HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes SpecStdy 07-14-99
. .
u
CARMEL/CLA Y PLAN COMMISSION
SPECIAL STUDY COM.1\fITTEE
JULY 14~ 1999
The special session of the Special Study Committee met at approximately 7:00 PM on
July 14, 1999 in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall, One Civic Square, Carmel, Indiana.
Members present were: Madeline Fitzgerald, Jim O'Neal; Pat Rice; Rick Sharp; and Paul
Spranger.
Single Item Agenda: Committee to consider Docket No. 45-99 Z, a rezone application
for the Buckingham Companies. The petitioner seeks approval for a rezone of28 acres
from R-l/Residence and R-3/Residence to Planned Unit Development (pUD.) The site is
located at the northeast comer of Carmel Drive and Old Meridian Street.
Filed by Lynnette Williams of the Buckingham Companies.
Zeff Weiss of Ice, Miller, Donadio & Ryan appeared before the Committee representing
the petitioner. The proposed pUD Ordinance has been modified to be consistent with
comments made at the Special Study Committee meeting on July 6, 1999, and to also
modify the site plan. Some comments had a "ripple effect" on the document. However,
there are a handful of items that are noteworthy.
o
The first item is the cross-referencing of the Ordinance in the definition of Design
vocabulary to the brochure. (page 4)
Secondly, the documents are referenced and exhibits are attached.
Under Section 51 and 54 on pages 11 through 15, modifications were made to permitted
uses and excluded uses on the property. Parking has also been addressed: Section 14.1
refers to a "to be constructed ratio of 1.5 per apartment dwelling and landbanking not less
than .22 spaces per apartment dwelling for future use, ifneeded." The concept of the
ordinance has been modified as to how approvals would be obtained in the event
secondary approvals of modifications take into consideration the committee concept.
There is also a blank dealing with the amount of open space: Section 10.1 recites not less
than 25% for open space and 10% for recreational space in Section 11.1.
u
The City's consultant, Brenda Schere, requests that the road transverse the Buckingham
property; this is shown on the site plan. The buildings would be set back 50 feet from the
road giving an urban feel to the road. The center of the proposed road is the property
line. There could possibly be 63 feet from the building to the road, more or less,
depending upon how the City cites the improvement within the right-of-way. The
buildings will be oriented to the front. There will be sidewalks to the front of the
buildings. The street will be a boulevard with parallel, on-street parking.
s: \commttes\spst 1999jul14
. .
Section 17.3 includes the concept of for sale product in the dwelling units or live, work
units, and giving the developer the ability to increase the density by 10%.
The Committee went thru the proposed PUD Ordinance line-by-line.
u
Page 4. Design Vocabulary. The Department has a problem with how it is written and
how it is referred to in the Ordinance. The guidelines do not provide a good enforcement
capability for areas identified within the Ordinance. Exhibit E shows signage. The
primary development plan does not meet the criteria of the text of the PUD. The
Department recommends wording that off-street parking is allowed in the front.
Page 6. City of Carmel is to be the sole governmental management.
Discussion on Open Space?? and the fact that parking facilities serving open space count
as open space?? Activities in the open space--wording inherited from a previous model--
wording will be stricken.
Recreational Space would be included as open space, counting pool, clubhouse, tennis
courts, possibly streets and drives. Petitioner says not their intent to count streets and
drives. Terry Jones suggests trail areas be clarified--can be considered public areas or
public place--would not want it confused with streets or sidewalks. Petitioner responds
that man-made internal paths created for recreational purposes, pool, tennis courts--that
type of facility is to be included in open space. Rick Sharp suggests that man-made
structures such as a gazebo (not a clubhouse) could be limited to a very small size in
terms of square feet and beyond that, not counted in the computation of open space.
Petitioner pointed out that the last sentence on page 8 under Recreational Space says
"such areas may constitute open space." It was not the petitioner intent to say that all of
them count as open space. The clubhouse with a recreational facility would not be
included in the definition of open space. Pat Rice suggested the use of the word "may" as
opposed to "shall."
o
According to the petitioner, the point is that some recreational space can be included as
open space as long as it fits the definition of open space. Rick Sharp suggested
eliminating the words "private use." The petitioner does not view open space as a "public
park."
Mike Hollibaugh stated that open space does not mean "public use." Pat Rice suggested
looking at the Open Space Ordinance.
Rick Sharp stated that the issue is more areas that are not going to be paved or built on,
other than for recreational uses. Man-made features should be limited in size of structure
if they are going to be counted as Open Space.
In the petitioner's PUD, recreational space is identified as items used for private use such U
asfshwimmd.ing poolT' chlubh~~se, etc., it ddobes noht fit thhehdefinition ohf open spacehon padge 7. ..
o t e or mance. e petItIoner agree ut t oug t t ere was a ang-up on t e wor .
s:\commttes\spst1999ju1l4 2
. .
; .
u
"may." The intent was to say that there is some recreational space, such as picnic table
with benches, for people to go and sit (passive recreation.) This would be counted as
recreational space as well as potentially open space.
Rick Sharp commented that it was a "semantics" argument. If the concern is structures,
why not eliminate fully enclosed structures. The petitioner was agreeable. Madeline
Fitzgerald agreed, but did not want the parking areas or land-banked areas to be counted
toward the open space. The petitioner stated he would have to meet the requirements of
the Ordinance, even if they were to convert parking areas and land-banked areas to open
space. The point of discussion is, is there value to allowing the additional definitions that
could fit into open space or not?
Tom Yedlick asked if the problem was that the Committee is not being that specific--that
the percent requirement has not actually been designated. Rick Sharp commented that it
is designated, although perhaps not drawn out as "McArthur Park." The defined
percentage of open space is what the Committee asked for from the petitioner.
Page 9. "Street" has been identified.
Page 1 O. The hearing examiner of Committees is being removed.
o
Page 11. Pat Rice asked the meaning of material effort. The petitioner admitted it was
their language, and it had to be something "material" as opposed to "immaterial." For
someone to say that a modification has an adverse impact--it could be incredibly
miniscule and be violative of this particular ordinance--we would be setting it up for a
problem down the road as opposed to the deciding body (the Commission) saying it is
immaterial. Rick Sharp felt that the use of the word "material" was acceptable; however,
Rick did agree to strike the word "material" in paragraph 4.3.4. The sentence should read
"The modification shall not result in any danger to the public health, safety and welfare
by making access to the internal streets ??? by emergency vehicles more difficult, by
depriving adjoining properties of light and air, or by violating the other purpose for which
this Ordinance was enacted as set forth in Section 1."
Definitions 5.1? Notwithstanding anything in Section 13A with ???? shall be permitted
to have sidewalks ???? Madeline Fitzgerald: So we can have stacked tires, we can have
anything--you understand what I want. A permanent display or a daily display or
whatever. If somebody is going to bring it out today and then put it away, it's OK. Terry
Jones: We kind of mentioned that the last time. At that point, the only areas that would
be public streets that concerns us is Old Meridian--everything else is private. It would be
up to the Plan Commission as to whether or not they wanted this on the internal streets.
The sidewalks off the streets would not be public development.
u
Paul Spranger: What we have done is taken away any ability to enforce our own City
Ordinances on that score. Even though it is on private property, we have allowed them to
have carte blanche--I 0 years from now you have a subdivision out of control and we
have no recourse.
s: \commnes\spst1999jul14
3
Madeline Fitzgerald stated that she did not want to see merchandise sitting out on the
sidewalk--"our daily, annual junk sale." Clearance zone on the sidewalks. The petitioner
stated that it really ties to 8.5B. Maybe what we want to say is "Provided, however, that
such outdoor displays or sad luck displays shall not exceed "X" % or some square feet or
some portion and. . . .. No, because if you have a floral shop, I see nothing wrong with the
rack of hanging baskets hanging there--it is attractive, it's great. But the matter of putting
a permanent pile of junk out front. . ... The petitioner offered the wording "During business
hours only." Pat Rice did not like the idea that a shop would open every day and dump
"stuff' out on the sidewalk to attract people walking by. It's not the same as a sidewalk
sale. Rick Sharp suggested that a display area may not exceed 100 feet in aggregate or
lO'XI' or 5'X2'. Terry Jones stated that the City Ordinance for retail areas currently
provides that if it is on a City sidewalk and part of the right-of-way, it comes under Board
of Public Works' purview. If it is internal to a project, for example Merchants Square,
they basically commit to not having anything out in those areas, for instance anything in a
B-8 classification would require it, a B-1 would not.
Kevin Kirby stated that his idea of a "Village" feel is a place where you have
merchandise on the sidewalk every day. Pat Rice stated that that is a marketplace and not
what is wanted here. Kevin Kirby thought it was--that is the feel the Old Meridian Task
Force is looking for. Kevin was agreeable to limiting the square footage--Rick Sharp
stated there was no enforcement there. Rick Sharp stated that there is no Ordinance! We
don't know when the Overlay Ordinance is due out or what it is going to be. Kevin Kirby
said he was comfortable.with daily sidewalk merchandise for a Village feel, but there had
to be some way of controlling it so it would not become. . . .
Rick Sharp suggested one half the length of the storefront or width of the storefront, and
one-third of the depth of the sidewalk. This was agreeable to the Committee.
Page 11., Section 5. The first part of 4.5 is to be changed that refers to a hearing
examiner. "Material" is to be eliminated. Tom Yedlick questioned attached dwellings as
not being a defined term. Steve Engelking responded that it appears on page 5 under
"Dwelling." Attached dwelling is defined as "condominium." Tom also questioned
recreational space and associated improvements in a commercial area. The petitioner
stated that there is recreational space at both ends of the mixed-use building. Tom
disagreed with the congregate housing in the primary area and thought it was not an
attractive use in the primary area. The petitioner stated that congregate housing is
defined in page 3. as dependant or independent living.
o
o
Terry Jones re: attached dwellings definition. page 5. last sentence, as it pertains to this
district, or ordinance, or PUD Ordinance--attached dwellings is not a defined term in any
other part of the Ordinance; an attached dwelling can still be a multi-family dwelling
unit. Terry Jones would rather stick with "as it pertains to this ordinance." It just needs
to be clear; the petitioner will incorporate.
There is no minimum of commercial space trying to be achieved. By allowing the area to U..
be used for other purposes, dilutes the end result and takes away the objective. .
s:\cornmttes\spst1999ju114
4
"
u
Kevin Kirby referred to meetings of the Old Meridian Task Force committee and stated
that the subject area has potential of becoming an area of its own--the amenity node for
the corporate corridor has some demand for commercial and retail. The area is looked at
as a community within itself It is much larger than the Providence group, and is
evolving into an entire community of its own--mixed-use, higher density residential, with
the neighborhood serving type of amenities with plenty of square footage for 31.
Page 12. N. and Cccc. Business/Commercial School and Schools. School would cover
kick-boxing, karate or other types of schools; it would also cover day care and nursery or
kindergarten.
Commercial Uses General is to be eliminated.
Page 13, Parking lot, commercial. Leasing parking lots is not included. The petitioner
stated that the type of business will dictate the market for parking. Control parking will
be included.
o
Page 15. 6.1 In primary and secondary areas, primary uses subject to the following:
governmental areas, in-residence drug and alcohol rehab, probationary office.
6.1.3 Rick Sharp asked if wording could be used that where they abut outside the
confines of the governance of the PUD--if something happens due to the north that is
residential in character, you keep it at point one spillage. Terry Jones says it wouldn't be
bad if the property line were the property line with the adjoining owner; however, ifit is
divided by a street, like Old Meridian, we wouldn't mind a little spillage beyond a one
point foot candle.
Page 16. Tom Yedlick questioned Section 25--It is the zoning ordinance of the City of
Carmel and not a part of the PUD. It would be helpful to spell it out as the Carmel/Clay
Zoning Ordinance.
Also Page 16. 7.3 Kevin Kirby did not have a problem with the 10% bonus, however,
we are starting to see those densities in this area and other areas. The petitioner stated his
intent, that if 10 for sale units were added, an additional 10 units could be added in
density not to exceed 10% of the entire rental community. For every one unit for sale,
density not to exceed 10% of the overall development could be added. Petitioner to add:
Such density may be increased proportionately. . .. Paul Spranger stated that you could
increase the aggregate density of the project if you do it with "for sale by 100 units." It
must be done with titled units. The petitioner will re-write to reflect: "Increase above 18
units per acre is permissible as long as the increase not to exceed 19.8 are pulse-setting.
u
Page 4. Terry Jones, there may need to be some adjusting, for instance the 30 period
would not happen. Steve Engelking stated that the Department cannot ignore the time
schedule procedures that are in place already by ordinance. Rick Sharp offered the
following language: In accordance with the Plan Commission's Rules of Procedures.
s: \commttes\spst 1999jul14
-5
. .
, .
Page 17, Section 8. Tom Yedlick questioned primary area and apartment blocks A&Bof
the secondary area. The secondary area is not mentioned further. The petitioner states 0.....
that 7.4 says all structures ??????? that includes apartments blocks A&B in the secondary ...
area. Definition of 7. is changed to "Secondary ArealResidentiill Development" so that it
is not confusing.
Michael Hollibaugh brought up street widths based on angle parking. There is an issue
on publicly dedicated portions that they would need to meet City standards. There has
been some discussion of dedicating the internal street. The parking space size
requirements on the private portion are whatever the petitioner wishes; if it becomes a
public street, it then comes under the Board of Public Works. The petitioner did not want
to build the street to city standards, and then dedicate it at a future date. The petitioner is
saying if it is dedicated, the City takes it "as is." The City is saying that they do not want
to be in a position of having to accept "as is;" it should be built to City standards. Kevin
stated that he did not have a problem with the streets remaining private, even if they
connect in flow-thru City streets, because they are not thoroughfares, they are ways for
traffic to move internally through the Village area. However, if we are going to require
that they do become City streets at some time, then yes, they do have to match. Terry
Jones reiterated that at dedication, the street would have to be brought up to City specs.
Michael Hollibaugh related that the objective of the district is so that there are integrated,
public streets, and a development such as this would not be an island unto itself such as it
is with the Arbors next door. We are only talking about two streets--certain streets which
plug into the overall Master Thoroughfare Plan. The issue is publicly dedicated, public
realm and ability for the community to interact. It is the perception of public VS private.
o
Terry Jones stated that the first structure entering the development is a guard house-
certainly not inviting to the public. Rick Sharp was in favor of coming to some sort of
agreement whereby the streets are privately maintained, privately owned, but open for the
use of the public at large. Language could be drafted to protect the public's use of the
roadway and the public's safety but does not require a dedication. Rick Sharp was fully
in favor of the concept the Old Meridian Task Force is headed, but to try and hold the
petitioner to a moving target whose eventual result is unsure--it would be more fair to all
concerned to declare a moratorium in the Old Meridian corridor. Ifwe want to hold our
options open and not penalize a unique design that might be a catalyst for the whole
process, let's step outside the box and say that it doesn't have to be a public street, it must
be available and maintained for the public good. Michael Hollibaugh stated that what is
before the Committee is not unlike what Brenwick presented. If you don't require
publicly dedicated streets now, you might as well scrap the effort--period.
Michael Hollibaugh commented that to think outside the box would be allowing a public
street to be integrated into an apartment development.
Rick Sharp stated that he could not get hung up on private streets. Rick suggested a 10 D
minute recess to allow the petitioner to draft language to the effect that the streets will..
remain open for the use and enjoyment of the public, they will be maintained in an
s: \commttes\spst 1999ju114 6
"
i.
u
appropriate manner, the guard house will be removed from the site plan. There are only
two streets that the Commission is concerned with.
When the meeting resumed, the petitioner proposed to strike all of section 9.5, strike all
of 9.4 beginning with the word "unless" and everything that follows. 9.4 would then
read: "All streets within the district shall be private. The streets identified as Providence
Boulevard, North Park Avenue, and Georgetowne Lane shall remain open to the public.
No signs which prohibit or discourage access by the public or other impediments for the
use of such roads by the public shall be constructed or installed. Such streets shall be
maintained in a manner consistent with public streets within the surrounding area."
Section 10. Filling in the blanks--1O.1, 25%; 11.1, 10%. The first word of the sentence
is "Not" less than... ...
Section 19. The petitioner re-named main street "Commons Boulevard." 11.6 and 11.5
still correct? The petitioner says strike 11.6. 11.5 is consistent; percentages stand.
Paragraph 13.4. Currently the Zoning Ordinance and Development Standards put a limit
on how much encroachment is allowed--in many cases it is more than 3 feet.
o
Page 21. 13.9 Kevin Kirby pointed out the limitation of 12 months on the dedication of
the right-of-way--Council will not want to see any time limitation. If the ground is
developed to the north, the City would immediately ask for a dedication of right-of-way
and reserved, whether the road is built or not. This would need to go in the Thoroughfare
Plan.
Terry Jones stated that there is the same issue with the Thoroughfare Plan. Right-of-way
was reserved for 116th Street for Hazeldell for the last 40 years. The point is, the
Thoroughfare Plan shows proposed streets throughout. If it is not a part of the
Thoroughfare Plan within "X" number of years--it will give the Plan Commission and
City Council time to adjust the Thoroughfare Plan, hold the public hearing, and
determine whether it wants to be part of the Thoroughfare Plan or not--then it is reserved
in perpetuity. If the Plan Commission and City Council think it is a bad idea to include it
in the Thoroughfare Plan, it would go back to the owner.
The language could be: If, within two years, the roadway is not included in the City's
Thoroughfare Plan, the commitment for dedication would be released and returned to the
owner.
The consensus of the Committee is that Odom Woods is to be fenced off, regardless
whether or not the road is built.
o
Rick Sharp asked that the petitioner prepare not only the PUD Ordinance, but a formal
commitment regarding dedication of right-of-way. The petitioner expressed a
willingness to work with the Committee.
s:\commttes\spst1999juI14
7
.'
(\ ~
Terry Jones stated that the design is not consistent with the written part of the ordinance
as it relates to off-street parking. Also, the final sentence should not have been t.J~_.
eliminated. The petitioner will clean up the PUD Ordinance throughout as it pertains to .
parking.
14.46 Michael Hollibaugh suggested that language be added for future preservation.,
example being Restaurant 210 in Old Towne where curbs were required to be installed as
a part of the parking; upon completion the trees died. The petitioner agreed to language
such as "shall be curbed unless proper drainage and/or tree preservation requires."
14.7 There is a design vocabulary issue. Fences. Sheet 6 states that "Fences shall be
compatible with the style, materials, and color of building on the same lot."
Section 13.6 states that "Fences and walls shall not exceed six feet in height and may be
located in any yard." The petitioner will have to comply with either sheet 6 or 13.6;
otherwise, they will have to request an amendment.
16.2.2 Signs on dormers and balconies. This section should have another issue that a
temporary sign or banner must be completely removed for a period of time. Rick Sharp
suggested that leasing signs be exempted, and a limit on the number of times per year be
imposed that one could use a temporary sign or banner, perhaps 6 times per year, 30 days
at a time. There was further discussion on the banners--Terry suggested that they not be
regulated by copy. "Leasing" is OK, but advertising and pricing is not OK. The type of
sign and length oftime displayed should be the major focus. Steve Engelking
commented that when this appears before City Council, signs would definitely be an
issue. The petitioner proposed simply striking the entire 16.2.2 and defaulting to
Carmel's Sign Ordinance.
o
25 -- Median Signs These have been discussed--the Sign Ordinance does not allow them
private or public--however, they would be allowed with the PUD.
26 -- Paul Spranger brought up the level of illumination and construction of the signs.
Kevin Kirby commented that the level of illumination would have to be defined.
16.4.4D Changeable copy to be internally illuminated? If internally illuminated, to be
opaque background, or it needs to say: "changeable copy permitted--this sign will not be
internally illuminated."
Terry Jones questioned window signs such as those painted on the inside or outside ofthe
window--sometimes an enforcement issue. The Sign Ordinance, in some areas, provides
that if it is painted on the outside you are regulated; if painted on the inside, even though
the copy may be the same, is not regulated. The petitioner agreed to language that would
apply whether signs are located on the inside or out, regardless of the type of sign. Also,
the distance from the window would be helpful.
Mike Hollibaugh asked about the trees designated to be retained, if there were a plan in U-
existence. The petitioner responded that this would be done "in the field." Mike .
s:\commttes\spst1999ju114 8
;.'1-'
'.
, '
1,
o
Hollibaugh stated that if the petitioner is committing to it in an ordinance, and it's done in
the field, then who determines it--it's a whole different area. If the petitioner will not
commit to tree preservation up front, the language should be scrapped. Any tree with a
caliper of 18 inches or more designated as such ?????? A tree survey should be done and
then an overlay. Information from Mark Timmons does talk about tree preservation and
four items that go along with that. One is Evaluation and Inventory of Trees, done by a
location basis. Mike asked that this be shown on the plan--the petitioner agreed. Rick
Sharp suggested taking the petitioner's initial suggestion and any modification that would
require presentation to and approval of the Plan Commission. Steve Engelking suggested
submitting a tree preservation plan along with construction plans. The petitioner was
agreeable.
18.5 In terms of consistency, modifying language should be added as was done on light
spillage through residential.
Mike Hollibaugh asked about street lighting for the publicly private streets. The
petitioner responded that lighting is shown on the development plan, but flexibility is
allowed to move one light from one to another island if there is a better place for a tree,
or to save a tree.
o
Paul Spranger was concerned. that the petitioner was submitting a decorative, illumination
plan on the main street, commercial area and the residential, big blocks apartments area
would be totally'different than anything planned. The petitioner assured the committee
that that would not be the case. Suggested language: . . . .installed in all areas of the
district. Terry Jones commented that the Department would need some plan showing
where the lighting will be and at what intervals. (perhaps final development plan)
P. 34, Section 1924 -- The Meijer provision--The filling station exception. Apparently,
if a building is developed that fronts on Old Meridian right up on the right-of-way within
12 months, it triggers obligations for the property across the street which has not been set
with a final Development Plan. At what point is the 12 months triggered? The gas
station shows frontage on Old Meridian. Rick Sharp suggested that the developing of a
building fronting on Old Meridian should be stricken--the Committee unanimously
agreed and the petitioner agreed. The streetscape should not be driven based on whether
or not Meijer puts in a gas station.
u
It was determined that fencing along Old Meridian would provide the character that is
along Providence. The architecture will also be in keeping with the corridor. Rick Sharp
then suggested backing up to 1914 and include "fine tuning in order to get what the intent
is." The petitioner commented that if it is known that what Meijer is going to do is not
consistent with the PUD ordinance, there is no purpose to it. Terry Jones interjected that
Meijer may feel the same way with the petitioner's side of the street. There was further
discussion as to whether or not the design would be accepted by the market and the
petitioner was not willing to commit at this point.
s: \commttes\spst1999jul14
9
.'
."
Paul Spranger's comments: The intent is to try to create the site line and visual part of the
retail area to look as much as the Commission has done with the Meijer gas station. It
creates a site line and a visual effect, maybe with a little compromise to some of those
facihg onto the street issues and how the Department has suggested--it's a fine line--you
wantto stay in the spirit of this thing.
D
Per Rick Sharp, the committee was in agreement that the language on 1914 should be
refined to offer the petitioner the "tension" or right to trigger, whether the retail in the
primary area will be "streetfront" in nature.
1921,22, entire section needsto be redone--meet with John Molitor.
Page 37 change "statues" to statutes.
Rick Sharp summed up the Committee's progress. There are a number of substantial
issues that need to be rewritten and looked at. This item will remain at the Committee
level for further review. Design Vocabulary--the picture should complement or explain
the text. Example: The text should reference particular styles of architecture as
representative, with pictures as further illustration; list specific materials to be used, such
as wrought iron fencing, red brick, etc.
The Special Study Committee moved the next meeting to the second Wednesday in
August (August 11) at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. The full Plan 0
Commission will meet on Tuesday, August 17th. Steve Engelking commented that the
mailing for the Commission would go out on the 6th. Any action of the committee on the .
11th will have to be sent to Commission members individually. Those members not on'
this particular committee will be seeing a very large document, extremely involved, with
a very limited time frame for review. This does not conform to the Plan Commission's
Rules of Procedure, and there will be those on the Commission who will take exception
to this course of action.
Rick Sharp suggested that as fast as the changes can be made in the PUD ordinance, it
should immediately be sent out to the Commission members with a note of explanation:
This is the current draft--want to bring the members up-to-date so that they can make
comparisons in the changes--going to Committee on Wednesday, August 11th. It was
decided to send out the "latest and greatest" version of the PUD (hopefully the last) rather
than previous drafts that would only confuse the issues.
There being no further business to come before the Committee the meeting was
adjourned at approximately 10:45 PM.
u
cJ~~rPG//
s: \commttes\spst 1999jul14
10