Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCombined Committee Mintues 10-01-24City of Carmel 1 Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 10-1-24 Carmel Plan Commission COMBINED RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE Tuesday, October 1st , 2024 Meeting Minutes LOCATION: Council Chambers, City Hall Members Present: Joshua Kirsh (Co-Chair), Sue Westermeier (Co-Chair), Dubbie Buckler, Shannon Minnaar, Christine Zoccola Members Absent: Adam Campagna, Jeff Hill Staff Present: Mike Hollibaugh (Director), Rachel Keesling (Planning Administrator), Bric Butler (Recording Secretary), Alexia Lopez (Planning Administrator), Benjamin Legge, (Legal Counsel) Meeting Time: 6:00 p.m. 1. 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: Jon Dobosiewicz: • Dobosiewicz began by addressing that they had received and reviewed many letters from nearby residents regarding concerns over the commercial component of the project and rentals. He wanted to provide clarification that there was no longer a commercial component and a slight reduction in density from 5.87 to 5.5 units per acre by the removal of a few of the housing units. He displayed site plans showing those updates as well as another version of the updated site plan showing a proposed separate pond and the configuration of the neighborhood if that version of the project went forward instead of the preferred combined pond plan. • Dobosiewicz provided updated elevations of the townhomes, two story single family, and ranch homes. All housing types will be at least partial masonry and most of the two story and townhomes will be alley access. Architecture is still being finalized and under review with staff. • Sidewalk will be placed across the entirety of the northern frontage row running from where it connects into the Ambleside sidewalk all the way to the entry point on Towne Road. There will also be a path connection to the path along 146th Street. • The updated site plan with the single large pond proposal allows for 75% tree preservation, a significant increase from the original plan. • Amenities per the updated plan include open park area, a gazebo, a boardwalk out over the pond, trails through the tree preservation area, fire pit, playground, kayak launch, and outdoor seating. • A revised traffic study was provided that indicated total peak hour trips would be reduced from 92 to 48 in the morning and in the afternoon from 176 to 62. • A woodland evaluation was provided to show the increase in preservation area under the new plan. • Carmel Engineering Department did not make a recommendation either for or against the combined pond proposal sought by Lennar, but they did state that the single expanded combined pond would have greater water quality benefits in comparison to two separate ponds. Tom Bedsole – Residential Restate Attorney: • Bedsole on behalf of Lennar spoke regarding the legalities and possible ramifications of various rental restrictions being placed within the PUD document or covenants of the proposed neighborhood. He raised concerns over VA and FHA financing being unable to be utilized if rental restrictions were too severe. He also feared while discrimination was not the intent of wanting the restrictions that courts could rule that they unintentionally caused disparate impacts that violated the Fair Housing Act. He provided an anecdote out of Kokomo Indiana of a court case about rental restrictions where an elderly woman injured herself and needed to move out of her residence and the family tried to rent the home while she was not in it. The neighborhood covenants prevented that, and a lawsuit went up the the Indiana Supreme court which decided in a close 3-2 2 Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 10-1-24 vote that such restrictions were legal. He made the point that while the court ruled in favor of the restrictions at the time he is not sure how a federal court would rule and that his client did not desire to be part of any litigation in a discrimination case to find out as it would be costly and damaging to the company reputation. • He reiterated that he could not say for certain whether any restrictions would be legal or illegal and that he understood the underlying concern of why the Plan Commission wanted the restrictions but asked to have a dialogue to see if they could find other solutions. Department Report: Alexia Lopez: • Lopez stated that over 25 different comments remained to be addressed and that at the meeting tonight they hoped to cover some of those. She recommended the petition be continued on to the next committee meeting. Committee Comments: Minnaar did not think it was a fair characterization to say the Plan Commission’s intent was to have a “rental ban” which she herself thought would be illegal. She stated that they were attempting to put rental restrictions in place such as a requirement to hold and own a property for three years before it could be rented so that institutional buyers would be deterred from coming in and buying up full blocks of homes, particularly the townhouses. She stated that any such restrictions would have robust hardship clauses, and that with the help of a real estate attorney when she was president of her HOA, they created similar restrictions for her own neighborhood that she believes are legal. Kirsh asked Bedsole what in his opinion would be a good solution to hamper institutional buying. They had come up with the solution outlined by Commissioner Minnaar, but he wanted to hear other ideas as well. Zoccola echoed Kirsh in his desire to hear possible solutions to preserve individual homeownership opportunities. Tony Bagato, Director of Entitlements for Lennar Homes, spoke on the matter of rental restrictions saying it was a particular concern for Lennar which is also in the mortgage business for many of their communities through Lennar Mortgage and that any sort of lawsuit regarding rental restrictions could likely fall on them due to their role as the lender. Bagato did state that Lennar is willing to work with the Plan Commission by agreeing to create a ban on “corporate buyers” (a definition of which would have to be ironed out by legal experts on both the side of Lennar and the City of Carmel) and a limitation on how many individual properties can be bought by an individual. Two was ideal to Bagato as it still allowed for some individuals to buy one property to live in while having another one as a personal investment. As a less preferred secondary option Bagato was open to including a requirement of one year ownership from time of purchase until a property could be rented on the condition of hardship clauses covering not only financial and health related issues but also making carveouts for FHA and VA loans allowing properties purchased with those to have more flexibility if needed. Minnaar requested further details from Bagato on how exactly corporate renters would be banned and Bagato stated that they could require purchases to be in an individual’s name not an LLC. or another corporate name. Minnaar went on to state that her own neighborhood as well as many more around the country were beginning to put in rental restrictions without previsions for VA or FHA and they were not being challenged so she inquired if this was just something for new builds. Bagato stated that yes it was because it was a new build neighborhood and that down the line once the HOA took over the neighborhood that could decide to makes changes if they want but then if done at that time it would not likely implicate Lennar in any possible legal challenges, unlike if the restrictions were put in by the company on the front end. Kirsh requested the opinion of Carmel legal counsel, Benjamin Legge. Legge stated that doing the ban was possible but potentially subject to challenge. He went on to elaborate that part of the assessment by the court that would arise during a challenge would be to see if a disparate impact existed, if one did exist but could be proven to be for good reason and not for a discriminatory reason, and that it could be shown there was no other way to achieve the desired outcome, such a restriction could possibly stand up to scrutiny. He then went on to stress that it was important for the Plan Commission to still consider the alternatives. Zoccola questioned if the one-year timeline was sufficient or if a longer time period was possibly needed. Minnaar stated she preferred calling it a condition of ownership not a ban regarding the rental restrictions. Kirsh 3 Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 10-1-24 believed the Plan Commission would be open to a compromise of two units being the ownership maximum within the neighborhood. Minnaar went on to ask the petitioner if they could look at including a percentage cap on the number of overall rentals in the neighborhood citing that once a certain percentage of rentals is reached in a neighborhood it does begin to have an impact on property values. Zoccola inquired about updates regarding the pond diagrams. Dobosiewicz then displayed a new depiction of the updated combined pond proposal designed to include better tree preservation as well as displaying a depiction of a separate pond. Zoccola stated she was still concerned about shared management of a combined pond between HOAs and preferred the way the neighborhoods were buffered from each other in the separate pond plan. Kirsh stated that to him water quality was the most important factor under consideration and was supportive of the combined pond as it provided the best water quality plan. Dobosiewicz reiterated the stormwater improvements this plan will have for the area. Kirsh then inquired about what Hamilton County thought of the combined pond and Dobosiewicz stated that like the City of Carmel they did not take an official position on which pond plan they preferred but did agree about the benefits of the combined pond plan. Kirsh inquired about the orientation of the homes on the outer perimeter of the neighborhood wanting to make sure the garages were not facing outwards towards the main roads. Dobosiewicz confirmed that they would not be and would be inward facing alley access garages. Westermeier inquired if there had been any updates to the sidewalks and paths since the previous meeting. Dobosiewicz provided updates that included various new connections that were not indicated on the prior concept plan. He also showcased the proposed boardwalk out over the pond. Westemeier then asked about auto connectivity to Towne Road, Saddle Creek, and Ambleside. Dobosiewicz informed her that there would be no direct access to Saddle Creek, and that the only access to Ambleside would be indirectly via the frontage road. No direct street connections were proposed for those neighborhoods. Lopez requested that the green path on the displayed concept map be extended all the way out to Towne Road. Dobosiewicz responded that the blue sidewalk in that area would be upgraded to be pathway, likely paved with concrete for aesthetic purposes. Kirsh asked the petitioner to reach out to the Parks Department regarding the boardwalk for design improvement ideas to be more in line with what they installed in Central Park. Minnaar asked what the reduction in townhomes was. The petitioner clarified that they went from 60 down to 58 townhomes in the proposed development. CONTINUED TO NOV. 7TH COMMITTEE 2. Docket No. PZ-2024-00099 DP/ADLS: Spring Mill Shops. The applicant seeks Development Plan and ADLS approval for three new multi-tenant commercial buildings totaling 14,870 square feet. The site is located at the NW corner of 116th Street and Spring Mill Road, within Jackson’s Grant Village. The buildings have specific addresses of 11675, 11745, and 11785 Village Corner Court. It is zoned PUD, under Jackson’s Grant Village (Z-653-20). Filed by Sean McKinnies of Republic Development. Petitioner: Shawn Curran – Curran Architecture: • Curran displayed updated elevations of the three proposed buildings that attempted to incorporate staff and commissioner comments from the previous meeting. The major change consisted of a redesign of the roof from a single long gabled roof to a roof broken up into portions of gabled roof running opposite directions separated by portions of flat rooftop. Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • Keesling summarized the changes in the most recent version presented by the petitioner. She mentioned as he did that the major change was the reconfiguration of the roof design, but she also included updates about more significant awnings being added as well as the doors on the Spring Mill Road side being expanded from single doors to double door entrances into the tenant spaces. 4 Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 10-1-24 • Keesling noted while it was an improvement from the original design that she felt there was still more work to be done to bring the design into line with what was provided in the character images of the PUD for the commercial space. It was her opinion that more needed to be done to make each tenant space look distinct from each other to give them a “built over time” look. Committee Comments: Buckler was under the impression that the new design looked “weird” as if a portion of the roof had blown off. The petitioner responded that it was changed in that fashion to try and address the massing issued raised at prior meetings, and that the overall design of the structure was done in such a way as to take into consideration the signage needs of the future tenants. In response to the comment about signage needs Keesling responded that the primary concern was not the needs of the tenants for signage but that it was to make sure the buildings were done in the right manner. Minnaar inquired why the roof design was changed to begin with as she had missed the last meeting, and the petitioner reiterated it was to address the concerns over massing. Westermeier inquired about if the beige and grey neutral colors on the renderings provided were going to be the actual colors. Curran indicated that was the plan and brought out sample materials to show the committee. Westermeier then asked staff if the colors were what they were concerned about. Keesling stated it was not the colors that were so much of concern it was more so the roof massing. Kirsh stated that he found some older architecture along Broad Ripple Ave. that he thought was more in line with what the Plan Commission originally wanted to go towards with the design. He questioned if the design should go back to the beginning to make sure the design came out in a “timeless” nature. CONTINUED TO NOV. 7TH COMMITTEE 3. Docket No. PZ-2024-00122 CA: Meridian Trails Commitment Amendment. 4. Docket No. PZ-2024-00123 V: Meridian Trails Height Variance. 5. 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 began by providing a brief description of the property location and the site plan. The location would be surrounded by Illinois Street to the east, 106th Street to the north, and a small residential neighborhood to the west. The site would consist of a large four-story courtyard building consisting of mainly residential units, but a small portion would be dedicated to commercial. The rest of the site would consist of surface parking and four coverage garage bays with multiple garage units per bay. The garages would be located outside of the required tree preservation area. There would be two points of access, one off 106th Street and one off Illinois Street. Proposed building architecture with materials labeled was provided but indicated by the petitioner that such would be discussed later if the project was approved when it had to come back to the Plan Commission for DP ADLS. • Intensity of the use was addressed via a comparison of peak AM/PM trips for the old use of an office verses the new apartment use. Peak trips for the office use were 143/142 verses the much lower peak trips of the apartments that are projected to be 33/42. • A parking study conducted by Justus was presented citing multiple sources they believed lent credibility to their parking calculations. The study also provided numbers for parking at their other locations already in existence or under construction. All of which feel between the 1.0 and 1.3 space per unit range. • Height of the building would not change significantly to the eye as the height increase for portions of the building would only be due to a downward change in the grade of the building. • The distance away of nearby existing residences was provided. The nearest being a house to the west 185’ from the proposed building façade. The other remaining nearby homes ranger from approximately 220’ to 400’+ away from the proposed building. • Buffering plans were provided that showcased images of the existing tree line on the property that would be 5 Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 10-1-24 maintained as well as images of a proposed 8-foot wall that has already been partially erected on the property line that would be extended to cover the entire southern property line and about 3/4ths of the western property line. Additional plantings such as arborvitaes would also be added to increase the landscape buffer from what already is naturally occurring. • Outdoor lighting would consist of two different elements. The first being parking lot lighting a maximum of 15-foot pole height with full cut off LED lights, and second would be full cut off LED balcony lighting. • Two additional commitments were added to the original commitments. The first being language clarifying that all design will be finalized during the DP ADLS and that what had been provided regarding site and building design during this process had just been theoretical until approved later. The second added language that the units will be built to comply with HOPA (Housing for Older Persons Act) regulations. Department Report: Alexia Lopez: • Staff was supportive of the change of use from office space to a 55+ community with a small commercial component. Overall staff was pleased with the site design that allowed adequate buffering via tree preservation and by moving the building closer to Illinois Street. • Staff provided a favorable recommendation to return the petition to the Plan Commission for final approval. Committee Comments: Minnaar inquired about three different topics. First, regarding how conversations had gone with neighbors in the abutting Rosado Hill neighborhood. Secondly, she desired confirmation on lighting requirements being fully satisfied, and thirdly she stated she understood the thought process on the parking but still thought in a wealthier community like Carmel, auto ownership numbers could be higher at this location over the others. Walt Justus confirmed that they had productive conversations with the nearby residents and were in the process of finalizing details about the wall construction. Regarding lighting Dobosiewicz confirmed that there were enhanced standards within the commitments and what he went over in the presentation was an example of those enhanced standards being enacted. Regarding the parking concerns Angela Miller, EVP and COO of the Justus Companies, provided a justification for what had been requested. She stated that per their demographic studies 40-50% of women over the age of 75 no longer drive so that reduces the number of spaces they need significantly, and that they already have other facilities in higher end communities with similar parking ratios as what’s requested without having issues. Zoccola stated her support for the change of use from office space to 55+ housing, feeling as though more than enough existing office space was already built or approved. She then requested confirmation that the 10% maximum stucco and EIFS commitment was still applicable. Dobosiewicz confirmed it was still in place. She went on to then to inquire over what the status of the wall was and about protection of the trees where the wall was going to be placed. Dobosiewicz stated that the wall design and placement in relation to the property line was still being discussed and that in order to protect the trees the wall would stairstep around them so they would not have to be removed for construction. Zoccola’s final question was regarding apartment size as she believed she saw somewhere that they would be relatively small. Miller told her that they would be adequality sized with an average being 1100 sq. ft. The smaller one bedrooms being 800-900 sq. ft. with the larger two bedrooms up to 1500 sq. ft. Zoccola was satisfied with this clarification. Westermeier requested additional information on what amenities would be available to the residents of the community. Justus informed her that a key component of their communities is social programming and that they would have various onsite activities and off-site trips planned for residents. Westermeier was then still wanting more information particularly on outdoor activities and amenities. Dobosiewicz stated that there would be trail connections on the property as well as a large courtyard with a pool and hardscaped area. Westermeier then moved on to her final concern over what was in her opinion the inadequacy of the guest parking. Justus reassured her that they had sufficiently planned for their needs. Buckler asked about trail connections to Illinois and 106th Street, and stated she wanted to see them on the plan if they were proposed. Dobosiewicz confirmed that they were proposed and would be shown on the plan when it came through the DP ADLS process. She then went onto reiterate similar concerns over parking as Westermeier did stating that Carmel could very well be an aberration for the number of cars per person compared to communities like the one in Danville. Dobosiewicz stated that while he was not arguing her point and that her 6 Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 10-1-24 concerns were valid that over the past decade staff had found that 1.5-1.6 parking spaces per unit for non-age restricted apartments, that many times have two or three bedrooms with multiple residents driving per unit, was adequate so they felt the request for 1.3 for the age restricted complex was justified. She finalized her comments by providing suggestions such as incorporating into the development outdoor workout equipment areas and large swings like those found in Midtown Plaza. She also stated she was overall supportive of the change in use to age restricted residences over the original office building proposal. Zoccola addressed the petitioner regarding the proposed wall to provide cautionary advice to make sure that the wall was not constructed in such a way as to block off the entirety of the tree line from the proposed development. She wanted the residents to be able to enjoy the preserved green space. Kirsh stated he wanted a hybrid approach to the tree preservation area preserving what is good but also clearing out what is dead, invasive, or scrub and infilling those areas with better replacement vegetation and maybe exploring the possibility of a wall only in certain areas. He also suggested the petitioner look into shared parking agreements with surrounding businesses and explore the possibility of using TIF funding to provide enhanced water quality improvement measures. Motion by Buckler, seconded by Zoccola, to send the petition back to the full Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation. APPROVED 5-0 (Absent: Campagna & Hill) 6. Docket No. PZ-2024-00156 ADLS Amend: 401 Penn Exterior Building Modifications. The applicant seeks design approval for exterior modifications including architectural material changes, addition of an entry pergola, and updates to lighting and signage. The site is located at 401 Pennsylvania Pky. It is zoned MC /Meridian Corridor and is not located within an overlay zone. Filed by Cade Brummer of NSPJ Architects. Petitioner: John Vandenbark- JLL Indianapolis (Leasing Agent): • Vandenbark identified himself as the leasing agent for the building in question, he was not with the architecture firm NSPJ. He informed the committee that both the tenants of the building as well as the owner desire to make updates to the property exterior to modernize it. The proposed modernization updates consist of a reskin of the building with a metal composite material on the second and third floors as well as a new glass entryway and pergola fronting that new entryway. Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • Keesling stated that the petitioner desires to cover up much of the existing brick with metal paneling to make it look more like the two buildings flanking it that are constructed out of precast concrete panels. Yet due to the nature of the brick being notable iron spotted style staff thinks it irresponsible to cover it or paint it when it should instead be showcased. • Keesling did indicate ways in which the building could be improved upon while maintaining its character such as replacement of the dated and cracking limestone windowsills or removal of the east and west triangular prism glass vestibules. • Staff recommended denial of the petition in its current form. Committee Comments: Minnaar concurred with staff that covering the brick would not be in the best interest of upholding the architectural integrity of the building. She thought that adding the metal would increase monotony of the area by making it very similar to the buildings flanking it and that the paneling gave it the look of a “barndominium”. Westermeier suggested instead of denying the project that they instead continue the project to the next committee to give the petitioner time to work with staff to create an acceptable exterior updates plan. Buckler agreed with comments about the cladding increasing monotony and liked Keesling’s idea to remove the vestibules because they could be “blinding” when driving by the building certain times when the sun hits them. CONTINUED TO NOV. 7TH COMMITTEE 7 Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 10-1-24 7. Docket No. PZ-2024-00162 ADLS AMEND: 3rd Shot Pickleball. The applicant seeks design approval for site and minor exterior building modifications to retrofit an industrial building to a pickleball facility. The site is located at 4400 W. 96th Street, Unit 150. It is zoned I-1/Industrial and is not located within an overlay zone. Filed by Chris Badger of Badger Engineering on behalf of owner, Dustin Deguevara. Petitioner: Dustin Deguevara: • Deguevara gave a brief background of the company behind Third Shot Pickleball speaking about its origins in Colorado where it currently has two locations operating, one of which is the largest privately owned pickleball facility in the county. • The Carmel facility is planned to consist of 15 courts open to the public and will have membership fees for heavy users who would like to use the courts daily. The facility would also include ping pong and cornhole as secondary entertainment options. The venue would also sell beer, wine, and concessions and have two large conference rooms for events. Spero Pulos – Lee and Associates: • Spero indicated that the business would be using approximately 45,000 sq. ft. of the approximately 100,000 sq. ft. building in its northern half. • He requested they be permitted to construct an additional 14 spaces near an existing 15 parking spaces on the northwestern side of the building and to convert an industrial drive-in door into a protruding vestibule style second entryway. The existing ramp on site would also be adjusted to meet ADA standards. • Signage variance applied for with hearing and approval still pending. • Working with arborist about additional required trees in the southeast corner of the property abutting 96th St. • Most of the parking directly surrounding the building will be sufficient for day-to-day operations of the business but a large overflow parking lot on the southern side of the property is available for large events and tournaments that may increase normal parking needs. • Modifications to dumpster locations and screening as well as addition of bike parking is underway. • Additional sidewalk shall be added along the eastern side of the building to create a fully connected pathway to the east side entrance. Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • The additional parking on the west side of the property shall require a consent to encroach agreement from the Carmel Engineering Department and Board of Public Works. • Sign variance required because Mayflower Park Drive is a private street so there is no public street frontage to allow for a sign. This is a common variance often seen by staff. • Staff provided a favorable recommendation subject to the condition of finalization of all review comments. Committee Comments: Minnaar inquired about the dumpster enclosure requirements and Keesling assured her that the dumpster regulations are part of the review process and that she is working with the petitioner to make sure one currently non-enclosed dumpster will become properly enclosed. Motion by Buckler, seconded by Zoccola, to approve the petition on condition of finalization of outstanding staff review comments. APPROVED 5-0 (Absent Campagna & Hill) Adjourned at 8:30 PM _______________________________ ______________________________ Bric Butler – Recording Secretary Josh Kirsh- Committee Co-Chair