Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 05-21-24 City of Carmel 1 Plan Commission Minutes 5-21-24 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION TUESDAY, MAY 21, 2024, MEETING MINUTES Location: Council Chambers Room, 2nd Floor, Carmel City Hall Members Present: Brad Grabow (President), Adam Campagna, Dubbie Buckler, Chaka Coleman, Jeff Hill, Christine Zoccola (Vice), Josh Kirsh, Shannon Minnaar, Sue Westermeier Staff Present: Rachel Keesling, Adrienne Keeling, Alexia Lopez, Mike Hollibaugh, and Bric Butler. Legal Counsel: Sergey Grechukhin Time of Meeting: 6:00 PM Declaration of Quorum: President Grabow: 8 members present, and 1 member absent, a quorum is present. (The absent member at the time of the quorum call was Chaka Coleman who arrived shortly after proceedings began). Approval of the previous Meeting Minutes: A motion made by Kirsh and seconded by Campagna to approve the April 16th, 2024 PC meeting minutes. Approved 7-0 (abstained Grabow, absent Coleman). Reports, Announcements & Department Concerns 1. Outcome of Projects at Committee a. Docket No. PZ-2024-00054 ADLS Amend: Vitalize Physical Therapy: Approved b. Docket No. PZ-2024-00041 OA: Non-Dwelling Short-Term Rental Standards: Sent back to Plan Commission with Favorable Recommendation. 2. Docket No. PZ-2024- 00044 DP/ADLS: Courtyard by Marriott Hotel was tabled to the June 24th Plan Commission meeting date. Public Hearings President Grabow explained the Rules of Procedure for a public hearing in front of the Plan Commission. 1. Docket No. PZ-2023-00076 PP/SP: Cherry Creek Farms Minor Subdivision. The applicant seeks minor subdivision plat approval to split one 2.7-acre parcel into 2 residential lots. The site is located at 13777 Hazel Dell Parkway and is zoned S-1/Residential. Filed by Mike Kinney, owner. Petitioner: Mike Kinney: • Kinney gave a brief description of the history and his acquisition of the property. He informed the commission that as his family has grown, they need more space so desire to split the lot to build a second residence while keeping the existing farmhouse as well. • Kinney expressed concerns with the required ten-foot pathway that would be required along the frontage of his property as part of the plating process. He noted that it would require the removal of a 400-foot-long buffer of trees between his property and Hazel Dell Parkway. Public Comments: None. Petitioner Rebuttal: None. Department Report: Alexia Lopez: • Lopez reiterated the petitioner’s desire to split the lot to provide a new lot for a second residence. She noted that the Comprehensive Plan outlines the area into which his property falls as “East Neighborhoods” which is a district of primarily single-family development, so it was of her opinion that the project aligned with the Comprehensive Plan’s objectives for the area. 2 Plan Commission Minutes 5-21-24 • All major review comments and concerns had been addressed barring the single issue of the pathway. Lopez stated that she thought it wise to send this project to the next committee meeting to give the petitioner time to review their options of how they wanted to proceed regarding the pathway. She noted that the three options available to the petitioner were to either construct the pathway, pay into the Thoroughfare Fund, or to seek a variance at the Board of Zoning Appeals to try and receive permission to not construct the path. Committee Comments: Buckler: Do you think that the issues that need to be addressed are such that the committee could have final approval? Lopez indicated that could be an appropriate decision. Minnaar: Lex [Lopez] can you explain to me how to the north and south of his property line how long that path would be and how many trees would be taken down for that ten-foot path? My concern and I will say the only concern I really have is if you look to the north past the school at the path that is there now that is maybe five feet with a berm there and you have fences that are part of the HOA. How does the department mitigate that when connectivity has to occur? North and south of it as Mr. Kinney said you run into HOA issues, is that an easement? How does that work? Lopez informed Minnaar that the length of the path would have to run the entirety of the approximately four hundred feet of his property and that the petitioner would not be responsible for any pathway not in front of his property. She also stated that other properties in the area would be required to do similar pathway improvements if they ever proposed a project that caused significant changes to the property. Minnaar followed up on a cost inquiry and Lopez said that was still yet to be determined by an engineer that would still need to be hired by the petitioner. Kirsh: It appears to me that there is a lot of room in the right-of-way for multiuse path until you get up to the…I never know what to call it…the Mayor’s former neighborhood. Anyway, the Mayor’s former neighborhood that is convoluted because of the path kind of dives in and out of private property and into the right of way, but to the south there is adequate room for a multiuse path as I see it without going out there and doing some land survey. My question really is to staff is that this property is odd in that it steps out into the right of way. I see this on old properties from time to time. Do they have a commitment to dedicate the line back and to conformity? Lopez stated that except for a small sliver on the south edge of the property which will be dedicated to the City, the property is already in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan’s guidelines for right-of-way. She noted that it would not stop them from providing additional right-of-way if they voluntarily wanted to or they could provide a public access easement across their property for the pathway. Kirsh ultimately went on to suggest that the petitioner should dedicate the necessary right of way based on what the Engineering Department thought would be required for a path and to make a contribution to the Thoroughfare Fund. He saw this proposal as a compromise allowing them to have more time to keep their trees and privacy. Hollibaugh: If we get the school (who we are in negotiations with now) to install the path, and if we get this segment of path, the little bit remaining would allow kids to get to Cherry Tree Elementary safely on a facility that can handle some traffic. Another thing to think about is the possibility that the County may have a plan to do grade separated roundabout interchanges at Hazel Dell and 146th Street. (We just dealt with this issue at Gray Road and 146th Street.) So, the protentional for significant impact on the Mayor’s former neighborhood does also allow the potential for the path. A lot of things can happen in the future, and we can’t just look at it how things are today. Further investment is necessary to maintain the quality of life in the community. We should not lose sight of the other potential dominos in this area that could allow for what seems like a minor segment of path, that could be a very important part of the puzzle later. We should seize the opportunity to have the path installed if we can. Kirsh clarified to the Commission that he believed he was in agreement with Director Hollibaugh regarding the goal, they just may have slightly different ideas on how to achieve it. Zoccola: I completely understand how they feel. If they were to lose those trees…they are right there on Hazel Dell… that is a pretty busy road so to lose that, that would really affect a lot of their property. Is there room to put in this ten-foot path without getting into the tree line? If it was as Josh said if you moved it more to the curb? Is there even room to do it? 3 Plan Commission Minutes 5-21-24 Hollibaugh: I am really not familiar with all the details. To be honest I am looking at it from a transportation planning standpoint, not a technical one. Kirsh: That was kind of the reason why my suggestion was we let the Engineering Department say, “this is what we need as a minimum” and that the Petitioner contributes to the Throughfare Fund. That way, the Engineering Department and the City have the breathing room to build a path in the future. To Director Hollibaugh’s point, having a path to the south is easier to obtain because the path to the north may resolve itself with the County’s project. A grade separated roundabout interchange will seriously impact that neighborhood, but that is likely how the path is going to happen. Grabow: My two cents are the last thing we want are children walking to Cherry Tree Elementary thinking they have to go north on the east side of Hazel Dell as far as they can, and then try to cross over to the west side where it continues because it keeps bouncing back and forth. Regardless, I think the solution requires a deeper understanding of this site and of the continuity of the multi-use path on the west side of Hazel Dell so I will ask Dubbie [Buckler] to present her motion once again. Motion by Buckler and seconded by Zoccola to send to committee with final voting authority granted to the committee. APPROVED 9-0 Following the motion Lopez asked what information the Commissioners would like to see brought to the committee. Hill: I think the potential is there for multi-use path improvements someday. Perhaps understanding what the contribution would be so we can weigh that and perhaps we can leave well enough alone for today and let the trees stay until there is a need to install a wider path. Then there will be funds to do that. I think understanding what the cost is would be helpful. Kirsh: Also, what the Engineering Department may want for a minimum contribution of right-of-way to make the path effective would be the other thing I would like to see. Campagna: I would also add onto that the contribution in relation to current cost verses what the path could cost a year from now, two years from now, a year and a half from now. Escalation is a big deal so I don’t want to keep the owners on the hook for something that could rise 3%-5% within the next year and a half. Old Business 1. Docket No. PZ-2023-00227 PUD Amend: Jackson’s Grant Village – Daycare. The applicant seeks PUD Amendment approval to add the (previously known as) Cunningham parcel into the Jackson’s Grant Village PUD. A new Daycare use and land swap is proposed, which will allow for 3 additional townhome units to be constructed. The site is located at 510 West 116th Street and is zoned S-2/Residence and is within the West 116th Street Overlay. Filed by Ashley Ulbricht of Taft Law on behalf of Del DeMao of DeMao Retail Consultants, LLC. Petitioner: Ashley Ulbricht: • Ulbricht provided an update since the last Plan Commission meeting at which the petition was heard recapping the scope of the proposal, proposing a PUD amendment to allow for a 10,000 square foot day care center and the relocation of townhome units by incorporating the former Cunningham parcel into the Jackson’s Grant Village PUD. • Updated traffic study as requested by the former Commercial Sub-Committee was completed. Steve Fehribach – A&F Engineering: • Fehribach provided a short summary on the mechanics behind completing a traffic study in regard to capacity, traffic counts, and levels of service (levels A & B being free flowing traffic while level F being gridlock). • Almost all areas studied in the development had service levels of A or B. Fehribach did call out and go into detail on one area of the development that received an F at peak hours. The area in question was the south bound direction at the southern access point to the development along 116th Street. Fehribach wanted to clarify that in this case though that does not mean there is gridlock, or that the intersection fails. It simply means at the “left turn out only” there are not many gaps in traffic on 116th Street allowing for a quick turn out time. In the worst-case scenario, people could move over to the western Spring Mill Road access and go south to the roundabout and go any direction they want to.