Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 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