HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 12-18-18 136th. The proposed wishbone design extends the roundabout which potentially can change the condition that causes the
stacking that occurs on the Keystone ramp. It's not the private land owner's ability to come up with a traffic plan. Our
traffic engineer answered all the traffic questions to the best of his ability. I can't answer if we can resolve this by
Ireducing density by a certain percentage.
A motion by Josh Kirsh,and seconded by Alan Potasnik to forward Docket No. 18070015 PUD Rezone to City
Council with a favorable recommendation. Motion fails 4-3,Adams,Campbell,Kestner,2 Absent Casati,Kegley
Brad: 4 out of 9 votes does not constitute majority of the body, so no action is taken. Is there another motion? Does
anyone want to make a motion for an unfavorable recommendation?Nick: We can motion for no recommendation.
Josh: The Council asked us not to forward it with no recommendation. Brad: The Chair is looking for a motion to
forward with a negative recommendation. Josh: What happens if no one gives us the second motion that we are looking
for? John Molitor: It's automatically continued to the next meeting. Ultimately,the case law indicates we must
forward it on so the Council can take jurisdiction on it. It's not proper for us to hang onto this indefinitely.
Justin Moffett: I would you request you forward it with no recommendation,and record stands there was a 4-3
favorable vote.
Josh: May I ask the President of City Council,who's in attendance tonight a question? Brad: Yes. Josh: Councilman
Rider, in the past you have requested that we do not send with no recommendation. Kevin Rider: I have said in the past
that you aren't doing your job if you send it with no recommendation. As Mr.Molitor stated,you can't just let it sit here
forever. I think the petitioner's comment to send it with no recommendation,but it's on record the favorable
recommendation vote was 4-3,would be taken into consideration when it is in front of City Council. ,
Brad: The fact is we haven't sent it to Council with any recommendation. It remains with this body until we take action.
IAlan: What was the vote in Committee? Josh: 3-1 with positive recommendation. Alan: Are there any issues that
were not resolved to the Committees' favor, if this went back to the Residential Committee,to work things out and return
it back? Nick: I was the one who voted no for traffic concerns. They did an outstanding job with the rest of the project.
Alan: It sounds like there's no reason to send it back to Committee and to have it come back to generate a new voting
result.
Josh: I understand the concern for traffic. I am happy to discuss our comments about traffic. We have addressed traffic
concerns there with traffic metering. Traffic pressure occurred due to the construction on Gray Rd.The new Lowes Way
overpass that will be completed in near future should address those concerns. The City Engineer's opinion with the
additional wishbone extension to the existing roundabout should alleviate some concerns. Making this a two lane
roundabout would address those concerns during the rush hours. The age demographic in which this development will
attract can address those concerns. All of these things can be factored in. The traffic situation could get better with all of
these factors. Laura: I appreciate the explanation,but I still have concerns about the traffic and I will not change my
vote.
A motion by made by Josh Kirsh and seconded by Susan Westermeier to forward with no recommendation
Docket No. 18070015 PUD Rezone to City Council.
5-2 Motion passes,Campbell,Potasnik,2 absent,Casati,Kegley
2. 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:
• We discussed the amendments line by line and only a few changes were proposed at the Commercial Committee
7
Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 12-18-18
• A simple cross reference was added to the Fence section to add clarity
• In working with the Urban Forester,a revision was made to the residential and commercial bufferyard tables to
make them more similar to match
• The most discussed point was the proposed reduction of parking for vertical mixed use. We agreed this reduction
would be case by case at the Director's discretion and not automatically the entire 25%.
• One new item that was suggested with Line 72, is the R3 District corresponds better with the Urban Residential
land classification(rather than Suburban classification),because it has a maximum density of 5 units per acre and
is currently concentrated in the Old Town and Home Place areas on the zoning map
• We recommend this is forwarded to the City Council with a favorable recommendation after all comments and
concerns are addressed
Department Report: None
Commercial Committee Comments: None
A motion by John Adams and seconded by Laura Campbell to forward Docket No. 18100007 OA to City Council
with a favorable recommendation. Motion passes 7-0,2 Absent Casati, Kegley
Meeting Adjourned at 8:02 p.m.
J Shestak Plan Commission Secretary Brad Grabow President
8
Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 12-18-18