Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCombined Committee Mintues 09-03-24City of Carmel 1 Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 9-3-24 Carmel Plan Commission COMBINED RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE Tuesday, September 3rd , 2024 Meeting Minutes LOCATION: Council Chambers, City Hall Members Present: Joshua Kirsh (Co-Chair), Sue Westermeier (Co-Chair), Dubbie Buckler, Adam Campagna, Shannon Minnaar, Christine Zoccola, Jeff Hill Staff Present: Mike Hollibaugh (Director), Christina Jesse (Planning Administrator), Bric Butler (Recording Secretary), Alexia Lopez (Planning Administrator), Aliza Shalit (Sign Specialist), Alli Lynch-Mcgrath, (Legal Counsel), Sergey Grechukhin (Legal Counsel) Meeting Time: 6:00 p.m. 1. Docket No. PZ-2024-00120 ADLS Amend: Restructured Chiropractic. The applicant seeks design approval for exterior modifications to the building. The site is located at 3940 W 96th St. It is zoned B-2/Business and is located within the US 421 Overlay zone. Filed by George Small of Design Point, Inc. Petitioner: George Small: • Small provided existing and proposed graphics of the building at 3940 W 96th Street. The building currently is painted light blue and has a roof with window dormers. They are revamping the outside by removing the dormers and repainting the building white with black awnings. • Additional landscaping will be provided with black mulch overall removing a lot of white landscaping rock currently present. Department Report: Christina Jesse: • Proposed improvements for the location consist of repainting the building white except for the unpainted brick wainscot. Also provided will be a new entrance feature, new windows, new awnings, new light fixtures, new signage, and bike parking. • Landscaping and parking designs will be brought to the standards approved in the 1996 DP ADLS. • The only current issue noted by staff is that the property currently has AC units blocking sidewalk access along the rear of the building. The owner has committed to relocation of the units once they need to be replaced to a parking island along the rear of the property. Staff is in favor of this commitment. • Staff recommended approval subject to the aforementioned commitment. Committee Comments: Minnaar: When they move the air conditioning units will they be contained? What is it going to look like? Will they be able to be seen from the street? Jesse: So, the units will be placed in a parking island along the rear of the building. There is a one-way traffic pattern around the building, so anyone entering the building will be passing by them, but they are proposed to be screened with some plantings, ideally tall grass or shrubs. Westermeier: Was there any thought put into connecting this building with the building to the west? Jesse: There were some easements that were brought up and then some landscaping concerns from our urban forester, so they just wanted to remain with the plan from 1996. Commissioner Hill thought there was a slight variation in the sidewalk between the before and after graphics. The petitioner confirmed that the sidewalk was to be unchanged and that it was simply artistic variation. Kirsh: This is not in the River District this is in the 421 Overlay so what kind of concession had to be made as it fell into the 421 Overlay? 2 Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 9-3-24 Jesse: The primary concern was just the architectural standards for the building. The US 421 overlay requires the petitioner to choose one of four architectural styles, they chose the Federalist style. So, a lot of the exterior building improvements covered the majority of concerns the department had. Motion by Hill, seconded by Westermeier to approve the petition subject to the condition of relocation of air-condition units upon replacement. APPROVED 7-0 2. Docket No. PZ-2024-00127: ADLS Amend-Sign: Bru Burger Mural on Patio Wall The applicant seeks approval for an exterior mural. The site is located at 12901 Old Meridian St. It is zoned UC and is not located within an overlay zone. Filed by Josh Brinson on behalf of Bru Burger Bar-Carmel. Petitioner: Josh Brinson: • Brinson is partnering with the owner of Bru Burger, Mike Cunningham, to create a mural for the outdoor patio area of Bru Burger’s Carmel location. • Brinson provided aerial imagery to highlight the location of the mural. The mural is planned for on a wall within a courtyard area concealed from the roadway and even most of the parking lot. Department Report: Aliza Shalit: • Shalit provided a brief description of the wall material and mural content which consists of a concrete block wall power washed then painted before being clear coated with imagery consisting of the Indianapolis skyline, Carmel street signs, and a greyhound representing the school system mascot. • No aspect of the mural is considered signage as no commercial messages are present within the design. • Shalit requested clarification if there would be external illumination added for visibility of the mural. • Staff provided a favorable recommendation for the petition. Committee Comments: Zoccola: This is not an art advisory commission, but I think it looks great. It is different than any other mural that we have in Carmel. Since this is land use, I am looking at the location, and the location is great. As Josh [Commissioner Kirsh] said you really can’t see it unless you are sitting out on your patio. So, location is great, and I have no objection. I think it looks great. To her question I saw you nod your head no. There will not be any other illumination? Brinson: No. Buckler: I have a procedural question. Why does this have to come before the Plan Commission? Shalit: All murals must be approved by the former Commercial Committee now Combined Plan Commission Committee. Motion by Campagna, seconded by Buckler to approve the petition. APPROVED 7-0 3. Docket No. PZ-2024-00028 PUD: Towne 146 PUD Rezone. The applicant seeks PUD rezone approval to allow a mixed-use neighborhood consisting of single-family homes, townhomes, and neighborhood commercial. The site is located at 2275 W 146th Street and is zoned S- 1/Residence. Filed by Jim Shinaver and Jon Dobosiewicz of Nelson & Frankenberger on behalf of Lennar Homes of Indiana, LLC. Petitioner: Jim Shinaver: • Shinaver stated that when the project was initially conceived the developer intended for a townhome only residential development, but after conversations with staff about mixed use development and alignment with the Comprehensive Plan they added in the neighborhood commercial node and a mix of residential unit types that included detached single family. Yet upon further consideration after comments from the Plan Commission and public the developer decided to pull the commercial element from the project proposal. Additional townhomes or ranch homes are not planned due to the redesign needed to the 3 Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 9-3-24 removal of the commercial node, but additional two-story single family is planned. • At the time of the meeting the developer was still desirous of constructing a combined “super pond” with the Ambleside neighborhood but is analyzing what a stand-alone pond would look like for the site due to the comments and concerns from the public at the previous meeting about wanting separate ponds. Department Report: Alexia Lopez: • Staff preferred the developer to stick with the mixed-use concept plan and to work with them on addressing concerns raised by the Plan Commission and public. Committee Comments: Zoccola: I am actually in favor of taking out the commercial in this plan, so I think that is a good move. As you are thinking of what to replace it with, I like the two story detached homes because we are hearing on our housing task force that not just our empty nesters but also our young professionals are looking to buy something, and this would fulfill that sort of demographic. So, I like that plan, and I look forward to seeing what is proposed. I am still not sold on the shared pond. I still think there needs to be two ponds. I would like to see what that would look like at the next committee meeting. Kirsh: I am under the impression that the county put you up to the “mega pond”, that this came from a higher body? Shinaver: It was not. Jon Dobosiewicz slightly misspoke at the August Plan Commission meeting. It was not the county who requested the combined ponds. When Lennar was looking at the site, they were looking at the neighborhood shoppes element, they were looking at the drainage needs, they were looking at other considerations. They approached the county highway department. The drainage pond in Ambleside is actually in, owned by, the Hamilton County Highway Department and it would essentially be governed by both the Hamilton County Surveyors Office and any rules and regulations the City of Carmel Engineering Department would have. Tony Bagato of Lennar actually reached out to the county to begin that discussion. So, I did want to correct the record and that was in my next section to make sure we were giving the correct information… With that said the dialogue that started to occur between Lennar representatives, county highway department, discussions with the Surveyor’s office, we were not given any opposition to the possibility of combining ponds. The most important element, I am not an engineer but all the engineers in the room know this, is how its designed and if they are meeting all the standards and requirements. That doesn’t take away from the importance of how a combined pond may impact some of the existing tree cover out there. With that said to answer your question it was something that Lennar was interested in so they perused those discussions to the point at the last Plan Commission meeting in August there were some questions and valid concern about how would joint maintenance of a pond feature like this work between two HOAs. So, David Tarani has been in discussions with Dave Compton of Pulte Homes as well as with Paul Rio of Platinum Properties. Pulte is the builder and Platinum is the developer of that property, and based on where that community is at in its evolution those entities control the HOA board and can make proper decisions, decision that would be in the best interests of the residents who they will ultimately hand that HOA over to, So, because Lennar sees validity in having a combined pond they are beginning those discussions on how a joint maintenance agreement would work, and one of the items we planned to bring back to you in October was what stage those discussions are in because it can be done. Again, the most important element about the drainage and the pond is that it needs to be properly designed, properly function, and meet all standards and requirements. With that said Christine when we come back with two concept plans that show a standalone pond and combined pond, we will be able to talk about the upsides and downsides of each. I’ve asked Lennar and they love it when I spend their money, so I asked them if they could please engage an arborist to look at the actual trees that are on this perimeter between the two shared properties. Which there is much less existing tree cover that you can see on aerial photographs, but looking at the tree cover and trees that exists on the southeastern portion of the real-estate because while I am not an arborist and I’m not an engineer, I know trees are very important but it’s the condition of the tress the health of the trees, and if based on an arborist doing a tree inventory and some analysis we might find some trees and in a better condition than others worth preserving and vice-versa. I would also want Lennar to look at if it were a combined pond, and if some of those existing trees needed to be removed because of their condition or their location, because when you are putting in drainage infrastructure you always have to deal with utilities and locations, but what could they do to add some new tree 4 Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 9-3-24 plantings. Minnaar: I would like to thank the petitioners for listening to the feedback from the community, because initially when I looked at this project I wasn’t against the commercial node of this project only because personal experience… Minnaar went on to provide antidote about a family member’s residence built near a similar commercial node and her positive childhood experience with it, but that she understood nearby residents did not feel the same way and gave way to their concerns. Buckler: If you are going to come back with an option to reconsider commercial to keep it in, no drive through. I think that was the number one loud and clear thing that we heard. I am not in favor of commercial in it at all, but I heard you say there might be some reconsiderations. I would only entertain, as one vote, walk up not drive through, but I would prefer not seeing any. My second comment is that if commercial goes the number one concern outside of commercial and the drainage is the density. If I hear one comment more than anything else is the high density, and the people who are already living in established neighborhoods don’t want that. Considering that the neighborhood adjacent the density of this project is about 40% higher than the neighborhood to the east the name of which is escaping me. If commercial goes and you decide to expand with more townhomes which I think is great. I would prefer to see no increased density. In other words, take the density where you are now and just spread it out among the land area that you have. My third concern is on the two ponds verses one pond. Having been president of an HOA in my lifetime, and I would just say if you ever want to prepare yourself for public service serve as president of an HOA and you will learn a great deal about constituent services and good listening. Two HOAs working together to maintain a common anything will only be as good as the current members of those HOA boards who agree to it at the time the agreement is put into place. I am not in favor of seeing two HOAs have shared responsibility for anything a swimming pool, pond, park, or anything. Shinaver: There are no plans to reintroduce neighborhood shoppes. The only possibility, but I don’t foresee it happening under any circumstances, is if we get this project to the council and a majority of the council members want to see neighborhood shoppes. It would not be because Lennar would come back in and ask for them. So just to be clear neighborhood shoppes are off the table. The second comment I want to make…I understand concerns about density and people’s opinions about density. I also sat in on a lot of Housing Task Force meetings, and there is a desire for new housing product. So, every new home we don’t build is one less home available for the types of people we are actually trying to now serve such as empty nesters and young families. So, it’s not to disregard your comment, its just pointing out that sometimes as developers/builders/land-use guys we are between a rock and a hard place because things are pointing in different directions. The other thing regarding density that I wanted to state that is very important, in Carmel density has always been measured by the number of units that are being proposed and the overall acreage of the site. The only reason I make that observation, I know you are all aware of it, while reading some of the public comment letters I saw a couple references that this proposal was 7.5 units per acre which it is not. This proposal currently has 92 homes on 16 acres and that is approximately 5.8 units per acre. Ambleside to our east is 260 homes on 60.5 acres, Ambleside based on the math is 4.39 units per acre. So, we are different than Ambleside, but not drastically different. I understand that Saddle Creek has a different density. Saddle Creek was developed over 20 years ago under a Roso standard in the old zoning ordinance that had different ways of looking at things. Saddle Creek is an absolutely wonderful neighborhood, but 20 years ago 146th Street was I believe one lane each way, might have been two? As we look how 146th Street has developed over time and what an important corridor it is east/west in our community, no wonder you are seeing the growth and development especially along the north side of 146th Street. You have retail, multifamily, townhomes. I mean this particular area right here if you can envision Village Park Plaza in Westfield and you envision where the Walmart is at and go all the way over to Five Guys that is about this area. I only point that out because when we look at this map about density, we all might have certain opinions, but when we look at this map and what is going around it, it is slightly different. Dubbie [Commissioner Buckler] I respect those comments and will take them to heart its just I am trying to use this as an opportunity as I sit in the Housing Task Force meetings there are discussions that talk about density and what is appropriate in transitions. That is why some of the discussion we are having about stand-alone pond verses a combined pond, 5 Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 9-3-24 what’s important is the land of the pond, which won’t be our decision but a byproduct of the Plan Commission recommendation and council, what is going to be more important is how it will be potentially buffered. Buckler: I appreciate that, and I have attended a number of housing conferences and watched all of the Housing Task Force videos. So, I understand there is a desire for homes and attainable housing, and I understand that residents don’t want it in their backyard. I get that and so I will stand corrected with your numbers, so would you repeat again what the density of this proposal stands now vs the density of the adjacent neighborhood? Shinaver restated the density statistics previously mentioned. Minnaar: If you are thinking of the two-story single family residential was there no thought into putting in what some of the products in Legacy are where you had the two adjoined houses with first floor masters? Shinaver: I think you might be referring to the Fine Craft Homes that Pyatt built, and they are actually a beautifully designed zipper lot where it is a duplex but when you are looking at it you will see a front door on one side with a side load garage and then on the other side you see a front load garage. If Lennar wants to look at any sort of detached duplex product, that’s something they can look at between now and the committee um but… Zoccola: I am still liking your first suggestion of your detached two-story homes, because right next door at Ambleside you have a lot of townhomes and further west we have paired patio homes. So, to provide that product of detached single family homeownership opportunity is something that we have both ends of the age spectrum looking for, so I like your first suggestion for what it is worth. Shinaver: One last comment on the drainage and then we can move on. I know you realize this but for the public’s benefit and for the people in the audience or watching from home, we are in the rezone stage and so rightfully so for this project we are looking at drainage in much more detail than what we might typically look at for a particular project. Drainage calculations and other information has already been submitted to city staff. If this project were successful through the council process, then Lennar would have to come back for development plan approval, which then would require a whole new level of detailed plans for drainage and all that infrastructure that would be made to the Plan Commission and the public. I am only pointing out that the drainage discussion if Lennar is successful with the rezone stage will only get further refined and we are way ahead of the curve of where most rezones are at this stage. Hill: You have quite a task ahead of you all balancing maybe the elimination of the commercial, the types of products you have on the site, and the density. I guess you have already talked about what the density is. I was going to ask you to come to the next committee meeting with a summary of density in some of the other neighborhoods mentioned, Ambleside, Albany Village, and maybe a few others for comparison. I am empathetic because as I mentioned at the last meeting cost of development continues to go up, and the additional density helps offset those costs. The density helps provide multiple types of products that maybe address the housing questions you’ve talked about, then at the same time maybe if we eliminate the commercial I just ask don’t just stuff a ton of additional density in there, but that corner is farthest away from Saddle Creek so maybe there is opportunities for continued steps and transitional types of products as you relook at what the entire site can be. I will go on record that I am interested or intrigued and supportive of a combined pond. I get what you are saying Dubbie [Commissioner Buckler] that can certainly bring challenges across property lines with different entities and organizations, but with the county involved and just the status of the Platinum and Pulte development verses it being already turned over to the homeowners association, maybe that is something that can help big picture wise trying to preserve trees and balance the trees that might be impacted. If the pond is combined, we kind of eliminate or can capitalize upon the safety ledges and things that are happening under water that can still help us meet the drainage ordinance while preserving real estate for homes you are talking about. So, a lot of moving parts and a lot of things competing with one another, good luck. Shinaver: If I could just touch on the traffic study very briefly, it is going to change. It is going to take out any counts associated with the neighborhood shoppes, and whatever number of new homes might be added to the project it will recalibrate it. It was submitted to DOCs staff projectdox, again for the publics benefit the traffic study was conducted in May of 2024 on a typical school day. They ran peak times in the morning from 6AM to 9AM and then again 3:30PM to 7PM at night. That actual traffic study at the time because the project was slightly moving in flux, actually had proposed 99 homes and the neighborhood shoppes. The idea is the traffic study will 6 Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 9-3-24 be updated with a memo that we will submit to staff in advance of the October meeting. The intersections that were studied were Towne Rd. & 146th Street, Towne Rd. & Old 146th Street, Ditch Rd. & 146th Street, and the conclusions of the traffic study based on that analysis was that Towne and 146th Street, Towne and Old 146th Street, and including Ditch Rd. and other intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service at levels around A and B for Towne and 146th and similar for Ditch in that no improvements were recommended or suggested by the traffic report at that time. We will update that traffic study and present it to staff, so you have it for your review. Kirsh: A very wise man once told me when you drive by this development, he wasn’t talking about this project of course, but he said whether it is 5.7 units per acre or 6.1 units per acre you’re not going to drive by and be like o yeah I see the difference between 5.7 and 6.1, but if it lends to the development of the property or as other commissioners have pointed out more affordable housing, I am a fan. Similarly, we go to such great lengths to protect trees, and everyone has heard me make this comment before and it sounds weird being the park tree hugging kind of guy, but what are we saving and what are we protecting? There are often times that I drive around, and I look at projects that we were very valiantly trying to save a batch of trees and then I look at them today and I am like, what we should have done was go in there and taken out the invasives or cut down the dead stuff, and we should have done that day one so that on day two fresh stuff starts coming back. Then five or ten years later we would have had a vibrant forest. So, my opinion about the trees is pull the Band-Aid off make bad stuff go away. I know the city arborist would back me on this, make it go away as soon as possible, and start letting good stuff come back supplementing it as you pointed out making it a healthy buffer. Shinaver: The next topic to review is the request for rental commitments. I just wanted to share some big picture observations. First of all, to set the stage Lennar is not saying no to rental commitments but what we are starting to learn in this industry is that there can be unintended consequences. This does not pertain to short term rentals, that is part of the PUD currently, and we default and will comply with the short-term rental requirements in the UDO. What we are starting to learn as an industry is that there may be unintended consequences of rental commitments in certain neighborhoods, and part of it deals with the FHA and the VA. Both of those agencies deal with lending, insuring loans, and loan programs. What I am starting to hear is, and I want to look into it further, is there are some situations that especially Veterans Affair’s wants the lending and building community to be slightly aware of. This would pertain to both veterans and active military service persons, and we need to look through some federal regulations in more detail. We want to avoid a situation that especially as it relates to military personnel or veterans, are they being placed in less of a position to by in this community because there is rental restrictions? I don’t know the answer to that, but we are going to look into it. Especially current active military personnel are in a situation where they might not be on US soil or could relocate somewhere else in the United States, and we want to make sure there is not a negative impediment to those type of folks wanting to get financing for either VA programs or get financing through VA approved private lenders who have different programs for no money down or low interest rates. I just mention it that is why we have not submitted anything yet to date. We are waiting and wanting to make sure we know what we are doing. I am not giving city legal any homework because they probably don’t need it, but communities and municipalities may want to look into on their own a little bit, because I understand you are going to get a lot of requests anytime a new site undergoes development that is residential it makes sense from the adjoining neighborhoods that are already developed to request something like that because of concerns people have. We just want to avoid the unintended consequences so…. Shinaver went on to explain various ways communities were limiting rentals such as percentage caps and one year delays on renting once buying a property then a maximum rental period of one year following that. Minnaar: I guess I understand the reasoning behind your logic however my concern is the problem with Carmel is people want to live here and we have institutional buyers who come in and have no trouble purchasing several blocks of townhouses. I see nothing wrong with in my own neighborhood putting a time period on which you can rent your property, you must own it so many years, with really good hardship clauses in them which is I think, and I will leave it to legal to answer these questions they may not be HOA experts or FHA or VA experts, but I do believe that in order to protect the market and the homes in our communities from institutional buyers there should be some language in there. I have no desire to keep a vet or first-time home buyers out of the market, but I do have an issue with institutional buyers. So, if there is a way to mitigate that I would like to see that in the chain 7 Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 9-3-24 of title. That just puts the onus on the property buyer when they buy it, they know what they are getting into. Zoccola: I support her comment as well. We don’t want to see all or a majority of this neighborhood converted to rental. We have outside third parties coming in buying blocks or the whole neighborhood and converting it to rental. So, I am sure we can work out with whatever necessary exceptions need to be carved out, but that is the intention behind it. Buckler: If a property is affordable especially a new build, there isn’t going to be a problem with a VA loan, unless you come back with some research that shows there is some new provision hidden somewhere don’t think that this is going to be a concern for excluding veterans or active duty military being able to purchase a home that can take advantage of the VA loan. Now if there are new things buried in a new federal code somewhere that has bearing on this you can enlighten us after you have done your research, but I don’t think this as it stands now even if there were no changes that there is any impediment in this plan to a person coming and obtaining a property using a VA loan. I just don’t see there is a problem with that, and I strongly echo Shannon and Christine, and I just flipping what you said, unintended consequences by trying to make sure we aren’t doing something turn around and allow something that allows a majority of the neighborhood to become rental property. I join them that there has got to be significant safeguards against that happening. Shinaver provided a closing statement updating the Plan Commission on a few other proposed changes from the original plan. Such changes included breaking up the single mailbox station into multiple smaller stations throughout the neighborhood, including neighborhood access to the new 146th Street trail, and updating townhome architecture to improve anti-monotony Westermeier: I wanted to thank you for coming here tonight so well prepared to address residents and commission concerns that were in the last meeting. I know it is difficult for the department as they were advocating a different direction. I don’t know we will just have to see what you come back with, but it was well received by me. I am just one person but when you made a few comments it was great. I would encourage townhomes along if you need more townhomes – not more but to change the design – to have them be along where maybe the commercial was, but no more townhomes than what is in there today and less would be fine because I think we all agree that the two story product for young families is great and at the same time I want to add because of that is can you add some special amenities into the area now that you have more area? I’m talking you know some kind of innovative playground or something that appeals to families. I know we have parks around, but it would be nice with the connectivity for people to be able to have a destination, not necessarily commercial, but a place to go and gather especially for the kids. The linear park is great for kicking soccer, but I think you have the opportunity do a little more in that area. CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 1ST COMMITTEE MEETING _______________________________ ______________________________ Bric Butler – Recording Secretary Sue Westermeier- Committee Co-Chair