HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 03-15-22 at a later date.
Sue: Can you show the line of sight from Spring Mill Road and 111th Street(from the subdivision entrances)?Jon
Dobosiewicz: Presented an exhibit. The 5-story buildings will not be visible from the sidewalk on Spring Mill Road.
Kevin: We can make the developer pay for the roundabout. If we deny it,then the City will have to pay for the
roundabout. Engineering is going to build it no matter what. Sue: I'm not sure if it's the wiser decision.Kevin:
Engineering won't build it if it's not safe.It has to get final approval from Engineering.
Brad: Did Engineering explain the rational of the mini roundabout on 1116'Street?Jon Dobosiewicz: It's been a decade
of development since the PUD was approved.Roundabouts didn't exist on Illinois Street and Spring Mill Road as they do
today.We asked Carmel Engineering,and they believe it's the right decision and the safest.Alexia Lopez: Reads letter
from the Carmel Engineer about installing this roundabout-this letter will be attached to the minutes and is also
viewable in Laserfiche. Brad: So,Engineering's position is right-in,and right-outs don't work without a median. I'm
struggling with the access here and the fact the Petition came to us with a more modest proposal for that access.I wish
Engineering were here to defend the argument there are negative benefits of a right-in,and right-out.Alexia Lopez: From
a Planning perspective,the roundabout aligns with Spring Mill Lane.It will slow traffic down. Left turns out of Spring
Mill Place would be easier and safer.
A Motion made by Rider and seconded by to Zoccola approve Docket Nos.PZ-2020-00081 DP/ADLS contingent
upon the changes to the signage.Approved 6-0,absent Hill,Holle,Kirsh.
A Motion made by Rider and seconded by Zoccola to approve PZ-2021-00247 V contingent upon Engineering
approval.4-2,Grabow,Westermeier,absent Hill,Holle,Kirsh.Motion fails,due to lack of majority
• PZ-2021-00247 V will be heard again at the Apri119, 2022 Plan Commission meeting.
3. Docket No.PZ-2021-00177 CP: Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan Update.
The applicant seeks to update and reformat the Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan.Filed by the Department of
Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission.
Petitioner:Adrienne Keeling,Department of Community Services:
• We had five committee meetings and one public hearing. This will be the seventh meeting in front of the PC
• We conducted an online survey and had several pop-up meetings throughout the City
• Our team have spoken at 14 additional meetings,that included the Cannel Neighborhood Association Network,
Council sponsored Town Hall meetings,HOA meetings,Cannel Small Business Network,One Zone Business
Issues Committee,and Cannel City Council
• With the help of the Community Relations Dept.,we released mailers to over 4,100 email subscribers. The Plan
Commission agendas were sent out to everyone who submitted a letter or comment. Three quarterly print news
mailers were mailed out to approx. 75k addresses.We streamed and recorded all of our meetings and those can be
viewed on the City's social media and website.
• Our Comprehensive Plan will be used by current and future residents
• We are on our 3`d draft of the Comprehensive Plan
• Any City Council amendments will come back to the Plan Commission for review and approval
• Staff recommends the Plan Commission certify the proposed Comprehensive Plan to the City Council
Committee Recap,Christine Zoccola,Chair:
• We spent collectively hundreds of hours reviewing and did,a very through detailed review.In the end we
requested a lot of changes and those are marked in the current draft of the Comp Plan.
• Some changes are not shown. We removed the term"hospitality"in the Estates section. Maps were updated.
• The changes we made were reflective of the comments we received.Generally,the public are supportive of the
traditional neighborhoods,preserving greenspace,and a vibrant urban core.
• We received concerns that the designations of typical corridors would be in high density,and we removed some
of those corridors
• We added in language for tree preservation and incorporated language to preserve greenspace and conservation
6
Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 3-15-22
corridors
Brad: The public hearing was closed at the initial hearing of this docket.Per request,I will ask for a motion to re-open it.
IA Motion by Rider and seconded by Westermeier to suspend the Rules of Procedure to re-open the public hearing
for this item.Approved 6-0,absent Hill,Holle,Kirsh.
Brad: The public hearing will resume. How many are here tonight to state any comments that were not previously
received or given?3 people raised their hands. I will give 4 minutes per speaker.
Public Comments:
Jill Meisenheimer,Williams Mill: I appreciate that each objective was read,and the public was invited for input.After
reading the 3`d draft, it still feels like the single-family homeowners are not valued and not included in this document.The
public is left out in the early decision making by the developers and should be allowed to be more involved. Many of the
comments submitted by the public were not addressed by the Plan Commission.
Nathan Smith,Homeplace: We have invested in this community.We look forward to mindful development. We have
concerns on the drafted Comp Plan of the proposed mobility lane and cycle track on the south side of E. 106th Street,just
east of College Ave.The front yard of these homes along this stretch of 106th Street will be impacted. The proposed
arterial road that would connect E.96th Street from Westfield Blvd to all the way to Pennsylvania Street,would be a
drastic change to the existing neighborhoods along this stretch.
Alison Brown,W.106th Street: There are citizens that do not want the additional growth and taller buildings.There are
limits on growth and we shouldn't push so hard. I have concerns with the loose parameters describing single-family lots.
Committee Comments:
Christine: Can Staff address the comments and concerns stated about 96th& 106th Streets.Adrienne Keeling: The
Imobility and pedestrian lane was a misprint along 106th Street.If the cycle track would be installed, it would be in
sections. It will be all up to the Engineering Department. The 96th street connection mentioned was listed in the C3 plan. It
doesn't show the exact alignment,but the future plan is to make a connection between Westfield Blvd and Penn. Street.
The Engineering Dept.,and any future development would be involved in the planning process of this stretch.
Brad: Was the edit to the maximum height in the downtown area the same to the Monon Urban area?Adrienne Keeling:
It is shown on the Downtown and Downtown West as 6-stories as the max height and 3-stories at intersections. We are
asking you to consider matching this language to the Monon Urban area(page 38). Christine: We had multiple
discussions on the max height since it wasn't specified along the Monon. Brad: It would help with any the deficiencies in
similar development patterns.
Dubbie: I have been following this since you started your review.I have watched all the meetings and read all the recent
letters.I concur the edits that were made.The main concerns that were observed are mixed use and high-density
developments within and nearby established neighborhoods but are fine with this in new developments.Adrienne
Keeling: This Comp Plan acts as a guide for change to new developments and modifications to an existing development.
It's not put forth or needed until there's a proposal brought forward.Kevin: We removed the typical corridors that
specified these concerns.
A Motion made by Westermeier and seconded by Zoccola to certify the Comprehensive Plan to the City Council.
Approved 6-0,absent Hill,Holle,Kirsh.
Meetin Adjourned at 9:18 p.m.
NI9\1 _
Joe S eitak PC Secretary Brad Grabo President
7
Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 3-15-22