HomeMy WebLinkAboutCombined Committee Mintues 11-07-24City of Carmel
1
Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 11-7-24
Carmel Plan Commission
COMBINED RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE
Thursday, Nov. 7th, 2024 Meeting Minutes
LOCATION: Council Chambers, City Hall
Members Present: Joshua Kirsh (Co-Chair), Sue Westermeier (Co-Chair), Dubbie Buckler, Shannon Minnaar, Christine
Zoccola, Jeff Hill,
Members Absent: Adam Campagna
Staff Present: Mike Hollibaugh (Director), Rachel Keesling (Planning Administrator), Bric Butler (Recording Secretary),
Alexia Lopez (Planning Administrator), Sergey Grechukhin (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 new neighborhood consisting of single-family homes and
townhomes. 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:
• Updates on seven outstanding review items and other comments were provided as follows:
o Provided updates as requested by David Littlejohn (Alternative Transportation Coordinator) and
Daren Mindham (Urban Forester) regarding the placement and width of pathways.
o Sidewalk connections added along north/south streets originally missing them were added. A
proposal to add a second connection point to the existing 146th Street path was discussed along
with sidewalk connections for townhomes abutting one of the new pathways in the proposed
development.
o Street curvature of the cul-de-sac will be reconfigured to allow lots encroaching into the 50-foot
wetland buffer to be pulled forward and not encroach.
o Lots directly abutting the wetland will drain directly into it to undergo natural filtration helping
maintain the wetland area.
o In process of working with staff to create more robust anti-monotony standards for the
townhomes, particularly adding variety to the amount and placement of masonry is being
considered.
o 6 foot in depth porches accepted by the petitioner to be a design element incorporated into homes
with front porch options, but due to design restraints the number of overall homes with 6 foot
porches will be reduced from 12 to 7 the remaining 5 will have smaller porches and the rest of the
single-family homes will not have porches.
o Open space plan provided for inclusion within the final PUD ordinance. Adjustments to plan may
come at behest of Carmel Engineering after their review of the development.
Department Report: Alexia Lopez:
• Supportive of the petitioner’s plan to provide additional and more robust anti-monotony standards for the
townhomes. Staffs in favor of additional masonry but stressed the need for the masonry wainscot at minimum
to remain on all units.
• Inquired if an updated drainage report had been provided to account for revisions made to the plan in recent
weeks. The petitioner confirmed an updated report had been provided. Staff stressed the importance of
accurate and up to date drainage and open space documents for the PUD ordinance so that come development
plan time they the petitioner have shown adequate capacity in their exhibits so as not to need to request a
variance.
• Staff stressed their support of a combined single retention pond to be shared between the new development
and Ambleside to the east. They highlighted the benefits of better water quality and additional tree and
wetland protection.
2
Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 11-7-24
• While there were some remaining outstanding review comments to be addressed staff felt that those concerns
could be addressed prior to the upcoming full Plan Commission meeting and supported forwarding the
petition back to the full Plan Commission with a positive recommendation.
Committee Comments:
Zoccola: I know we are doing masonry all away around, but the pictures of the two-story houses look like the
masonry is just on the front.
Dobosiewicz: The catalog imagery that Lennar provided is of their standard product. The text of the ordinance
rules and they would provide masonry on all four.
Zoccola: If there was a way we could update the pictures so there is no confusion later that there is supposed to
be masonry on all four sides that would be great.
Kirsh: There is a neighborhood off Towne that I drive through occasionally that has stone on the front and brick
on the sides…we are not going to let that happen again, are we?
Lopez: We had them write that into the PUD that it must be the same material for the front wainscot and the sides
and rear.
Zoccola: In section 9.4 you have this zoning waiver where you can come back to the Plan Commission for a 35%
waiver from a specific standard. I really haven’t seen that in a lot of PUDs until this one, and I know its in the
Grammercy one which is up next. What is the reason for adding that in there? I don’t recall seeing it in the past.
Dobosiewicz: It’s been in probably 75% or more of the ordinances that we have written, it allows for the
petitioner to come back and in an appropriate situation after a public hearing have the Plan Commission identify
an area they believe a modification is necessary.
Zoccola: So, it would be different than an amendment to the PUD process?
Dobosiewicz: Well, its identical to a BZA variance that would otherwise go in front of the BZA. It still has a
public hearing, but it is debated and deliberated by the full Plan Commission. In the event that you have serious
concern about it we can ask the petitioner to consider eliminating it.
Zoccola: If I had been missing that all these years and not seeing that in a lot of them, and the whole point of the
PUD is you are supposed to have this long discussion to agree on what the zoning is going to be and so I just
found it curious that was in there but I will defer to staff as to whether we leave it in or out.
Dobosiewicz: To give you context of where it exists, if not all the overlays I know its at least in the US 31 –
Well, that was rewritten into MC…so in the 421 overlay and the Rangeline overlay that provision exists.
Zoccola: I can totally see it in those areas, here I don’t see the need for it, but anyway something to think about.
Dobosiewicz: It sounds like a concern for you. We are going to remove it.
Zoccola: Are you fine with that staff?
Lopez: Yeah, I am fine with that. I think it has been in other PUDs and like Jon said they may have pulled it from
the overlays, and we do have standards for waivers in the UDO with that limit of 35%. So, if the standard was a
front yard setback of 20 feet, they could only ask for 35% of that.
Dobosiewicz: I have only seen that function exercised twice in my experience. There are standards in the UDO
that say what you have to prove, so it’s like a variance if you are on the BZA. It just streamlines things in the
event that staff was supportive of something, and the Plan Commission would deliberate over the question. It
allowed for the petitioner to go through the process of ADLS and the waiver all as one. Today the Plan
Commission has the benefit of Combo Committee so in the event that we found something we could ask the same
question through a different vehicle which is a variance that we would ask the Plan Commission to consider like
we have in the past on others.
Further discussion continued regarding the question of the waiver language with the final conclusion that other
avenues were now available for the petitioner to seek relief from the Commission making the language redundant
and was agreed to be dropped from the text.
Zoccola: On the pond. I do appreciate the improved water quality aspect of having a larger pond that is not lost
on me, but as I think through the logistics of this I am still not on board with one giant pond. Have you
communicated broadly to the Ambleside neighborhood? I know right now it is under development, and you are
probably working with the developer as they probably don’t have their own HOA yet. I am guessing it probably
hasn’t been transitioned. Is anyone in Ambleside aware that their pond will become a shared pond with another
3
Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 11-7-24
neighborhood. I am curious if they are aware of this. Has this been communicated to them?
Dobosiewicz: My understanding is that the HOA for Ambleside hasn’t been activated yet so is still controlled by
the developer. So, to answer your question there is no individual communication that the petitioner sent out to all
of the owners of the real estate within Ambleside to call their attention to this proposal.
Zoccola: So that is my concern if they don’t know that this is happening. I feel like they would have an opinion,
about this and they should be aware of it, because right now in their neighborhood that pond, they have right now
is very beautiful and those 15 extra trees you are talking about taking out really do create a nice buffer between
the two neighborhoods. For them to all of a sudden see them torn out and this pond expanding, and they don’t
know it’s happening, I think it is something I’d like to know their thoughts on this.
Minnaar: I have a fundamental issue with it from an HOA perspective. You know I am the HOA crazy lady so
just bear with me. I have two fundamental issues, one I agree with Christine’s comments that the HOA has not
been activated so the homeowners are not going to be involved in the decision-making process, that is my first
fundamental issue my second fundamental issue is the trees. What would you lose if you were to keep the trees
and keep that pond separated? I guess the third issue that goes back to my HOA concern, we all know what it is
like dealing with HOAs and they can be friendly, or they can be not friendly, and something as big as this like
maintaining a super pond between two neighborhood associations I could see becoming a severe issue and I do
have a fundamental personal issue with that.
Dobosiewicz: Is there a size of pond the Plan Commission is looking for? When you ask the question about the
super pond I assume you are referring to the size of the pond?
Zoccola: I think what we are referring to is it being a shared pond.
Dobosiewicz: That is the super cast, being one pond rather than two? I just never caught on to the nomenclature.
They looked at a plan with two ponds on it, and this plan that was preferred. I think we presented that at the last
meeting.
Zoccola: You presented this as your preferred option and I asked to see what the other option looked like, and
you showed it, but I think what we are asking is what is the Ambleside neighborhood feeling about this? What do
those residents feel about this because we haven’t heard from them. So, I want to make sure they are aware this is
even being discussed.
Dobosiewicz: Does the Commission want…I understand… If it wasn’t connected and there was a pipe between
them does the Commission feel like we need to reach out to the neighborhood and ask what everyone feels about
the ponds being connected by a pipe?
Kirsh: I appreciate the concern as a Planning Commission we are expressing about the super pond, but I have to
remind us if the Stormwater Administrator for the City of Carmel says this is the preferred manner it is a little bit
like us designing streets or the other nuances. I understand that Councilwoman Minnaar has a strong opinion
about it from the city council perspective, but the rest of us are Planning Commissioners and we really need to
defer to the experts.
Zoccola: I think originally, he didn’t really say he had a preference, either way was fine from his standpoint. This
is the one issue I am struggling with right now. In a perfect world I would love to see all the trees preserved, a
separate pond created, and great water quality. If this is the approach we are going to I really need to know
Ambleside is aware it is up for discussion and if they feel one way or another.
Hill: I am a super fan of the super pond, not to cast a dissenting opinion but I like the notion it is bigger, because
of the way neighborhoods often develop. They have a pond, they have to take care of their detention, something
shows up next to it a year or two later. I think it would be great if some of these ponds could be together so then
the pond itself gets smaller so that we don’t have to build all these safety ledges on all these individual ponds that
allows the opportunity for more tree preservation, paths, wetlands, more homes, whatever it may be. However,
that being said I think it’s important to let the Ambleside folks know what is happening and comminate that to the
Commission.
Zoccola: Since you are going to be moving the houses away from the wetland area how much is that going to
encroach into what you have as park? (The petitioner confirmed it would be between 15 and 20 feet.)
David Ternary (Lennar Homes): We have struggled with this project. We have met every single demand and
request that has been made, this one [the pond] is tough for us. I get the fact there is concerns about HOA I want
to address that for Mrs. Minnaar in a second. I get that there are concerns about the size of the pond. When you
look at what we could do there or willing to do to make another reach, that’s subjective if I am looking across a
pond and all of a sudden we have another 20 or 30 feet of pond I would probably rather look at that than the tree
line, because if you look at the tree study those trees are not the best trees they are not healthy they have been
4
Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 11-7-24
sitting in a wetland rotting and the chances are if we don’t take them down some of them will fall down anyway.
So what we would be willing to do if we get this pond structure in place we could come back and upsize the trees
along the back side of the home line as much as possible, there is only so much you can do without a crane, but
we can certainly look at upsizing the trees to create additional buffer so people from Ambleside and the other
communities looking across could at least have a soft feel across the additional bed of water.
With respect to HOAs Mrs. Minnaar, I know I have lived with them all my life and they can be incredibly painful.
We have with this particular developer done a number of other joint ventures with joint development agreements
across the metro. We have a great relationship with them and have had conversations about how this would look.
From a communication perspective I am very reluctant to start reaching out to someone’s perspective buyers.
They need to make that communication not us. We certainly can suggest that would happen I imagine if we did
that it would be disclosed, and maps would be changed pretty quickly to reflect that, so buyers are aware of it.
With respect to HOA implications, the cost would be a benefit to the Ambleside community because now you’d
have shared cost of responsibilities for the maintenance of the facility. Whereas today they are creating and taking
care of it alone.
Kirsh: That is a very appreciated offer, and I love big trees, but let’s not ask them to do big trees. It is going to be
one of those situations where we get what we ask for and the big trees are not going to do as well as smaller trees.
That is what the City Arborist of Camel would tell us. Smaller trees will grow quicker and be healthier. I totally
appreciate what he had to say about – how many times have we asked to save trees and then I drive by and am
like why did we save those trees? We should have scrapped them and started over with a healthy wood. I would
rather them get rid of stuff that has been sitting in a wet marsh and get a healthy ecosystem reestablished whether
than is saplings or 4 foot or 6-foot-tall trees that are going to deep root and do a great job. If we ask them to put in
15 of 20-foot-tall trees my guess is they will source them and put them in and those trees will hate having been
moved. I am advocating staying the course with the City Arborist and Stormwater Administrator. To Jons point
whether they put a berm between these two ponds and put a pipe there wouldn’t be a protocol to check with them
if there should be a pipe. All of these are interconnected, its all part of a whole drainage system. Nobody talks to
anybody down the line. Healthy water makes a big difference in our community I cannot emphasize that enough.
The two sidewalks that come down between the buildings Jon – would those sidewalks come down and those
eight trees go away?
Dobosiewicz: No, the sidewalk would be in the right of way and the trees would be on site.
Kirsh: I am also with you, if there is a sidewalk that runs north to south on the east side of the property maybe
that sidewalk should be five feet but the sidewalk that goes from the sidewalk to the front door I agree with you I
don’t think that should be five feet that is additional hard surface and eating up landscaping area. Am I
understanding you?
Dobosiewicz: Correct, it is the walk when stepping out the front door, we would prefer it to be three feet. I am not
telling you David is telling us it has to be five but it’s the only thing I can figure out so far. When I reach David,
we will know but I…
Kirsh: Lets call that a service walk, but that makes sense that it is three. I would rather see more landscaping or
pervious surface than impervious surface just so we can have five feet to the front door.
Hill: Jon, you pointed out earlier that the connection of the trail and multiuse path along 146th Street, I think I
heard you say additional connections elsewhere, can you draw those in? (The petitioner went on to reference a
map showing the additional connection points planned location.)
Another thing I wondered, along the 20-foot buffer next to the drainage easement on the lots that are there –
everywhere else you see trees along sidewalks, rear yards facing the pond, the wetland preservation with trees –
Can there be trees in that buffer area?
Dobosiewicz: There can, they may need to be in the middle of the lot. This is a regulated drainage easement
today, there may be a buffer beyond that that is the swale for these lots. Two shade trees for the rear of every lot I
am just telling you they may have to be on the lot closer to the shared property line because I am pretty sure we
can’t put it in the regulated easement but in the 20 foot buffer we just have to stay good with Engineering on
where they can go.
Minnaar: With the actual pond itself, I am not a drainage expert, maybe this is something you can answer.
Basically, the maintenance of the actual pond itself, its basically just the outskirts of the pond itself correct, not
the actual treatment of the water?
Kyle Eichhorn (HWC Engineering): We put together a maintenance manual that the HOA follows based on
what the city requires, and the maintenance is inspecting the pipes that go in and out of the pond, the outfall
5
Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 11-7-24
structure when it rains, and the vegetation along the banks. That is a majority of the maintenance , typically on an
annual or semi-annual basis.
Minnaar: Thank you, then the question becomes how are those agreements met between the two neighborhoods?
I didn’t read it in the PUD so…
Dobosiewicz: It would be appended into the CCRs of the neighborhoods, and in addition to what Kyle described,
this is regulated where not all ponds within the jurisdiction of Carmel are regulated. There would be additional
obligations that are in place for maintenance to satisfy the County Surveyor’s office. So, there might be an extra
layer that they would be obligated to do for them.
Minnaar: Thank you, I would now like to go into the rental restrictions, because I just want to say I am
completely and utterly thankful for the work you guys put into that. With our housing task force and all the
building and construction that we have here in Carmel it is really important that these homes are available to buy
on a consistent basis and the protection of the neighbors to the east, west, and south to make sure it doesn’t
become a rental community. I just wanted to thank you for putting those guardrails up for the neighbors
surrounding there. It was a good faith effort that I appreciate very much. For anyone who doesn’t know I just
want to put it on the record that they did put in a one-year lease restriction with hardship clause, and that no more
than 20% of the neighborhood could be rental, and a limit to how many buildings can be purchased by a single
person.
Buckler: For the sake of the public present can you confirm that the number of units has not changed since the
last meeting this came before the Commission? It was reduced, that reduced number has not changed. (Petitioner
confirmed as such.)
Westermeier asked staff if they had any additional comments.
Lopez: The pond in Ambleside as it is laid out now is within county right-of-way basically so that may put
another level of security in there since they will be more involved probably. I don’t know what the agreement is
or if we can find it but there is an agreement with Hamilton County Drainage Board and Ambleside regarding that
pond because its not in common area of the neighborhood. So maybe that would help alleviate some concerns too.
Westermeier: Did the county weigh in on if they would prefer one or two ponds?
Lopez: I spoke with them and at the time I think they were similar to Engineering; they didn’t have a preference
and were fine with either pond layout.
Westermeier: I am not an attorney or an engineer, but I always have trouble with liability. You talk about putting
kayaks in and then someone gets hurt, and negligence, how does that come back? Do they have a reciprocation
thing I don’t know? I don’t remember it ever coming through with sharing a pond although I know we have that
in Carmel. (The petitioner clarified that the kayak launch shown on the plan at the last meeting was a mistake and
that no such active amenity would be included in the neighborhood.)
Dobosiewicz: We have been in close communication with the county and Carmel Engineering on the issue of the
pond and we feel like we are where we need to be to advance the one pond. We aren’t going to get an “I prefer
this” we are going to get, “ here is my assessment of one pond vs. two pond” and it was limited to water quality
issues and enhancement. I just got the sense that both Engineering and the Hamilton County Surveyor’s’ Office
did not want to get into the involvement of their preference in a zoning issue.
Westermeier concluded Commissioner comments by reiterating the desire of the committee to have some sort of
written communication provided to the residents of Ambleside with information on the proposed pond changes.
The petitioner stated they would provide such a communication before the next meeting of the Plan Commission.
Motion by Kirsh, seconded by Buckler, to return the petition to the full Plan Commission with a favorable
recommendation on condition of finalization of outstanding review comments.
APPROVED 5-1 (Nay: Zoccola)
6
Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 11-7-24
2. TABLED TO DEC. 3: 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.
3. Docket No. PZ-2024-00140 OA: Gramercy PUD Ordinance Amendment.
The applicant seeks approval to modify the existing PUD language to allow an urban residential development
consisting of townhomes, multi-family, and neighborhood-oriented, mixed-use buildings. The 33-acre site is
generally located at the southeast corner of City Center Drive and Kinzer Ave. (830 Golfview Drive) and is
currently zoned PUD (Z-493-06 Gramercy). Filed by Jim Shinaver and Jon Dobosiewicz of Nelson &
Frankenberger on behalf of Buckingham Properties, LLC.
Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewicz:
• Updates on previously outstanding items completed since the prior meeting:
o All building architecture concerns will be addressed and require approval by both the Carmel
Redevelopment Commission and then the Plan Commission Hearing Officer during the
development plan approval process.
o Open space plan showing a park area in the central western border area of the development was
provided.
Department Report: Rachel Keesling:
• Concerns raised about some of the character imagery provided by the petitioner, particularly regarding the
height and building materials of the townhomes. The petitioner agreed to remove images that indicated full
4th floor living areas and images of townhomes with unclear building materials that could have been
construed as vinyl siding.
• Pleased with the open space plan that was provided.
• Outstanding review items consist of language issues within the PUD regarding references to sections that
have been deleted. Confidant that these remaining issues can be worked out between staff and the
petitioner prior to approval.
Committee Comments:
Zoccola: The diagram of the plaza is great as far as landscaping. I am assuming but want to confirm there will be
street trees throughout the development? (Petitioner confirmed yes.) Two other small things, I saw you struck out
the section that said the ends and corners of buildings would have an additional level of detail. Is there a reason
why that was taken out?
Dobosiewicz: A couple of original illustrations that went along with the PUD that was adopted 12 (corrected later
to 18) years ago that I think showed like a 5-story clock tower element, those were removed.
Additional clarification was provided that originally the plan had all corner buildings having an additional 4th
story on them to be taller than non-corner buildings. This was struck due to development pattern changes and
removed since there was no longer a grid style street layout like initially proposed 18 years ago.
The 35% zoning waiver language was questioned by Zoccola but ultimately was accepting of its inclusion within
the PUD.
Minnaar thanked the petitioner for being willing to work with Carmel Clay Parks Department on the overall
development of the green space within the project area.
Kirsh noted his approval of Area D in the concept images but thought that Area C could use additional work. He
understood it was a challenging project but felt the multifamily showcased in Area C needed to look more like
individual buildings as compared to one large singular building. He also had other feelings on it he did not think
he could properly convey.
7
Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 11-7-24
Keesling closed with a final question to the petitioner regarding the request to remove the 15-foot northern
perimeter setback requirement. The petitioner essentially stated that the townhouses currently proposed as
indicated on the concept plan are at the closest point only 7 to 8 feet away from the right of way line and therefore
a 15-foot setback would start to compress the design of the neighborhood in a less-than-ideal manner. Keesling
requested that the petitioner continue to work with staff to refine a solution that satisfies both parties.
Motion by Kirsh, seconded by Minnaar, to return the petition to the full Plan Commission with a favorable
recommendation on condition of finalization of outstanding review comments.
APPROVED 6-0
4. TABLED TO DEC. 3: 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.
Adjourned at 8:30 PM
_______________________________ ______________________________
Bric Butler – Recording Secretary Sue Westermeier – Committee Co-Chair