HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #06 from Jill Meisenheimer and Dee Fox
Crediford, Maggie
Subject:FW: UDO Article 3: Belated Comments & Questions, (7/10/17 Advisory Committee
meeting).
From: Dee Fox \[mailto:dasfox2009@gmail.com\]
Sent: Saturday, July 8, 2017 8:52 AM
To: Motz, Lisa; Keeling, Adrienne M
Cc: Jill Meisenheimer; Dee Fox
Subject: UDO Article 3: Belated Comments & Questions, (7/10/17 Advisory Committee meeting).
Hi Lisa,
Please forward our email to Plan Commissioners before the final UDO Advisory Committee meeting on July
10th. We ran out of time to cover Article 3 in the beginning, so are sending it now, hopefully "better late than
never"! Please let us know that you received this. Thank you!
Date: July 8, 2017
To: Plan Commissioners, Adrienne Keeling, Brad Johnson
RE: July 10 UDO Advisory Committee meeting, Article 3, Docket No. 17030006
From: Jill H. Meisenheimer and Dee Fox
cc: City Councilors
Our apologies for the late arrival of comments and questions regarding UDO Article 3. We ran out of time to
go through it in the beginning and had to move on, so have now been working to go through it, even if barely in
time for the final UDO Advisory Committee meeting on 7/10/17. The few text corrections are in purple.
Thank you, Adrienne, for keeping us informed and for giving us copies of the UDO Redline.
We have not yet had a chance to thoroughly look at the UDO redline, but have included a few initial thoughts
below. A more detailed email about the redline may have to wait until after the Committee meeting, but before
the full Plan Commission meeting. Thanks to all of you for your time to consider the following points.
Jill H. Meisenheimer and Dee Fox
SOME COMMENTS ON THE UDO REDLINE: (More to follow later)
Proposed Zoning Changes Map: It would be helpful to have a matching printout of the existing Zoning Map
for comparison. We had to print the online, current map in pieces in order to get all of the equivalent area and
have the print be big enough to read.
US 31 Overlay vs. MC District Comparison Table:
* Meridian Corridor: As stated before, we feel it would be a shame to turn the Meridian Corridor into another
mixed-use entertainment center. The May 9 Committee Meeting recap stated that more discussion was needed
about keeping the integrity of that office corridor, and that more limitations on adding residential and retail
might be appropriate. Did that discussion ever occur? Did anything that was being proposed change, other than
the name?
1
* Existing Minimum Side and Rear Setbacks: Please preserve the 45 feet setbacks when adjacent to
residential. We see no good reason for that protection for existing residents to now be taken away in this
progressively intensified District.
* Maximum Lot Coverage: Would increase from 65% to 80%. That does not leave room for any meaningful
greenspace area for respite from buildings, pavement, and traffic.
* Maximum Building Height:
The redlined UDO, page 2-41, now says 8 stories (crossed out "5" stories) for principal building, plus up to 3
additional stories. However, the MC column of the Comparison Table still says 5 stories (instead of 8) for
principal building, and needs to be corrected.
Also, the principal building 2 story limit applies when it is 100 feet from the "shared property line adjacent to
single-family residential areas". What about single-family residential that is located directly across a street? A
lesser principal building height than 8 to 11 stories should apply to that circumstance, also.
Please consistently list both stories and height.
* Special Uses: The closeby single-family residential districts would not appreciate the proposed addition of
"Private helicopter landing/service", and we don't see why such a use would be necessary in the Meridian
Corridor. It is a Prohibited Use in the nearby Home Place Overlay District.
Article 11, Definitions:
We will later compile a list of the other Definitions that we have requested be added to the UDO, but we have
asked many times for "Adjacent" to be defined with specifics of what that includes, especially regarding directly
or diagonally next to, but across the street.
Page 1-4, Section 1.09, B.(3): It was our understanding that this statement was going to be removed.
Page 3-31, Section 3.68, A.(7) and (9): What do the green highlights mean? \[Also on page 3-49, (3.103) Sign
Standards.\]
UDO ARTICLE THREE: Overlay Districts
How were the Prohibited Uses determined? Sometimes seems like there should be some additions.
Home Place Overlay District:
* Why does the Redlined UDO strike out, or add, some of the spelling-out of numbers, but not consistently?
Page 3-2, (3.01) Intent: To implement the policies/guidelines set for this Overlay District in the Comp
Plan. Comp Plan says "parking areas should be located away from residences" and "lighting should be designed
to not trespass into residential areas." However, transitional buildings will front on Pennsylvania street with
parking lots to the rear, facing Home Place residential areas. Also, the usual limit of 0.1 foot-candles of light at
a border with residential properties is not stated on Page 3-5, (3.12) Lighting Standards.
Page 3-3, (3.05) Zoning Waivers: This is not specific. Should this state the usual ability to grant a waiver "of
the dimensional and quantitative standards" of the Overlay District, "by not greater than 35%"? \[We believe
35% is too high, and defeats the purpose of having standards.\]
Pages 3-3,4 (3.07, A. and B.) Architectural Standards:
2
* A. Home Place Business Sub-Area: Commercial buildings will face the street, so "4-sided architecture"
needs to be required wherever those building rear facades will be visible to existing adjacent
homeowners. (That is required for the West Home Place Commercial Corridor Sub-Area.)
* B.(3)(e) High Intensity Commercial Corridor Sub-Area: If detailing is to be "consistent on all sides of the
building", then this sub-area should also require "Every face of the building shall have windows", as for the
Low Intensity Sub-Area \[B.(2)(d)\].
Page 3-5, (3.11) Landscaping Standards:
* A.(1) and (2): Why should sacrificing up to half of existing 6" or larger diameter trees be permitted, within a
Bufferyard or Greenbelt, where there could be no buildings? How often is reforestation or afforestation actually
being required?
* B. and C., Business, and Commercial Corridor Sub-Area Buffer Standards:
Requiring only a 5 foot wide buffer yard with minimal Type "A" plantings, for proposed commercial properties
adjacent to an existing residence or residential area, is not adequate. Neither is the High Intensity Commercial
Corridor Sub-Area requirement of only a 10 foot wide buffer, with a few additional plantings and no winter
screening.
\[Refer to the Bufferyard Table on page 5-24: Proposed Office/Retail adjacent to existing single-family
residential would require minimum 30 feet wide buffer yards with the highest Type "D" Bufferyard
plantings (including some evergreen trees), in an effort to screen the noise, light, and traffic.\]
Page 3-5, (3.12) Lighting Standards: Please include the usual 0.1 foot-candle lighting trespass limit at the
border with residential properties, and also expand the Definition of "foot-candle" so that the average person
can picture how bright 0.1 foot-candle would be.
Page 3-6, (3.16) Setback Standards:
* Are setbacks in addition to the buffer yards, or are the buffer yards included within the setbacks?
* B., West Home Place Commercial Corridor Sub-Area: Only a 15 foot Rear Yard Setback next to existing
residences is insufficient, especially when parking areas will often be in the rear.
Page 3-7, Figure A, Home Place Overlay Map:
* Please label the residential areas, and what lies directly east of the High Intensity Commercial Corridor Sub-
Area.
* Within the Business District Sub-Area, please mark what is currently residential.
Keystone Parkway Overlay District:
Page 3-8, Prohibited Uses: Why is private airplane landing/service facility prohibited, but not helicopter?
Page 3-9, (3.22) District Boundaries: Please include a map of this Overlay at the end of its Section. We also
suggest including the important Official Zoning Map in the UDO document, so that it won't be necessary to
spend time looking for it elsewhere.
Monon Greenway Overlay District:
Page 3-14, (3.48, A.) Urban Sub-Area Height Standards: Allowing 60 feet or higher buildings along the
Monon Greenway could create a tunnel effect, and does not seem natural or appealing for pedestrians.
Page 3-15, (3.49) Landscaping Standards:
* D.(1) and E.(1): Says to protect and incorporate existing trees, but allows cutting down up to 25% of 6'' or
larger diameter trees in required yard/setback areas, and up to 50% in Bufferyards or Greenbelts. Doesn't make
sense to us.
3
* D.(3): Is this screening of parking lots (with low walls, fences, and/or hedges) meant to totally block their
visibility from the Monon Greenway? If so, that should be stated, in order to ensure that result.
Page 3-16, (3.50, B. and E.) Lighting Standards: Correct the spellings of "Trespass" and "Height".
Page 3-18, (3.58, B.) Building Requirements: Are we mistaken that long term bicycle parking and shower
facilities were decided to be "encouraged", rather than required?
Old Town Overlay District:
The Redlined UDO changed the formatting numbers and letters on pages 3-24 through 3-33, but they are not
red. This will be confusing in regard to previous email and printed references to the first UDO version.
Page 3-20, (3.59) Prohibited Uses: Why is private airplane landing/service facility prohibited, but not
helicopter?
Pages 3-24,25,26, (3.66) Historic Range Line Road Sub-Area:
* Page 3-24, Redline A.(2)(c), Alterations/Additions to Existing Buildings: Minimum 5 foot side and rear
setbacks from the property line are not enough. An existing residential neighbor would probably not be happy
to see the house next door obtain an addition that resulted in becoming only 5 feet from their property
line. Such small setbacks often lead to lack of privacy, fire concerns, and neighbor disputes.\[Same comment for
(3.66) New Buildings on page 3-26, Redline C.(2)(b); (3.68) Character Sub-Area on page 3-30, Redline
A.(2)(c); and (3.68) New Buildings on page 3-32, Redline C.(2)(d).\]
* Page 3-25, Redline A.(9)(d), Parking: Allowing up to a 50% reduction in required parking spaces seems like
too much, especially in an area where parking spaces can already be scarce. \[Same comment for (3.66) New
Buildings on page 3-27, Redline C.(13)(d); (3.68) Character Sub-Area on page 3-31, Redline A.(9)(d); and
(3.68) New Buildings on page 3-33, Redline C.(6)(d).\]
* Page 3-26, Redline C.(4), Materials: This page is an example of architectural standards for new
buildings/houses and their alterations/additions. We still do not understand why "incentives" are given for
compliance with basic residential architectural standards, instead of requiring those standards.
Pages 3-28,29, (3.67) Main Street Sub-Area (West of Range Line Road):
* We don't see how relatively fancy, new buildings up to 6 stories tall "conform to the existing character" of
this "intact example of street front retail", where the original buildings are low and fairly plain.
* Page 3-28, Redline B.(2), Building height limited to 3 stories: Are we mistaken that this area was rezoned to
allow up to 6 stories?
* Page 3-28, Redline D.(1), Each floor shall have windows: Does this also mean on each facade?
* Page 3-29, Redline I.(4), No rear entrances allowed for business customers: It can be inconvenient for the
infirm and the elderly to have to park to the rears of buildings and walk clear around to the front entrances of
stores and businesses.
* Page 3-29, Redline (L)(2), Parking: Why are owners of lots less than 3000 square feet exempt from parking
requirements? People who go there still need to park.
Page 3-33, (3.68) Character Sub-Area:
* Redline C.(7)(a), Materials: "The same material shall be used on all sides" of New Buildings in the Character
Sub-Area \[and in the Historic Range Line Road Sub-Area on page 3-26, Redline (3.66) C.(4)(a).\] So, why is
that not required on new homes in other residential areas?
Range Line Road Overlay District:
Page 3-39, (3.71) District Boundaries: This should refer to Figure G, on page 3-43.
4
Page 3-39, (3.73) Conflicting Regulations: The Range Line Road Overlay and the Keystone Parkway Overlay
do not appear to overlap, so when would their regulations conflict?
Page 3-40, (3.77), Architectural Standards:
* B.(2): Rear building facade materials can vary from, but shall coordinate with, the front and side
facades. Where rear facades are visible to single-family residential properties, please require "4-sided
architecture" in materials and details.
Page 3-40, (3.79, D.) Max. Height: Five story buildings would tower over what already exists along Range
Line Road, and owners of one-story homes have told us that they feel like three story buildings would tower
over them.
Page 3-41, (3.80, A.) Landscaping Standards: Again allows the loss of up to 50% of existing trees of 6" or
greater diameter located within a Bufferyard or Greenbelt, even though there could be no building there.
Page 3-41, (3.81) Lighting Standards:
* B: We hope that it is an error that any use abutting single-family residential uses would be allowed 0.5 foot-
candles of illumination at the property line. Normally, the limit is 0.1 foot-candles when abutting single-family
residential uses, and 0.3 foot-candles when abutting non-residential uses. \[A good example of the usual
language is on page 3-48, (3.98, C.) Lighting Intensity.\] We also suggest a statement that illumination limits at
abutting single-family residential property lines would not be subject to waivers.
* E: Please clarify whether "within 90 feet of single-family residential" refers to the residential lot line, the
home, or a residential district.
Page 3-41, (3.83, A.(3)(b): Please specify whether "fully enclosed" means an Accessory Building for refuse
storage/disposal would be enclosed on the top, as well as on all 4 sides.
Page 3-42, (3.84) Parking Standards:
* B: What is the reason for not including the square footage of second and higher floors in the automobile
parking calculation?
* D: When rear or side parking areas are visible to nearby single-family residential properties, the minimal
Type "A" Bufferyard is a very inadequate screen.
Page 3-42, (3.85, B.) Setback Standards: No minimum side and rear setbacks?! Please add protective
minimum setbacks for when adjacent to existing residential uses, like maximum heights were adjusted for when
next to residential districts and uses \[page 3-40, (3.79, D)\].
US 421 - Michigan Road Overlay District:
Page 3-44, (3.88) Prohibited Uses:
* Prohibited uses include outdoor display, outdoor storage, outdoor sales, and seasonal outdoor sales. How
does this fit with Home Depot?
* Private airplane landing/service facility is prohibited, but not helicopter?
* Why does the prohibited use of "storage or sale of petroleum products" apparently not include gas stations?
Page 3-45, (3.89) District Boundaries: Only the Keystone, Michigan Road, and West 116th St. Overlays do
not include the specific Overlay map at the end of their UDO Sections, so please add those for the convenience
of having the important Overlay information and visuals in one place.
Page 3-45, (3.92) Zoning Waivers: How does this so greatly change from "not applicable" in the first UDO
version, to a paragraph in the Redline version allowing waivers up to 35%?
5
Pages 3-45,46 (3.94) Architectural Standards:
* C. Building Height: In last line of the second paragraph, add "feet" after "(25)". What is meant by "first
structural bay"?
* D. Building Facades: In the last line, change "sized" to "sizes".
"All facades of buildings shall be of the same materials and similarly detailed." Is this new? Many of the rear
facades, especially, look plain and unattractive.
Page 3-48, (3.98) Lighting Standards:
* B(5) Design: Gas stations are not a permitted use in the single-family Residential Zoning Districts, and
should be prohibited adjacent to single-family residential properties.
* C. Intensity: This is good wording for lighting trespass limits.
Page 3-49, (3.100) Outdoor Display Standards: "No overlay-specific standards apply." However, on page 3-
44, outdoor display is listed as a Prohibited Use. Remove this section 3.100?
Page 3-49, (3.102) Setback Standards:
* A.(1): Does this mean that the required 30 foot Greenbelt also counts as the minimum required 30 foot Front
Yard setback?
* B.(1) Minimum Side and Rear Yards: "Next to Existing Residence(s) or Undeveloped Residential
District: 50 feet or 2 times building height, whichever is greater." Compare those Michigan Road Overlay
setback standards to the Rangeline Road Overlay's "no minimum side or rear setbacks" on page 3-42, (3.85, B.)!
Page 3-50, (3.106, A.) Outside Storage: Here it says that outside storage areas shall be allowed, but those are
listed as a Prohibited Use on page 3-44. Regarding trash collection areas, specify whether "enclosed" means top
and 4 sides, and elaborate on what "screened" entails.
West 116th Street Overlay District:
Page 3-52:
* Prohibited Uses: None listed, but we would like the following to be prohibited: Borrow Pit/Top Soil
Removal and Storage; Mineral/Sand/Gravel Extraction Operations.
Page 3-53, (3.108) District Boundaries: At the end of this Overlay section, please add a map showing the
specific boundaries of this 116th Street Overlay.
Page 3-53, (3.111) Zoning Waivers:
This greatly changed from "Zoning waivers are not applicable to this overlay District" in the UDO first version,
to a paragraph in the Redline version that allows waivers of dimensional and quantitative standards up to
35%. Only the Old Town Overlay and Keystone Overlay still say that zoning waivers are not applicable. We
strongly believe that the above 35% waiver statement should not apply to the West 116th Street Overlay
District. The District Intent on page 3-52 states that the purpose of this Overlay is "to protect the estate
character of the area." There are only 2 Overlay Standards, both meant to prevent development from
encroaching close to West 116th Street: 1) A minimum 100 foot Front Yard, and 2) A minimum Lot Area of 3
acres. If these "dimensional and quantitative" standards can get large waivers of up to 35%, then that
would defeat the entire purpose of this Overlay.
Some properties in this Overlay District are already exempt from the requirements, making it even more
important to protect the character of West 116th Street, which is one of the most natural and scenic roads in
Carmel.
6
Email secured by Check Point
7