HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes COM 12-04-18 3. 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)
111 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 Cannel Plan Commission.
Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling
• Alan Potasnik-What was missed after the original changes to the UDO?
• I would say it is a lengthy revision because of all the formatting needed.There were only a few items
missed and also a few instances of Staff learning more about the document as it was utilized.
• An example of missed text are the Cl and C2 zoning districts parking standards. The Cl district in the old
ordinance did not have parking requirements and the C2 district had its own limited parking section.
When standards are hidden in the zoning district section and not the parking standards section they can be
overlooked.
• Alan Potasnik-Could that have been because this Cl and C2 parking was left to the Cannel
Redevelopment Commission(CRC)or was this a complete miss on our part?
• Most Cl and C2 changes are left to the CRC.I think the Cl and C2 icons were placed in the wrong places
and the issue didn't come to light until the CRC brought a project through.
• An instance of evolution to the UDO are the fence requirements.An issue came to light when hundreds of
fence permits came through Staff this year.
• Alan Potasnik-Committee,how would you all like to proceed?
• Tom Kegley-I agree that going line by line would take quite some time.A synopsis is sufficient.
*PC Secretary's Comment: The following page numbers 1- 1 S begins on page 4 of the Submitted Packet
titled "Packet for PC 11-20-18"
• Page 1 through Line 84 on page 2: One will find the district intents for the S2,R1,R2,R3,and R4 zoning
districts. It was pointed out that some of the language was outdated from the old Comprehensive Plan.
This is an update to correlate with the Suburban Residential classification in the Comprehensive Plan.
• Line 74: The R4 classification is more in line with Urban Residential classification.
• Line 91: UR district.There is no guidance for what the rear setback should be when there is not an alley
adjacent. 20 ft.was added when not adjacent to an alley.
• Page 3,Old Town Overlay district: Lines 101 and 107 is a cleaning up of language for landscaping for the
Old Town Overlay district.Currently the front yard shall be landscaped and maintained with a groomed
landscape.This is being cleaned up to read"Lots shall be landscaped and maintained with trees..."
• Line 112,Range Line Road Overlay district:The paragraph on line 130 is being removed.The overlay is
no longer a temporary district.There was a sunset clause that was renewed every year to continue the
overlay.
• Page 4,Line 144: The old ordinance allows for an exemption for Development Plan requirements if there
is a 50%or less addition.The overlay requires new buildings to be pulled up to the street with parking in
the rear or side.There was concern that a simple building addition would trigger this requirement.The
50%exemption is being put back into the ordinance.
• Line 105, West 116th St. Overlay: In the process of standardizing the language of the overlays we
included language that stipulated that any parcel partially in or out of the boundary the overlay should
apply.This overlay district also has a paragraph with a 990 ft. boundary depth.The two paragraphs
conflicted.The 990 ft. boundary will apply.
• Alan Potasnik-Lets go back to line 141.These are meant for the C-1 and C2 district?These will remain?
Does paragraph B(Line 144)affect paragraph A(Line 142)?
• Yes, it states that the Cl and C2 districts are exempt from the Range Line Overlay.Paragraph B is just
another exemption and does not affect paragraph A.
• Line 162,Non-Residential Accessory Building and Use Standards: C l and C2 icons were accidentally
placed in this section and will be removed.
• Line 167: The paragraph is being copied from the Residential Accessory Building section to make it clear
that an Improvement Location Permit is required.
Commercial Committee Minutes 12-04-18 5
• Line 182, Fence and Wall Standards: The maximum height is amended to add; "except as otherwise noted
for fences on corner lots or along certain street classifications."
• Page 5,Line 197,Corner Lots: Currently,the fence height is 42"along any street. This is considered a
Front Yard.
• Alan Potasnik-Any place that fronts a street applies?
• Correct. For purposes of the UDO, any property that connects to a street is considered a Front Yard.
• Alan Potasnik-Is an alley considered a street?
• No, an alley is not considered a street. We are proposing for these corner lots that an existing 6-ft. fence
can be replaced at 6-ft. This only is meant for local streets and would not be the case along Gray Rd. or
126th St.,or any larger perimeter streets. This is meant for interior streets in a subdivision.
• Alan Potasnik-So it is grandfathered.
• Rachel Keesling-Would it help,on Line 189,to add"(number 4 below)"after"...corner lots..."and then
add"(number 5 below)"after"...certain street classification..."?
• It could. Sections 4-6 could apply.
• Alan Potasnik-We wanted a document that people can read at their house and understand what exactly is
required.
• Rachel Keesling-I could see somebody not being able to find the definition of a Corner Lot or the street
classifications.
• Line 202, section 5: We would still like the fence height to remain at 42". When we amended the fence
requirements a few years ago an option was added allowing a 6-ft. fence to be installed if it was set back
6-ft. from the property line with landscaping in front of it, instead of a 42"fence right on the property
line. The question arises of whether or not the 6-ft., setback, and landscaped fence could be a privacy
fence.This amendment allows for this,but only if set back and landscaped.
• Alan Potasnik-It doesn't make any difference of the type of fence as long as it is set back appropriately?
• Tom Kegley-Before I was a Commission member, I was the president of an HOA.A commercial
development occurred and I worked with the Cannel to install a screening wall. We are trying to do the
right thing for Carmel with these changes.
• Rachel Keesling-Does the 25%look like a picket fence?What does the 25%mean?
• As you are looking at the fence,25%has to be open.A picket fence would qualify.A shadowbox would
not qualify.
• Line 208,Parkway Arterial Streets: We are proposing that Keystone Parkway have their own fence
requirements that allows for 8-ft. in height and exemption from the 25%visibility.Additionally,24"may
be added in case of grading differences.
• Alan Potasnik-This would affect a situation similar to the wooden fences at the Enclave subdivision or
Waterford subdivision?These would be grandfathered in?
• Staff worked with the Enclave subdivision to obtain a variance for their fence.
• Line 219: This is a repeated point and therefore is being deleted.
• John Adams-What exactly is a required side or rear yard?
• That is the setback.
• Mike Hollibaugh-Every lot has a front,rear,and side yard setback. Sometimes there are two sides or two
rears. It depends on the lot.
• Line 235 &236:This is deleting a duplication of a definition.
• Page 6, Line 251: This clarifies that commercial variances and use variances follow the commercial
landscape standards.
• Line 264: The addition allows the Board of Zoning Appeals to apply the commercial landscape standards
to Special Use or Use Variance requests.There are then references to the process of Special Uses.
• Line 268: In the course of the Urban Forester reviewing commercial landscape plans, it has been
requested that the amount of shrubs and trees is reduced. There is not much room for all the landscaping,
easements,and utilities.The most important vegetation remains.The Urban Forester has agreed to keep
Bufferyard A and B shade or evergreen trees at the same required number while reducing the shrubs and
ornamental trees.
• Alan Potasnik-I was going to ask a valid reason for this?Why is he asking for this reduction now?
• It has been several years since this portion of the ordinance has been amended.
Commercial Committee Minutes 12-04-18 6
• Rachel Keesling- Staff also did not want to change too much of the zoning ordinance during the format
transition.
• Staff was trying to translate the ordinance into a new format,not write new law.There is another planting
table of page 12.We would like to keep the two planting tables as similar as possible for consistency
purposes and to reduce confusion.There have been discussions to keep the shade or evergreen trees at
four and five for A and B.C could be at six and then D would be eight trees.The Urban Forester did
request the shrubs and ornamental trees be reduced a bit.
• Page 7,Line 282: Parking lot planting requirements.Green represents a rewording. Staff is proposing the
plantings are both interior&perimeter plantings.Additionally,every parking space is no more than 66-ft.
from a shade tree. The number of trees would then be based on the amount of parking spaces. Sub-section
D(Line 313)stipulates that half of the required parking lot plantings would be around the perimeter.
Those plantings could be used in conjunction of any perimeter bufferyard.
• Page 8, Line 338: Topping of trees. If the trees are topped they are subject to tree removal and
replacement as determined by the Urban Forester because a tree can be severely damaged by a topping.
• Tom Kegley-When Indianapolis Power&Lighting does this,who is responsible?
• The responsibility is based on where the tree is located.
• Page 9,Line 374: The other bufferyard planting schedule is present.
• Tom Kegley-They required amount increased for the shade and evergreen trees.
• Staff discussed matching the two tables.The reductions are still present for the ornamental trees and
shrubs.The yard widths will remain the same.
• Line 378,General Parking Standards: The Cl and C2 icons will be removed. We are clarifying that
principal buildings are what needs to provide the parking space calculation. A section(Line 389)was
added to point out that the UR,UC,and MC zoning districts have separate standards.
• The final amendment in this section(Line 398)allows the Director to reduce the minimum required
parking spaces for mixed use developments by up to 25%when the peak for one or more uses is different
than the peak for another use.Currently,five different uses can be in one building and the parking
requirement for all uses have to be added together. This allows for greater flexibility and the Petitioner
could alternately come to the Commission for a 35%waiver reduction.They can also be seen by the
Board of Zoning Appeals for further reduction.
• Alan Potasnik-What about when uses change in the building and then people need to find parking
spaces?
• At that point it is up to the building owner and the tenants to know what their parking capacity is and
needs are.
• Laura Campbell-The Olivia is a prime example.As more businesses come into the Olivia it is harder to
find parking spaces.
• Tom Kegley-Another example are all the buildings along the Monon.
• Alan Potasnik-Is the goal to get less parking?
• Often times there is an abundance in parking,which is wasted land and space.We need to look at parking
in general as an overall change,but this is an immediate item where discretion can be used.
• Tom Kegley-Tenants can turnover causing changes in parking needs.
• Mike Hollibaugh-What Staff found over the years is that developers are overbuilding parking which sits
vacant. If parking is tight then leases may not be signed.Tenants will find a space that works for them.
This will also reduce development costs.If one has to walk a little bit because the convenient spaces are
taken,that's not a bad thing either. It's healthy.
• Alan Potasnik-There was an instance where I was unable to find parking immediately surrounding the
building and it was raining. I am sensitive to the market forces deciding leases,but I am just hard-pressed
to change something.
• Tom Kegley-I went to the Olivia the other day and had to park further then I would have liked.As I left
there were no parking spots and a line out of the door waiting to be seated.I think the guidelines we have
established for tenant usage to parking spots is reasonably done.
• Mike Hollibaugh-If a service or restaurant is popular then it is difficult to acquire.
• Alan Potasnik-How often do you expect to make determinations regarding the subject text?
Commercial Committee Minutes 12-04-18 7
• Mike Hollibaugh-I am uncertain at this point in time. Currently they are seen by the hearing officer.
Mixed-use is a different matter.There is discussion about the amount of trips during the day. Residents
may leave to go to work and then employees and customers will come to use the parking spaces.
Developers will attempt to maximize the amount of parking and may not need to use the 25%.
• Laura Campbell-Are there any examples you can give where there is unused parking?I am trying to
figure out how this change came about?
• Mike Hollibaugh-A Cl project spurred this.More parking is present than Pedcor feels they needed.A
conditional approval was a variance was needed or they needed to come up with a shared parking
agreement.An easement to use the Tarkington parking garage sufficed.The way the ordinance reads
today uses accumulate creating the need for a plethora of parking spaces.
• Alan Potasnik-There are all sorts of ways to get around this. I do not really like this.
• Mike Hollibaugh-It is not supposed to be a tool to subvert the ordinance,but building owners will find
someone to pay the rent regardless. City BBQ had so much traffic that it was unable to lease tenant space,
but the property owner eventually filled the other tenant spaces with low traffic uses.
• Page 10, Parking Dimension Design: The last column titled"Space Depth"did not match up with the text
"MM. Space Length"in the below illustration. Both will now be called"Minimum Depth from Aisle".
• Line 409, Bicycle Parking Standards: When this went to City Council(Council), it was determined that
long term parking would only be encouraged. Figures would be left for negotiation and incentive
purposes,but would not be required.Over the course of using the ordinance, Staff realized that hotels are
not on the list for both types of bicycle parking and that the office category short-term bicycle parking
was predicated on having long term parking in the mix to alleviate the amount. For the office use Staff is
proposing to shorten the short-term requirement from 1 space per 20,000 sq.ft.to 10,000 sq. ft. for a
minimum of 4 spaces. For the hotels we are proposing to require one long-term space per 15 guests,
minimum of four spaces and one short-term space per 30 guest rooms,minimum of four spaces.These
standards are in line with other cities and Cannel has seen an increase in bicycle tourism.
• Alan Potasnik-What is the definition between long-term and short-term with regards to office buildings?
• Short-term is for an individual present for less than two or three hours. Long-term parking would be used
by employees all day.Long-term for office is only encourage and not required.
• Rachel Keesling-The long term parking is typically covered or secured. Short-term is typically the
inverted U-racks.
• Alan Potasnik-When calculating how much parking is needed,how would Staff determine between long-
term and short-term?If a 10,000 sq. ft. space is present,how is that divided up between long-term and
short-term?
• The short-term spaces are required by the front door. If both were required it would be two spaces for
each 10,000 sq. ft.of long-term plus the one space for 10,000 sq. ft. for short-term.
• Alan Potasnik-I understand that,but let's say I am developing a 10,000 sq. ft.office building how many
total bicycle parking spaces will I need?
• You would need four short-term spaces,which are two racks and we would encourage you to include two
long-term spaces.
• Alan Potasnik-We can't hold a particular petitioner hostage because they don't include long-term bicycle
parking. As a Commission we have a right to move a project forward based on the UDO. Council can do
what they want after they leave us.
• Tom Kegley-I enjoy bicycles,but I am not as enthusiastic as others on Council. I am looking at the types
of bicycles and the increased costs. We can't hold petitioners hostage,but we can do a little arm twisting
and encouraging with regards to the type of parking.
• Alan Potasnik-Why can't we require long-term parking?
• When this was brought through a few years ago the Council did not want this to be a requirement.They
did appreciate the calculations were present.
• Alan Potasnik-As far as Staff is concerned what is seen here is what Staff would like instead of making it
a requirement?
• Staff would love to see it as a requirement, but are not quite ready for it.
• John Adams-With the proposed rewrite,there would be only one option and the hotel has required long-
term parking. Why not make the office long-term require also?
Commercial Committee Minutes 12-04-18 8
• Only the hotel would require long-term bicycle parking. The entire bicycle parking chart was not
included.Only the two proposed amendments are included.
• Laura Campbell-I think Council at the time believed it should be a market driven decision.If an office
decides to incorporate bike parking what would they need to do to add it?
• Rachel Keesling-If it is on the inside,do what you want,just don't block egress or hallways.Anything on
the outside Staff would like to review the proposal. Lot coverage percentage may be an issue.
• Tom Kegley-What if they replaced two car spaces for bicycle parking?
• Rachel Keesling-As long as it does not affect the required amount of spaces. We are happy to help
reconfigure.
• Staff is receiving a lot of voluntary long-term bicycle parking, especially from apartment complexes
because they do not want the bikes on balconies or in the hallways.
• Page 11,Line 421,Amount of Parking Spaces Standards: We ae removing the Cl and C2 icons. We need
to change"Maximum"to"Minimum"on Line 423 in order to stay consistent.
• Line 426: There is an exemption to allow certain things to exceed 24"into a setback. Staff would like to
add window wells to this list.Air-conditioning units, cornices,brick belt courses,and ornamental features
are already present.
• Line 431: Staff is proposing to add a prerequisite when lots are established to have direct access to a
public or private street. Clarifying that access via an easement through another property is not permitted.
There are other instances in the ordinance that require this,but a bit of dot connecting is required.Then
the other subsections are number accordingly.
• Page 12,Line 470: We are in the process article for Development Plan and ADLS. Staff missed items
hidden within an individual chapter.There is a separate process for the Cl and C2 district that was never
translated over,which is having the Director acting as the hearing officer for the Cl and C2 districts.This
process is added back and mirrors the process.This continues to page 13.
• Line 563: Staff is correcting the Subdivision Control and/or Zoning Ordinance Reference to say Unified
Development Ordinance.
• Page 14,Line 569: Waiver of Development Standard. It was confusing before because it was interpreted
that only overlay districts can have development standard waivers.This is not the case and being clarified.
• Line 580: The definition of vision clearance on corner lots is being corrected to remove"residential"and
to add"local".Alleys are also being added because of the amount of development around alleys.
Tom motions to forward Docket No. 18100007 to full Plan Commission with Favorable Recommendation,
Laura seconds,motion passes 4-0.
Meeting adjourned at 7:59 PM.
Nathan Chavez Recording Secretary Alan Potas• k Chairman
Commercial Committee Minutes 12-04-18 9