Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 05-21-24 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. 4 Plan Commission Minutes 5-21-24 Also, of note according to Fehribach is that while the level of service is an F at this location in the development the average que of cars waiting would only be 1.2 cars. Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • Keesling highlighted from the traffic study the fact that all three access roads showed negative numbers, which means a reduction of trips on the main road occurred and that people who were already out traveling would be coming to the development for the commercial component within it. • Jackson’s Grant Blvd. nor Otto Lane was included in the study as they are not major intersections or travel ways that would be impacted by the proposal. Per the report, it was highly unlikely that external drivers on Spring Mill Road would bring themselves into the internal roads of Jackson’s Grant to get to the rest of Jackson’s Grant Village. • Staff support for the land swap was reiterated for the following reasons: o Rezoning the parcel to be the same as the surrounding land would require it to have the same stringent architectural requirements the rest of Jackson’s Grant Village. o Incorporating the parcel would allow for the existing driveway cut that acts as access to the property to be removed, as the new entrance would be internal to the development. Such an improvement would increase traffic safety on 116th Street. o The development as proposed would increase the amount of parking spaces within Jackson’s Grant Village, reducing the likelihood of on-street parking in the residential areas of Jackson’s Grant Village. o The proposed use, a day care, would be a valuable asset for the City of Carmel due to the overall shortage of quality day care options. This is not only an issue for Central Indiana, but all over the country. • A favorable recommendation to the Council was recommended. Committee Comments: Commissioner Kirsh requested that City of Carmel Engineer, Jeremy Kashman, provide his analysis of the traffic study provided by the petitioner to assist in his decision making. Kashman: From my standpoint, I think the use is a perfect use here. When the parcel was a standalone parcel, I had some concerns about how it would interact with 116th Street. So once it got brought into the surrounding development, I was 100% in favor of that. It has been said before, but we already addressed the access locations of Jackson’s Grant Village, whether it be between Spring Mill or 116th Street. So, knowing those things have already been done, I think the traffic numbers look great. Commissioner Campagna inquired about why the tree preservation area seemed to be a different size depending on which illustration was looked at. The Petitioner clarified that the tree preservation area was to remain consistent in size to what had always been promised and that the visual discrepancy present was a purely artistic error. Commissioner Hill pointed out there was a discrepancy in the labeling of the preservation area as well (.5 acre vs. 1.5 acre). The Petitioner also clarified that that was a typo, and that the full preservation area would be kept. Zoccola: I think the plan, or the hope and the intent, always was to bring the Cunningham parcel into the PUD. I think that was always the plan when Jackson’s Grant Village was approved. The Cunningham parcel is zoned residential so in my opinion anything that goes on that parcel needs to be residential. So, I completely understand the train of thought when a commercial use was brought forward for that parcel to move it closer to the other commercial. I understand how everybody got there. Having been on the Plan Commission when the Jackson’s Grant Village PUD was approved, I remember how controversial it was to take commercial development across “the line” of Spring Mill Road. There were a lot of promises that ended up being made at the City Council to keep it very small and just to what you see approved today. So that is the part I am struggling with. Doubling the footprint of the commercial space, when representation has been made of the size it was going to be. I think the Jackson’s Grant Village was probably one of the hardest votes ever cast. Because it was, it is, a reasonable project, but there had been representations at the time that Spring Mill is “the dividing line” between commercial and residential. Unless there is buy in to move that “line”… I am having that same struggle here. Commissioner Buckler who was not on the Plan Commission at the time of the original approval of Jackson’s Grant Village thanked Zoccola for her background on the approval process at that time and desired to know even more about promises made during the process. She also inquired as to why the already approved proposed commercial buildings could not be brought 5 Plan Commission Minutes 5-21-24 closer together or made into one to make space for the day care and add an access point off of Spring Mill Road. The Petitioner reiterated that could not occur because of the 7,500 sq. ft. building size limitations put in place by the PUD. President Grabow added that the intent behind that limitation was to reduce as much as possible the commercialism of that corner to satisfy nearby residents opposed to the project. Commissioner Kirsh also noted that putting an access point that close to a roundabout could be problematic and asked the opinion of Kashman. Kashman did not think being that close to a roundabout was a problem but that adding another access point close to an already existing one could be. Minnaar: So, a few things I would like to bring up, the clarity of the square footage question. You and I had a conversation Del [Demao] and my concerns remain unchanged. I don’t necessarily believe that the day care is the big issue in my opinion and this is just me speaking for myself. I think the issue is there were promises made by Plan Commission and Council ultimately about what commitments were given to the neighbors, and so my biggest concern is the size that you are asking for. You are asking for an additional 2,500 sq. ft.? Demao: Correct, the limitation is 7,500 sq. ft. and we are asking for a 10,000 sq. ft. facility. Minnaar: On top of that it is also adding an additional however many square feet to the original PUD correct? Demao: Right. To address President Grabow, that’s exactly correct, to limit the number of uses. You didn’t want Saint Elmo’s Steakhouse coming in in 10,000 sq. ft. right at 116th Street and Spring Mill. That’s why we made a specific limitation that this new building will only be used for day care. Minnaar: So, I will get to my point here. You are asking for an additional amount of retail space on top of what Republic is building in that corridor right there? Correct? [Yes.] I just want that to be clear. It was clarified by the Petitioner that Commissioner Minnaar analysis of the situation was correct but stressed once again it would only be additional space for a day care, not general retail. The Petitioner also noted that the inclusion of the new parcel would actually decrease the overall density of the development. Commissioner Buckler asked for clarification on the size of the proposed buildings. The Petitioner explained that the width of the proposed day care would be the same as the already approved commercial buildings, but it would be slightly deeper. That is what makes it larger. Grabow: Correct me if I am wrong, but the site is currently to total a maximum of 20,000 sq. ft. of commercial with a very specific and limited list of uses to occupy that space. No one user may take more than 5,000 sq. ft. That is not a commitment, that is in the zoning ordinance as part of the PUD. The residential component change here is that with the addition of 1.7 acres (represented by the Cummingham parcel) that provides space for three additional townhomes above and beyond what is currently allowed in the PUD. That additional acreage adds more land, so if they add townhomes, that is how the density for townhomes goes down if this is approved. Westermeier: I was here four years ago in June 2020 when this went through. It was very, very difficult. We actually moved this forward with a negative recommendation to the Council. Commitments were made on the amount of commercial. This was upsetting to a lot of the people, and I feel, and I am just being honest, that increasing the commercial, even be it for a daycare, we are not doing the right thing for the commitments we made four years ago. I just want to put that out there. Republic’s commercial has not even been built yet so we don’t even know how busy that is going to be yet when we are talking about parking. People parking at night…we don’t even know that could be all day parking. Just its an unknown and that’s not built. I just don’t support this, I am sorry. Commissioner Coleman who was not a member of the Plan Commission at the time of the original approval of Jackson’s Grant Village asked for more background on the commitments made to residents of the area about commercial. Commissioner Zoccola and Westermeier once more provided a brief history of the opposition and concerns from the residents and how commercial was not a component till later towards the end of the Jackson’s Grant development process when they decided to carve out a block at the corner of Spring Mill and 116th street for townhomes and ultimately low-intensity commercial after much discussion. Kirsh: I have a very unpopular opinion on commercial west of Spring Mill Road. I have always been perplexed by this “boogieman” west of Spring Mill Road that is not written anywhere, it is just out there. You can’t have commercial west of Spring Mill Road until you get to the Village of West Clay or Michigan Road, and then it’s ok again? What we tried to do when we worked through the commercial west of Spring Mill Road, we tried to do as Brad [Grabow] said, create that low intensity vibe. The other thing that we heard loud and clear from the residents of Jackson’s Grant is that they didn’t want “these people” (is the way it was put) to be part of their HOA. There was a big question about the amenities here that were to 6 Plan Commission Minutes 5-21-24 be provided for the new JGV residents. To Sue’s point, Dubbie’s question, and Councilwoman Minnaar’s statements, yeah, there were commitments made back then. But then the whole game changed when the Cunningham parcel came into play. Staff tried to do the right thing by saying instead of the Cunningham parcel being developed by itself and becoming a thing hard to manage, let’s do the right thing and move it to the east. This will lower net density, provide shared parking, all the good things we need in our community, including daycare. I understand the daycare is the continuation of the “boogieman” of commercial west of Spring Mill Road and a number of residents who are very well organized have convinced themselves this is a really bad thing. But I have said it before – I think this Commission is tasked with making tough decisions for the right thing for the community. Everyone has heard my buggy-whip comment before, sometimes people convince themselves of one thing and they are not sure what they actually want. When I see everything, and I try to be objective about it, I really think the right thing to do is presenting itself. I guess we are going to have to vote and decide which one of those things it is. Campagna motioned to provide a favorable recommendation to the City Council seconded by Kirsch. MOTION FAILED 4-5: (Nay: Buckler, Grabow, Minnaar, Westermeier, & Zoccola) Commissioner Westermeier and Zoccola requested clarification on why a second motion was entertained for consideration after the failure of the first motion which they thought should mean the recommendation to City Council would be unfavorable since the favorable motion failed. Commissioner Zoccola asked legal counsel to confirm that they had updated the rules of procedure to not require a revote. Legal counsel responded that for items such as ADLS where the Commission provides a yes/no final determination that is the case, but in their advisory capacity regarding rezones they should revote to provide a recommendation. Minnaar: I would like to personally see if there is a way we could work out keeping the square footage in the commercial area what we promised. That’s not a promise, it’s in our ordinance and we all know they are allowed to redo these things, but I would like to see if we can figure out a way to try and keep it at the maximum that was presented previously. Buckler motioned to provide no recommendation to the City Council seconded by Kirsh. APPROVED 5-4: (Nay: Grabow, Hill, Westermeier, & Zoccola) 2. Docket No. PZ-2024-00041 OA: Non-Dwelling Short-Term Rental Standards UDO Amendment The applicant seeks to amend the Unified Development Ordinance to establish standards and definitions for Non- Dwelling Short-Term Rentals. Filed by the Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling: • Keeling opened with a brief refresher on the definition of non-dwelling short-term rentals which is essentially any rental of outdoor space or property on a residential lot. • Keeling provided a breakdown of all revisions that were made to the draft ordinance during committee which are as follows; o Language clarifying the application of this ordinance to PUDs. o Reduction from three to two notices of violations or citations to trigger automatic revocation of approval. o Added clarifying language that liability insurance requirement was per incident/ occurrence and that annual insurance renewal information must be provided to staff. o Added language requiring that at least one person in the rental party must be 21 years of age. o Limited rentals to one day per calendar month not to exceed five hours. o Revised definition wording to include generic “yard” instead of specific “backyard” to avoid a loophole. Committee Comments: Commissioner Buckler inquired about the new language clarifying the application of the ordinance to PUDs. Legal counsel informed her that the language they drafted was per the request of the committee, but they do not advise adding it because it would be inconsistent with how the rest of the ordinance is written. Legal counsel feared that could lead to legal challenges based on rules for statutory construction. Yet there is still within the general zoning ordinance language that makes sure PUDs are properly covered.