HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-21-21 4`AQART tRs, e�,
.=I..� : City of C
I !NDIAN?
CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
DECEMBER 21, 2021 I MEETING MINUTES
Location: Council Chambers Room,2nd Floor,Carmel City Hall
Members Present: Brad Grabow(President)Carrie Holle,Nick Kestner,Joshua Kirsh(virtual participant),Kevin Rider, Sue
Westermeier,Christine Zoccola
Members Absent:Jeff Hill,Alan Potasnik(Vice President)
Staff Present: Mike Hollibaugh,Rachel Keesling,Lisa Motz
Legal Counsel: Sergey Grechukhin
Time of Meeting: 6:00 PM
Declaration of Quorum:President Grabow: 7 members present,we have a Quorum
Approval of Meeting Minutes:
A Motion made by Rider and seconded by Zoccola to approve the Nov. 16,2021 PC meeting minutes. Approved 7-0,absent
Hill,Potasnik.
Communications,Bills,Expenditures,&Legal Counsel Report:
• Plan Commission Resolution PC-12-21-21-a: Bruce Donaldson: CRC Resolution 2021-24 proposes to amend
the Declaratory Resolution and Development Plan for the Merchants Square Economic Development Area to 1)
remove an area from the Merchants Square Allocation Area,2)designate this area as a separate allocation area to
be known as the"Market East Carmel Allocation Area,"and 3)adopt a supplement to the Plan.
Sue: In 1997,the entire Merchants Square was made a TIF area. Is this going away?Bruce Donaldson: This Resolution
is just allocated for the former Marsh building site and the TIF area will remain.This Resolution will remove the Marsh
parcel from the rest of the Merchants Square,and we can track the TIF separately,and can be dedicated specifically for
the future development of the Marsh site.
A Motion by Rider and seconded by Westermeier to adopt PC-12-21-21-a. Approved 7-0,absent Hill,Potasnik
Reports,Announcements&Department Concerns:Rachel Keesling:
• Suspension of the Rules of Procedure in regarding public notice in the newspaper for tonight's agenda item,Reserve
at Springmill, Replat Lots 69C-70C. They missed The Current in Carmel deadline. They still met the State's
requirement of 10 days'notice.
A Motion by Rider and seconded by Kestner to suspend the Rules of Procedure. Approved 7-0,absent Hill,Potasnik.
• Approval of 2022 Plan Commission and Committee Calendar
A Motion by Rider and seconded by Zoccola to adopt the 2022 PC Calendar.Approved 7-0,absent,Hill,Potasnik.
• Outcome of Projects at Committees:
Commercial: Docket No.PZ-2021-00164 DP/ADLS: Guidepost Montessori—Approved 3-0
Residential: Cancelled due to no items to review.
Public Hearings
Brad: Explained the Rules of Procedure for a public hearing in front the Carmel Plan Commission.
1. Docket No.PZ-2021-00160 CA: West Main St.Block C2,Commitment Amendment.
The applicant seeks to amend commitments associated with Ordinance Z-611-16.The site is located at the
southeast corner of Main Street and 4th Avenue SW. The properties are zoned R-2/Residence and C-2/Mixed Use
District within the Old Town Overlay. Filed by the Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel
Plan Commission.
1
Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 12-21-21
Petitioner: Mike Hollibaugh,Director the Dept.of Community Services
• Presented aerial view, includes 7 parcels that are bounded by Main St.,4th Ave SW, Pt St. SW,and 3'Ave SW.
• 2 of the 7 parcels are have alright been rezoned to C2
• The City believes now is the right time to remove the Commitments from 2016
• The redevelopment of the property directly to the east,Monon&Main,has helped start this process
• The C2 zoning district standards were amended after 2016
• A max height 35'adjacent to residential and buffer yard requirements are now included in the C2 zoning
Public Comments:
Kelly Baskett,4d'Ave SW&Emerson Rd.: I don't think this is a great fit for C2 since they are all single-family homes.
There are no safeguards for any of the residents that wish to remain in this area. I would like to see the City acquired the
property first,then proceed with the rezone.
Dave Gagliano,Johnson Addition: I'm representing the Johnson Addition neighborhood. We are concern about our
property values, safety,and security. What are the actual plans?It's very confusing when you look at the info packet
describing the future development on the individual parcels.We don't want a parking garage.
Steve Canada,representing Beth Myers, subject property: Ms.Myers couldn't be here tonight to speak. Why is this being
done now?What are the plans?Whatever has changed should be made public.
Jill Meisenheimer,CCRZ: I have big concerns when Commitments were made by the City,and then they are changed.
I've seen that happen more than once. It hurts the level of trust between the City and the people who live here.We are
generifying this area and I don't think the people who live here want this.
Rebuttal to Public Comments: Mike Hollibaugh:
• The City has been clear what our intent is for this part of downtown Carmel. This area has been designated as a
mixed-use redevelopment area.
• Like other C-2 rezones,this is a positioning action by the City, so then offers can be made to the existing owners
• The amendments to the C2 Ordinance bring us safeguards to Beth Meyers' property because she isn't interested. I
have had discussions with her.Ms.Meyers understands what the City's intent is.
• If variances are proposed,a public hearing will take place and the BZA will listen to the residents' concerns
• There's only a concept plan as of now,and no concrete plans have been made
• We are being as transparent as we can be. This public hearing allows for comments and concerns to be heard.
Committee Comments:
Christine: Do you have a definite plan for these parcels or a parcel?What's the plan if only some of the parcels are
acquired?What's the plan if all of the parcels are acquired?It sounds like that all parcels have not been secured. Mike
Hollibaugh: We really don't have any details at this time. Redevelopment isn't always easy. We often hear that some
residents are not ready to sell,and then all of sudden they are ready to sell. The potential to acquire all the parcels is a real
possibility. I don't do the redevelopment; I help get it set up for the Cannel Redevelopment Commission(CRC).
Kevin: I'm uncomfortable if there's someone on this block that isn't interested. We still want to see some of the
commitments. I would like to see this go to Committee. Christine: I would agree to send this to Committee for further
discussion.
Carrie: Which two parcels are currently C-2 zoning?Which owners want to sell,and which do not?Mike Hollibaugh:
Presents aerial zoning map, there are two parcels that are currently zoned C-2; 321 W.Main St.,and 0 3rd Ave SW. There
are some owners who are interested in selling for the right price. The NW corner lot,owner Beth Meyers, is not interested
in selling at this time. Carrie: Is it still possible to redevelop this area if all sell except for Ms.Meyers?Is it possible to
build around Ms.Meyers' property? Mike Hollibaugh: It's conceivable.
Brad: If this entire block is zoned C2,how would nonconforming use allow a single-family residence to remain as a legal
use going forward?Mike Hollibaugh: A single-family use is a permitted in the C2 zoning district so it's not
nonconforming.
2
Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 12-21-21
Brad: The landscaping and screening commitments would be appropriate to be retained going forward.It was successful
on the block to the east of this.
IA Motion by Westermeier and seconded by Rider to send PZ-2021-00160 CA to the January 4th Commercial
Committee with it coming back to the full Plan Commission for a final vote. Approved 7-0,absent Hill,Potasnik.
2. Docket No.PZ-2021-00195 DP/ADLS: Matriarch Birth Center.
The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a new medical health center,to be located south of the
existing building at 520 N.Rangeline. It will be a two story, 7,000 sq. ft.building.The overall parcel size is 0.5
acres. 23 parking spaces will be provided. The site is located at 510 N.Rangeline Road. It is zoned B-5lBusiness
and is located in the Old Town Overlay—Historic Rangeline Subarea. Filed by Justin Moffett of Old Town
Companies.
Petitioner:Jennifer Moffett,co-owner of Matriarch Birth Center
• With me tonight from our design team are Justin Moffett,builder from Old Town Companies,and Evan Dennis,
architect from Cooler Design
• A birth center is an out of hospital facility for giving birth,full prenatal,postpartum and well-women's care,
provided by Certified Nurse Midwives
• Matriarch supports women to feel protect and empowered,keeping them at the center of decision making for their
births
• The co-founders and co-owners are Brandie Stoneking,Laura Wiegand,and Dr. Dele Ogunleye
• This will be the only birth center in Hamilton County,and the 8th in Indiana
• We will offer the same quality care as a hospital but with lower costs
Justin Moffett,Old Town Companies
• There's an existing structure on this site. We expect to renovate the existing structure and build a 2nd structure.
• We will provide 21 surface parking spaces,which meets the requirement per the Ordinance
• Presented site plan,floor plans, elevations, materials pallet, sign package, and landscape plan
Evan Dennis,Cooler Design
• Presented a video of the building elevations, we will be matching the architecture of Old Town neighborhood
• Building materials will include masonry,cement board wood looking siding,and white cement board and batten
Public Comments: None
Department Report: Rachel Keesling:
• They are proposing to construct a new medical facility at the corner of N. Rangeline and 5th St.NW
• They will keep the historic character of the existing building
• A new sidewalk will be installed along 5'h St.NW where there's none right now
• Our remaining comments and concerns include bike parking, lighting details,adjustments to parking lot to gain 1-
ft in drive aisle width,and approval is needed by the Urban Forester
• Staff recommends this is sent to the Jan.4th Commercial Committee with them having final voting authority
Committee Comments:
Nick: I would like to see it look more residential than commercial.
Josh: It's nice to see we have a safe option for our community,and I like how the building looks.
Brad: Looking at our agenda items,we have four Commercial items,and two Residential items.I would like to see this
Igo to the Residential Committee to help balance the workload.
A Motion made by Rider and seconded by Zoccola to send PZ-2021-00195 DP/ADLS to the January 4`h Residential
Committee with them having final voting authority. Approved 7-0,absent Hill,Potasnik.
3
Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 12-21-21
3. Docket No.PZ-2021-00197 PPA: Reserve at Springmill,Replat Lots 69C-70C.
4. Docket No.PZ-2021-00226 V: UDO Sec.2.06 35 ft.Minimum Front Yard Setback,22 ft. requested
5. Docket No.PZ-2021-00227 V: UDO Sec.2.06 10 ft.Minimum Side Setback/25 ft.Minimum Aggregate,
5 ft. Side Setback/10 ft.Aggregate requested
The applicant seeks primary plat amendment approval and 2 variances to reconfigure 2 lots into 6 lots on 2.7
acres. The site is located at 340 Sanner Ct.and is zoned S-2/Residence. Filed by Duane Sharrer of Weihe
Engineers, Inc on behalf of Steve Pittman,owner.
Petitioner: Steve Pittman,Pittman Partners
• With me tonight are Duane Sharrer of Weihe Engineers,and Gary McNutt of Wedgewood Homes
• Presented an aerial view of the subject property
• I agreed to buy the vacant lots and develop it to exactly like the existing neighborhood. The homeowners
participated in a vote of my plans. We received 100%support from the homeowners.
• The new blot sizes will be about 40% larger than the existing lot sizes in the neighborhood
• We will be extending the existing cul-de-sac to add the additional lots
• The setback variance for a 22-ft front yard setback,matches the building setback lines of the existing homes
within this neighborhood
• We will come back for a future public hearing for the variance on the proposed extended cul-de-sac length
Public Comments: None
Department Report: Rachel Keesling:
• S-2 zoning requires a 35-ft front setback,but this subdivision was originally developed under the Cluster Housing
Ordinance which allowed for reduced setbacks(22-ft)
• The proposed variances are minor and should not have a negative effect on the surrounding properties
• There's a 20-ft platted greenbelt bufferyard that will remain along the north property line
• The Urban Forester still needs to review the revised landscape plan
• The cul-de-sac length will need a variance and it will be heard at a future public hearing in front of the BZA
• Staff recommends this is sent to the Jan.4th Residential Committee with it coming back to the full Plan
Commission for a final vote
Committee Comments:
Nick: Does this need to go to Committee?Is there anything else to discuss?
A Motion made by Kirsh and seconded by Rider to suspend the Rules of Procedure in order to vote on this item.
Approved 7-0,absent Hill,Potasnik.
A Motion made by Zoccola and seconded by Rider to approve PZ-2021-00197 PPA, PZ-2021-00226 V,and PZ-
2021-00227 V contingent upon addressing all TAC comments
Approved 7-0,absent Hill,Potasnik.
6. Docket No.PZ-2021-00204 PUD: Flora on Springmill PUD Rezone.
The applicant seeks PUD rezone approval to allow a new subdivision consisting of townhomes,duplex homes,
and single-family homes. The site is located at 9950 Spring Mill Rd.and is zoned S-2/Residence. Filed by Jim
Shinaver and Jon Dobosiewicz of Nelson&Frankenberger on behalf of Pittman Partners and Onyx and East,
LLC.
Petitioner:Jim Shinaver
• Presented a site location map, context plan, site plan, and building types and their location within the site
• This development will contain a mix of duplex two-family homes,brownstones, single-family courtyard homes,
rooftop deck townhomes,and pitched roof townhomes
• We will have tree preservation areas(TPA)designated around our site
• A multi-use path will be installed along Spring Mill Road
4
Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 12-21-21
• The builder,Onyx and East design their communities based on the location of the site.It results in a very unique
community with detailed architectural
• Presented elevations and street perspectives, these show the color pallet,building materials,and various views of
II the different types of homes
• Expected prices for homes will include the following: $300k-$400k for the pitched roof townhomes,$400k-$500k
for the rooftop deck townhomes, $500k-550k for the duplex homes, $500k-600k for the brownstones,and $600k-
700k for the single-family courtyard homes.
• We have included open space plan,TPA plan,and PUD Ordinance in our info packet
• We will continue to work with Staff to address any items before the Residential Committee meeting
• We hosted a neighborhood meeting on Dec. 16 for all adjacent property owners
Public Comments:
Jill Meisenheimer,CCRZ: I live on Spring Mill Road, and I've seen it changed dramatically since I've moved here 16
years ago. Initially it was all zoned single-family residential. I'm concerned for the increased density.They stated they
will be preserving 20%of the trees, so there will be 80%tree destruction.I'm concerned with the number of rentals. Who
would want to live in this space adjacent to I-465?What's the noise going to be like?Will this redevelopment set a
precedent along Spring Mill Road?
Rebuttal to Public Comments:Jim Shinaver
• All of the proposed homes are for sale. This is not a for-rent community.
• There are standards within the PUD that will be reviewed during this rezone process. If approved,we will come
back to the Plan Commission for an ADLS review. We will have to abide by the language in the PUD Ordinance.
• Onyx and East clearly knows their market and price range.They have the confidence in achieving their sales.
Department Report: Rachel Keesling
• This proposed PUD seeks a mixed residential neighborhood of single-family homes, duplex homes, and a variety
of townhomes
• Urban and attached residential
• There will be a large natural buffer of Williams Creek to the west and tree preservation area to the north
• The PUD allows for 129 dwellings with a minimum of 15%open space,and 20%TPA designed into this site
• One entrance is being proposed at the roundabout at Spring Mill Road and Illinois Street.
• The Department would like to see more trees be preserved
• Staff recommends this is sent to the Jan.4th Residential Committee for further review
Committee Comments:
Nick: How's the street lighting going to be handled?Why are some of the roads public and some private?Can the
pedestrian path go around the detention pond to provide an amenity for the residents?Can you provide 6-ft wide
sidewalks?Jim Shinaver: We do have a lighting plan.There's a rationale between the private and public streets. We will
discuss these comments in more detail at the Committee meeting.
Christine: Once the trees are removed,people will realize how close this is to I-465. Can we preserve more trees?Please
present some ways to preserve more trees. Why is there only one entrance?Did the Traffic Engineering review this
entrance?Is there a way to help the traffic flow?Jim Shinaver: We did go through the TAC review and we can report
their findings at the Committee meeting. We did not receive any concerns from emergency services,fire dept.,and police
dept. We can follow up with them again. We can revisit the tree preservation at the Committee.
Josh: How will the TPA be noted in the PUD?How will the residents be notified and policed not to encroach in the TPA?
I've seen this problem occur before in other communities when residents place fences,fire pits,and other structures with a
TPA without them even knowing the rules. Steve Pittman: There was a lawsuit on this property because a logging
Icompany came in and deforested this site. It makes sense to preserve as many trees as possible to create a buffer.
Brad: What is the ability of INDOT with their existing ROW to potentially expand the ramp from US 31 to I-465 West?
If they were to add another lane or two?Will there be enough room for them to do so?With this being a PUD,we can ask
for what we want. We need to find ways to preserve more trees. Do we really need sidewalks on both sides of the street so
we can save additional trees?There are no design standards to conform to since this is a PUD. Look for opportunities to
5
Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 12-21-21
create a mulch or stone walking through the wooded areas. This would help in preserving more trees along the path.
Sue: I have concerns for only having one entrance for 129 homes. I would like to see some amenities included, like a
water feature in the pond, benches,and a walking path.Can we add more greenspace?Is there a plan for overflow
parking?
A Motion made by Westermeier and seconded by Rider to send PZ-2021-00204 PUD to the January 4th Residential
Committee,with the final vote coming back to the full Plan Commission. Approved 7-0,absent Hill,Potasnik.
7. Docket No.PZ-2021-00205 DP/ADLS: 11335 N.Michigan Rd.Apartments.
The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a new development with 4 future outlots and an apartment
complex(244 units).The site is located at 11335 N.Michigan Road. It is zoned B-3/Business&Residential and
is located within the US 421 Overlay zone. Filed by Ryan Wells of REI Real Estate Services,LLC.
Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewicz,Nelson&Frankenberger,LLC:
• With me tonight are Ryan Wells,director of development for REI,Aaron Hurt,project engineer, Jim Shinaver,
and other members of our design team
• This site was recently occupied by Altums Landscaping business
• REI is the developer and current owner of the site
• The existing buildings will be removed to develop 244 units for multi-family residential and 4 future outlots
• Presented a site plan
• Variance requests will be proposed at the February 2022 BZA meeting
• The site is subject to commitments that were established in 1988. The redevelopment of this site requires approval
by the Cannel Plan Commission.
• We are proposing 10 buildings that will total in 244 units.These buildings will front the internal drive and future
detention pond
• 378 parking spaces will be provided through garage and surface parking
• Access will be from Michigan Road at Bennett Parkway
• We are proposing an amenity space that will include a pool and dog park
• 3 buildings will be 2-stories,and the remaining 7 buildings will be 3-stories
• Presented elevations of 2-story and 3-story buildings. A variance for building height is needed for the 3-story
buildings due to their pitched roof design.
• Building materials will include masonry and fiber cement siding.No vinyl material will be used.
• The landscape plan complies with the Ordinance. The Ordinance requires 15-ft landscaping between a multi-
family and Woodhaven subdivision. We will provide a 30-ft landscape along the parking,and 40-51-ft along the
north perimeter adjacent to Woodhaven.
• We are working with the Urban Forester to include tree preservation and new plantings
• We did host a neighborhood meeting in December. 30-40 adjacent neighbors attended. We received multiple
letters of concern from the public.
• We ask this is sent to the February Pt Committee meeting, instead of the January 4th Committee,to give us more
time to prepare and work with Staff and the adjacent neighbors.
Public Comments:
Terrence Kunstek,Woodhaven: I live directly north of the subject site. Our community was shocked with the proposed
redevelopment. We feel the developer is not acting in good faith and is holding information. We have concerns with the
setback variance,quality of the architecture,and density of the development. The Altum's 1988 agreement specifically
prohibited this exact use,and we ask the Plan Commission to force the commitments of that agreement. We would request
that this land to be developed into a Cannel City Park.
Catherine Knox,Townes at Weston Pointe: I'm an adjacent neighbor to the south. I'm not opposed to residential
redevelopment,just not something this high density.Headlights will come into my home.I don't like the idea of this
much parking(lot)next to my home.This site plan was not done in respect to the adjacent neighbors.Will any of the trees
along the southern property line be preserved?
6
Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 12-21-21
Sally Shapiro,Woodhaven: I'm an adjacent neighbor to the north. I'm surprised that the three-story buildings are allowed
to face our residential properties. Our neighborhood has been here for 40 years.The Michigan Overlay Zone is designed
to help mitigate dramatic issues to the adjacent neighborhoods. I hope the neighbors will be able to go and speak at the
ICommittee meetings since we have a lot of concerns.
Brian Shapiro,Woodhaven: I helped write the Michigan Overlay Zone. It specifies that as you get closer to residential
properties,a bigger buffer applies between residential and commercial.There are restrictions that run with this land. This
is an unusual situation for the Plan Commission. The Weston Pointe commitments state that the east property line has a
min. setback of 150-ft.A 3-story building would be allowed within 100-ft of the south and north property line,and 200-ft
to east property line.Mr. Fehsenfeld,who lives to the east,made these commitments. The Woodhaven and Weston
neighborhoods should have the same protections. How many people will be living in these apartments and jammed on this
property?I hope you realize how many people will actual be living here and how out of whack this proposal is in line with
the Michigan Overlay.
Gordon Allen,4370 Weston Pointe Dr.: I am the owner of the commercial building directly south. They show a street
along their entrance/exit,and when 300 plus cars use this street every day,this street is not meant for this. I pay into a
maintenance fee for this street,and I think they need to pay into this same fee. The streets should probably be upgraded.
There is no good existing landscaping along the south side. They need to plant healthy trees and shrubs.
Rebuttal to Public Comments: Jon Dobosiewicz:
• In 2010,Kroger filed a petition in front the of Plan Commission.It included the commitments and variances.It
was approved by the Plan Commission in 2010. Kroger eventually withdrew their petition.
• We are proposing a residential use next to a residential use.We feel our proposal is more favorable than having a
retail commercial building with fueling pumps next to residential.
• We are open to discussion and will work with the adjacent neighbors
• We only received letters from the neighbors to the north.After hearing the concerns from a neighbor to the south,
we will also look at ways to improve the landscaping buffer along the southern property line.
Department Report: Rachel Keesling:
• There are commitments on the land signed in 1988 that restrict the uses.They state that all other land uses in the
B3 are prohibited unless specified by the Cannel Plan Commission.
• Multi-family housing is an allowed use in the US 421 Overlay zoning district
• Staff has worked with the petitioner to alter the design and layout
• Kroger was approved in 2010 but the deal for the site fell through
• The multiple variances being proposed relate to height,façade offset,building materials,design, side and rear
setbacks,parking spaces,minimum lot area and density.
• Additional work is required for this plan,and that we can get this redevelopment closer to meeting the standards
of the Overlay.
• Staff recommends this is sent to the Feb. 1 e Commercial Committee for further review and discussion
Brad: I will close the public hearing at 8:27pm,but I will reserve the right to re-open the public hearing when this comes
back to the full Plan Commission. There's a sense that a great deal of work needs to be done with this petition.
Committee Comments:
Nick: When are the variances being heard by the BZA?Jon Dobosiewicz: At the February or March BZA meeting.
Wouldn't it be best that the BZA would hear their variance requests before it comes back to the full Plan Commission?
Jon Dobosiewicz: We anticipate the BZA would hear this before this came back to the full Plan Commission.
Nick: I would like to see a pedestrian path plan.I have concerns for the safety of all the pedestrians in this area. A traffic
Istudy is needed. Making a left turn out of this site is a nightmare.
Carrie: There's not a lot I like about this project. I don't see any of the intentions of the US421 Overlay in this project.
Adjacent property values will be affected.Does this meet a specific US421 architectural style?This has no aesthetic
appeal. Christine: I agree with Carrie. The Michigan Overlay standards are there for a reason.The current proposal
doesn't fit in any of the architectural styles. A lot of work has to be done with this project.
7
Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 12-21-21
Brad: How does the building height and setbacks work together?What is height requested where a given setback
proposal is?How does the landscaping fit in?What are distances to the adjoining property improvements and not just to
the property lines?I know our standards are written to the property lines. The Overlay speaks of the building heights
along the façades. We normally measure to the peak of the roofline. Make sure we are applying the correct standards.In
the elevations,the building types and numbers do not correspond to the site plan.Make sure the site maps are correctly
labeled.What are the US421 Overlay architectural styles that the building elements conform to?How does one access any
of the four outlots without any landscaping being removed since no curb cuts are being shown on the plans?Jon
Dobosiewicz: In early discussions with Staff,we were under the impression that the US421 Overlay architecture
standards wouldn't apply to this project since it's 400 plus feet away from Michigan Road. The architect did not design it
to the Overlay standards. However,we will now charge the architect with that task and will come back with revisions.
A Motion made by Rider and seconded by Westermeier to send PZ-2021-00205 DP/ADLS to the February 1't
Commercial Committee,with final approval by the full Plan Commission. Approved 7-0,absent Hill,Potasnik.
Old Business:
8. Docket No.PZ-2021-00134 Z: GOAT Rezone.
The applicant seeks B2/Business rezone approval. The site is located at 220 2nd St SW in Frank Hawkins
Addition Lot 1. It is currently zoned R2/Residence and Old Town Overlay,Character Subarea. Filed by Dave
Coots of Coots, Henke&Wheeler,on behalf of Tomahawk Holding LLC,owner.
Petitioner: Anthony Paganelli
• With me tonight are Kevin Paul,owner,and co-counsel Tom Perkins and Dave Coots
• Our last hearing was 3 months ago by Plan Commission and they tabled our petition.After 3 months of work with
Staff,the City,and our Architectural team,we believe we are in an agreement with Staff and the Petitioner.
• We are agreeing to substantial changes to the architectural design,to provide a development plan,future ADLS
approval,and a list of commitments to limit our uses under the B2 zoning. We are willing to exclude any
permitted use of the property for a tavern or nightclub.A draft of the commitments were provided in our packet.
• The word tavern is in our name,GOAT. Despite the T that stands for tavern, it will be only be operated as a
restaurant and bar,and not as a nightclub or tavern. We do not want to change our name.
Department Report: Rachel Keesling:
• The UDO states an alcohol permit must have the restaurant component in order serve alcohol/obtain permit
• Staff believes that B-7 is the more appropriate use for the intent of the district and list of uses compared to the B-2
district and the list of commitments. B-7 also requires DP and ADLS approval.
• However, lot coverage and setbacks make the site undevelopable under B-7, so they would need significant
amount of variances
• A large indoor area is now in the site plans,this should help to keep the noise down
• The B-2 proposal is accompanied by the commitments that restrict the allowed uses to what B-7 would allow.
• They worked with local architect,Dan Moriarity,for the building addition that would fill the outdoor space,add
bathrooms,and alleviate the noise that was happening outside on site.
• We can continue to work on the list of commitments and the design of building at tonight's meeting, or we can
send this to the Commercial Committee for further discussion.
Committee Comments:
Sue: If this is forwarded to the City Council, it would still have to come back to the Plan Commission for DP and ADLS
approval? Rachel Keesling: This is only for the Rezone.The City Council would have to add in the commitments that a
DP and ADLS are required,since it is not a requirement for the B-2 zoning district. Sue: If we want to tighten up the
allowable uses,we will need to do that now or at Committee? Rachel Keesling: We can do that now,or at a Committee.
They have a current list of commitments,and we can add to them if needed. Sergey Grechukhin: The City Council will
have the ability to review and change the commitments. Brad: Are the Petitioners willing to work on this list of
commitments at tonight's meeting?Anthony Paganelli: We are willing to work on these commitments tonight.
Rachel Keesling: The list of permitted uses for the B-2 zoning district is very long. We do not have definitions for some
of the permitted uses. We have been continually working on this list with the petitioner.
8
Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 12-21-21
Christine: Will the commitments run with the land and continue with any future owner?Sergey Grechukhin: Correct.
Brad: From the current list of commitments,will the Petitioner strike the following permitted B-2 uses for tavern/night
Iclub,indoor theater,artisan, industrial,meeting and party hall,all education uses-day care,kindergarten/preschool,
school,trade or business,post office,public service facility,office permitted uses,recreation permitted use,retail and
service,private club,or lodge.Anthony Paganelli: We can agree to strike out these uses.
Brad: The last line reads,the owner agrees to end outside and pergola patio food and bar service at 10pm daily, and
close exterior doors, so that only interior service occurs at that time. Can we shift the focus of the actual condition we are
trying to control?Tonight,we are not reviewing any of the physical changes to the site. Those building changes will be
reviewed during the ADLS review process.If you cut off service outdoors,you still have patrons inside well after 10pm.
What is your actual intent with this? Anthony Paganelli: This is a situation that every other bar in the Mid-town district
has.Kevin Paul: Our intent is if you stop serving food and beverage, it's easier to clear them out.Brad: Can we add that
to the language?Kevin Paul: We can.Kevin Rider: From experience, if you stop serving outside at 10pm,you will still
have people hanging outside later. Can you commit that you will have them go inside or pay their tab and leave right at
10pm.Kevin Paul: Our intent was to have everything cleared outside by 10:30-10:45pm. We will stop serving at 10pm,
which is consistent with the other bars in Mid-Town.
Brad: Would you commit to a neighborhood trouble hotline?If there's a problem,there's a specific number that the
neighbors could call?Anthony Paganelli: Yes. The owner agrees to establish and maintain a "neighborhood hot-line"
phone line for neighbors'concerns.
Nick: Can you commit to close at midnight?Anthony Paganelli: We believe we should not have any hour restrictions
that put us at a competitive disadvantage to those businesses who are literally across the street.
Nick: How are you going to control people buying a drink and walking outside with their drink?Anthony Paganelli: We
would control by having our Staff not allowing patrons to bring drinks outside. Kevin Paul: The Indiana open container
Ilaw allows you to grab and go but we agreed in December 2020 we would stop all carry out service and we did that
immediately.All other bars in the area,such as Fork&Ale and Union Brewery allow this.Anthony Paganelli: We will
agree to the following, The Owner agrees to refrain from "grab and go"service and requires patrons to consume
purchased alcohol on the property.
Kevin: This will come to City Council,and the public hearing will be open for any comments. The Council will
thoroughly examine all the commitments.
Sue: What are the hours of operation are listed in your commitments?Anthony Paganelli: We are only listing the hours
of operation for outdoor seating. We do not want to place any restrictions on our hours of operation that are allowed by
the bars in this area.Kevin Paul: We can commit to 12:00 a.m. on weeknights and 1:00 a.m.on weekends including
Fridays and holidays.When we started closing early last year,our patrons would just walk to the next bar down the street
that was still open. We just want to be consistent with the other bar closing times in the area.
Sue: Will there be any outdoor music allowed?Rachel Keesling: The solution is to enclose the entire outdoor space, so
they wouldn't have any live music outdoors.Kevin Paul: We can commit to not playing music on our outdoor speakers.
Carrie: What are repercussions if they don't follow these commitments?Sergey Grechukhin: Proper legal action from
the City. The hotline will be in place, so hopefully the problem gets resolved before the City has to take any action.
A Motion made by Westermeier and seconded by Zoccola to send PZ-2021-00134 Z to the City Council with a
favorable recommendation,including the Commitments we drafted at tonight's meeting.
Approved 7-0,absent Hill,Potasnik.
I Meeting Adjourned t 9:35 p.m.
ii.t
Jo hestak Plan Commission Secretary Bad Grabow y President
9
Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 12-21-21