Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 09-15-20 park at the City Center parking garage. Alan: Is there any parking on site? Mike Hollibaugh: The C-2 zoning has no parking requirements.It's hard to imagine that any ground floor tenant or Huntington would have no parking spaces in place. TIF will be allocated for a parking structure.Kevin: We under park some areas. This site will not park itself. I need to see a site plan. Brad: If no parking is created for this site,what does the parking look at the Proscenium,directly across the street? Mike Hollibaugh: The Proscenium has 6 buildings that will have the required office,retail,and resident parking for its uses. There may be parking spaces available,but not many. Parking will be developed to accommodate the uses of this site. Nick: Has the bank changed their business philosophy?Will they provide a drive-up window service or drive-up kiosks? Mike Hollibaugh: There's no concept plan. We know that Huntington will be a tenant. Other partners will be involved. It's a standard C-2 rezone.Brad: The C-2 district was created for creative redevelopment for the central-core of Carmel. It has worked very well.The CRC oversights any development in a C-2 zoning district.Any concerns should be expressed directly to the CRC. A Motion by Westermeier and seconded by Hill to suspend the Rules of Procedure to vote on this item tonight. Approved 7-1,Rider. Absent Kirsh. A Motion by Westermeier and seconded by Hill to forward this item to the City Council with a Favorable Recommendation. Approved 6-2,Kestner,Rider. Absent Kirsh. Old Business: 1. Docket No.PZ-2020-00076 DP/ADLS: Avant Phase II The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a multi-family building with 94 apartments. (14 townhome plots are also shown on this DP,but additional applications will be filed for Secondary Plat&ADLS approval at a later date.)The building is 135,243 gross sq. ft.and 4 stories/58' tall. The overall site is 3.82 acres in size. It is located just north of 12890 Old Meridian Street(Avant Phase I)and is zoned PUD(The District Z-587-14). Filed by Steven D. Hardin,Esq.,with Faegre Drinker,on behalf of Edward Rose Development. Petitioner: Steve Hardin: • Presented updated site plan, we have fulfilled the sidewalk connection,bike racks,a vehicular connection to the Olivia,and updated the plans to show the landscaped walkway. • We included an update to the details of the architectural design of the dumpster enclosure • Presented updated elevations, added red color to the rear facade • We are asking for approval at tonight's meeting Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • The Committee was supportive of all their changes • I walked the site today with the petitioner and City Engineering Department to talk about the sidewalk connection • The sidewalk connection to the Olivia is now shown in their plans • Staff recommends approval of this item Commercial Committee Review: Alan Potasnik,Committee Chair: • The Petitioner and Staff did a great job explaining the changes. I will let their comments stand as a recap. Committee Comments: Kevin: The parking is difficult for this site since the buildings in this area house restaurants and residential living. As people go out eat in the evenings at these restaurants,they will take up the residents' spaces who are coming home from work. By doing this landscaped pedestrian connection in the parking lot,we are taking away parking spots from these residents. We are creating parking wars. Sue: I agree.There's a problem with shared parking. There's always a fight to find parking.I believe the vehicular connection between the two properties should stay the same. They committed to it. Plan Commission Minutes 9-15-20 6 Carrie: If we allow that connectivity,then we are sharing parking lots. Sue: That was part of the master plan from the very beginning. IBrad: Can you show the site plan? Steve Hardin: Presented a site plan. Kevin: You have three entrances for the Olivia. Why do you need a fourth entrance to create a parking war? Why would we keep this connection?This is not connecting neighborhoods. What are we improving? Brad: For this connectivity to happen, it does appear that Keystone Group would have to agree to have a curb cut for access since there's not an existing stub or connection. If we planned this better,we could have supported the connectivity functionality better and made it easier to keep the traffic off of Old Meridian Street.As it stands right now,I don't see a practical benefit to having that access here. Kevin: I would make a motion to remove the vehicular access between the two properties. Brad: I think that is up to the Petitioner. Steve Hardin: Our preference is to not to have a connection,but we are willing to do as the PC wishes.Jeff: Isn't there a recorded commitment that requires this connection?If we vote on this tonight,wouldn't something need to be undone? Rachel Keesling: There is a recorded commitment on the Olivia site. It's listed in the Avant's PUD that they provide vehicular connectivity to the adjacent parking lot. We planned for three potential spots on the Olivia property. Olivia agreed they would work with the developer to the south when they came forward with a project and that is where we are today. John Molitor: I consulted with the Petitioner and it appears there is a requirement for connectivity in the PUD Ordinance that doesn't specify that it must be at a specific location. Steve Hardin: Staff is correct. Reads PUD Ordinance text. There's variation in the location.We will do what the PC wants us to do.Rachel Keesling: We would work with Keystone Group(Olivia site)to make sure they fulfill their recorded commitment. If they don't,they would have to seek a recourse to amend their commitment. A Motion made by Rider and seconded by Zoccola to approve Docket No.PZ-2020-00076 DP/ADLS. Approved 8-0.Absent Kirsh 2. Docket No. 19090013a OA: Group Home Ordinance Standards. (Proposed Accessory Dwelling portion remains in Residential Committee) The applicant seeks to amend the Unified Development Ordinance in order to establish standards and an approval process and to amend definitions for Group Homes. Filed by the Department of Community Services on behalf of the Cannel Plan Commission. Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling, Department of Community Services: • The Residential Committee decided to separate the Group Homes and Accessory Dwelling Units(ADU) standards into separate ordinances. Tonight,we are just dealing with the Group Homes standards. • A number of changes to the Group Home standards have been proposed,and approval of a Group Home would be through a Special Exception in front of a BZA Hearing Officer. • The exterior of the dwelling will resemble a residential home and not give the appearance that it is a Group Home • There's a range of recommendations to the number of proposed occupants. Not more than 8 unrelated persons shall generally be entitled to favorable consideration;Between 9-12 unrelated persons shall generally be entitled to favorable consideration,as long as the Director of Community Services does not oppose; 13 or more unrelated persons shall be entitled to favorable consideration only if the Director is supportive. • We have updated the definitions for Single-Family Dwelling,Family,and Group Home • We are proposing an effective date of January 1,2021 • Staff recommends Favorable Recommendation to the City Council Committee Comments: Christine: I don't recall discussing the definition of a Family. Should the definition of Family be part of the Accessory Dwelling Units and not Group Homes? John Molitor: It is important it remains with the Group Home part of the IOrdinance so we can limit the amount of people. The City of Springfield,IL. limits to 5 persons in their Ordinance,and the Supreme Court didn't have a problem with that.Our amendments include a lot of provisions that have been looked at and mentioned by Federal Judges in previous court cases. Kevin: Is this something we need to pass even if we don't like it?John Molitor: We need to setup a process that we can comply with a Federal Court decision. Kevin: What's a reason to deny a group home? John Molitor: The Ordinance Plan Commission Minutes 9-15-20 7