or put this onto the next committee meeting and have staff continue to work as well as give us a chance to digest some of this information? Kevin Rider: • This thing has Sunset. Clause written all over it. a That is not just for the neighborhood to like it. It is for this body to like it. a I would like to see it have at least a two year Sunset Clause on it if we agree to do anything. WWW.CARMELDOCS.COM 1 CIVIC SQ., CARMEL, IN. 46032 317 -571 -2417 March 31, 2015 Meeting Minutes Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee Joshua Kirsh: • Mike Hollibaugh do you have any feelings about this? Mike Hollibaugh: • What we have been experiencing is a lot of good back and forth between the neighbors. Joshua Kirsh: • Their covenants do not have enough bite to protect them. • We see some value in protecting them to what degree is where we start to differ in opinion. • I think we need to recess this to our next meeting it will give us the opportunity to digest some of this information and gives the staff time to make more amendments and continue to work with people who have comments to make. We would like to see a Sunset Clause added to the petition. We are not going to take action on this tonight. This Docket will recess until our next committee meeting May 61n Docket No. 15010002 Z: North Augusta, Lot 19, Rezone. The applicant seeks approval to rezone 0.81 acres from S -1 /Residence to B -5 /Business. The site is located at 3808 W. 96th Street, west of Commerce Dr. It lies within the US 421 Michigan Rd. Overlay Zone. Filed by Gopal Rao, land owner. Petitioner: Gopal Rao land owner • There is an existing structure. • We would like to use the existing structure as a business. • Our tenant is a dental office that makes adjustments to dentures. • For long term planning we would like to have a multifamily or professional office building 3 to 5 years from now. Staff Comments: Alexia Lopez • The property is currently zoned residential. • There is an existing home on the site. • It is in the 421 Overlay which does not permit residential zoning anymore and our goal for that area is to promote commercial uses. • At the last meeting there was some discussion about B -5 vs. B -7. B -5 was chosen because of the proposed use that the petitioner would like to use it for now. There is a B -5 zoning directly behind the property. • There is also B -7 zoning nearby. • The table of uses from the Ordinance that explains what is pennitted in each of the zoning classifications. • The Overlay does exclude some things that would be pennitted in B -5. WWW.CARMELDOCS.COM 1 CIVIC SQ., C.ARMEL, IN. 46032 317- 571 -2417 March 31, 2015 Meeting Minutes Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee ® I put together a chart to help clarify what we are talking about. Everything in the middle of the chart is what is permitted in both B -5 and B -7. s It also shows what is only allowed in B -5 and what is only allowed in B -7. ® These are uses that are permitted outright. There are other uses that could go in there but would need special approval like a Special Use Variance. ® We are comfortable with B -5; we would also be comfortable with B -7. I think based on the proposed use we could figure out a classification that would fit in B -7. ® There are still some outstanding review comments but some of those will continue to be worked on as he redevelops the site and property. Joshua Kirsh: O How do you (petitioner) feel about a B -7 Zoning instead of a B -5? Gopal Rao: ® I actually like B -7 more that B -5 but the research laboratory facility would not be covered under B -7. ® Dentists order the dentures and they customize them. No patients come there. They then send them off to the dental offices. Joshua Kirsh: ® I believe there were a number of us that felt that this business did not qualify as a research lab by definition. Alexia Lopez: ® One thought the Department had is that maybe it could fall under a professional office. Can you explain more about what goes on in there and what materials they are using? Gopal Rao: • The dentures are imported from China. • The business gets orders and x -rays from dentists and then they customize the dentures and send them back out to the dentists. Public Comment: Hassan Mihankham Shercat LLC • It was a residential property that was in bad shape. • We are very happy to see that someone is putting in effort to redevelop the property. • Our building is zoned B -7 • The two buildings are not very far from each other. • We are concerned that if there is a big parking lot allowed on his property under the B -5 zoning. • We were also concerned what materials or chemicals would be there if it was a research lab. o The parking there now is not sufficient for the number of cars they have there. W AV.CARMELDOCS.COM 1 CIVIC SQ., CARMEL, IN. 46032 317- 571 -2417 March 31, 2015 Meeting Minutes Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee • We are in favor of granting them a B -7 zoning just not the B -5 they are asking for. Joshua Kirsh: • I would like to go over outstanding staff Comments? Alexia Lopez: • We need to make sure the existing right of way is there per the Thoroughfare Plan. • They need to verify with Engineering where the existing right of way is. • If it is not per the Thoroughfare Plan then they need to dedicate additional right of way. • There is bike parking required 4 spaces. • There is an 8' wide path in front of the buildings. • There are some outstanding comments from Engineering, but they pertain to if the land is redeveloped in the future. • Darin Mindham recommended preserving some of the trees in the back of the property • The parking lot would need to be improved. Committee Comments: NONE On a motion made by Tim Moehl and seconded by Michael Casati to send the petition back to the full Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation for a B -7 rezone. Motion Passes 4 -0 Meeting Adjourned at 7:39 p.m. *JoshuKirsh-Acting 2Chairman Maggie Crediford- Secretary WWW.CARMFLDOCS.COM 1 CIVIC SQ., CARMEL, IN. 46032 317- 571 -2417 1 1