HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 08-16-22 `,�ofC t4
/ Gee,.TNE 4,x
Iii Cityof arme
Ft1R 1'(1\I t�RRI K'Iaoinaa
CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 2022 I MEETING MINUTES
Location: Council Chambers Room,2'Floor,Cannel City Hall
Members Present: Brad Grabow(President),Dubbie Buckler,Jeff Hill,Carrie Holle,Joshua Kirsh,Alan Potasnik(Vice),Kevin Rider,
Sue Westermeier,Christine Zoccola
Staff Present:Mike Hollibaugh,Alexia Lopez,Joe Shestak,Rachel Keesling
Legal Counsel:Allison McGrath-Lynch,Sergey Grechukhin
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 Kirsh and seconded by Zoccola to approve the July 19,2022,PC meeting
minutes.Approved 9-0.
Communications,Bills,Expenditures,&Legal Counsel Report: Nothing to report
Reports,Announcements&Department Concerns:Rachel Keesling
1. Outcome of Projects at Committees:
a. Commercial: Cancelled due to no items to review.
b. Residential: Docket No.PZ-2022-00045 DP/ADLS: Jackson's Grant Village Section 2—4-0 favorable
recommendation to the full Plan Commission
2. Tabling of Flora DP/ADLS and Johnson Addition PPA to the September 20th Plan Commission meeting
Public Hearings:
Brad: Explain the Rules of Procedure for a Public Hearing in front of the Plan Commission
1. Docket No.PZ-2022-00117 PUD: 96th and Haverstick PUD Rezone.
The applicant seeks PUD rezone approval to allow a new development consisting of 33 townhomes. The site is
located at the northwest corner of 96th Street and Haverstick Road and is zoned S-2/Residence. Filed by Jim
Shinaver and Jon Dobosiewicz of Nelson&Frankenberger on behalf of Estridge Development Management LLC.
Petitioner: Clint Mitchell,CEO of Estridge Homes:
• With me tonight are Roger Foster,Estridge Homes-Director of Development and Jon Dobosiewicz of Nelson&
Frankenberger.
• Present site location map, 2.7 acres at the northwest corner of 96th Street and Haverstick Road
• We identified this site as an appropriate transition from 96th Street and Keystone Pkwy retail area to a for-sale
townhome development. The townhomes will serve as a buffer to the existing single-family homes in the area.
• Tree preservation is important to us,and a townhome product is the best way to preserve the trees on this site
• Presented a site plan, proposing 33 high quality materials,4-sided architecture,3-story townhomes with
significant landscaping and streetscape. We are proposing to stagger the townhome units along 96th Street.No
garages will face the streets or surrounding single-family homes. The fronts of the townhomes will face 96a' Street
and Wild Cherry Lane.
• 3 floor plans will be available,range from 1,800 sq. ft to 2,100 sq.ft. Each home will have a 2-car garages,with
guest parking.For sale prices will be from the low 500k-to mid 600k. We expect our buyers to be a combination
of different demographics,from young professionals to empty nesters.
• This site does not currently have any designated Tree Preservation Area(TPA) in place and will continue to work
with Staff to preserve as many trees as possible.We will create buffers to the north and west,and areas along 96th
Street and Haverstick Road. We will preserve trees 25-ft off of Wild Chery Lane.
• Presented color renderings of the brownstone townhomes, we will get into the details at the Committee level
1
Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 8-16-22
• We held 2 neighborhood meetings with the adjacent owners. We look forward to hearing the comments at
tonight's hearing before we make any more modifications to our plans.
Public Comments:
Michelle Sapura,Haverstick Rd.: We oppose. It's too dense,and it doesn't fit with surrounding properties. The majority
of the trees on site will be removed. We are not anti-development for this property and are willing to work with Estridge
on a different development.Keep this site as S-2 zoning.
Joyce Sullivan,Chesterton HOA President: We oppose. We want to keep it zone as S-2. A single-family home would not
be built from property line to property line. What is stopping the developer from raising the land on this site?The
townhomes will tower over the adjacent homes. We are being squeezed by development on all sides.
Matthew Pierce,Haverstick Rd.: I oppose. Estridge had a history of filing for bankruptcy, so I have concerns. I haven't
seen a traffic study. I live 5 houses north,and I wasn't notified of any neighborhood meetings with the developers. We
have over 200 signatures from our immediate neighbors for our petition against this development.Presented an image of
Haverstick Road, it has a sharp turn.We are seeing an increase in traffic for this area and it's only going to get worse.
Megan Dobay, Wild Cherry Ln.: We oppose. We are concerned for the two buildings north on the property that will only
be 15-ft from our property.Their balconies will overlook our backyard.There should be a 25-ft buffer along the north side
of this site. We should preserve our established neighborhood,and this is zoned S-2 for a reason.
Nancy Tatum,Lexington Farms: I oppose.Estridge builds beautiful homes,but I would request they move this proposal
to a site that they wouldn't cut down trees.The trees on site are mature and these trees have a high value to wildlife.
Jessica Irvine,99th&Haverstick: I oppose.This area serves as critical habitat for wildlife and increases the quality of
life for residents.As a recent graduate with my master's in environmental policy and an environmental quality
professional, I understand the long-term environmental and economic consequences spaces.
Gordon Goodwin,Haverstick Rd.: I oppose. This 2.5 acre of greenspace absorbs noise pollution from 96th Street and I-
465. This area is a habitat of many species of birds.This greenspace helps with cooling off the temperature. Planting of
small trees takes years to grow and take a long time to reap their benefits.
Julian Sollenskog,Pleasant Way W.: I oppose. I grew up with these woods the developer wishes to destroy. We do not
have much greenspace left.I don't want Cannel to become a concrete jungle.
Cole Alexis,Wild Cherry Lane: I oppose.I have provided you written feedback. I don't believe the developers claim they
have worked with the neighbors for the last 3 months.No information has been shared.4 weeks ago,was the 1st face to
face meeting. We asked them to delay their presentation today, so it would give us time to organize our remonstrance. We
are very upset the way the developer has treated us. They have less than 3 acres for 33 townhomes.
Toby Miller,Pleasant Way W.: I'm not against redevelopment,but I don't think this development fits in our
neighborhood.I'm not sure where the 36-ft eave height is measured from?I think if it was 2-story townhomes,we would
be having a totally different conversation. 3-story doesn't fit for this area. I don't think our neighborhood is adjacent to
intense retail office and multi-family use. The current S-2 has a 35-ft front yard setback,and they are proposing 6-ft.
Jon McFellow,Crestwell Drive: We oppose. We feel different about this area and our homes than what Estridge is
stating. We see deer in our neighborhood,not high density commercial.We want this kept zoned as S-2.
Rebuttal to Public Comments: Jon Dobosiewicz,Nelson&Frankenberger:
• I would encourage everyone to read a copy of the Department Report
• Presents Comprehensive Plan map of 96`"Street and Keystone,the blue area of the subject site represents
commercial areas for future development
• There's a 300-unit apartment complex being developed on the south side 96th Street in this area
• Staff believes this is an appropriate transition from 96th Street
• Estridge has reached out to an adjacent neighbor,Pat Rice,who is a former Plan Commission member
2
Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 8-16-22
• We had a neighborhood meeting a couple weeks ago at the Trustee Township building
• We provided proper public notice per PC Rules of Procedure. Social media has notified many others.
• The deed restrictions for the Wild Cherry Corner unrecorded plat are not applicable to the subject site
Department Report: Alexia Lopez:
• The Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 2009,guides what redevelopment should look like in this corridor.
96th Street and Westfield Blvd. Subarea Plan allows for employment uses along this section of 96th Street,
specifically with 1 to 2 story employment centers,about 2-3 properties deep.
• Staff can be supportive of this PUD Rezone if there is sensitivity to adjacent areas and appropriate transitions with
reasonable tree preservation. We believe townhomes could be a good fit for this site as it would keep a residential
use in this area instead of commercial use.
• The townhomes will be located closer to 96th Street to allow parking to be provided in the rear
• Pedestrian connectivity will be provided by installing a sidewalk path along Haverstick Rd. and Wild Cherry Ln.
• If approved,the Petitioners will have to come back to PC for Development Plan(DP)and ADLS approval
• Foundation plantings and trees will be required.A 15-ft bufferyard/TPA is proposed along the north perimeter,
and Staff has asked for the amount of tree preservation to be increased.
• Staff will continue to review the PUD and work with the Petitioner on review comments
• We have asked them to dedicate the ROW along their street frontage of Wild Cherry Lane,not the entire Lane
• Staff recommends this continued to the Sept. 6 Residential Committee for further review and discussion
Committee Comments:
Christine: I would like to see more TPA in the text of the PUD and where it's going to be. I see landscaping,but it's all
from new plantings.I would want you to go through this site with an Arborist and mark which trees are worth saving.
Bring this tree report to Committee along with an interior landscape plan. I noticed 10 parking spaces along 96th Street and
this might add to the difficulty of traffic.Do you need those 10 spaces?Clint Mitchell: We have had tree preservation
discussions with the neighbors and Staff.Presents the concept plan, the green areas are our TPA's all along the northern
Iborder. Christine: Is that 15-ft?Clint Mitchell: Yes. Christine: That's not enough room. Clint Mitchell: We do show
interior plantings but will show more with our updated plans. We are providing more parking that what is required. We
will work with Staff to figure out what number is needed.Our plan is to work ways to increase the buffer and have more
preservation.Presented a new concept plan that was not included in the public filing, we have eliminated 2 northern
buildings,a total of 4 units,and have increased the TPAs,which provides a larger buffer. Christine: That's definitely a
step in the right direction.Can you bring a tree report to the Committee?I would like to see what trees can be saved.
Jeff: Is this the right use and right location for this proposal?There's a notion that the townhomes are a transitional use,
and a residential use instead of commercial. The reduction of units is positive to see. Trees are definitely a sensitive issue.
Could the underground detention be part of the street system so more trees can be saved at the proposed underground
detention location?I'm confident the City can handle any traffic issues brought on by new development. I think traffic
along 96th Street is much better than what it was years ago due to the upgrades along Keystone Pkwy. The on-street
parking near the roundabout does present a concern to me. It was mentioned this was overparked. What are the parking
requirements?Is this townhome product built somewhere else?Clint Mitchell: Downtown Westfield on Park Street.Half
of them are built. Drive by and see them yourself. We will be adding brick and other features to the side and rear
elevations.Windows will be on every side of our townhome units.Jeff: Would the school buses and garbage trucks drive
into this townhome community?Where would the trash cans be stored?Clint Mitchell: Trash cans will be stored inside,
we will have a centralized gang mailbox for the community,and school will establish a bus stop location.
Carrie: I'm disappointed of the lack of communication between the neighbors and developers. The new concept plan
showed buildings 7& 8 removed. Clint Mitchell:Presented updated Concept Plan, 29 units instead of 33.Buildings 7 &
8 would be removed. Carrie: I would like to see two-story buildings for the buildings adjacent to residential(#9,#6).
Alan: This project needs a definitive tree preservation plan. I need a written plan of what you are going to do.
Communication needs to be done with the adjacent neighbors. Please spell out what you are going to do and bring this to
the Residential Committee.
Dubbie: What's the space difference between the TPA along the northern border from the old concept plan verses the
newly presented plan?Clint Mitchell: It's still 15-ft in some areas,but 60-70-ft now from the property line to the center
buildings.Dubbie: Are you planning to back fill to raise the height of the ground level?Clint Mitchell: We will be under
3
Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 8-16-22
the 35-ft height requirement. The foundation and first level will be a few feet under the grade.
Sue: The vehicular entrance off of 96th Street needs to be evaluated.We need to tighten up the PUD language. Is 75% land
coverage stated to in the PUD?Bring in sight-views from the neighbors to the north. I believe this is a very dense project
and more can be done at the Committee level.
Josh: I am the Park Board appointee to this Commission. I love trees. We have looked at the idea of small pocket parks,
but it is not always viable everywhere.Just remember if you bring in a PUD,we can micro-manage it and make the best
situation. If we could see an exhibit of 4-5 homes of the S-2 zoning,it would be devasting. Take some of the comments
from tonight and use the land as an asset.How high can the height be if we can condense this site.
Brad: Original proposal has 116 parking spaces,and all units have a 2-car garage.How many surfaces spaces will you
have?Is there parking available in front of all the garages?Clint Mitchell: 60 additional to the garage parking. Brad:
This seems very generous for parking.I would rather have TPA than parking spaces. Clint Mitchell: We are looking at all
ways to increase the TPA.
Brad: What does the Comp Plan for Indy call for this area south of 96th street?Alexia Lopez: Office use. Brad: Today,
it looks like some residential and light office commercial uses.
Dubbie: If you can take the northern most units on building 9 and 6,and add them to the units to the east and west,would
this allow you to increase the northern tree line?Clint Mitchell: Those are currently the garage location of those units.
We will look at all of our options for an increase tree buffer.
Brad: I believe these trees are worth saving,we need a tree inventory to let us know. There may be certain areas of this
site that might want to be saved more than the others. Clint Mitchell: We will bring a tree inventory and a written TPA
plan to the Residential Committee meeting.
A Motion made by Kirsh and seconded by Zoccola to send Docket No.PZ-2022-00117 PUD to the Sept.6
Residential Committee with it coming back to the full Plan Commission for final recommendation.Approved 9-0.
2. Docket No.PZ-2022-00118 DP/ADLS: The GOAT.
The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a building addition/remodel on 0.2 acres. The site is located
at 220 2' St. SW in Frank Hawkins Addition Lot 1. The site is zoned B-2 and is within the Old Town Overlay,
Character Sub Area. Filed by Ben Bemis of CEC Inc. on behalf of Kevin Paul,owner.
Petitioner: Dave Coots,Attorney:
• Plan Commission and City Council heard our Rezone petition,and the Council adopted this petition
• One of the commitments is that the design of the building will be what was approved by Council
• B-2 zoning allows 80%lot cover. Our building provides for 25%lot cover,along with sidewalks brings up to
80%. The Old Town Overlay allows 70%lot cover.
• We met with the adjacent neighbor,Mr. Cohen,and agreed to change the western elevation to screen his view of
it from his home
• No additional signs will be proposed
• Per the commitments by City Council,all outdoor sales of alcohol would end at 7pm,with all patrons moved in
by 7:30pm.Hours of operation during Sun.to Thurs. will be until 11:30 p.m.,and Fri., Sat.,and Holidays will be
until 12:30 a.m.,which is consistent with other restaurants in this area.
Petitioner: Dan Moriarity,Architect:
• We had to move the building away from the existing city sewer line adjacent to the Monon
• We are 4'6"off from the west property line and we can move it to meet the 5'setback
• We will add landscaping along the eastern property line.Presented landscape plan
• Presented rendering of the addition and existing building, staff mentioned a flat roof is not allowed in the Old
Town Overlay.We were not aware of that,but we can make the change to not have a flat roof above the
restrooms
• Presented elevations, we met with the neighbor, Mr.Cohen,and he asked us to screen the existing coolers.We
4
Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 8-16-22
will do that and have the screening material the same as the siding.
• Presented the floor plan, we are now showing the new restaurant seating area and bathroom area.
IPublic Comments:
Alison Brown, 106th St.: This is greatly improved since the original proposal. I would ask if they can use solar powered
roof panels
Jane Fleck, 1'St. SW.: I want to say thank you to the petitioners. You have listened to our requests. Is the fence going to
stay? Yes
Mark Mariada,Clark Street: I'm happy this establishment will be open. I would ask for this place to stay open later.
Department Report: Rachel Keesling
• The building design has stayed consistent to the original rezone proposal that was approved earlier this year
• The building footprint has been made smaller due to the storm pipe on the northeast side of this site.More
landscaping can now be placed in this area.
• The Petitioner agreed to no outdoor seating areas. The overhead garage door has been removed from the plans.
• A new floor plan was provided and shows 87 new seats in the addition. 6 new bathroom stalls will be constructed.
• Staff are working through review comments with the Petitioner. Outstanding issues include dumpster screening,
HVAC locations and screening,drainage report,roof design,and north building setback.
• The Old Town Overlay does supersede the B-2 zoning and we would support a variance for additional lot cover
• Staff recommends this is continued to the Sept. 6 Commercial Committee
Committee Comments:
Jeff: Does this solve the bathroom issue?Rachel: This will help immensely by providing the additional installation of 6
bathrooms.Josh: What's the ruling on the number of bathrooms needed for this building?Dan Moriarity: Per
Iinternational plumbing code, 1 fixture per 50 men,and 1 fixture per 35 women. 8 total bathrooms will be enough.Jeff:
During the construction,please position the porta-potties away from the adjacent residential properties.Alan: What is the
actual code for bathrooms?Please bring those numbers to the Committee.
Alan: Are there commitments for trash pickups and deliveries?Dave Coots: We would follow City of Carmel standards.
Kevin Paul,Owner: For food and alcohol deliveries,we would coordinate with the distributors and the nearby
establishments of Social Cantina and Sun King. Trash pickup would be the same schedule as the adjacent residential area
and we also get an additional pickup on Friday, same as Social Cantina and Sun King
Alan: How many entrances are there?David Coots: The main entrance will be the new entrance off the Monon Blvd. The
entrance to the south will be for service,kitchen access,and garbage. The entrances and exits will be away from the
adjacent residential properties.
Brad: Do the 4 bike parking spaces meet the requirements?Rachel: Yes,meets the requirements,and there are additional
parking spaces along the Monon Blvd. from those improvements made in this area.Brad: Is there room add more bike
parking?Kevin Paul: There's room to add 4 more bike racks. Our customers asked to add more,and we will do it.
Kevin: What would a change in a commitment require?Sergey Grechukhin: It would require a public hearing in front of
the Plan Commission and the City Council.
A Motion made by Potasnik and seconded by Hill to send Docket No.PZ-2022-00118 DP/ADLS to the Sept.6
Commercial Committee with it coming back to the full Plan Commission for a final vote. Approved 9-0.
3. TABLED TO SEPT.20: Docket No.PZ-2022-00119 DP/ADLS: Flora on Spring Mill.
5
Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 8-16-22
4. TABLED TO SEPT.20: Docket No.PZ-2022-00121 PPA: Johnson Addition,Replat Lots 29 and 30.
Old Business
Docket No.PZ-2022-00045 DP/ADLS:Jackson's Grant Village Section 2.
The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for 52 townhomes and an amenity building on 8.83 acres. The
site is located at the NW corner of 116th Street and Springmill Road. It is zoned Jackson's Grant Village PUD
(Ordinance Z-653-20). Filed by Douglas Wagner with Republic Development LLC.
Petitioner: Doug Wagner
• Presented site plan, Section 2 includes the townhomes and clubhouse facility on the 8.8 acres
• Presented a rendering of the 5-unit townhomes, we added windows to the rear elevations
• Presented a rendering of the 4-unit townhomes, we added variation to the front doors and windows
• Presented renderings of the 3-unit townhomes, we broke up the side elevation by adding and revising the
windows and we also added windows to the rear elevation,per Staffs recommendation
• Presented color palettes, we will now provide 5 different color palettes
• Presented the landscape plan, we have provided enough trees per the PUD requirements. One additional tree has
been added in the rear of each corner of each unit
• Provided a parking summary of the Jackson Grant Village (JGV), 210 spaces are required per the PUD,and we
will provide 283 parking spaces that does not include on-street parking,2 car garages and 2 driveway spaces for
the 19 single-family homes
• We have committed to install"no parking"signs along the alleys in the rears of the townhomes
• We have had problems with nine Jackson's Grant(JG)homeowners violating the Tree Preservation Area(TPA)
and I have been working the Urban Forester since June to help resolve these issues. We want to see compliance
and have issues letters to these violators. The worst violator has taken steps to become closer to compliance.
• We have committed to installing TPA signs in the JGV and JG along the TPAs. We worked with the Urban
Forester on the language being used on these signs.
Residential Committee Recap: Sue Westemeier,Chair:
• The Petitioner came prepared to each committee meeting and made changes per our requests.
Department Report: Alexia Lopez:
• The Petitioner has made the changes requested by Staff and the Committee.They have addressed all comments.
• The Concept Plan meets the requirements of the PUD
• We have asked them to add a sidewalk along Springmill Road and they agreed
• We are asking for the Commission to approve this DP/ADLS at tonight's meeting
Jeff: Is this parking restriction needed?Doug Wagner: In the single-family side no restriction is needed. The townhome
side needs parking restrictions. We calculated around 40 on-street parking spots.
Josh: Thank you for the explanation of the steps taken to get JG into compliance for the TPA violators.
A Motion made by Rider and seconded by Holle to approve PZ-2022-00045 DP/ADLS. Approved 9-0.
Meeting adjourned at 8:31 p.m.
?f"' -I
Joe estak PC Secretary Brad Grabow President
6
Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 8-16-22