Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 01-04-22 r013 . \ City , ..,.. )\ Alit,/ of C N.,...... 1 Carmel Plan Commission COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE Tuesday, January 4, 2022 Meeting Minutes Location: Cannel City Hall Caucus Rooms,2nd Floor, 1 Civic Square,Cannel, IN 46032 Members Present: Alan Potasnik(Chair),Nick Kestner, Kevin Rider,Jeff Hill Members Absent: Staff Present: Mike Hollibaugh(DOCS Director),&Aliza Shalit(Recording Secretary) Legal Counsel: Sergey Grechukhin Time of Meeting: 6:00 PM The Commercial Committee met to review the following items: Applicant for first item on the Agenda was not present, Chair Alan Potasnik proceeded with the next item on the Agenda after allowing a 2-minute wait period 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 Cannel Plan Commission. Petitioner: Mike Hollibaugh • Brought exhibits that were already in the packet with summaries of the commitments that go with each parcel. • 6 parcels rezoned in 2016,rezone was conditional on owners agreeing to certain commitments.To date only one of the owners,two of the parcels have commitments recorded(321 W.Main and 0 3`d Avenue). Others with the request to have commitments terminated and that the rezone to C-2 is completed. It is the belief of the Department and the Redevelopment Department that by completing the rezone, it will help position those properties for more redevelopments interest and then the plan for West Main Street can be completed. Department Report: n/a • Recommendation that this goes to the Full Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation from Staff. Committee Comments: • Kevin: Why now?No development interest,CRC is not looking at it. • Mike: Because the CRC is looking at it.The Departments are in communication with development interests. The completion of the rezone brings more predictability to those parcels. • Kevin: If we don't have everyone around the block wanting to sell now, it doesn't make sense right now. • Mike: The City's goal has been clear since 2016. We have that stretch of Main Street it is a part of the Arts District and the City wants to have that developed.When the rezone occurs the full value of that property is better realized. • Jeff: I agree with Mike. Rezone of all the properties would provide better clarity on what future opportunities might be there,but could you end up with piecemeal situation if someone decides not to sell?Who helps protect that? 111 • Kevin: We lose control if it turns to C-2. • Mike: If there is a holdout,for example 331, if the balance of the real estate is acquired,then a development could occur that is built around that property. 1 Commercial Committee Meeting Minutes 01-04-22 • Kevin: I will say there is one protection left, even if we did it,the City Council has to approve the TIF, it would not get built without a TIF and the plan commission would be taken out of that protection. • Mike: The C-2 ordinance has buffer yard requirements mandating a certain width, in this case it's the height of the house itself.Max 35ft.It doesn't mean a variance can't be granted if there is a request for reduction,but we know the BZA is tough on those requests. There is that protection. • Nick: Right now, in the part that is residential, if someone wants to buy/build a new house it cannot be stopped, correct? • Mike: That is correct. Single family residential is a permitted use in the C-2. Changing the zoning doesn't change whether someone can live there or not. In the County records on 321,even though it is zoned C-2,they have completed their commitments and it is still assessed as a residential level.That doesn't change either. • Alan: I don't understand the urgency. Why development can't take place on this privately,rather than putting it through without having a plan or having the Plan Commission end up losing control of a parcel of real estate that is right in the prime part of our City. • Kevin: If a developer gains control of the whole thing, it's no doubt it would go C-2. • Mike: It's already zoned C-2, if someone is willing to take the risk and piece meal together,they can sign the commitments and it is zoned C-2. What I am trying to convey is that the City thinks that putting the"cart before the horse"is the right way to go. There are height limitations that were part of the original commitments that are now Ordinance,the buffer yard requirement—previously there was no landscaping requirement in the C-2. The Council approved the C-2 Ordinance already. Whether or not the Commission thinks that we lose control,which is not the case,but the rezone is ready to go if we can get the commitments removed,we think it becomes an easier sell by the Redevelopment Commission to take it to the next level. I'd like to suggest that I am not a believer that this is going to be developed in the same intensity as next door, where TIF will be required,I think it's going to be more transitional,more moderate-North commercial mixed use, South more residential town homes. I know there is some interest in developing those sites as town homes—the south parcels. • Kevin: 320 was looking to build a house and then decided not to. What happened on that? • Mike: The owner bought without full understanding of what the City was trying to do.After a meeting with the owner there was no indication at the time that there was going to be a change of plans, but when she was able to buy the house catty-corner,then she decided she might want to be part of the redevelopment. • Alan: Was it based upon the fact that they were discouraged by the City? • Mike: I don't think the City's opinion mattered that much.It was more of an opportunity. The house was going to be significant and the house that was going to be built on the property catty-cornered was going to be significant.A permitted use on zoned property. It was someone who knows real estate and would not be intimidated by the city. This is 320. They bought on the SW corner. • Nick: For C-2,could someone come in and build a residential home? • Mike: They could build single family. • Kevin: Would we approve it?Would it be a staff decision? • Mike: We explored the idea of whether the Redevelopment Commission would turn it down,because it doesn't meet what they want to see there. • Sergei: Our ordinance requires a pre-approval from CRC,but the criteria is not outlined clearly.Can't speak for CRC.C-2 projects work differently, it is a unique corner of Cannel. It would have to be parcel by parcel. I can't say what CRC would think of individual projects. • Kevin: CRC would not approve a house if this gets approved for C-2. • Alan: But it would be out of the Plan Commission's hands then. • Sergei: It would still go through Staff approval once CRC pre-approves it. The process would be similar,but the CRC would be involved in the initial decision. • Kevin: Then, it would be out of the Plan Commission's hands. • Sergei: Unless there are Variances requested. 2 Commercial Committee Meeting Minutes 01-04-22 :4_4_,,‘ f V„,..V4,,,.•` • 1 t City or C • Jeff: Wouldn't that go to the BZA? • Sergei: Yes. • Kevin: Then it would be out of the Plan Commission's hands,the answer is yes. • Alan: Can this be sent to the full Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation? • Motion made and seconded,then Kevin Rider invites Beth Myers(331 W.Main St.)to speak • Kevin: Directed at Beth Myers,are you going to stay there no matter what? • Beth Myers: I'd never say never, it would take a lot,my plan right now is to stay. I don't understand how it could be done without parking and all that kind of stuff without the property. A Motion made by Jeff Hill and seconded by Nick Kestner to approve PZ-2021-00160 CA to return back to the full Plan Commission with a staff favorable recommendation. Tied 2-2 (Potasnik,Rider) Kevin Rider changes his vote to an Aye. Approved 3-1 (Potasnik) A Motion was made by Kevin Rider and seconded by Jeff Hill to allow Docket No.PZ-2021-00221 ADLS Amend: 421 S.Rangeline—Building addition to be heard. Approved 4-0 2. Docket No.PZ-2021-00221 ADLS Amend: 421 S.Rangeline—Building Addition The applicant seeks design approval for a 285 sq.ft.building addition to replace a garage that was destroyed by a fire.The overall site is 0.17 acres and is located at 421 S. Rangeline Road. It is zoned B-1Business and is located in the Rangeline Road Overlay District. Filed by Stephanie Miller of Great Growins. Petitioner: Stephanie Miller • Our office is here at the round-a-bout.Unfortunately,we had a dumpster fire this summer which demolished the entire garage and all our belongings.There was no round-a-bout when we bought the property so our parking was up-front,but now our parking is in the back. Our customers sometimes have a hard time figuring out how to get in the building and they have to walk all the way from the back when it is cold or raining.We thought this would be a good opportunity to put the entry door closer to the parking lot. We decided to extend out and make a double door for ease of access. It will be built like a sunroom type of room with lots of windows and an entry door,more functional for customers. We also want to re-wrap the building with hardi- plank. We want to put in a new front porch with an entry to match new entry for a more functional set-up. Much better than rebuilding a garage,it is highly visible there,we have a putting green,we are going to add more greenery,better landscaping,and the garage now is a patio for outdoor seating. We brought a floor plan. Department Report: Mike Hollibaugh: • Stephanie has been working at this for a while,all issues have been worked through. There is one outstanding matter of bike parking. Staff is comfortable with project. It will be an improvement to the corner. Favorable recommendation after Committee comments are addressed and the agreement by the owner to add bike parking. Committee Comments: IStephanie: I am a big bicycle rider,so I have no problem with bike parking. Nick: What about the sidewalk. Mike: The city engineer worked with owner when they built the round-a-bout. Sidewalk was deferred to a time when 3 Commercial Committee Meeting Minutes 01-04-22 there is a plan to extend it further into the neighborhood. It was the City's decision not to put in the sidewalk as part of the roundabout. Stephanie: At the time,when talking to the City Engineer,there was a sidewalk on the other side,which actually goes somewhere and that,for now,that would work.But in the future, it may be re-considered. Kevin: Is the City saying that at such a time that it is needed it would be the City's responsibility,not the petitioner, since it was deferred at the time of the round-a-bout construction. Mike: That was part of the agreement with the purchase of the right-of-way. Kevin: It would not be fair to require them to put it in.If the City decides to run a sidewalk somewhere else,then we have to put it in. Stephanie: We are responsible for the property,we did the lawn because it is prettier,more functional,and people use it all the time. We wanted to make it good for the public. We took care of the property;we pay insurance on it and we did the putting park because we thought it would be fun. Kevin: So,we are going from aluminum siding to hardy plank. Staff has no issues with the design. If we made a motion,we would need to give staff the ability to get the bike parking taken care of,you would not get your permit until you did. Would the Urban Forester need to approve something? Mike:No Stephanie: All landscaping is done,and it is not changing.Yes,I will agree. A Motion made by Kevin Rider and seconded by Jeff Hill to approve PZ-2021-00221 ADLS Amend as long as staff and petitioner come to an agreement on the bike parking. Approved 4-0. Meetin djdurne 6:30 PM. Aliza Shaft R cording Secretary Alan P tasnik Committee Chairman 4 Commercial Committee Meeting Minutes 01-04-22