Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 08-20-19 . . City of C CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2019 I MEETING MINUTES Location: Carmel City Hall Council Chambers,2nd Floor, 1 Civic Square,Carmel,IN 46032 Members Present: Brad Grabow,Carrie Holle,Tom Kegley,Nick Kestner,Joshua Kirsh,Alan Potasnik,John Adams, Laura Campbell Members Absent: Susan Westermeier Staff Present: Rachel Keesling,Alexia Lopez,Adrienne Keeling,Mike Hollibaugh,John Molitor,Joe Shestak, Time of Meeting: 6:00 PM Declaration of Quorum:Brad Grabow: 8 members present,we have a Quorum Approval of Minutes: A motion made by Tom and seconded by Laura to approve the minutes from the July 16,2019 PC meeting. Approved 8-0,absent Westermeier Bruce Donaldson:presented aerial maps for the following areas: 1. Plan Commission Resolution PC-8-20-2019-a: A resolution expanding the existing City Center Redevelopment Area to add Monon Square to the area. 2. Plan Commission Resolution PC-8-20-2019-b: A resolution amending the existing City Center Redevelopment Area to add Monon Landing to the area and create a new Magnolia allocation area. 3`: TABLED-Plan Commission Resolution PC-8-20-2019-c111 4. Plan Commission Resolution PC-8-20-2019-d:A resolution creating a new Zotec allocation area within the existing North Illinois Street Economic Development Area. A Motion made by Josh and seconded by Laura to adopt Resolutions PC-8-20-2019-a,b,and,d. Approved 8-0,absent Westermeier Outcome of Projects at Committees: Rachel Keesling a. Commercial: i. Docket No. 19050012 DP/ADLS: Mayflower Alt,LLC—Approved 3-0 with Conditions ii. Docket No. 19050026 Z: Rezone S-1 to B-3—Sent to Council with a Favorable Recommendation 3-0 Docket No. 19050027 DP/ADLS: Take 5 Quick Lube—Approved 3-0 with Conditions iii. Docket No. 19050013 DP/ADLS: Napleton Kia of Carmel—Sent back to Plan Commission with a Favorable Recommendation 3-0 with Conditions iv. Docket No. 19050014 DP/ADLS: Avid Hotel—Tabled to Sept. 3 Committee mtg. Docket No. 19050015 V: ZO Chapter 5.07(D)(3)—Meridian Corridor Architectural Standards, Massing requiring two principal buildings on a lot with over 300' in width,requesting one principal building b. Residential: i. Docket No. 18010004 Z: Westbridge PUD Rezone—Tabled to Sept.3 Committee mtg. ii. Docket No. 19050020 Z: Rezone S-1/Residential to S-2/Residential Docket No. 19050021 PP: Troy Estates Subdivision Docket No. 19050022 V: UDO Section 2.06 Min.35 ft. front yard setback,25 ft.requested—All 3 dockets sent back to Plan Commission with a Favorable Recommendation 4-0 with Conditions Brad: Explained the Rules of Procedure for a public hearing in front of the Plan Commission. 1 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 8-20-19 Public Hearings: 1. Docket No. 18090012 Z: Sherman Drive Townhomes Rezone(R-2 to UR). 2. Docket No. 18090013 DP/ADLS: Sherman Drive Townhomes. The applicant seeks rezone,development plan,and ADLS approval in order to develop 4 townhomes on Main Street. The site is located at 7 Sherman Drive. It is currently zoned R-2/Residential with a proposed change to UR/Urban Residential. Filed by Paul Reis with Krieg DeVault,LLP on behalf of AZR Haver LLC . Petitioner: Chris Engel,Krieg DeVault LLP • The subject property sits at the northern portion of Johnson Addition subdivision • Currently there's a one story, single family dwelling on this property. It will be replaced with a two story townhome building with four units • Presented a site plan to show the borders of the subject property • Presented a rendering and elevation of the townhomes • Each dwelling will include an enclosed two car garage giving this development eight parking spaces,where six spaces are required per the UR zoning district. • Stormwater detention will be constructed beneath the permeable pavement driveway • A new 10' wide path will be installed along Main Street • Tab 5 in the info packet contains the landscape plan • The Urban Forester expressed concerns about saving the existing trees on the property. We committed to plant two replacement trees for any tree that dies during the construction. • We held a neighborhood meeting last October to present the project to the neighbors and to hear their feedback • The neighbors stated the project does not fit the character of the area,but we disagree • We want to create a development that meets the demand for walkable urban living options • Staff stated in their report the subject site is a good location for a townhome project • Neighbors stated they do not want these units used for rent • Neighbors stated they are concerned of the height of the proposed project. Presented a side view elevation. The height of project is two stories and is compliant with the R-2 and UR districts. The max height of the townhomes is 26', 10". 35' is the max height allowed in the R-2 zoning district. • The design and architecture of this project was stated as a concern from the neighbors. We haven't received any specific architectural comments from the neighbors. • A mid-century modern design is being proposed for the new townhome structure in order to reflect the homes on the north side of west Main Street,across the street from the subject property. • Traffic and parking are a concern for the neighbors.They stated it's difficult to make a left hand turn from Sherman Drive onto W. Main Street. We believe the proposed project will not have any meaningful impact to the traffic within the neighborhood or to the West Main Street corridor. • The Petitioner will continue to work with Staff and the Residential Committee on any outstanding issues Brad: How many people in the audience wish to speak tonight on this petition? 9 people raised their hands.Each person will have two minutes to speak. Public Comments: Wesley Bucher,Wilson Village: I served as a Plan Commission member and Development Director for Cannel and Fishers. This rezone is attacking our neighborhood. We were told they would take the development back to the drawing board. We have not seen any changes. We are not afraid of change or growth of the City. There are 200 single family homes in our neighborhood and this development is out of character for the neighborhood. This building will be at the entrance of our subdivision. Kelly Basket,Johnson Addition: I believe this is not a good fit. UR is not intended for this area. This development would be in the middle of single family residential. How is this appropriate for this corner?Nobody wants four dwellings on this corner. Sherman Drive does not have sidewalks. This development will create overflow parking. This will decrease the quality of life for the residents of Sherman Drive. 2 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 8-20-19 John Babcock,Wilson Village: No one is addressing the site of vision as you are looking to the east. There's a hill that impedes your vision. There's not an accel,decel,or a turning lane on Main Street at Sherman Drive. IPam Lovettis,Johnson Addition: I have concerns for traffic and density along Main Street. There are multiple new developments along Main Street. Main Street is just a two lane street and it cannot accommodate more traffic. Judy Letterback, 106th and Gray: I used to live in Wilson Village. Why do we need more townhomes in Carmel? People want one story dwellings. How many townhomes already exist in Cannel? Jane Seves, 10 Sherman Drive: I live right across the street. We have tons of traffic in this area. My family and I struggle to find parking on the Sherman Drive. Where are the garbage cans going to be placed? I'm angry that developers can come in and make money at our discomfort. William Cummings,44 Sherman Drive: We have a beautiful home here and now they want to build this huge townhome structure that will look out of place. Every morning when I go outside,I will be looking at four large garage doors. What's going to happen when the construction begins?We already have problems with all the road closures around us. Everyone already cuts through our neighborhood. How will we exit out of our neighborhood? Jill Meisenheimer,Cannel Citizens for Responsible Zoning: The first neighborhood meeting had 80 people opposed to this. This neighborhood is a jewel. They have concerns this multi-home structure will not have the same feel and sense of community as the rest of the neighborhood. People are looking for affordable ranch homes in Carmel. A multi-level townhome does not meet the demand of what people are looking for. Jarrod Odell, lives on Emerson Road: I'm opposed to the rezone. My grandparents moved into Johnson Addition in the 1965. They love to ride their bikes throughout the neighborhood. The pace of the traffic allowed us to ride our bikes. IRebuttal to Public Comments: Chris Engel: • Presented a zoning location map to show all the different zoning classifications that are around Johnson Addition • This project is on Main Street and not in the middle of Johnson Addition neighborhood • There are multiple entry points to Johnson Addition • We filed for this DP/PP,and rezone together at the same time so everyone is aware of what exactly is being built • The parking provided will be more than what is required. The addition of 6 cars will not create additional traffic. • Presented a landscape plan that shows the buffer between the neighborhood and this project. If you are looking from the south towards the north,you will see trees and not garages. • This does not set any future precedent decisions that the Plan Commission or Council will make Department Report: Alexia Lopez: • With any rezone,we review and analyze the Comprehensive Plan and DP/ADLS submittal • This area is listed for a special study, so we don't have a set classification for this area • We look at the City wide and northwest areas plans and make sure we are being sensitive to the neighbors • The townhomes are two stories high and under the 35' height limit which is allowed in the current R-2 zoning • There will be additional landscaping to help provide additional buffers • The style of architecture is compatible to the area • We did not support their original three story and traditional architecture proposal • We believe this housing type is not normally found and available in Cannel • The rear yard setback is 36' • We asked the Petitioner to help preserve the existing trees. They will plant two trees for every one tree that does not survive during the construction. • They will install a sidewalk along Sherman Drive and a 10' wide path along Main Street • We have received several letters from the neighbors about this project • We have several outstanding comments for the Petitioner • We recommended you continue this to the Sept. 3 Residential Committee for additional review 3 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 8-20-19 Committee Comments: Nick: I have a concern for the lack of affordable housing but where do you draw the line? This is spot zoning and doesn't fit. What are the sizes of the units in sq.ft.without the garage? Selling prices? Who's responsible for the landscaping? Who's replacing the trees? If they are replaced,I want them to plant larger,mature trees. Where are the mechanical units going to be located? What's the view look like at the intersection at Sherman and Main Street? Chris Engel: Presented an aerial view to show the site. We will bring additional details to the Committee meeting. Brad: Has the line of site at Sherman and Main been brought up? Alexia: The Engineering Department reviews this and I can find out if it meets their requirements. Alan: In regards to the Department Report,are there any other outstanding concerns besides the bike parking? Alexia: They did address the bike parking. We are asking them to make commitments for their rezone request. They need to commit to the rear yard setback,preserve the existing trees,and adding architecture standards such as more brick. Alan: What are views from the surrounding properties? What are the views from the units looking out? Can you provide us a graphic or rendering? Chris Engel: We do not currently have that. Alan: What's the selling price? Chris Engel: I do not have that. Alan: Do you have any commitments available for the construction practices to protect the surrounding residents in regards to the hours, clean up at the end of the day,and delivery of materials? Chris Engel: We do not have those but we will consider these items. Alan: What's the living space of each unit? Chris Engel: About 2,000 sq. ft. of living space. Alan: Will there be a fence or wall surround this townhome building? Chris Engel: No Alan: Will there be any signage? Can you commit to this? Chris Engel: No signage proposal as of now and we can commit to having no signage. Carrie: There's no shortage of townhomes on the market in Cannel. The average days on the market is about 60 days for a townhome. We are not in need a townhome product in downtown Cannel. We need something that's more affordable. The corner of York Street and Main Street has a similar layout and home. They subdivided the parcel. They are keeping the existing structure and building another single family home adjacent to it. I would like you to go this route. The traffic on Main Street is a major concern. Your visibility and line of site of the oncoming traffic are important things to look at. This can be a liability. John: I don't see a compelling reason to change the zoning. I appreciate the comments made by Alexia on the advantages of the UR,but we can have same advantages under the R-2. I wouldn't want my property or the property next door to be rezoned so it would affect my property values. Brad: Can you explain the comment on the Department Report about the two extra parking spaces? Alexia: Originally the two parking spaces were shown south of the driveway,but they have removed the spaces to help preserve the existing trees. Brad: What's the material being proposed for the access drive? Chris Engel: Permeable pavers Carrie: Where would the overflow parking be for their guests? Chris Engel: On the street,as it is today. We are meeting the standards per the UR zoning district. A Motion made by John and seconded by Tom to forward Docket Nos. 18090012 Z& 18090013 DP/ADLS to the September 3 Residential Committee,with the final vote coming back to full Plan Commission. Approved 8-0,absent Westermeier 4 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 8-20-19 3. Docket No. 19030003 DP/ADLS: Riverview Health—US 421. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a new healthcare facility on 1.9 acres. The building will be about 11,000 sq. ft.,26'3"tall,and will have 82 parking spaces provided. The site is located at 10830 N. Michigan Road,just north of Pearson Ford. The site is zoned B3/Business and is located within the US 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by Mark Leach of Faegre Baker Daniels on behalf of EQ 106 Michigan,LLC. Petitioner: Steve Harden,Faegre Baker Daniels • Presented an aerial view to show the location of the parcel/property • We appeared here last year for the Bank of America site immediately to the south of the subject site • Presented elevation views. The façade will be of red brick and limestone. • Presented a site plan • We will provide pedestrian connectivity from Michigan and Redd Road • We will be updating our landscape, lighting, and signage plans per Staff's requests Public Comments: None Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • This will be their second location for Riverview here in Cannel. In January 2019,they were approved for a location at Hazel Dell and 146t'Street. • A Federal style design theme will be used for the building's architecture • Access will be from the west off of the new extension of Redd Road • 63 parking spaces will be provided,where 44 are required for this use • Sidewalks will connect in all directions from the site • We have a few outstanding comments for the landscaping and lighting plans • Their signage request will require a variance. They are only allowed two signs for this site. • We recommend this goes to Commercial Committee on Sept.3 with final voting authority Committee Comments: Laura: Will a basic chiller or morgue be provided? Steve Harden: No. The majority of our patients will be transferred to another facility if needed. Laura: I'm glad to see something different come on the west side besides a car wash or oil change service. Josh: These type of facilities never have enough parking. Can we take a critical look at the parking spaces provided? Nick: Is this an emergency facility staffed with emergency caretakers 24-7? Or is this just an urgent care staffed with limited hours? Jerry Stark,Riverview Health: It will be an emergency department and an urgent care. The emergency department will be 24-7,and the urgent care hours are 7am to 7 p.m. It will be staffed 24-7 with a board certified emergency physician. Brad: Can you explain the function of the single door with the canopy shown on the North elevation? Steve Harden: It is the employee entrance. Rachel: These canopies are required per the US 421 Overlay to provide variation in the facade. Brad: What can be done to place signage on either end of Redd Road to help direct people to all the uses that will eventually exist in this area? Rachel: We can look into doing something.This area can function similar to Commerce Drive on the east side of Michigan Road. I'm not sure if the sign will be necessary right away,but as things develop,the City can look into this. IAlan: Is this a hospital? Are there beds for patients? Is this just an emergency room? Jerry Stark: There's no inpatient capacity at this facility.It's only for emergency and urgent care situations. Less than 2%are transferred. A Motion made by Josh and seconded by Laura to forward Docket No. 19030003 DP/ADLS to the September 3 Commercial Committee with final voting authority. Approved 8-0,Absent Westermeier 5 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 8-20-19 4. Docket No. 19040007 CP Amend: 2020-2025 Zone Improvement Plan(ZIP). The applicant seeks to update the Zone Improvement Plan,upon which the parks and recreation impact fee is based, and to incorporate the ZIP into the Cannel Clay Comprehensive Plan(C3 Plan). Filed by the Cannel Department of Community Services,on behalf of the Cannel Plan Commission. 5. Docket No. 19040008 OA: Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Ordinance Amendment. The applicant seeks to amend the Unified Development Ordinance in order to update existing impact fee provisions,as well as their definitions. The proposal would renew the impact fee that is currently imposed on new residential development to defray the cost of new parks and recreation infrastructure, for an additional five years(from 2020 to 2025). Filed by the Cannel DOCS,on behalf of the Cannel Plan Commission. Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling,DOCS • Since 2001,the City of Cannel has imposed a fee on new dwelling units to offset the costs for new and expanding park facilities • Indiana Code requires that Cities review these fees periodically. Carmel operates on a 5 year cycle. • The 2020-2025 ZIP will provide the background and rational for the actual impacts proposed in the zoning and Unified Development Ordinance(UDO) • Staff would propose a favorable recommendation to City Council • If you would to vote on this item tonight,the PC would have to suspend the Rules of Procedure Michael Klitzing,Director of Cannel Clay Parks and Recreation • Together we have created a community of choice. Cannel is a place where people want to live,work, and play. • Last year we had 4.2 million users for our parks and related programs • Indiana Law allows communities to asses an impact fee to fund new capital development to accommodate the increase demand of the parks system • The Impact Fee has been used to acquire new park land along the White River • It provided funding for the construction for Founders Park,the expansion of West Park, and a new park in northwest Cannel • In a 2018 study,we identified the level of park usage remains consistent regardless of income level and number of residents within a household • New residents will use our parks and should be able to contribute to development of our parks system • We want to maintain the same level of service that is expected by the current and future residents Public Comments: Kate Collins,Builders Association of the Greater Indianapolis: Historically,Carmel has been the highest in the park impact fee range. This proposal will be a 40% increase in the fee. This is three times the amount more than the nearest community. Fishers has the next highest fee. This impacts affordability. We have asked for a consideration in lowering this fee so our members can help cut costs in their affordable housing projects. None of our developers or members were included in the process and Impact Advisory Fee Committee meetings. Rebuttal to Public Comments: Michael Klitzing: • The formula for the fee is established by State Law. It's based on the investment the community has made in our park system. • We are the only national gold member park system in the country. We have high quality parks. • We have made a numerous number of higher investments than our neighboring communities so our fee is going to be higher • We did not factor in our fees for the new developments of the Monon Blvd.,Midtown plaza,or the Brookshire Clubhouse Department Report: None Committee Comments: Josh: We have a world-class park system. We have won major awards. I don't think people realize how great our park system is. We have programs that are self-sustainable. By not approving this,we are straining this process and the wonderful system we have in place. 6 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 8-20-19 Brad: To my knowledge,the Zoning Impact Fee cannot be used for any repairs or on-going maintenance. But the fee can be used for new equipment and the expansion of the existing parks. Michael Klitzing: That is correct. Only new development that is designed for our new residents. Brad: Are none of the items on this proposed budget for West Park Iis physically listed today? Michael Klitzing: That is correct. We have received funding through Clay Township programs. Laura: Has the land been identified for the new park on the Northwest side? Michael Klitzing: We have not identified that land but we are constantly working with DOCS for that opportunity. A Motion by Josh and seconded by Laura to suspend the Rules of Procedure in order to vote on these items. Approved 8-0,absent Westermeier A Motion made by Josh and seconded by Laura to forward Docket Nos. 19040007 CPA and 19040008 OA to City Council with a Favorable Recommendation. Approved 8-0,absent Westermeier 6. Docket No. 19050017 Z: Monon Crossing Townhomes Rezone R-1/Residential to UR/Urban Residential. 7. Docket No. 19050018 DP/PP/ADLS: Monon Crossing Townhomes. The applicant seeks rezone, site plan and design approval for a new subdivision consisting of 64 townhomes on 6.8 acres.The site is located at 1101 Rohrer Rd. The site is currently zoned R-1/Residential with a proposed change to UR/Urban Residential. Filed by Nelson&Frankenberger,LLC on behalf of Lennar Homes of Indiana. Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewicz • Presented a site location map, it's located on the east side of Rohrer Road,north of Autumn Lake subdivision • Presented a zoning map, to show the current and adjacent zoning districts • Staff noted that this would be a conditional fit per the land use classification map • Large landscape buffers will be placed along the north and south sides and enhanced setbacks from the Monon • The style of architecture used will be complementary to the single family homes in the area • This will provide housing opportunities for young families,professionals,and empty nesters • Presented a site plan • The ADLS plans illustrate exactly the product and design of the townhomes • The building setback from Autumn Lake subdivision will be 50',where only 10' is required per R-1 • The building setback from the Monon Greenway is between 90' and 130' where tree preservation is provided • The drainage will be provided by two separate detention ponds • 25%open space will be provided • All garages will be in the rear of the home. Each home will have 4 parking spaces,2 in garage and 2 in the rear driveway • 25 spaces will be provided for guest parking • The petitioner is proposing a gated emergency only drive connection to the existing stub street.UDO requires this to be a full street connection. • A pedestrian path to the Monon Greenway, sidewalks along the streets,and a 10' path along Rohrer Road will be provided • Presented side elevations, shown in Tab 5 and 6 • Similar townhomes communities in Cannel are nearly all adjacent to residential areas • 1700-2400 sq. ft. in living space,with selling prices of$275k-$350k • Architecture features will include brick front façades,and enhanced detailing • Townhomes will be 3 stories in height,with the highest point being 36' in height. The existing zoning allows 35' to the midpoint of the peak and eave. • We held a neighborhood meeting to present the plans to the surrounding neighbors. • Lennar Homes have met with sewage utilities,and understands the current problem unrelated to this site. There's a plan in place by Carmel Utilities to fix the current problem. • Based on today's drainage design standards,any development will improve the drainage condition.All the City 7 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 8-20-19 requirements will be applied • A traffic study was conducted and submitted to Staff. Access to this site will be designed under the direction of Cannel Engineering Dept. • We will provide additional comments to Staff for architectural design, sidewalk connectivity, short-term bicycle parking, internal green space enhancements, and additional signage and lighting details Brad: How many people in the audience wish to speak on this item? 8 people raise their hands. We will allow 3 minutes per speaker. Public Comments: Ed Sweeney,Autumn Lake Overlook: Their request for this rezone presents an enormous change in density. Three story townhomes are very harsh juxtaposition with the surrounding single family homes on three sides. Density will be a poor fit,and will increase from a max of 2.9 units per acre for R-1,to 9.4 for UR. The average home values in the area are $350k. Lennar starting prices are$275k. This will decrease the current home values.Neighbors are already selling their homes. We don't want access to the stub street. Traffic is a major concern and 64 townhomes would increase this. Tom Scott, 1482 Rohrer Road: This will definitely increase the traffic. Traffic is already horrible on Rohrer Road. It doesn't match the homes in the area. Aren't there enough townhomes in Cannel? We need more homes for empty- nesters.How close will the townhomes be to the road? Matthew Musgrave,32 Circle Drive: Submitted his presentation. The zoning facts do not agree with the developer's argument that the proposed high-density of this development is appropriate. It will be landlocked and surrounded by all sides by single family residential. We want to preserve our unique community with large parcels. The sewers cannot handle the current demand. Every 90 days,a Cannel Utilities truck comes and cleans out the sewer located by my yard. Eden Bruce,Autumn Lake Overlook: What kind of effect will this development have on my home's value? My house is located on the edge of my neighborhood,by the townhomes. We would want all the older,mature trees along the property border to be preserved. Our homes are one story in height. Three story townhomes will overlook ours. I'm a night-shift worker. I'm concerned of the day-time construction while I'm trying to sleep. Jill Meisenheimer, Cannel Citizens for Responsible Zoning: I find no reason for changing the zoning. What's the justification? It's not compatible with this area. There are concerns for increased traffic. Three story townhomes are not reasonable for empty nesters. There's no useable open green space. How is this transitional? How does this protect the single-family neighborhoods? Dee Fox,West Cannel resident: This is an unnecessary rezone. It's incompatible with the adjacent single family neighborhoods. It has a large change in density. I submitted an email to state this parcel could be used under the current R-1 zoning. This land could be used to address the demand for first time buyers and empty nesters looking to down-size. We don't need more townhomes. Compatible development does not need transition. It does not protect the adjacent neighborhoods. Robert Lennon, lives directly east of this proposed development: We have drainage issues. Depending on the severity of the storms,at least twice a year the creek will back up and come up to my property. Once this area is developed,this whole area won't be able to take on the additional spill-off water from the developed area. It will affect the Monon trail. Patrick Rondeau,Autumn Lake Overlook: I previously submitted a letter. They don't share with us how the progress is going in their drainage,engineering,and traffic studies. Townhomes were submitted by Pulte Homes eight years ago and the City denied their proposal. [It was withdrawn by the petitioner.] The traffic study should be conducted during the school year and not during the summer. The public notice sign was never updated. We have never heard anything about the solution to fix the drainage. If the problem is there now, it's not going away. The entrance access street needs to be min. of 500' from the next street intersection. We don't want a connection to the existing stub street in Autumn Lake. Rebuttal to Public Comments:Jon Dobosiewicz • Traffic study was conducted by A&F Engineering and was provided to Staff and is available to the public 8 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 8-20-19 • Homes will be set back 55' from the centerline of Rohrer Road • Lennar Homes met with Carmel Utilities and they said they would make the corrections to the sewer • With the development,the drainage will be contained and released slowly • We will provide a detailed exhibit where the existing trees are and which ones will be preserved • We will provide an exhibit of the site lines from the adjacent residential homes • The townhomes will be 50' set back from Autumn Lake homes,where a single family home would only be 10' • There are numerous examples of townhomes surrounded by single family homes • Traffic Report will be updated now that school is in session • We made public notice for our June meeting. It's the public's obligation to follow the agenda. We met the obligation regarding the notice per the Plan Commission's rules. Department Report: Alexia Lopez: • We look at the comprehensive plan in regards for the rezone. This area is classified as Suburban Residential • This project is designated as Attached Residential Classification which is considered a Conditional Fit next to Suburban Residential and Employment Node • Conditional Fits are deemed appropriate when the more intense development is installed with sensitivity to the adjacent land classification • Large setbacks, large buffers,and orientation of the townhomes provide the sensitivity needed for transition • 22 on-street parking spaces will be provided • They want an emergency only access gate from the existing stub street to the south in Autumn Lake. The UDO requires this to be a full public street connection. • They will provide a multi-use path along Rohrer Road and a pedestrian path that connects to the Monon • We need a rendering of what the path connection will look like from the Monon to the townhomes • We are asking for additional features for the green spaces, such as additional trees, sidewalks, seating, playground,or a community garden • We are asking for additional architecture standards • We believe variety is good in uses,and do not necessarily need the same use right next to each other or across the street as long as it's designed well • Staff recommends this item be forwarded to the Sept. 3 Residential Committee for additional review Committee Comments: • Laura: Kevin Rider and I met with the Autumn Lake Overlook HOA Board to discuss the drainage and sewage problems with the Cannel Utilities Director,John Duffy. Drainage backups have occurred because of the practices of the nearby restaurants on their grease discharge. Regardless if this area is developed or not, Cannel Utilities plans on replacing that section of pipeline that is backing up. I agree with limiting the stub street connection to an emergency only access point. We want them to preserve the existing trees along the border.The neighbors have concerns of the construction management as the units are being built. Please address this at the Committee meeting. Carrie: What does this land look like if it's developed with single family homes? We can get around 25 homes on 6.8 acres. What would the value of the homes be? This location next to the Monon would increase the values. Is it feasible for a developer to put 25 single family homes priced at 400k on this parcel? Would this be a better use of the land? Nick: I don't believe the traffic study is accurate. I don't think only 32 people will be leaving in the morning for work. There are no amenities. The home units are too close to Rohrer Road. All the existing areas have mature landscaping. Small trees won't fit in. We need more info on the walking path within the development. Jon Dobosiewicz: A&F Engineering will be at the Committee meeting. We have an updated traffic study to include the school numbers. We don't produce those numbers,but allow the professionals to provide us with the numbers. Brad: You can either defend the numbers in the A&F study,or provide more relevant numbers from similar townhome products in our community. IBrad: Can you provide renderings of the sight lines from the backyards of the homes in Autumn Lake and from the rear of the townhomes towards Autumn Lake? Have John Duffy present at the Committee meeting to address the drainage and sewer issues. I agree with Laura's comments on the stub street connectivity. In this case,the stub street would not provide additional connectivity. The townhomes and Autumn Lakes both exit onto Rohrer Road.Neither access point has an advantage over the other. We need to see architecture enhancements on the rear elevations. What do the 9 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 8-20-19 greenspace areas look like? This feels too dense for the size of this site. Josh: I'm perplexed by some of the comments from the neighbors. Having a sewage truck cleaning out the sewer drain at Mr. Musgrave's every 90 days should not be happening. Be prepared to discuss the current flow of stormwater. Does the stormwater flow over from the other side of the Monon?Mr. Duffy should be present to answer some of these comments. A Motion made by Josh and seconded by Tom to forward Docket Nos. 18090012 Z& 18090013 DP/ADLS to the September 3 Residential Committee,with it coming back to the full Plan Commission for final vote. Approved 8-0,Absent Westermeier 8. Docket No. 19050029 Z: Smokey Row UR&P1 Rezone. The applicant seeks to rezone 13 parcels located on the north side of Smokey Row Road,between the Monon Greenway and Meridian Street,from the PUD/Kensington Green Planned Unit Development and Rl/Residence District to the UR/Urban Residential and P1/Park&Recreation Districts,respectively. The properties comprise the Kensington Green subdivision as well as 2 parcels adjacent to the Monon Greenway. Filed by the Department of Community Services on behalf of the Cannel Plan Commission. Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling,DOCS • Presented a zoning map of the subject area • The City has been informed that the developer of the proposed Kensington Green subdivision is no longer moving forward with the project • A PUD was approved at this site in 2015 • Staff had concerns how such a development would fit into the surrounding(formerly zoned)R1 district • Staff believes that it is better for the site to match the surrounding zoning district,which is now zoned UR • The P1 rezone includes two parcels adjacent to the Monon Greenway • Most of this area is designated as a flood zone and urban farm space • The PC should expect to see a DP for review in the coming months • The Department is taking the opportunity to refine the zoning edges to help guide any proposed development into a seamless plan Public Comments: Paul Ayers,Kensington Place: We believe this item should be continued. I don't know what the proper notice is,but I talked to some neighbors and they were not notified. We don't know what the developer plans to do with this area. Smokey Row is not pedestrian or bike friendly. Smokey Row will need to be updated. Rebuttal to Public Comments: Adrienne Keeling • Proper notification was provided via letter per the Plan Commission's Rules of Procedure • There's a development proposal coming to the Plan Commission that will require a public notice and hearing • With any kind of development proposal,the Thoroughfare Plan is consulted. I don't know the exact plans for Smokey Row,but our development plans would require pedestrian paths and improvements. We would also like to see the Hagan Burke Trail be connected and extended through at some point. Committee Comments: Josh: Will Smokey Row Road be turned into a 4 lane super highway? Adrienne Keeling: No Alan: Is there anything pending for this area? Adrienne Keeling: We should expect to see Development Plan in the coming months. I have seen a concept plan that includes a variety of residential. Brad: What is the existing zoning along the Monon on the proposed P-1 parcels? Adrienne Keeling: R-1. Brad: For the public notice, it's all property owners within 660' or two properties out. It looks like Kensington Place would have been notified via letter. If it is discovered the public notice requirements were not met,we would need to suspend our rules. John Molitor: If you feel additional notices are needed to be given,then you can table this item. 10 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 8-20-19 A Motion made by Josh and seconded by Tom to table Docket No. 19050029 Z to the Sept. 17 Plan Commission. Approved 8-0,Absent Westermeier 9. Docket No. 19060019 DP/ADLS: Franciscan Orthopedic Center of Excellence. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a 4 story,236,231 sq. ft. Orthopedic hospital, surgery center,medical office building, and 664 space parking garage on 10.8 acres. The site is located at approximately 10800 Illinois Street. The site is zoned MC/Meridian Corridor. Filed by Marty Rosenberg of Methodist Sports. Petitioner: Robert Harmeyer,MSKTD Architects • Presented a site plan, this is located between Illinois Street&US 31 and 106th& 111th Streets • There's a gas line easement that runs diagonally through the middle of the site. There are also utility and drainage easements that run along US 31. • The medical office building and hospital are listed as two separated buildings but will be constructed together as one building. A parking garage structure will be located across the gas line easement. • This is one of the last undeveloped parcels along US 31 Corridor • This site is intended for orthopedics only,no other patient types or emergency facilities are offered here • The 4 story building will be approximately 80', 8"in height with the medical office side being 50'-51' in height • A sky-bridge will connect level 3 of the parking garage to the 3`d floor of the medical office building • We believe we have addressed all lighting concerns with the nearby neighbors. We submitted a lighting plan that shows we will have 0.1' footcandles at the property lines. • We have buffers along the property line and will meet the landscape requirements per the City • Presented a proposed rendering of the site and sight views from US 31 and Illinois Street Robert Hicks,Hall Render: • A variance of the height for the parking structure will be needed. This is considered an accessory structure. • The architectural standards require two principal buildings on the site to cover 75%of the width of the lot.A variance will be needed to have just one principal building. • The variances are scheduled to be heard by the BZA on Sept.23 Marty Rosenberg,Meridian Development: • We have been in discussion with the homeowners of the neighborhood to the north and west of the site. We have reached agreements with the homeowners to purchase 30 of the 31 homes. One homeowner has not decided to sell their home, located at the entrance of the neighborhood on 111th Street • We will work out a process for taking down the existing homes to use the land for future development Brad: Please raise your hand if you wish to speak tonight on this item? 4 people raise their hands. 5 mins per speaker. Public Comments: Ron Houck,Springmill Place: I'm the HOA president. My neighbors have not been involved in formal discussions with the developer. We recognize this site would eventually be developed. Our concern is that it develops in a way that is sensitive and transitions to our neighborhood.A four level parking garage is not consistent or compatible for this area. The need for an additional 186 parking spaces is perplexing. They can eliminate one floor of the parking garage and still have enough parking that is required by the Ordinance.Presented a night photo of the lighted KAR parking garage. This is intrusive to a neighborhood area. Can they lower the height and reduce the roof-top lighting for the parking garage? Gerry Golden, Springmill Place: I'm saddened by these images. Why don't you show the whole entire site to show the adjacent neighborhoods? I don't want to see another KAR parking garage. Illinois Street will be filled with all ugly parking garages. You don't need three access drives off of Illinois Street. This will create more car headlights coming towards my neighborhood. How are you going to block the car lights? What's the smoking policy? KAR employees walk out to 111 th Street to smoke. Where are they going to smoke?On Illinois Street?By cutting down the trees for this site,will there be more noise pollution from US 31?They are hiding their plans from us. Jill Meisenheimer,Williams Mill: We will now have three parking garages along this stretch of Illinois Street. I Presented an elevation of the parking garage, the garage will be of tan and gray colors. There's no blue.It looks dull. It needs some color,design,and details. I'm concerned about the lighting.The KAR garage looked light a Christmas tree during construction.Is there an alternative to the 15' pole lights on the top floor of the garage?I would like to see a map 11 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 8-20-19 of the homes in comparison to the parking garage, and their sight line views. Becky Applegate, Springmill Place: We knew there would be development in this area. We share the same concerns as our neighbors. I will see a parking garage outside of my home. How will this look during the winter months?This will impact our property value. The City pushed for the development of a parking garage, instead of surface parking. Rebuttal to Public Comments: Robert Harmeyer: • The parking garage is planned for 664 spaces and the Ordinance requires 478. We are building it for our needs. The extra spaces are for any future development on the north parcel. • During the rezone,we agreed to a written commitment of no more than 0.1 foot-candles of lighting at the property line • I can't compare the KAR garage to what we are going to have. I believe our lighting will not be the same. • This site is zoned MC and this use is allowed.The minimum building height requirement is 4 stories,with a max of 8 stories. • There will be no ambulance runs • There's a 6' masonry wall that runs along Springmill Place and the wall will mostly block the car lights Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • The rezone of the north parcel did not include the residential homes of the Meridian Suburban subdivision.All the homes except one have been purchased by Franciscan. • This project provides appropriate setbacks,additional landscaping for screening the garage,and is laid out in a way that can expand in the future • There's a 60' wide gas pipeline easement that runs through this site,where the building and parking garage will be placed on either side of the gas line. • The building materials are here tonight if you would like to see them and will be available at the Committee • We are learning from the previous garages that have been built in the MC zone • A variance for the height of the parking garage and one primary building will be requested through the BZA. • The Thoroughfare Plan calls for a 10' wide asphalt path along Illinois Street to connect to 106th Street • Sidewalks will be installed throughout the site with fitness stations • Bicycle parking will be available by the front door and parking garage • We recommend this item goes on to the Commercial Committee meeting on Sept. 3 for additional review Committee Comments: Nick: I would like to see better views and renderings. Brad: We learned a lot from the KAR project. We improved our process with the Zotec project. Can we have motion- sensor lighting installed with the Franciscan garage?Can Staff work with KAR and find out if we can use motion-sensor lighting on their parking garage? Rachel: Yes,I'll look into it.Brad: Look at the location of the backup power generators and how they will be screened. Robert Harmeyer: They will be completely screened. Brad: The location of the ball field and basketball court are located closely to the property line. Let's see if it's possible to move the parking garage east,closer to Meridian Street,and further away from Illinois Street. Provide site lines and cross section from the masonry wall along Springmill Place. There's a home with a pool located immediately across from Illinois Street primary exit of this site. Robert Harmeyer: We will take a look at these items. Alan: Provide sight lines and depictions from both sides of Illinois Street.How many operating rooms? Robert Harmeyer: 12 rooms and 23 in-patient beds. The majority of the patients would be discharged the second day. Alan: What's the average length of stay? Petitioner: Less than 2 days. (1.6- 1.8 days) Alan: How many surface spaces are there?Robert Harmeyer: 12 staff only surface parking. There's no on-street parking on campus. Alan: The garage will be the first thing you see. I don't like the garage. Come up with a better color scheme. A Motion made by Josh and seconded by Laura to forward Docket No. 19050029 Z to the September 3 Commercial Committee with final voting by the Full Plan Commission. Approved 7-0,Absent Westermeier,Kegley 12 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 8-20-19 10. Docket No. 19070005 V: UDO Section 2.06 Troy Estates—Min. 100 ft.Lot Width,90 ft. requested. 11. Docket No. 19070006 V: UDO Section 2.06 Min. 10 ft.side yard setback,5 ft. requested. The applicant seeks 2 additional variances(in addition to the previously filed rezone,primary plat,and variance) for a new subdivision consisting of 39 lots on 23.3 acres.The site is located at 4100 W. 141s`St. The site is currently zoned S-1/Residential with a proposed change to S-2/Residential. Filed by Nelson&Frankenberger, LLC on behalf of Lennar Homes of Indiana. 12. Docket No. 19050020 Z: Rezone S-1/Residential to S-2/Residential (Old Business) 13. Docket No. 19050021 PP: Troy Estates Subdivision (Old Business) 14. Docket No. 19050022 V: UDO Section 2.06 Min.35 ft.front yard setback,25 ft. requested (Old Business) The applicant seeks rezone,primary plat,and a variance for a new subdivision consisting of 39 lots on 23.3 acres. The site is located at 4100 W. 141st St. The site is currently zoned S-1/Residential with a proposed change to S- 2/Residential. Filed by Nelson&Frankenberger, LLC on behalf of Lennar Homes of Indiana. Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewicz • Presented aerial location map and site plan • Tab 5 includes updated elevations and actual pictures of our home product • Tab 7 includes our commitments that were discussed and decided on by Staff and the Residential Committee • Our variance requests are for a 90' lot width and 5' side yard setback which is consistent with neighboring subdivisions to the north and east • We are asking for a favorable recommendation to City Council for our rezone request Public Comments: Adam Finney,Longridge Estates: I expected this area to be developed.There's no need for variances or rezoning to develop this area.I don't know anyone who wants to buy a$450k house with 5' side yard setbacks. Can you clarify the commitments?I ask you not to approve this and the variances. IDee Fox, West Carmel: I oppose this rezone. It's not necessary. We are getting a lot of large houses on small lots. There's not a demand for this type of housing. This is not complementary to the surrounding neighbors. It takes more than just being residential to be compatible. They can't do what they want to do if they don't have their variances approved. Rebuttal to Public Comments: Jon Dobosiewicz • In 2007-2008 the City eliminated the ROSO provisions. All of the surrounding subdivisions were developed with the ROSO provisions which allowed 6' between homes. We are asking for 5' side yards(10' between homes.) • On average,there will be 30' between homes with the side load garages • Standards are higher than what was implemented back then • Staff has asked us to go a different route with a rezone request,and not ask for a PUD Department Report: Alexia Lopez: • The redesign allows them to meet our requirements for open space and better street connectivity • They will still maintain an aggregate side yard setback of 25' as the garages will be side loaded garages • They will provide a sidewalk around the pond • The Committee did not require the sidewalk from the front door to the street • The landscape plan is still being reviewed by the Urban Forester • We recommend approval of the primary plat and the variances conditioned upon the rezone approval by City Council and approval of the landscape plan by the Urban Forester • We recommend you send the rezone to the City Council with a favorable recommendation Committee Comments: IBrad: Since the Chair of the Residential Committee is not present,who would like to give the report from the last Residential Committee? Nick: There's nothing to add. But I would like to see Lots 1, 8,9,29,39 to be considered as a corner lot. The sides of these lots are adjacent to common area and visible from the street. I would like to see Lot 28 to have three sided enhanced architecture added to it. Jon Dobosiewicz: We did discuss this in Committee. It's listed in the commitments. We made architecture enhancements and updated the landscape for those corner lots. I believe what 13 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 8-20-19 you asked for is included. Brad: Referring to the architecture commitment listed under 3b. What's the height requirement for the four-sided masonry wainscoting? Does it have to come up to the sill of the first floor windows? Jon Dobosiewicz: There's not a minimum height specified in the commitments. Alexia: It doesn't have a specific height but it states up to the sill of the lowest window. Jon Dobosiewicz: We can specify this under Section 1.A2 the height can be defined by the height on the front elevation. Nick: Can we get a commitment for the landscaping on the lots I mentioned?Since they are not considered a corner lot, but you will see the sides of the house. Jon Dobosiewicz: Are you asking, "Will we apply the additional landscape requirements to Lot 1?" Nick: Lots 1, 8, 39,and 9 and on lot 28 the rear should be landscaped since it faces the park. Jon Dobosiewicz: We can add additional foundation plantings to lots 1, 8,9,39,and 28. A Motion made by Josh and seconded by Laura to suspend the Rules of Procedure to vote on Docket No. 19070005 V and 19070006 V. Approved 7-0,absent Westermeier,Kegley A Motion made by Nick and seconded by Laura to approve Docket Nos. 19070005-6 V, 19050020 Z, 19050021 PP, and 19070022 V. Approved 6-1,Potasnik,absent Westermeier,Kegley Old Business: 1. Docket No. 19050013 DP/ADLS: Napleton Kia of Carmel. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a new auto dealership on 3.74 acres. The building will be 24,351 sq. ft.,about 28'tall,and will have 201 parking spaces provided.The site is located on 96th Street and east of Randall Drive(with access from Randall Drive). The site is zoned B3/Business and is not located within any overlay zone. Filed by Jim Shinaver and Jon Dobosiewicz of Nelson&Frankenberger on behalf of Napleton of Cannel Imports,LLC dba Napleton Kia of Carmel. Petitioner: Jim Shinaver • We received unanimous favorable recommendation from the Commercial Committee • Presented aerial location map, building elevations, and a site plan, access will only be provided off of Randall • All roof-top mechanicals will be screened from view • The Conditions of approval that were suggested are final Engineering approval of offsite mitigation plans,work with Staff on the final location of sidewalk connection to 96th Street,and provide additional tree protection along the creek Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • Off-site mitigation is very important for this site. We will not issue building permits until the off-site mitigation is completed. The south end of King of Glory church(106th&Keystone)will contain the off-site mitigation • We recommend you approve this with the conditions listed by the Petitioner Committee Comments: Brad: Where's the site of the dumpster enclosure. Jim Shinaver: Northeast of the site. Tab 5 includes the details. Brad: Where's the location of the"No Test Driving Sign"? Jim Shinaver: The petitioner has agreed to include one by the exit of the access drive, shown in Tab 8. Josh: Is this sign in compliance? Jim Shinaver: Staff is in support of it. A Motion made by Josh and seconded by Alan to approve Docket No. 19050013 DP/ADLS. Approved 7-0,Absent Westermeier,Kegley Meeting adjourned at 10:56 p.m. c5e 5 ------------ J Shesta Plan Commission Secretary rad Grabow President 14 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 8-20-19