HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 09-17-24 City of Carmel
1
Plan Commission Minutes 9-17-24
CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2024, MEETING MINUTES
Location: Council Chambers Room, 2nd Floor, Carmel City Hall
Members Present: Brad Grabow (President), Adam Campagna, Dubbie Buckler, Jeff Hill, Josh Kirsh
Members Absent: Shannon Minnaar, Sue Westermeier, Christine Zoccola (Vice)
Staff Present: Alexia Lopez, Mike Hollibaugh, and Bric Butler.
Legal Counsel: Sergey Grechukhin
Time of Meeting: 6:00 PM
Declaration of Quorum: President Grabow: 5 members present, a quorum is present.
Approval of the previous Meeting Minutes: A motion made by Campagna and seconded by Hill to approve the August 20th,
2024, PC meeting minutes. APPROVED 5-0
Reports, Announcements & Department Concerns
1. Commissioner Buckler introduced guest Jane Armstrong, an 8th grade student at St. Luke’s and member of Scout
Troop 171, who is working on two merit badges for Scouts – Citizenship in the Community and Communications
– both which require attending an official public government meeting.
2. Outcome of Projects at Plan Commission Committee
a. Docket No. PZ-2024-00028 PUD: Towne 146 PUD Rezone. Discussed and Continued to Oct. 1
b. Docket No. PZ-2024-00099 DP/ADLS: Spring Mill Shops. Tabled to Oct. 1
Public Hearings:
President Grabow explained the Rules of Procedure for a public hearing in front of the Plan Commission.
1. Docket No. PZ-2024-00122 CA: Meridian Trails Commitment Amendment
2. Docket No. PZ-2024-00123 V: Meridian Trails Height Variance
3. Docket No. PZ-2024-00130 V: Meridian Trails Parking Variance
The applicant seeks approval for commitment amendments and two variances to allow a new 55+ age restricted
housing development. The site is located at 201 W 106th St. and is zoned B-1/ Business. Filed by Jim Shinaver and
Jon Dobosiewicz of Nelson & Frankenberger on behalf of Steve Pittman and Justus Companies.
Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewicz:
• Dobosiewicz provided an overview of the proposed commitment amendment request which included amending to
allow for a 55+ age restricted community. Such a use is currently allowed in the underlying B-1 zoning district but
was specifically taken out in the 2018 zoning proposal. Dobosiewicz also requested the Plan Commission allow for
ancillary medical and service-related uses for the benefit of residents in the community and the public. A desire to
eliminate the hours of operation text for the residential component of the commitments was also requested. The
building and site design also differ from the original proposal of approximately 90,000 sq. ft. It is now
approximately 260,000 sq. ft.
• The two variances requested were as follows:
o Building height permitted under B-1 is 45 ft., requested is 47ft.-63ft. 47 ft. in height is the visible height
from adjoining properties, but due to the sloped grade of the property up to 63 ft. is needed.
o Parking spaces required by ordinance would be 340, while 232 were requested. The professional expertise
of Justus’ staff suggested that for their 55+ community an average of 1 parking space per unit is sufficient,
but with 232 spaces they would still be providing enough parking to make it 1.5 spaces per unit.
o Justus provided a brief history and description of the company mission to provide safe and high-end
housing to the 55+ community, and an overview of similar projects he has completed in Carmel and the
Indianapolis metropolitan area. He also provided a brief description of the proposed site and stated that his
company had made outreach to surrounding neighbors attempting to address development concerns.
• Justus displayed elevation and site plan renderings of the proposed development showing a four story, primarily
masonry building with a central courtyard on a 5.75-acre lot. 5,962 sq. ft. would be reserved for commercial space
2
Plan Commission Minutes 9-17-24
while the remaining square footage would be for the residential 55+ component of the project. All commercial
uses would be wellness orientated. A total of 169 apartments would be built within the residential portion of the
project. Parking would be a combination of under building garage stalls, detached garages, and surface parking.
• Justus reiterated he was determined to uphold prior commitments of tree preservation, landscaping, buffering, etc.
Public Comments:
Ron Houck – Houck identified himself as president of Spring Mill Place HOA, the community directly to the north of the
proposed development. Houck expressed some concern over the level of services and amenities to be provided to residents in
the community but stated some of his concerns were alleviated by the petitioner presentation. He also expressed concerns that
the parking would not be adequate for the development citing many of the residential units had multiple bedrooms and that
many couples in the 55+ range could still both be working full time with each person needing a car.
Jill Meisenheimer – Meisenheimer stated she was not opposed to 55+ housing but had concerns that the combo committee
process was being used to approve very different uses from what was allowed during the 2018 rezoning process for the piece
of land in question. She felt that the there was an unacceptable and massive increase in density being proposed compared to
what was previously allowed under S2 before it was rezoned to B1. She asked for additional information on the density of
adjacent neighborhoods, a topographical map of the property due to issues that could arise because of the steep grade of the
property, and for answers to general questions about senior friendly design of the interior. She also raised concerns about the
affordability of the apartments as well as similar concerns over the parking space reduction as raised by Houck. She also
wanted to know how neighbors would be protected from nuisances like noise and light pollution.
Petitioner Rebuttal: Jon Dobosiewicz:
• Dobosiewicz stated that many of the questions that were asked would be addressed later when the project, if
the commitment modifications were approved, would come back for ADLS development plan approval.
• Dobosiewicz noted that much of the multifamily housing that has been built over the past decade or so
averages out at approximately 1.6 parking spaces per unit, not vastly different from his client’s proposal. He
also reiterated his earlier claim that his client has professional expertise in the senior housing market and
knows what they need for their site.
• Dobosiewicz reiterated that all other commitments made during the 2018 rezoning process that are not a
subject of the current amendment request would be upheld.
Petitioner: Walt Justus:
• Justus, owner of the company, indicated that he owns two other 55+ communities in the Indianapolis area market
and that they have an average age of 74 and having one car per unit.
• The campus will have approximately six onsite staff including wellness, marketing, and executive directors as well
as maintenance staff.
• Universal design will be incorporated into the housing units and common and commercial spaces.
Department Report: Alexia Lopez:
• Lopez provided a recap of the history of the project, that it was rezoned from S2 to B1 in 2018 for a three-story
office building project that did not end up moving forward.
• The site layout of the newly proposed project remains similar in that the building will be closer to Illinois Street
which will allow for buffers to be maintained on the west and south edge of the property.
• The northern portion of the building is intended to have a small commercial space to allow for uses geared towards
serving the age restricted community on-site.
• The commitment requiring an eight-foot masonry wall along the southern property line is to remain in effect for
this development.
• Full architectural review of the proposed building will occur under separate ADLS development plan review.
Additional commitments made on architecture will remain in place for the new project.
• Due to grade changes on the property the requested height of the building has changed. The underlying B1 zoning
has a maximum height of 45’ while the petitioner is requesting 47’ for much of the building, and 63’for the
northern portion of the building where the ground begins to slope downward. Portions of the building visible to the
southern and western adjacent neighborhoods will remain closer to the 47’ in height. The other change request is
the reduction in the number of parking spaces from 340 to 232.
• Staffs remaining concerns included needing additional information on the materials the petitioner desires to use on
3
Plan Commission Minutes 9-17-24
the building as well as adding additional language to commitment number seven that clarifies that all architecture
will be approved under a separate development plan review.
• Staff recommended the petition be sent to committee for further review.
Committee Comments:
Buckler: We are just tonight changing the rules a little bit to allow them to come in with a different project. Is that a fair way
to describe what is happening tonight?
Grabow: Since I think your point is to clarify very precisely for folks watching, we are starting that process tonight. We do
not have a supermajority so we can’t suspend our rules of procedure to pass this tonight without sending it to the committee.
So, it is a given we will be sending it to committee for continued work.
Buckler: In general, as we go down this path, the project back in 2018 was going to be a big commercial building. Those
aren’t needed anymore we have changed the way we live. I do have a concern as been stated by the two remonstrators about
aging in place which does imply a continuum of care going from independent living to assisted living to long term care. If that
is what you are proposing, then I think there needs to be some modifications. If you are proposing senior living apartments
that allow people to stay in the independent stage before they have to move on to assisted living that’s different. So, I would
characterize this proposal as senior living apartments, and if I am wrong I think we need down the road some clarification on
what exactly is being proposed because you’re going into a whole different set of standards if you go through the full
continuum of care. So, I am worried about parking spaces myself, falling into the category myself of what you are proposing,
even as one person I have two cars so I would be concerned about the number of parking spaces.
Before coming here tonight so that our scout could see firsthand what we deal with, I actually drove up into the property and
turned around in the dirt thank goodness it was dry and drove back down. It was a real steep grade. So, at some point my
question will how much of that grade up to reach the upper part of the property is going to be leveled some. It is a steep climb
up and in icy conditions I could see that being a real quick exit out of the property. So, I have some concerns about grading. I
know this is far down the road, but I just want to get some of those concerns out.
My final comment is that people that are moving from their homes into senior living often come from gabled roof properties.
This is a stark design contrast from what people are moving from. I do have one other comment. The outdoor space – I ask
you when we get to that point that you consider some large swings like Midtown Plaza where there are some outdoor places
for people to sit. I am assuming you are going to have grandparents living there wanting grandchildren to visit, so I am not
recommending playgrounds per say but some outdoor seating places. To wrap it up the motion will be to send this to
committee for the consideration of the three docket items.
Hill: I have similar questions and concerns. If you could provide more information at committee Jon related to the parking
variance. Normally a variance might be an ask like hey we are really close we just can’t quite get there, and so we need a
variance. This is a big ask. I don’t want it overparked. I don’t want it under parked. So, I am sure there is some magical
number there. What might be helpful for me, I don’t know if other members of the committee would find it useful, here the
ask is 232 spaces instead of 340. The Noblesville site is 210 units, Nora 300, south side of Indy around 670 so if you could
give us a break down or comparison of number of units verses number of these other facilities we could do some kind of
comparison, maybe also at the Woodland Trace as well just as another reference point to understand how those are parked
compared to what the ask is here.
The commitment for the screening, the landscaping, and the wall I have learned a little about that. I was not here in 2018 but
appreciate those commitments and how they remain. If we could get a visual of what that looks like in a cross section from the
residences to the west of what they might see looking into the screening and landscaping compared to the building height
asked here verses maybe what is already approved might help me understand how significant or insignificant that is.
From a drainage standpoint I saw the old plan had dry detention in the southeast corner. Is there underground detention here?
(Dobosiewicz confirmed yes).
Campagna: I think Jeff asked my questions that were concerned the most. The parking issues obviously came up twice
before, but in comparison to Woodland Trace parking what does that look like? I heard 1.6 per dwelling for market rate verses
1.5 for this site. Is that currently accurate Jon?
Dobosiewicz: I am going to have staff provide the numbers but when we looked at a prior project last year, I think the average
fell somewhere in that rough proximity.
Campagna: I think the light pollution we discussed. No light pollution for the neighbors, there is a plan for that?
Dobosiewicz: There is a plan in place for that today that we are following that requires any independent lighting fixture like a
4
Plan Commission Minutes 9-17-24
light pole to be a maximum of 15 feet in height within 90 feet of the property line. We are also agreeable to using down
lighting and things of that nature so it will be addressed.
Campagna: For the commercial parking is there anywhere there could be some sort of overflow commitment from Ascension
to the east in case there needs to be more parking can you cross Illinois from that parking spot in case we need extra parking,
or do we think parking is sufficient for the commercial space? Those are my concerns.
Kirsh: Touching on what everybody else has said, if those other scenarios out there have a shared parking strategy or impact
might be relevant to know. I like where Adam [Commissioner Campagna] is at with this, but I just don’t think it is practical
people are going to park at Ascension and come over. I can’t help but maybe dive out of my lane for a minute but stay with me
for a second Jon. I see a couple things I am kind of passionate about, the water that is going through there and off the site so
that means the creek and the stormwater shed, and you just know I adore a sea of parking. One of the questions I had
previously was – this isn’t a question you have to answer right now but I would be curious to know if Mr. Mestetsky or the
Redevelopment Commission were interested in using some TIF to maybe create some shaded parking in this scenario maybe
that has solar panels or green roofs on it in the parking lot to kind of reduce some heat signature and maybe help capture some
of the storm runoff. With the storm runoff and the creek going through there maybe some TIF dollars could be allocated and
maybe some work with the stormwater administrator with the city or Hamilton County Soil and Water to see what kind of
green infrastructure could be added to enhance the water quality as it is coming off the site. I know it is a bit of a stretch and I
know it’s not my purview, but I can’t help but see an opportunity to make things better.
Buckler: Right now, conceptually, how much parking is underground verses outside?
Dobosiewicz: If I am not mistaken, I believe there are 45 spaces that are under roof, or rather under the building, and then
there are 4 parking garages that are another 32 spaces inside those garages. So about 75 to 80 total.
Campagna: I would like to know a little more about the tree commitment along the west and south adjoining neighborhoods.
If you could talk more to that at the next meeting.
Kirsh: I am a fan of trees, but I am not in favor of keeping skuzzy old fence row trees that aren’t doing anybody any favors.
I’d rather pull the band aid off and give some new light to a situation to allow a healthier canopy and buffer come back. I think
you understand. Too often we ask to save trees I drive by and I say why did we do that?
Grabow: If at committee you could give us a rendering of what the view at Rossato Hill would be, past the 8 foot fence past
the landscaping inside that wall because we are talking about a different use here than the 8-5 office use previously, and the
balconies at committee there be a discussion about two things in respect to the balcony design. One, what is Justus’ thinking
on value or merit of balcony railing that is highly transparent and ventilates well verses balcony railing that is more solid and
creates more privacy going in both directions. The other, if there is a flush mounted overhead light or a wall pack light what
the lighting experience of the west elevation would be to the parking lot and neighbors to the west. For the commercial space I
see I think it was six spaces proposed immediately outside the commercial space. Where would be the closest overflow
parking for commercial space patrons? Would that be in the garage down the ramp into the underground parking?
Dobosiewicz: There are spaces under the building and there is elevator access internal to the building that would come to that
level for patrons of the building.
Grabow: Are you far enough along in the building plans to know whether there would be an elevator located proximate to the
commercial space? (Dobosiewicz confirmed there would be more than one elevator bank and yes, they would be proximate.)
If you could update the committee on engineering standards in terms of grade and slope for stairways and ramps what the
maximum allowed pitch is for those, because right now I think we see a site that is highly elevated compared to either Illinois
or 106th but that may not be the case, or not to that extent, when you are done grading for the building but understanding for a
pedestrian coming in from offsite what their experience would be in terms of navigating any grade change that would be
developed.
Motion by Buckler, seconded by Campagna, to send the petition to committee with final voting authority
remaining with the full Plan Commission.
Meeting adjourned at 7:26 PM.
_____________________________________ ________________________________________
Bric Butler PC Secretary Brad Grabow President