Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCombined Committee Mintues 6-4-24City of Carmel 1 Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 6-4-24 Carmel Plan Commission COMBINED RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE Tuesday, June 4th, 2024 Meeting Minutes LOCATION: Council Chambers, City Hall Members Present: Sue Westermeier (Co-Chair), Joshua Kirsh (Co-Chair), Dubbie Buckler, Shannon Minnaar, Christine Zoccola, Chaka Coleman, Jeff Hill Members Absent: Adam Campagna Staff Present: Mike Hollibaugh (Director), Alexia Lopez (Planning Administrator), Christina Jesse (Planning Administrator), Bric Butler (Recording Secretary), Sergey Grechukhin (Legal Counsel) Meeting Time: 6:00 p.m. 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 an opening statement updating the committee on what had occurred regarding his project since he was last at the full Plan Commission a few weeks prior. He in that time received an estimate from an engineer for the cost of construction of the multiuse path that came to approximately $10,200. Kinney provided images to the committee of his property as it currently looks that showcased the trees in his yard that would have to be removed for a pathway to be put in. He stressed the importance of the trees for the privacy and enjoyment of his property. He stated that if the city did make him act on this matter, he would decide to pay into the thoroughfare fund instead of constructing the path now. He believed paying into the fund would allow the trees to stay which could give him time to plant additional trees in his yard and hopefully give them time to grow by when the city installs the path of their own accord. Department Report: Alexia Lopez: • Lopez stated that she, David Littlejohn – Alternative Transportation Coordinator, and Todd Gillian – Urban Forester met on site with the petitioner at the property to analyze the situation. She confirmed the petitioner was correct that they had assessed most of the line of trees would need to come out for the path to be installed, but also noted that the urban forester only saw two or three good trees worth saving. The rest of the trees were either not in good shape or not ideal species. • Lopez stated that while the petitioner could contribute to the Thoroughfare Fund that it was the preference of staff that the path be installed by the petitioner at this time so that the infrastructure could be in place and available to the community as soon as possible. She continued on to cite the benefits of the path over the existing sidewalk, such as the easier ability for biking and easier access for the disabled. • Staff recommended approval on the condition that the payment to the Throughfare Fund be made since that was the desired option by the petitioner. Committee Comments: Minnaar: Could the path he would pay for, does it have to be done immediately? I have read the UDO and I am not clear about what the timeline is for a project. I guess what I am asking is if he said ok I am going to build the house and do x, y, and z does that mean he has to build it during the construction of the home? Lopez indicated that it would need to be built during the construction process of the home and that the city would likely not sign off on the certificate of occupancy until it was built. Hill stated that he was supportive of the petitioners request to provide payment to the Thoroughfare Fund in lieu of construction of the path at this time. He thought that if there was not a current sidewalk he might think 2 Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 6-4-24 differently, but seeing as there was one a contribution to the fund seemed a good compromise that helped alleviate the concerns of the property owner while still supporting the overall community of Carmel long term. Kirsh: I thought I heard the petitioner state that they didn’t want to make a commitment or build the path? Its going to have to be one or the other (Commissioner Zoccola clarified he did offer to make the commitment). Ok. I also didn’t hear anything about dedication of right of way. Is that something that maybe staff can fill us in on? Lopez informed the committee that only a small sliver of right of way along the south edge of the property would have to be dedicated to the city because the rest of the existing right of way is already in line with what is required by the Comprehensive Plan. Kirsh: You’re telling me that should the City Engineer decide to put in a 10-foot multiuse path in the future or whatever it may be, with the dedication they are contributing there is room and not going to be a need for the city to purchase right of way from the homeowner? Lopez: I am not saying that. I am just saying that what we require is what is in the Transportation Plan and that width exists today besides a small portion. So, depending on the design of the path, if there is that six- or eight- foot tree lawn… Kirsh: For anyone who is maybe not fully paying attention to this conversation, we the city will have to subsidize this path at a future date because this is going to be the best deal ever for this path, and the city is likely going to have to purchase right of way from the petitioner at a future date to make the path a reality. So not only is it going to cost the city more…I am also of the mind frame to give the people a chance to grow some more trees. Adam [Commissioner Campagna] had brought up do we just charge this number or this number plus 8% per year until the path gets built? That’s not the city’s policy so we just need to be cognizant of what the ramification is of this committee should we choose to just take the acceptance as it stands verses as my father would say “pull off the band aid” and move on with the process. I don’t know if I have a feeling one way or the other at this point. Zoccola: What would trigger the city finally putting in the path in this location, what are the other pieces that would need to fall into place before the city would put that path in? I am just curious, is this something soon or down the road? Lopez responded that she is not fully aware of when and how pathways are put in by the city. She believed that multiple factors contributed to the decision-making process such as funding, location, and safety concerns. She did note that the council recently did provide funding to fill in missing pathway segments. Kirsh: I think part of the answer to that question is the county is going to create an interchange at Hazel Dell and 146th Street that will fundamentally change pedestrian access through that intersection. The school is going to be on the hook to put in a path, they are not going to get away with making a contribution. Those two things would instigate it. Coleman: The contribution is made based off their estimate or the city would get its own? Lopez clarified that the petitioner is responsible for getting the estimate, but the estimate would have to be approved by the Carmel Engineering Department. Coleman followed up to ask for clarification on if the cost estimate included tree removal and if this would be the only section of 10-foot path in this area along Hazel Dell if it was built now. It was confirmed by staff that tree removal was not an included cost and that at the time yes it would be the only area of such path. Buckler: The letters that we read referenced questions about the second home. Can we assume there is no opposition to the premise of actually building and dividing the property into two parts? The petitioner replied that he had not been made aware of any opposition to the project, just that early on there were some questions from the neighbors about the nature of the project. He went on to show elevations and site plans of the proposed new home to the committee. Buckler followed up with an additional question regarding what form of payment had to be made to the Throughfare Fund. She inquired if a promissory note could be provided or if it had to be an upfront cash payment. Staff clarified that the payment had to be cash up front. 3 Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 6-4-24 Kirsh: I am going to vote no on this as it stands because I think that we are not asking for enough from the petitioner to cover the shortfall and I just want you all to know why. Commissioner Zoccola interjected that the amount would have to be approved by the Carmel Engineering Department, but Commissioner Kirsh still thought that what would be provided would be severely under what would be needed to construct the path in the future due to cost inflation as well as the need to purchase additional right of way. Commissioner Buckler went on to ask if the committee could approve the plat on condition of a future payment that factored in additional money to cover at least some of the concerns raised by Commissioner Kirsh. Although Commissioner Buckler was more open to the city subsidizing some of the cost since it would be a public path. Overall, it was determined that the statutory authority for such a compromise was not provided by the current language in the Unified Development Ordinance. Minnaar: When they built the path behind my home on 131st Street it was funded by a grant. I am not sure how much was city funded, 131st Street between Gray Rd. and Keystone Pkwy. It has been a long time, so you probably don’t remember. There is a possibility for grants, and for Josh [Commissioner Kirsh] to say he wants the path to be built now and have tree removal says a lot because he is our big tree hugger here. So, I just want to throw that out there too, Josh. I know at some point when 146th Street and Hazel Dell happens we are going to have that – you know this – situation where this is all going to change. Commissioner Hill asked the petitioner for clarification on the location of all existing right of way and easement lines. The petitioner returned to the podium and brought up the site plan of the property to review the locations. Discussion ensued regarding possible future path location ultimately cumulating in the petitioner reiterating his desire to simply pay the required amount into the Throughfare Fund. Zoccola: I just want to recap, per code their choice is either build the path or contribute the funds. It is their choice and not up to us to decide which way to go, they get to make that decision? Lopez: Correct, based on the way the UDO is written in section 1.07, it requires compliance with the Transportation Plan or that the petitioner may elect to provide a monetary commitment equal to the value to otherwise design and construct the improvements indicated by the Transportation Plan. Hill: The right of way dedication that is in compliance with the Transportation Plan does or does not move the line to line up with the right of way already dedicated to the south along Avian Glen or to the north to the school property? Lopez: It does not line up exactly with the lines to the north or south. I think what has happened is we have the new Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Plan and so we shrunk some of our right of ways. So, when I think this was first built it was 120 feet now I think it is maybe 100 feet. I need to double check that number. So, it would meet the current Transportation Plan but not line up the rights-of-way to the north and south. Hill: I heard your thought Josh [Commissioner Kirsh] and I get where your head is at. If the city comes in later, it might cost more, maybe its inflationary, maybe we build it bigger, better, and stronger and then there is also that notion that you may have to buy right-of-way whether for the path or utilities. If we had the petitioner coming to us saying, “I will build the path today” they are building it in that dedicated right of way not setback right? Kirsh: I don’t know if that is the case. I think the City Engineer has to make that determination where he wants the path. My original statement to the petitioner at the first go of this was a compromise where that amount of right of way had been dedicated to the city and they wanted to put that money in a fund and start planting trees on their property to start creating this buffer then that to me seems like a reasonable compromise. You know the city is going to have to fund a path project in the future whether that is through a bond or some bigger plan. The city has historically had two mechanisms to build multi-use paths. First of which was what I call organically, someone redevelops their property and the city has a code that says build a path. Then there is wholesale which Commissioner Buckler and Minnaar are talking about. The problem is there were holes. There were 38 million dollars’ worth of holes, and the council to their chutzpa ponied up the 38 million dollar bond, but 38 million dollars is not going to fill all the gaps. So, if we create gaps in the network…I think that was intended to be a one- time fix. I think what they were counting on - they didn’t say this, but I suspect if you could go back and ask them – us not creating more holes in the network. I think what everyone has said is correct, the petitioner is even correct that there is probably a bigger project here, but we are adjacent to a project that is happening, so you are 4 Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 6-4-24 going to get two pieces of the project. At least in my mind, my vote, if there was a compromise and I knew the petitioner wasn’t dedicating the bare minimum, but what the engineering department would want for a path and that to me seems like a reasonable compromise. What I am seeing is a minimum number for the path, but then the city is going to go and buy land from them to the tune of 20 thousand dollars. I am seeing us create a problem we know. Commissioner Zoccola explained she understood Commissioner Kirsh’s concerns but went on to stress the importance of treating all petitioners equally in regard to application of the ordinance regarding the decision to construct the path or pay into the Thoroughfare Fund and regarding right-of-way dedication. She then asked staff to confirm the standard process had been followed with this petitioner and staff confirmed that the process as normal had been followed as outlined in the UDO. Coleman: I don’t think that compromise [as outlined by Commissioner Kirsh] is appropriate not in this instance or any other until the council decides to change the way that we approach these situations. Motion by Hill, and seconded by Zoccola to approve on condition that the petitioner provides payment to the Thoroughfare Fund in the amount of the estimated cost of path construction as approved by the Carmel Engineering Department. APPROVED 6-1, Absent: Campagna, Nay: Kirsh Adjourned 6:49 PM _______________________________ _____________________________________ Bric Butler – Recording Secretary Sue Westermeier - Committee Co-Chair