Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 05-17-22 ( KI:,i,1 ' ,':, i Co armeI ,...A.p,(W CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2022 I MEETING MINUTES Location: Council Chambers Room,2nd Floor,Carmel City Hall Members Present: Brad Grabow(President),Dubbie Buckler,Jeff Hill,Carrie Holle,Joshua Kirsh,Alan Potasnik,Kevin Rider,Sue Westermeier,Christine Zoccola Staff Present: Mike Hollibaugh,Rachel Keesling,Alexia Lopez,Joe Shestak Legal Counsel:Jon Oberlander,Allison Lynch-Mcgrath Time of Meeting:6:00 PM Declaration of Quorum:President Grabow: 9 members present,we have a Quorum Approval of Meeting Minutes:A Motion made by Rider and seconded by Zoccola to approve the April 19,2022, PC meeting minutes.Approved 9-0. Communications,Bills,Expenditures,&Legal Counsel Report: 1. TABLED TO JUNE 21 -Plan Commission Resolution PC-04-19-22-a: CRC Res.2022-3 created a new "Michigan Road Economic Development Area"and Allocation Area and approved an Economic Development Plan for the area. Reports,Announcements&Department Concerns: Rachel Keesling: 1. Outcome of Projects at Committees: a. Commercial: Docket No.PZ-2022-00001 DP/ADLS: Culver's—Fay.Rec. to May 17 Plan Commission b. Residential: Cancelled due to no items to review. Public Hearings: Brad: Explained the Rules of Procedure for a public hearing in front of the Plan Commission(PC). 1. Docket No.PZ-2022-00025 PPA: Five-Ten Subdivision Amendment. 2. Docket No.PZ-2022-00053 SW: Five-Ten Subdivision Street Frontage Waiver-UDO Sec.7.17.A: Lots shall have direct access to a public street,Access from an alley and an access easement requested. The applicant seeks primary plat amendment approval to reconfigure 2 lots and 2 blocks into 3 lots on 1.95 acres. The applicant also seeks a design standards waiver to allow to 2 new lots to be created that front on the Monon Greenway instead of a street. The site is located at 510 1'Avenue NW and is zoned R2/Residence within the Old Town Overlay Zone and Monon Overlay Zone.Filed by Tom Lazzara of Custom Living. Petitioner: Tom Lazzara: • Over the past year I've worked with the previous property owners(Schwartz)of 510 1"Ave NW,Cannel Planning Staff,Hamilton County Drainage Board,and Cannel Fire Department(CFD) • In 2000 the Schwartz family purchased their home. In 2001 they submitted a plat to isolate the parcel with the carriage house on the property.The Schwartz then sold their property to me(petitioner). • Presented aerial view of subject site, the J.W.Morrow drain line ran through the property.Part of the process in purchasing this property,I worked with the Schwartz family to have this drain line moved so this property could be redeveloped. • When the new custom home at 430 1s'Ave NW was built,the J.W.Morrow drain line was redirected towards the Monon.In Nov.2021,the Hamilton Co.Drainage Board vacated this section of the J.W.Morrow drain line, which allowed us to redevelop the subject site, if the Plan Commission approves this Primary Plat Amendment. • I've had discussions with CFD Captain Ellison. He advised us to install a fire hydrant that could service the two new rear parcels. The newly added fire hydrant can also service the recent built homes built in this area. 1 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 5-17-22 • The reason for the 20-ft private drive is so the fire ladder truck can successfully make the radius turn • Part of the development would incorporate a 15-ft easement along the south property line of Lot 3 for water, sewer,and electric.This would avoid any interruption of services to the nearby neighbors. • We designed a dry swell for drainage purposes,and are working on approvals by the Cannel Engineering Dept. • Our goal is to build two custom homes on this subject site. We have clients that have requested for us to build at this location in Cannel. • A lot of redevelopment has occurred along the Monon Trail in the last 20 years.Presented aerial of homes that were newly constructed custom homes or remodeled/expanded. Our goal is to continue the change that is happening in downtown Cannel. Public Comments: Bill Horton,430 lit Ave NW: We are against this development. The reason why this lot was undevelopable because there are commitments and deed restrictions in place to prevent any development of this land.We don't see any reason why this should be changed. To add two more house off of dead-end and narrow alley wouldn't be safe.Adding two houses would be adding 4-6 more cars to this area and that would create more traffic and congestion. Terry Anderson,440 1 St Ave NW: I don't want to see people coming in and out at all hours of the night from this alley. I don't see any reason why this 2001 deed restriction should be changed. Toby Holcomb, 140 4th St.NW: How will fire truck gain access and maneuver to the newly developed home on the north side of this development?I have concerns about the traffic. We only have a 20-ft wide road and alley. If families move in at the subject site,it will be a nightmare trying to get around. Rebuttal to Public Comments: Tom Lazzara: • The owner at 430 1"t Ave NW requested the same access waiver since the homeowners gains access off the alley and does not have street frontage.They want to restrict a neighbor to have the same opportunity as they do. • In 2011,the parcel at 430 1"Ave NW was separated from the Kings Subdivision so a single-family home could be built there. We are requesting the same thing for two single-family homes. • The JW Marrow drain line was redirected for their newly constructed home at 430 1st Ave NW in 2011 • We had lengthy discussions with the CFD and Engineer Department so that a fire ladder truck can safely maneuver in the subject private alley • Cars have the ability to move around and pull out of this 20-ft wide alley.It's just like the same situation for other areas of downtown Cannel where the homes have alley access. • We are continuing the characteristics of downtown Cannel and have received support from Planning Staff Department Report:Alexia Lopez: • This subdivision was originally created in 2001,and it included 2 lots and 2 blocks. It was created because there were 2 homes on 1 lot and the owner wanted to have each home on its own lot so it could be sold separately.At that time,the owner agreed to put a restriction on the plat that the Monon adjacent lots cannot be built on since they don't have access from a public street. • The proposed PPA will remove the restriction and create 3 lots total,with 2 of them being along the Monon • The 2 lots along the Monon will meet the requirements of the Monon Overlay and be in similar size to surrounding properties • The new homes will have to follow the architecture standards of the Old Town Overlay • The waiver will allow the homes to have frontage along the Monon • The Engineering Dept.requested a drainage report and will review it before they can approve the plat amendment • Staff recommends that this is continued to the June 7 Residential Committee with the Committee having final voting authority. Committee Comments: Brad: Since the deed restriction was never recorded,there's nothing to be addressed from a deed standpoint?Jon Oberlander,City Legal Dept.: Correct.Brad: This restriction was solely shown on the 2001 plat,and any approval for this PPA request would remove this legend from the plat? Jon Oberlander: Correct. 2 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 5-17-22 Christine: We received letters about the requirements to vacate the existing plat and we are not doing this process. Instead,we need to amend the plat. So,are all the suggestions to vacate the plat are not applicable?Jon Oberlander: Since the deed restrictions were not listed on the actual deed it does not apply to this case. The Legal Dept.can follow up Iwith a formal opinion to this in writing prior to the June 7 Residential Committee meeting. Kevin: We should always consider the intent of the deed restrictions,whether it was recorded or not.Jon Oberlander: Intent is very important.Kevin: If we are expanding the alley to 20-ft,how will the car lights that will point directly at Mr.Anderson's home while traveling on this alley affect his home?I would like this to come back to PC for a fmal vote. Jeff: I want to make sure the Committee explores all options for the possibility of a public road and not a private alley. Josh: Who's obligation was it to record the deed restrictions?Jon Oberlander: Generally,the property owner does this. Josh: Is this a 20-ft or 10-ft alley?Tom Lazzara: We will be using the existing alley and we would be providing a 20-ft private drive access off of it. The traffic lights from cars traveling on this alley would shine towards the Monon.Josh: Why not build a 20-ft alley at the location off the historic home site(500 1S`Ave NW)to feed the proposed lots along the Monon?Tom Lazzara: The existing alley is a public drive,and our access point off of this is more fitting. We can maintain the existing utilities and the historic property can keep its original character and street frontage.It's one of the original farmhouses in Cannel. We considered of having this access but based on this farmhouse's history,the architectural interest of this home,and discussions with Staff,we believe these two new homes would not negatively affect this existing public alley. Josh: I recall a map presented to the PC years ago that this area along the Monon was not to be developed.Alexia Lopez: It was labeling the Monon Greenway Overlay,but it didn't restrict single-family homes in this area. It restricted certain heights and largely dense developments.Josh: If you can find this map,bring it to Committee. Brad: I believe the existing line on this map was labeling the existing tree canopy to be preserved. ISue: Mr.Horton stated,the 2011 Deed Restriction to not to build at this location was confirmed by the Plan Commission? Christine: It was confirmed by an email sent by Planning Staff that the deed restriction is still in place. Alan: Did you discuss this with the CFD at TAC?Or were these private conversations?Tom Lazzara: It was an email conversation between Captain Ellison and me.Alan: Did the Cannel Police Department(CPD)state any concerns about the access?Tom Lazzara: We were told that only the CFD would have restrictions about the access.Alan: How long is the 10-ft wide existing public alley?Tom Lazzara: About 170-ft.,then we would construct a 20-ft wide private alley to gain access to the two new proposed homes.Alan:Are there any concerns about the existing 10-ft wide 170-ft private alley?Tom Lazzara: The neighbors at 420 131 Ave NW installed a 3-car wide driveway apron that would break up this segment of alley.The neighbors at 430 1 SI Ave NW share a short length of this alley. Alan: Can Staff explain the Deed Restriction?Alexia Lopez: I looked at the meeting minutes from 2001.The neighbors stated they didn't want homes built here and the property owners stated they weren't planning on building here, so they put a building restriction on these vacant lots. There was also a 150-ft drainage easement, so most of it was unbuildable. Alan: What has changed since then?Alexia Lopez: The legal drain is no longer there,and we have seen a lot more development in this area. Staff thinks this proposal fits the character of the Old Town and Monon Overlay. Brad: Is the easement still part of the plat?Alexia Lopez: Yes,but the proposed replat would remove the drainage easement Brad: The easement is 90%of the entire lot. Since the drain line has been rerouted,the easement is no longer necessary.Alexia Lopez: Other lots in this area had to do the same thing by removing the easement from their replat. Josh: Did the homeowners at 430 1"Ave NW know the drainage line was here at the time of construction?Alexia Lopez:I'm not sure. Josh: My experience in this area is that we have discovered drain lines once the digging occurred. ITom Lazzara:Presented Kings Subdivision replat, the 75-ft easement is shown on the plat.Josh: Ok,so they knew of the drain line before construction. Tom Lazzara: We did a telescopic scope to look for any existing drain tile in this area and found some collapsed drain lines from the tree roots. Kevin: When the City did a replat in 2001,why weren't we responsible to make sure this got recorded.Jon Oberlander: 3 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 5-17-22 The plat was recorded.Kevin: How did the deed restrictions not get recorded?Jon Oberlander: The restrictions are on the plat but didn't getting placed in the deed. This is why this is complicated. Christine: Everyone was aware of these deed restrictions. People bought their homes on the knowing these lots were undevelopable.I'm uncomfortable with allowing this. Can the Petitioner bring their landscape plan and tree preservation area(TPA)to the Committee? Carrie: If the deed restrictions were actually recorded on the deed,how would this process work?Jon Oberlander: There would be statutory provisions that were mentioned before would have to be followed. There are deed restrictions as part of the plat. Dubbie: Does a recorded plat trump a recorded deed?Or does a recorded deed trump a recorded plat?Jon Oberlander: The point of both is to provide notice to protentional buyers. It's an interesting case,and I'll do more research and have a memo written for the Residential Committee. Alexia Lopez: To remove a deed restriction,does someone else need approval besides the owners of the land?Jon Oberlander: I'll look into that. Jeff: Is there some of sort of access easement to the lot with the carriage house? Tom Lazzara: Currently there's not a formal access easement,but there's an existing gravel drive. A Motion made by Hill and seconded by Zoccola to send Docket Nos. PZ-2022-0002.5 PPA and PZ-2022-00053 SW to the June 7 Residential Committee with the full Plan Commission having final approval. Approved 9-0. 3. Tabled to June 21-Docket No.PZ-2022-00045 DP/ADLS:Jackson's Grant Village Section 2. site:.. lee..ted„t the N-W a of 1 1 6th . Old Business 4. Docket No.PZ-2022-00001 DP/ADLS: Culver's. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for new Culver's restaurant. The site is located at 431 E.Cannel Drive. It is zoned B-8/Bus.and is not located in any overlay zone. Filed by Bob Goins of K&J Inv.XVL,LLC. Petitioner:Jim Shinaver,Nelson&Frankenberger: • Present with me tonight are the petitioner and project engineer • Presented aerial view of the site location • Presented site plan, it was fully reviewed by Staff and the Commercial Committee. We recently received approval of the landscape plan from the Urban Forester • Presented the Landscape Plan, Elevations, • Modifications were done to the tower elements,roof line,and color schemes • Presented illustrations of the menu board • We will contribute money to the Non-Reverting Thoroughfare Fund for the construction of the multi-use path along Cannel Drive. Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • Staff is pleased with all the changes and modifications that were made • Urban Forester has approved the landscape plan • The Petitioners will contribute into the Non-Reverting Throughfare Fund for the future construction of the multi- use path along the street frontage • Staff recommends approval contingent upon the monetary commitment to the Non-Reverting Thoroughfare Fund and to finalize their review process on ProjectDox Commercial Committee Recap,Alan Potasnik,Chair: • We worked on the design of the menu board base,the restaurant's entrance,and setback of the columns 4 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 5-17-22 • We went over the drive-thru canopy and one of the concerns is that traffic would stack up to Cannel Drive.We made sure that no advertising will be allowed on the canopy,columns,or menu board • The monument sign will not be electronic,and instead they will have a manual change sign ICommittee Comments: Christine: Did Engineering look over the design of the crosswalk at the entrance of the parking lot?Will it be raised?Jim Shinaver: Engineering reviewed it and had no concerns with the function,design,or alignment of the entrance. A Motion made by Kirsh and seconded by Rider to approve PZ-2022-00001 DP/ADLS. Approved 9-0. 5. 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(236 units).The site is located at 11335 N.Michigan Road. It is zoned B-3Business&Residential and is located within the US 421 Overlay zone. Filed by Ryan Wells of REI Real Estate Services,LLC. Petitioner:Jon Dobosiewicz: • Present tonight are Ryan Wells and Rick Lawrence • Altum's Landscape Nursey business recently occupied this site and left this site last year • Variance requests for this site will be heard at the May 23 BZA meeting • The Commitments placed on this site in 1988 requires approval of the proposed use of multi-family use from the Plan Commission • The updated site plan now shows the four 2-story buildings will be located closer to the adjacent residential properties,and the six 3-story buildings will be located interior of the site and adjacent to the commercial outlots • Building 7 was repositioned to provide more screening to adjacent neighbors to the south • A traffic impact study indicated that a traffic light should be placed on Michigan Road at the intersection of the entrance drive,and this is supported by INDOT • We will provide an outdoor dog park,pool,park benches,a trail around the pond,and a fishing pier at the pond • An 8-ft cedar with brick columns privacy fence will be placed on our property around the site perimeter that is adjacent to residential properties • Building architecture now conforms to meet the standards of the Federal style architecture • Brick coverage on the buildings was increased to 90%masonry and stone and we now meet the requirements of the US 421 Overlay • Eight 6-bay car garages will be located internally throughout the site • A/C and mechanical units will be placed on the roof-tops of the buildings and will be screened from view • Unique feature of building 2 will have glass doors and windows that will face the pool • Presented landscape plan, it was approved by the Urban Forester and fully complies with the UDO • 20-25-ft tree preservation area(TPA)along the property line of the existing trees will be provided,and we have worked with the Urban Forester on this • The landscape buffer yards exceeds the requirements of the UDO in regard to buffer widths,TPA,and the addition of the 8-ft screened fence • The closest building setback from the property line is 52-ft • Presented illustration of the privacy fence, Staff advised the Petitioner that vinyl fencing is not allowed for this location,so we will provide an 8-ft privacy fence of cedar plank with masonry columns located every 26-ft. • Over the past several months,the applicant continued to work with Staff and the Commercial Committee to address outstanding items.The Commercial Committee voted 3-0 with a positive recommendation. Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • We have been working on this project over the last nine months.The Petitioner did a great job in summarizing all the changes that were done. • The commitments placed on this site in 1988,gives the Plan Commission authority to approve or deny the proposed multi-family use • The Petitioner has proposed a list of uses that would not be allowed for the commercial outlots that have been proposed as a part of the overall development plant. The list can be seen in the info packet. 5 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 5-17-22 • The design of the buildings now comply with the US 421 Overlay requirements • The buffer yard setback along the adjacent residential properties exceeds the standards • They will enhance the buffer yards and have changed the materials of the 8-ft fence and will remain within their property lines so the existing trees and plants can remain • Variances for parking spaces, lot area, lot coverage,building height,facade offsets,and rear yard building setbacks will be heard by the BZA on May 23 • They will expand and enhance the existing pond and provide additional trees for buffering • Access connection points will be provided to the east and south • Staff recommends positive consideration contingent upon the variance BZA approvals and recording of the commitments for the uses of the commercial outlots Commercial Committee Recap,Alan Potasnik,Chair: • The Petitioner and Staff did a great job recapping our progress with this project. I have nothing else to add. Committee Comments: Brad: Will the PC resend and adopt,or amend the 1988 Commitments for this property?Jon Dobosiewicz: The commitment we are making conforms to the 1988 commitment.The new commitment will list the additional uses that we wouldn't allow. We wouldn't replace the existing 1988 commitments but add to them. Brad: Is this the DP/ADLS approval for the entire residential site,but not for the commercial outlots?Rachel Keesling: They would have to come back for a DP/ADLS amendment for any development of the two outlots.Jon Dobosiewicz: That's consistent to the requirements,and we would come back for any proposals for the commercial uses.Brad: Landscaping is shown on the outlots 1 and 2. Their plans now wouldn't be amended when they come back?Rachel Keesling: Correct. If they were change anything,they would need to request that change to the Plan Commission. Sue: The outlots will come back for Plan Commission approval?Rachel Keesling: Yes, it would be a public hearing. Sue: Were the excluded uses examined?How were they decided?Alan: Staff helped us out.Rachel Keesling: The Petitioner provided feedback. The list of excluded uses are included in their info packet. Sue: We received a letter from a townhome owner to the south to ask the Petitioner to extend the fence along the southern perimeter adjacent to the existing preschool. Jon Dobosiewicz: We can commit to extend the fence,but please advise us where you want us to extend the fence? Sue: I would recommend extending to the western end of the Building 9 and place near the rear property line of the preschool.Dubbie: I would agree to extend the fence beyond the preschool.Jon Dobosiewicz: We will extend the fence and confirm with Staff on the location of the fence.Alan: I'm seeing a problem with extending the fence if there's a 6-ft privacy fence already there for the preschool's playground.Dubbie: I walked this property;I would like to see the fence extended to the daycare playground fence. Christine: Are there any mature trees worth saving instead of extending this fence?Jon Dobosiewicz: Yes,there are mature trees in this area. Sue: What kind of fence is the playground fence at the preschool?Jon Dobosiewicz: It's a 6-ft solid fence. I think it was placed here because it was adjacent to the back of house area of Altum's. Sue: I would retract my previous statement since the playground already has a fence,we don't need to extend the subject site's fence.Dubbie: There's a break in the fence line,and I would suggest extending the fence whereas needed, so people can't cut through.Jon Dobosiewicz: We can commit to extend the fence between 50-ft to 150-ft and keep in mind to preserve the existing landscaping and trees. Christine: Is it possible to have a beautiful tree lined boulevard and plantings along the main access/entrance road?Jon Dobosiewicz: We can update our landscape plans to reflect this. Jeff: I feel this project is too dense to me,but I like the changes. I would like to hear the hardships of the variances.Can we eliminate a building and add parking?I believe the use is the right fit,but it's too dense. Christine: I share the same concerns as Jeff,and I think this is the right use,but more work needs to be done.I believe it can use more landscaping in the interior of the site.Jon Dobosiewicz: We will add more trees along the access road.Native plantings will be placed around the pond area and additional building base landscaping that you don't see in our exhibits.Josh: Will the mature trees along the northern property line stay?Jon Dobosiewicz: Yes. The fence will be placed within our property and within the existing tree line. Brad: Where are the exhibits of the detailed landscaped plan?Jon Dobosiewicz: The detailed landscape plan is provided behind tab 20. We provided a supplemental landscape plan 10 days ago and it shows the final landscape plan. 6 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 5-17-22 Rachel Keesling: In general,the PC is deciding if this use and plan is good as presented. It will be up to the BZA to determine the density,parking reduction,lot coverage,and other variance items. The Petitioner will need to come back to Ithe PC if the BZA does not approve one of the variance petitions.Jon Oberlander: The PC approval would be conditional upon BZA approval of all the variances as presented. Carrie: I'm struggling with this project as a whole. I'm uneasy of the overall use. I think this makes sense as residential, but I'm struggling with the multi-family and apartments adjacent to the single-family neighborhood. The project looks a lot better when it first came through.Kevin: It would be unlikely that a single-family neighborhood would be built next to commercial uses and Michigan Road. This is a transitional area and use. Carrie: I totally agree with that,but can we propose something that is less dense, like townhomes? Jeff: When the traffic signal be installed?Jon Dobosiewicz:It would be at the discretion of the State approval.We would want it as early as possible.We would want the traffic light operating prior to any of our residents moving in. Josh: What would someone be looking at as they are leaving the mortuary chapel located just north of outlot#1,since the privacy fence will not be located in this area.Jon Dobosiewicz: They will eventually be viewing the side of the newly developed commercial outlot area.Rachel Keesling: The architecture of these commercial buildings would be subjective to the US 421 overlay standards,additional landscaping,and have detailed 4-sided architecture.Jon Dobosiewicz: REI has advised me that they are willing to extend the privacy fence west to provide additional buffer if the adjacent property owner of the mortuary requests this fence to be placed here. A Motion made by Rider and seconded by Potasnik to approve PZ-2021-00205 DP/ADLS conditional upon BZA Variance approvals,the privacy fence is extended along the south perimeter,and that the excluded uses of the commercial outlets be added to the 1988 commitments. Denied 4-5,Buckler,Hill,Holle,Kirsh,Zoccola. I A Motion made by Kirsh and seconded by Hill to deny PZ-2021-00205 DP/ADLS. Approved 5-4,Potasnik,Grabow,Westermeier,Rider. Meeting Adjourned at 8:17 p.m. g ,. --2,9)011::>„ <z-,,i.),i5q - _____ Joe Shes PC Secretary Brad Grabow President I Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 5-17-22