Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 09-20-22 G`��OFcA „MRTNEgyy, Y City \ .::%ii.1:1- ,) of C NDIAN% CA IVIEL PLAN COMMISSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2022 I MEETING MINUTES Location: Council Chambers Room,2'd Floor,Cannel City Hall Members Present: Brad Grabow(President),Dubbie Buckler,Jeff Hill,Carrie Holle,Joshua Kirsh,Alan Potasnik(Vice), Sue Westermeier,Christine Zoccola Members Absent: Kevin Rider(virtual participant) Staff Present: Mike Hollibaugh,Alexia Lopez,Rachel Keesling,Adrienne Keeling,Joe Shestak Legal Counsel:Allison McGrath-Lynch, Sergey Grechukhin Time of Meeting: 6:00 PM Declaration of Quorum:President Grabow: 8 members present,we have a Quorum.Mr.Rider is participating virtually. Approval of Meeting Minutes:A Motion made by Zoccola and seconded by Kirsh to approve the August 16,2022,PC meeting minutes.Approved 8-0,absent Rider. Communications,Bills,Expenditures,&Legal Counsel Report: Nothing to report Reports,Announcements&Department Concerns:Rachel Keesling 1. Outcome of Projects at Committees: a)Commercial: Docket No.PZ-2022-00118 DP/ADLS: The GOAT-4-0 favorable recommendation to the full Plan Commission b)Residential: PZ-2022-00117 PUD: 96th and Haverstick PUD Rezone-Tabled to Thursday,Oct. 6 Public Hearings: Brad: Explain the Rules of Procedure for a Public Hearing in front of the Plan Commission 1. Docket No.PZ-2022-00119 DP/ADLS: Flora on Spring Mill. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a residential neighborhood consisting of 12 brownstones, 12 two-family homes, 10 single-family homes,and 86 townhomes on 18.31 acres. The site is located at 9950 Spring Mill Rd.and is zoned Flora PUD,Ordinance Z-676-22. Filed by Jim Shinaver and Jon Dobosiewicz of Nelson& Frankenberger on behalf of Pittman Partners,Inc. and Onyx and East,LLC. Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewicz,Nelson&Frankenberger: • Presented site location map • Our site plan will fully comply with the components of the Flora PUD Ordinance • Presented an illustrated site plan, includes greenspace,common areas,tree preservation area(TPA),pedestrian walkways throughout the site,and vehicular access will be from the existing roundabout • Presented illustrated site plan with the building types, this development will contain single-family homes, brownstones,two-family homes,and townhomes • Presented landscape plan, we will be including TPA along the northside, Springmill Road,and I-465 • Sound reinforcement measures will be included on the residential dwellings adjacent to I-465 Public Comments: Mark Magda,City Center Drive: I'm against this development.Too dense and will create more traffic.I'm worried about the type of building materials being used. Please use environmentally friendly building materials and solar panels. Angelo Tatilo, 146th&US 31: I'm against this development.The woodland report identified the mature woodlands that complies with the City of Cannel's Green-Initiative Plan.The soil erosion to Williams Creek can be a concern.In Dec. 2021, Indiana transitioned from Rule 5 detailing how builders must protect soil erosion during construction.The new permitting process is a performance-based regulation.A storm water pollution prevention plan(SWPPP)is required.I 1 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 9-20-22 don't know if they actually visit and implement the plan. How will the project site owner hold the evacuation company accountable to comply with the SWPPP? Jennifer Christie,lives down the road: I work for the Indiana Forest Alliance. The project of this scope will change this community forever and should have required more public notice than the bare minimum.We are taking out a century old forest and currently protects the community from all the noise and pollution from I-465.The residents of Hussey Lane were not notified,and this is their backyard.It doesn't make any sense for cutting down a century old forest since we are experiencing a climate crisis. Cannel doesn't have many forests left. Nancy Tatum,Lexington Farms: Impact of this project on the wildlife will be devasting. They will not be able to survive. I'm asking to keep this area as natural as possible.I'm asking the Commission to require a nature and forest study of this area. Show us evidence that Cannel will abide by the Climate-Action Plan. Jill Meisenheimer,Williams Creek: We are not providing enough space for nature.This PUD crams housing that is 3 times greater than what is allowed. The wooded site has a few adjacent neighbors.The PUD only asks for a 15-ft tree buffer along 465 and 10-ft along Spring Mill Road. Only 3 City Counselors voted against this PUD. Planting new trees will not solve the removal of the mature trees. Mark Douglas,Eden Glen: I'm not anti-development,but what has prompted me to come tonight, is what is happening at 161St and US 31. They eliminated an entire forest. What is Cannel going to look like in 5-10 years?The pace of development has really picked up in the last few years. We need an environmental component built in our redevelopment process and to keep the Climate-Action Plan into consideration. Rebuttal to Public Comments:Jon Dobosiewicz: • Building materials used are vetted through the Cannel Ordinances and there are architecture requirements that are established by the PUD • SWPPPs are enforced by Cannel Engineering Dept. We have obligations to comply with Cannel's requirements. • All public notice requirements were met by the Plan Commission's Rules of Procedure • We spent several Committee meetings during the Rezone process determining tree preservation Department Report: Alexia Lopez • This PUD rezone was recently approved by the Cannel City Council and will contain 120 residential dwellings • The proposed site plan is in line with concept plan that was approved with the PUD • The PUD requires 25%minimum open space,with 20%being TPA,that equals around 3 acres of TPA • 15-ft tree preservation buffer is required along I-465 according to the PUD • Proposed elevations are in line with the PUD,and we are still making reviews on some of the building elevations • We will continue to work through the outstanding comments with the Petitioner • Staff recommends this is continued to the Oct. 6 Residential Committee for further review Committee Comments: Dubbie: I live close to this site. When I moved here 22 years ago,there was a dense tree line along I-465. The trees provided a sound barrier.Then IPL came along and removed a lot of trees due to the overhead powerlines. We are on INDOT's long-range plan for a sound barrier wall along I-465. I have great concerns about the density and the removal of the existing forest. Christine: The SW corner of this site was supposed to be preserved as greenspace and limited TPA. I see some structures here now.Did this area change?Jon Dobosiewicz: This area was labeled as limited TPA. We will be installing a retaining wall,and because of grading issues,trees could not be preserved.I will ask my team to relook at this area to see if any additional trees can be preserved. Jeff: For the TPA that could be done along I-465,and the future widening of I-465,will some trees be removed because of this?If so,how much of the TPA would be affected?Can you confirm that 40 MPH is safe for the round-a-bout entrance?Jon Dobosiewicz: There have been some changes to the entry plan, so I will reconfirm with Cannel Engineering. 2 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 9-20-22 Josh: I'm not aware of any long-term plans for a sound barrier wall along I-465. When is this going to happen?Dubbie: We are on their long-range plan,20 years or more. When the trees were removed by IPL along 1-465,we lost that natural sound and pollution barrier.It's really loud now. 111 Josh: Can you bring the percentage of trees that the property owner had a tree logging company remove in the last year or so?Jon Dobosiewicz: We can bring those numbers to Committee. Josh: The Plan Commission is an advisory board to the City Council(CC).We advise what is the best product for a piece of land. I would like to see the stormwater plan and SWPPP.I want to see comparison of what it would look like for a S-2 verses a PUD. Bring an exhibit to show what is private streets and public ROW.I would like to see visitor parking remain as visitor parking and not for someone who wants to store a bunch of stuff in their garage. Can you provide Visitor Only Parking type signage?Brad: Explore this further but not to the detriment of creating empty islands of asphalt if no one is using the visitor parking. Christine: Isn't it specified in the PUD that residents cannot convert their garage space to storage space?Jon Dobosiewicz: This is specified in the PUD as a zoning requirement. Carrie: How far is the crushed stone walking path by the pond going into the existing trees?Jon Dobosiewicz: It will not go into the forest but run close to the pond. Carrie: Can you bring in physical examples of color pallets to the Committee?Jon Dobosiewicz:Yes. Alan: Is this site designated as a forest?If so,what is the definition and are there any restrictions for forests per the Ordinance?Similar to what federal laws mandates for certain waterways. Has a species inventory been done?Jon Dobosiewicz: We will work with Planning Staff on your questions. Brad: For the on-street parking on the main street,along the pond,if those parking spaces are still necessary,what would be the variance needed for the removal of the required parking spaces and to preserve more existing trees if possible.Jon Dobosiewicz: The last exhibit in the info packet has our parking exhibit and refers to our on-street parking spaces. We are meeting the minimum requirement of parking spaces. IA Motion made by Hill and seconded by Zoccola to continue PZ-2022-00119 DP/ADLS to the Oct. 6 Residential Committee,with the full Plan Commission having the final voting authority. Approved 8-0,absent Rider. Commissioner Zoccola has recused herself from PZ-2022-00147 OA due to a conflict of interest. 2. Docket No.PZ-2022-00147 OA: Legacy PUD Amendment. The applicant seeks approval to amend the Legacy PUD text in order to increase the number of permitted units in the PUD and increase the number of apartments permitted. The site is located southwest of 146th Street and Community Drive. It is zoned Legacy PUD Z-501-07 as amended. Filed by Nelson&Frankenberger,LLC on behalf of Advenir Oakley Development,LLC. Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewicz,Nelson&Frankenberger: • Presented Site Location Map, We are proposing to amend portions of the Legacy PUD to construct a unique residential community to be known as"LEO Living Cottages and Multi-Family" • The subject site consists of approx. 32 acres, and is located south of and adjacent to 146th Street and west of and adjacent to Community Drive • Legacy PUD was approved by CC in Jan. 2007 and amended one time in Dec.2018 • LEO cottages community will be a single-family-rental and traditional multi-family development with a focus on the new urbanism principle of walkability,incorporating pedestrian-friendly features that foster connectivity • This will consist of 230 single-family attached and detached rental homes,and 120 traditional garden-style apartments available in 1,2,and 3-bedroom residences located in 3 buildings adjacent to Community Drive • Presented Site Zoning Map and Use Blocks, Permitted uses in the office use block include office and parking structure uses.We will provide example site plan how this would be developed for just the office use block at Committee. • Original Legacy PUD permitted a max of 1,344 dwelling units, including a specific max number of permitted attached dwellings and apartment units. The 2018 amendment reduced the max allowed to 1,250 dwelling units. • Our proposed number of dwellings shall not exceed 350 dwellings(230 sf attached and detached, 120 apartments) 3 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 9-20-22 • 60-ft, 5-story buildings are currently allowed in this section of the PUD,and our proposal is completely different • A traffic study analysis has been done to show the difference between office use(currently allowed)and residential uses(proposed uses) • Architecture will be similar to what is already in Legacy. Images are shown in our info packet(Tab 5)and we will discuss this more in detail at the Committee • The subject site will not be part of the Association entitled to the use of the existing amenity facility,which serves the other neighborhoods within the Legacy PUD • A new clubhouse will be included in an amenity space for this development,along with pocket parks.All amenities and open space landscaping will be maintained by the developer.All amenities will be constructed at the start of construction. Public Comments: Phillip Cozmes,Cannel View: In 2018,I got T-boned by a car at Belleview. There's no stop sign for the cars traveling into the Legacy neighborhood. Steve Elm,Cherry Creek Estates: Traffic is lined up along 146th Street between 3:30-5pm. We need to look across the street.Noblesville is developing more residential on their side of 146th Street. Cherry Creek Drive is traffic. Lisa Branney,Meadows at the Legacy: I have twin 7 years old. The schools don't provide any buses if you live in the 1- mile radius. 146th Street gets congested between 3pm-5pm. Children will be walking home in this area.This increase of residential will create safety and traffic problems. I see car accidents occur at 146th and River Road. Tonya Miller, The Ridge at the Legacy: We bought our home because of the existing amount of greenspace in this area, and this amendment will have a huge impact to the adjacent neighborhoods. We need more businesses in this area along 146th Street instead of more residential. Gary Richmond,Moffit Farms: I'm not against redevelopment.I want to support small businesses and this plan will take that away.The Legacy was built around urban development and walkability. If they take away the commercial space, where are we going to walk to?This is not the right type of development for this area. John Reddick,The Ridge at the Legacy: I moved here because I like to have the ability to walk to a business or restaurant.This proposal will eliminate that. There's not a lot of places that we can walk to. Chokshi Raghupathy,The Ridge at the Legacy: There's a reason why commercial/businesses were proposed here with the original PUD. They wanted to make a walkable district where we can go to restaurants and businesses. Traffic is already bad and adding more homes will add to the problem.Please stick to the original plan. William Tankovich, The Ridge at the Legacy: If it was going to be Senior Living, it wouldn't affect the schools.An increase of 350 units will directly impact the schools,traffic,and the teachers. We are the ones paying for the landscape areas to be maintained. When you actually look up who's actually going to build these units,the company sells out within 4.5 years,get their investment,and move on. There are multiple online reviews I read from actual residents say after they leave,the units go to trash since they aren't properly managed. We stand for what was already approved. Michael Stephens,Cherry Creek Estates: This went from a giant field to very dense housing.I noticed walking through this area there's a lot of trash piling up, construction debris, and road trash along the streets. I notice the area east of the subject site that the apartments facades were degrading and not being well maintained.Are we going to see a net increase of people with this proposal compared to what is already allowed? Theresa Stephens,Cherry Creek Estates: I'm asking you to preserve our quality of life.My air pollution monitor was the highest at my house the other day.I worry about the air quality. What will we do with our schools and teachers if we overpopulate this area?I have concerns for traffic and safety of the residents. The current road system is not built for this. Monica Papaioannou,Meadows at the Legacy: I was told the developer wants to build affordable housing. This sounds to me like subsidized housing,which we do not want to see in Cannel next to our nice homes that we have invested in. This will bring down everyone's property values. 4 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 9-20-22 Brad Grabow,President of PC: This Commission does not discriminate with respect to economic status,or housing prices. The City of Cannel desires housing options at all price points. The Commission will base our decisions on this. IRebuttal to Public Comments:Jon Dobosiewicz: • This proposed development should result in the reduction of traffic compared to what building types are already allowed in the PUD • Currently traffic travels down Community Drive from 146th to gain access to River Road.James Dean Drive will eventually extend to 146th Street,which gives drivers another access option • We received information from Cannel Schools administration,and they stated they are under capacity for their elementary schools in this area. • 315 dwelling units,more intense office development,and higher storied buildings are permitted today • This proposal would authorize 35 additional dwellings than what is already permitted today in the PUD • We would like a copy of the petition that was circulated to be signed by neighbors. We would like to see what kind of information is being shared to the neighborhoods. • I'm unaware of the 10-year-old traffic study that was brought up.We haven't provided a traffic study to Staff yet. We would like a copy to the traffic study that was referenced in the public comments. Department Report:Alexia Lopez • They are proposing to amend the Legacy PUD Ordinance to remove the office use block and to allow more residential units including more apartments and for rent attached dwellings • Apartments are permitted in the village core and urban residential use blocks,but not within the office use block. Lofts are permitted in the office use block but are intended as an ancillary use on the top floor of a building • We have received 22 remonstrance letters and we have heard most of those concerns during the public hearing • Staff believes these PUD amendments should not have a negative impact on the development overall • We reached out to Cannel Clay Schools,and they have no concerns accommodating an increase in enrollment • An amenity center will be provided to serve the future residents of this neighborhood • This development will allow for more density near the core of the Legacy and the retail areas, and it will allow for additional variety in housing options • This project provides appropriate transitions by putting the larger apartment buildings along the main road in Legacy and smaller 1 and 2 story buildings toward the west • Staff will continue to work with the Petitioner on the outstanding comments • Staff recommends this is continued to the Oct. 6 Residential Committee for further review Committee Comments: Sue: Will this come back for DP/ADLS review? Alexia: Yes, it will come back for DP/ADLS. Sue: Where is the housing product at that you showed during your presentation? Jon Dobosiewicz: Alabama Sue: A traffic study is needed and should include what is being proposed across the street(146th St.). Is the proposed amenity center similar to something else in Cannel?I understand there's not much of a demand for office use now than when this was proposed in 2007 but we need to look how this will impact the adjacent neighborhoods. Carrie: How many more units does this bring?Jon Dobosiewicz: 350 total dwellings,with 35 additional dwelling units than what is already permitted. Carrie: Who maintains the exterior?Jon Dobosiewicz: All exterior dwellings,parking areas,and landscaping will be maintained by the owner of this development. Carrie: I believe this type of product is needed,but I don't think this is the right spot for it.The Legacy is already dense as it stands.More commercial and retail is needed on the eastside of Carmel. We need to look at the traffic. Brad: Is there a Master HOA that encompasses the entire Legacy?Or is it by each area?Jon Dobosiewicz: Each have Itheir own separate HOA,but all participate in a Master Association and that maintains the amenity facility and signs. Brad: Is Community Drive a public street that is maintained by the City?Jon Dobosiewicz:Yes. All are public streets There are internal drives that are private and will be maintained by Legacy. 5 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 9-20-22 Josh: It's interesting to hear public input that they want what was already permitted,which is more density and commercial.What is originally proposed here, should be placed there. I want to make sure we are getting the highest and best use of this land. Carrie: James Dean street will definitely be used as a cut through.It's different than Community Drive, since James Dean is compact with houses,and that is dangerous for people living on this street. Brad: Can the Petitioner research the James Dean street?What can the City do add stop signs and other traffic calming devices?Jon Dobosiewicz: Regardless,James Dean will be developed as a dedicated city street.Driveways will not have access to James Dean and public sidewalks will be required. Alan: Is the CC the governing body that will vote on this? Alexia Lopez: Correct. Jeff: Please explore options with Engineering Dept. on speed-controlled devices on how to make these streets safer? Traffic study is needed. Explain why this amendment is needed?Why is this amendment better for the City?For the Developer?Why should this PC be interested in this proposal and change it?Jon Dobosiewicz: We will have a trip generation analysis,and we will seek the City Engineering Dept. on their thoughts. Jon Dobosiewicz: We will have a second neighborhood meeting on Oct. 19 or 20th.and we will notice all residents within the Legacy. A Motion made by Hill and seconded by Buckler to continue PZ-2022-00147 OA to the Oct.6 Residential Committee,with the full Plan Commission having the final voting authority. Approved 7-0,absent Rider,Zoccola. 3. Docket No.PZ-2022-00149 DP/ADLS: Clay Terrace—Hilton Tempo Hotel. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a new hotel on 1 acre. It will be 5 stories tall(70')with 150 rooms and a rooftop restaurant. The site is located at 14311 Clay Terrace Blvd. in Clay Terrace. The site is zoned PUD(Z-662-20).Filed by Mark Leach of Faegre Drinker on behalf of Clay Terrace Partners LLC. Petitioner: Steven Hardin: • With me tonight are Lisa Callahan,Chris White,David Rausch,and Mark Leach • Presented site location, concept plan, renderings, and elevations • We will continue to work with Staff on any outstanding comments. • We will update our plans to show the long-term bike parking,updates to our exterior lighting,and screening of the roof-top materials. Public Comments: Jessica Sherman,E. 146th Street: I don't have a major opposition to this project but I have concerns if this will take over the existing dog park in Clay Terrace. There's a huge need for free dog parks in this area. Can we get a temporary location for this?This is a huge asset to the community. James Cheadow,Walter's Plaza: The traffic problem will only worsen with the additional of this hotel. There will also be apartment complexes going up. The drive lanes on Clay Terrace Blvd will be reducing the north and south drive lanes and adding bike lanes.My neighborhood had safety issues when Clay Terrace was developed. Rebuttal to Public Comments: Steven Hardin: • This hotel will be constructed at the existing location of the dog park. The dog park will be relocated within Clay Terrace • Traffic analysis and street improvements were discussed when the Clay Terrace PUD Ordinance Amendment was reviewed 2 years ago. We can discuss this again at the Committee level. Department Report: Rachel Keesling • This is the first project that is coming before us since they amended the Clay Terrace PUD • We have asked the Petitioner to provide us with the type of exterior lighting that will be used • Rooftop lighting is prohibited in the PUD,so we need to review the lighting details of the rooftop restaurant • We need to know how the rooftop mechanical units will be screened 6 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 9-20-22 • Sidewalks and connections around the building will be provided • The proposed signage meets the requirements of the PUD • Staff recommends this is continued to the Oct. 6 Commercial Committee for further review ICommittee Comments: Jeff: Is there a plan on the timing of the relocation of the dog park and greenspace?Provide us sight views from the east. Will the existing walking path be reconstructed?Are there any ways to spruce up the NW facing side of the building? Brad: Is there a possibility of valet parking for the rooftop restaurant?It would be great if we design and plan ahead for this. Steve Hardin: Yes,valet parking will be provided. Brad: The City's lighting standards are pretty current,but lighting designs,product,and technique are still more up to date than our lighting standards.Any unique lighting features that wouldn't over commercialized this project would have my support. Dubbie: Can the entrance design be relooked at?Is there a possibility to add another access point? Josh: The State is not interested in adding more access points along US 31.Alan: Are you referring to the entrance to this hotel project or the entire Clay Terrace development?Dubbie: An entrance to the US 31 and entrance to this hotel. Josh: I'm concerned we are overstepping our reach. This is up to the Engineering and Fire Department. Kevin: When this was originally built, it was the main drag to carry traffic north and south.Now with the upgrades to US 31, it doesn't have to be that. A Motion made by Hill and seconded by Westermeier to continue PZ-2022-00149 DP/ADLS to the Oct.6 Commercial Committee,with the full Plan Commission having the final voting authority. Approved 8-0,absent Rider. 4. Docket No.PZ-2022-00167 Z: 1st Avenue SE C2 Rezone. The applicant seeks to rezone 4 parcels from the B5 Business,R2 Residential and R3 Residential Districts within the Old Town Overlay Character Subarea to the C-2 Mixed Use District. The site is generally located on the west side of 181 Avenue SE,between 1st Street SE and Supply Street. Filed by the Department of Community Services on behalf of the Cannel Plan Commission. Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling: • Presented site location map and zoning map, we are proposing the 4 parcels outline in yellow to rezone to C-2. The western half of this block is already zoned C-2. • The purpose of this rezone request is to extend this C-2 zoning district across the entire block to allow for a redevelopment proposal to be reviewed • The proposed redevelopment project is for a 1933 Lounge Restaurant concept,with upper floors as office space, and townhomes along the eastern half of the block. • This concept plan was presented at a City Council meeting,but nothing has been approved by the CRC • We have received some comments from the public and will be taken in consideration by the CRC • C-2 project includes several steps for approval by the CRC architectural review board and public hearing by the Plan Commission Hearing Officer • Staff recommends that you suspend the Rules of Procedure and send this item to the City Council with a favorable recommended Public Comments: Bob Campbell, 1st Street SE: I'm not opposed to it,but I have a couple requests.The townhouses will be looking into my house,I ask if they are setback 15-ft from the curb.They are proposing 3-stories high with a balcony,and I ask if they are set 4-ft down and have the balconies face west towards Rangeline. I ask for a tree line along the townhomes.I ask this type of development is not allowed to go south of Supply Street.With valet parking,we ask they don't use the parking lot at the Lions Club and to have this area designated as permit parking only for the residents. IJanet Raymond, S. Rangeline Road: We are not opposed to this development,but we ask for them to be mindful to the long-term residents in this area. We would like to avoid in having the valet parking traffic backed up.Loading docks and dumpsters should be located closer to the commercial node and buffered from the adjacent residential neighbors. 7 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 9-20-22 Jeff Watkins, I' Street SE: Bob Campbell is my neighbor. We ask for consideration of the height and appearance of townhomes. What are the unattended consequences?Parking and lighting. We do not want strong street lighting.I would ask for no parking on the stub-street or the Lions Club parking lot. Zachary Jedamzik, Supply Street: I love what we are doing in Cannel. Tonight,we are asking about a rezoning.If we rezone this for C-2,then it will go only to the CRC. We won't have a say in this redevelopment. The residents want a partnership and have a say what is going in this area. What is the plan?What are we voting on?The Old Town Overlay Zoning District is completely changing. What are the unattended consequences? Rebuttal to Public Comments: Adrienne Keeling: • We do not have a site plan. We are not to that level of design,but it is good to bring things up early in the process • Parking restrictions will be under the City Council review • DOCS works very closely with the CRC in project reviews and continue to relay those comments to work on the design of this project • We know this block would be developed simultaneously since the western part of this block is already zoned C-2 Committee Comments: Sue: I want to thank everyone who came out to speak about this proposal. We are only asked to rezone this to C-2. I would like to hear from the Redevelopment Commission in how people can participate in this rezone.Henry Mestetsky, CRC Director: This is a holistic project that we asking to rezone. We can't pick and choose which part we want to redevelop. Once this is rezoned,there's a CRC Architectural Review Board meeting and we ask for the highest level of architecture.We have a TAC committee that involves all the City Agencies and Departments. Then we file for DP/ADLS process,and we have a public hearing for this.I believe there's a lot of opportunity for people to be involved.This project follows what we are trying to do for the core of our City.Rachel Keesling: There's not a set schedule for a C-2 public hearings, it is scheduled on a by a project-by-project basis. We do work through all the details, so it meets the requirements of the UDO prior to the Plan Commission Hearing Officer public hearing.Anyone can attend and has a right to speak at the C-2 public hearings. Christine: Are the 4-story townhomes going to meet the required height limits adjacent to residential per the C-2 zoning? Adrienne Keeling: If the standards of the C-2 zoning are not met,then they would seek a variance. Brad: Can the PC members add our input?Adrienne Keeling:Yes. Josh: I don't understand why we can't develop this second block through a full Plan Commission public hearing. Mike Hollibaugh,Director of DOCS: With the feedback we heard tonight, is very useful for us prior to any site plan. The process is virtually same,and with each C-2 redevelopment project, it gets better.The CRC Architectural Review Committee is more publicly orientated now than it previously has been. Consideration of the public input we heard tonight will be put towards the design.All these C-2 projects get the same attention from Staff. I would like to point out the streets are public,and if no parking is imposed on 1st Street SE,that is not up to us,but by the Police and Engineering Departments.Brad: Can you speak to us at all how the parking would be provided by this project and how would the off- site parking work for this project? Mike Hollibaugh: The concept plan we saw provides enough parking.The Lion's Club parking lot is sometimes full,and we can't rely on them for parking. We have street parking all through downtown and free parking garages. Christine: Are there any of the concerns you heard tonight that you and Staff can enforce on this project, such as the parking and landscape?Mike Hollibaugh: Staff pushes the CRC on the sensitivity issues. We can respect the Old Town Overlay Zone in how it applies to townhome designs. Alan: During the rezone proposal process for a C-2 rezone, a development plan(DP)is not required,but we want to know what is coming through.Mike Hollibaugh: We've done a number of rezones where nothing was being proposed and we didn't have a developer,but we were trying to position the land.Alan: I get feel that the PC wants to get more involved. Brad: The C-2 district was endorsed by the Plan Commission at that time and agreed to delegate C-2 DP/ADLS proposals to the PC Hearing Officer. If we are uncomfortable with this process,then we need to amend the Ordinance.Mike Hollibaugh: A public hearing is still required by law,and nothing gets approved until all issues are addressed and resolved. 8 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 9-20-22 A Motion made by Buckler and seconded by Hill to suspend the Rules of Procedure in order to send PZ-2022- 00167 Z to the City Council. 5-3,Holle,Potasnik,Kirsh,absent Rider. Motion Fails since suspension of rules requires 2/3 majority vote. IA Motion made Potasnik and seconded by Holle to send this to the Oct. 6 Commercial Committee with final approval authority. Approved 6-2,Hill,Kirsh,absent Rider. Old Business: 4. 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 2nd 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: Dan Coots,Coots, Henke& Wheeler, PC.: • With me tonight are the owner of The GOAT, Kevin Paul and the architect of this project, Dan Moriarity • We request the PC approved the unanimously favorable recommendation by the Commercial Committee to approve this DP/ADLS Department Report: Rachel Keesling • Adjustments have been made to the plans in regarding the size and placement of the building in order to meet the setback requirements and to avoid the stormwater and utility easement along the Monon Blvd. • 120 new seats and 6 new restroom facilities. There are two existing restrooms on the other side of building • They are seeking a variance for 80% lot coverage and will be heard at Sept. 26 BZA • Staff recommends approval at tonight's meeting Commercial Committee Recap,Alan Potasnik,Chair: • I'll defer to Staffs report. There's nothing anything else to add unless other members of the Committee want to add any comments Committee Comments: None A Motion made by Buckler and seconded by Westermeier to approve PZ-2022-00118 DP/ADLS. Approved 8-0,absent Rider. New Business 5. Docket No. PZ-2022-00143 ADLS: North End Pool The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a new pool and pool house at the North End Development. The site is located north of Mariposa Trail and Freeland Way and is zoned UR/Urban Residential. Filed by Rebecca McGuckin with Old Town Companies. Petitioner: Rebecca McGuckin: • Presented site location plan, overall site plan,pool site plan, color pallet, seating and grill images,floor plan for equipment room, elevations, lighting plan and fixtures, and landscaping plan • We made a commitment to DOCS for additional tree plantings around the perimeter of the pool site Department Report: Alexia Lopez • This will be located between Apartment building C and the Maples Restaurant • Bike parking is required per UDO and the Petitioner will add additional spots within 50-ft of entrance • Architecture is similar to the other buildings within this development • Landscaping beds will be provided • Downlighting and bollards lights will be provided • Staff recommends approval at tonight's meeting. We will continue to finalize the outstanding items in ProjectDox Committee Comments: 9 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 9-20-22 Sue: Is the pool open to all North End Pool residents. Rebecca McGuckin: Yes A Motion made by Potasnik and seconded by Kirsh to approve PZ-2022-00143 ADLS. Approved 8-0,absent Rider. Meeting adjourned at 9:41 p.m. 1 / at" J.- .hestak PC Secretary Brad Grab w President 10 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 9-20-22