HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmail to Adrienne Keeling re C-2 for CC Feb. 1, 2016DATE: January 27, 2016
TO: Adrienne Keeling, Planning Administrator
FROM: Jill H. Meisenheimer, CCRZ/Carmel Citizens for Responsible Zoning
RE: Docket No. 15110017 OA: C-2/Old Town District Amendment. Remaining questions &
concerns referring to the 12/28/2015 Carmel Plan Memorandum: C-2/Old Town District.
Adrienne,
Thank you for responding to my questions regarding the C-2/Old Town District Amendment on
1/15/2016. I hope that you/and or the City Council will address some remaining questions and concerns
about this proposal. For further clarification I have included some of your previous responses in blue.
My questions and concerns are in green.
Remaining Questions
Which parcels in North and South Central Carmel do you consider to be in need of C-2
redevelopment?
Are short Department Reports written for the C-2 proposals?
Specifically, when and where is public input in CRC part of the planning?
Who is notified by CRC for the time for public input and how are they notified?
If neighbors wish to write about a C-2 proposal to the Director and/or CRC how do they do this?
After final decisions are made how is the public notified?
All of the below “waiver criteria” are reviewed and approved by the Plan Commission; in this case the
Director (Mike Hollibaugh) acts as the Plan Commission. Waiver criteria: be in harmony with purposes
and land standards, enhance overall Development Plan adjoining streetscapes and neighborhood, not produce a
site plan…impractical or detract from the appearance of the Development Plan…or deprive adjoining properties of
adequate light and air.
How can a 3 story building not block adequate light and air from adjacent homes of 1 or 2 stories?
This language (“commercial…service activities be conducted within completely enclosed buildings.”) was
intended to address nuisance activities and outdoor display of materials/merchandise, but maybe that
provision should be deleted?
I do not feel that this language should be deleted. If C-2 zoning is near you would you want to have
nuisance activities and outdoor displays crowding the sidewalk?
Remaining concerns
The development plans are not discussed or voted upon by elected officials. I am concerned that
there is not adequate time to review the DP or enough representation by the public to achieve the best
possible project for the developer, the city, and the neighbors.
“The applicant may apply for a Zoning Waiver of dimensional and quantitative standards of the C-2
district by not greater than 35%...consistent with requirements set forth below:” 35% is the standard
throughout the zoning ordinance, and does require a public hearing and approval.
This is over 1/3 greater than the original Development Plan! I urge City Council to lower that
percentage. City Council previously felt the need to limit PUD waivers so that anything over 10% had to
be approved by Council. The same should apply here.
Appendix A Schedule of C-2 Uses: Residential dwellings (single family, two family, multiple family,
accessory , attached , home occupation, residential kennel, model home, guest house, bona fide servants
quarters, private swim pool), general office, professional office, public service facility, general retail sales,
general service, financial institution, ATM, food stand, tattoo studio, restaurant without drive-thru food
sales, public park, temporary (construction facility, model home, special outdoor event)
I have read through the C-2 Special permitted and accessory uses and feel that they should be
attached to the proposal.
Maximum height directly adjacent to residential is proposed to be 35 feet, with no setbacks or buffering
required. Building setbacks and buffering are a suburban model that runs contrary to the principles of
creating vibrant and walkable mixed use. There are tools, beyond setbacks and bufferyards, which can
help the edges of development fit in its context, including architectural detail, screening and streetscape
improvements.
35 feet next to a 1 story home is too tall. A 3 story building next to a house, with an allowed 6 story
building next to the 3 story building still constitutes "towering" over the house. The transition adjacent to
a one story or two story home should only be 1 story higher than the home.
“height shall only apply to buildings adjacent. We can add something to that section to clarify that
across the street counts, too.
Please add the definition of adjacent to the C-2 amendment to also include behind and catty-corner.
You said that Shadow studies for proposed tall buildings in C-2 near residential can be requested on a
case by case basis to reflect the context. And the parking lots for these buildings will address
Landscaping and screening on a case by case basis to reflect the context.
It would be helpful to have a checklist with height, shadow studies, buffering, setback, etc. to make
sure these issues are addressed.
The Purpose and Intent section on page 2 of the Memo deletes lines 30-34, which describes specific
improvements made or planned for C-2/Old Town zoning: “the City of Carmel has undertaken a
significant streetscape improvement project and determined several desirable “footprint” locations along
with public street access points and public set-a-sides. The City further intends to facilitate the
conversions of all utility and private communications lines and equipment to underground service in the
C-2 zoning district. “
We clearly see how the multiple utility poles surrounding The Bridges PUD detracts from the area. I
ask that C-2 developments have usable reasonable designated public spaces, and that utility lines should
be buried.
I look forward to reading your responses and ask that you include my letter in the C-2/Old Town Docket
packet. I will be sending Carmel City Councilors a similar letter.
Jill H. Meisenheimer
jmeisenheimer@indy.rr.com
844-3920