HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 08-20-24 City of Carmel
1
Plan Commission Minutes 8-20-24
CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
TUESDAY, AUGUST 20, 2024, MEETING MINUTES
Location: Council Chambers Room, 2nd Floor, Carmel City Hall
Members Present: Brad Grabow (President), Adam Campagna, Dubbie Buckler, Jeff Hill, Christine Zoccola (Vice), Josh
Kirsh, Shannon Minnaar, Sue Westermeier
Staff Present: Alexia Lopez, Mike Hollibaugh, and Bric Butler.
Legal Counsel: Sergey Grechukhin
Time of Meeting: 6:00 PM
Declaration of Quorum: President Grabow: 8 members present, a quorum is present.
Approval of the previous Meeting Minutes: A motion made Hill by and seconded by Buckler to approve the June 18th,
2024, PC meeting minutes. APPROVED 8-0
Public Hearings:
President Grabow explained the Rules of Procedure for a public hearing in front of the Plan Commission.
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 provided an overview of the proposal:
o The development would be located on the southeast corner of Towne Road and 146th Street adjacent to the
Saddle Creek and Ambleside neighborhoods.
o Traffic study provided found only a minimal increase in peak hour trips, due to already existing road
improvements made along 146th Street.
o The development as proposed would-be mixed use with 16 single story ranch homes, 16 two-story single-
family homes, 60 townhomes, and a neighborhood commercial node. Price points for the residential units
would range from between 325-350 thousand dollars for the town homes, 350-375 thousand dollars for the
single-story ranches, and 400-450 thousand dollars for the two-story single family.
o Excluding the 16 ranch homes all units with have rear alley access garage doors allowing for enhanced
pedestrian focused streetscapes.
o All structures will be limited in height to a maximum of 35 feet, in line with typical UDO standards.
o Neighborhood commercial node as proposed would be a maximum of 15,000 sq. ft. uses would be limited
to exclude high traffic business types.
o Three acres of the project is proposed as open space including a public green space / plaza south of the
commercial node with consolidated mail facility for the entire development as well as a park area between
the townhouse and two-story dethatched single-family units.
o The proposed project location is within an area indicated as “West Neighborhoods” and “Typical
Corridor” and a mixed-use development of this nature has been found to be in line with the Carmel
Comprehensive Plan. 126th Street and Gray Rd. and 131st Street and Hazel Dell Parkway were provided as
other examples of this mixed-use concept already in existence today within Carmel.
o Neighborhood meetings were conducted with the abutting communities of Saddle Creek and Lincolnshire
earlier in the year to provide information on the project to existing neighbors.
o Promised to continue to work with staff on building placement, architecture, and foundation landscaping.
2
Plan Commission Minutes 8-20-24
Public Comments:
Cindy Johnson – Johnson identified herself as a resident of the Saddle Creek neighborhood. She stated that along with
herself, Audra Moore and Chris Potts who were also present in the audience were representing the Saddle Creek community.
Her primary concern was with the inclusion of the commercial component of the development. She stated that between Clay
Terrace and County Line Road no commercial structures exist on the Carmel side of 146th Street. She pointed out that this
development would be the first to include such commercial in the area, pointing out that the recently built neighborhoods of
Bedford Falls and Ambleside have no commercial component. She worried that if the commercial component was built that
light, noise, and traffic would be visible and a nuisance to nearby neighbors. She also felt that Westfield to the north was
overdeveloping their commercial space in the area, so it was not needed as well on the Carmel side.
Audra Moore – Moore identified herself as a resident of Saddle Creek. She stated that she moved her family to Carmel
because it provide a different distinct atmosphere in comparison to other surrounding communities. Her primary concern was
with the level of proposed density for the development. She pointed out that the Ambleside development just to the east of the
site already had an “unprecedented” level of density at approximately 4.5 homes per acre and that this development would be
“almost double” at 7.5 homes per acre. Moore also requested the design of the pond along 146th Street be redesigned in a way
to allow for the existing tree line to be maintained as greenspace for the development if it did go forward.
Chris Potts – Potts identified himself as a resident of Saddle Creek for nearly 20 years and as a member of the HOA board.
He also raised concerns about the proposed pond that he labeled a “super pond” as it would be created by expanding the
Ambleside pond for additional capacity to serve the new development as proposed. His concern was that the new super pond
would not allow for water runoff staging in an already struggling interconnected pond system with already undersized inlets
for water present from new development. He suggested that a separate pond be created for the new development instead that
would allow for adequate staging and preservation of the existing tree line. Potts was also concerned about traffic being
funneled out to just Towne Road and thought the mailbox placement near the Towne Road could create traffic flow problems.
Michelle Oja – Oja identified herself as a resident of Saddle Creek. She commented on the environment of the neighborhood
changing due to ongoing surrounding construction and additional unknown residents in the area making it a less healthy and
safe environment for her child which upset her as she stated her family chose to live in Carmel for the safety which she
seemed to have felt was being compromised by these changes.
Petitioner Rebuttal: Jon Dobosiewicz:
• Dobosiewicz identified that a letter had stated there were unfulfilled obligations on the site and contacted
Daren Mindham in Urban Forestry to look into and confirm if or if not that was so.
• A separate pond for the development was proposed until a recommendation by the Hamilton County
Surveyor’s office was made to create one larger combined pond for the new development to share with the
existing development of Ambleside.
• Development of the land at the corner of 146th and Towne Road will only improve drainage conditions for
Saddle Creek as there would no longer be direct runoff from agricultural land into Saddle Creek’s pond
system. Runoff would in the future flow through the new developments pond as well as a pond within
Ambleside before entering the Saddle Creek System.
• The commercial component of the project is in line with the adopted Comprehensive Plan for the 146th
corridor.
• Regarding traffic concerns a traffic study was completed on the area that showed minimal increases in peak
hour volume.
Department Report: Alexia Lopez:
• Lopez summarized the project in similar language as the petitioner indicating it would be a development of mixed-
use nature with a variety of housing unit types as well as commercial space (limited to 15,000 sq. ft. total and
barring any one tenant from being more than 7,000 sq. ft.). Lopez indicated that the development location is part of
the “West Neighborhoods” and “Typical Corridor” land use classification, and that the development was designed
in such a manner that it fit within the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for the area.
• Outstanding items that staff still desired to see improved upon:
o Adding a path connection from Ambleside to the neighborhood shops.
o Reorientating the townhomes on the west side so that they do not face the proposed shops.
3
Plan Commission Minutes 8-20-24
o Architecture improvement to the neighborhood shops such as including more masonry, reducing use of
horizontal siding, and general detail improvements.
o Building base landscaping plans need to be provided for the neighborhood shops.
o Architectural variation between townhome buildings requested.
• Staff recommended the project be sent to Plan Commission Committee for further review and refinement.
Committee Comments:
Zoccola: I am not in favor of the commercial at this point. I know that is something you have all been working on. For me I
don’t think it goes in this location. I know it’s a typical corridor and as you know I chaired the Comprehensive Plan
Committee. We spent a lot of time talking about what a typical corridor was, and where it should be and shouldn’t be. When
we talked about it, it would allow for a higher density of what an area was currently zoned for. So, if it was residential a higher
density of residential. Yeah, we did add some things in there about potentially it could be a neighborhood commercial node
could possibly go in there but when we were talking about it, it wasn’t a given that commercial would go into residential areas.
So right now, I am not on board with the commercial area but I will keep an open mind. I would remove the restaurant with a
drive through piece from your permitted uses with regards to the commercial. As far as the pond, I agree with all the
comments. We just went through the same issue when the Ambleside neighborhood came through where the developer then
wanted to take Saddle Creek pond and just make it a little bit bigger by removing that tree line and then having a shared pond.
Which obviously for good reason the Saddle Creek neighborhood didn’t want to do that they didn’t want to lose that tree line,
but also it sets up for problems with two HOAs who is going to manage that pond in the future, who is going to pay for the
maintenance of that pond? So, I have concerns about that. Right now, you are talking about two very dense neighborhoods
next to each other so I think it would look better if you could keep that tree line and green space and have two separate ponds,
but that’s something I want to talk about. I am not an engineer I will defer to Jeff [Commissioner Hill] on that piece. Finally
on the houses, I have had the pleasure of serving on the Mayors Housing Task Force and we do talk about how there is a
demand for these smaller ownership units and not enough supply in the region. So, I like the fact that you have ranches, got
some smaller two story homes. I am in favor of that, but the demand is for ownership opportunities. I know Lennar has in the
past has converted some neighborhoods where it becomes homes for rent. Are there any assurances that this will be a for sale
owner occupied neighborhood and a prohibition against this becoming a homes for rent neighborhood?
Dobosiewicz: Within Carmel there are no communities that are not any residential communities that provide those assurances.
That not to say Lennar can’t take that into consideration. You’ve asked. They will take that into consideration and report back
at committee.
Campagna: I will agree with a lot of the comments, but I probably have a less open mind on the commercial than Christine. I
think that all the commercial that will be developed to the north in Westfield will cause an increase in the amount of traffic. I
am worried about additional hard surface on that northeast quadrant in Westfield. You know its cornfields now, but the
additional hard surfaces how is that going to impact the ponds? I know it’s not up to you guys but the [Hamilton County]
Surveyor and Drainage Board. I guess I will make it brief as well by saying I agree with a lot of Christine’s [Commissioner
Zoccola’s] comments.
Westermeier: I just have one question for you Jon [Dobosiewicz]. If this was not requesting a PUD what could be built there
as it is zoned today and how many homes, what could we be looking at?
Dobosiewicz: Today it is zoned AG SF1. We have provided staff an analysis that shows the existing zoning standard
compared to the new. I can provide that at committee.
Lopez: S1 is 15,000 square feet per lot minimum, maximum density of one unit per acre, and I think the open space
requirement is 35%.
Westermeier: It just would be nice if we could develop it that way with more green space and just make it a nice
neighborhood there connecting with the surrounding ones as these have been built out over the years.
Hill: I do share similar feedback we have already heard from Christine and Adam and others relating to the commercial. I will
leave that alone. Yes, there is a lot of commercial proposed on the north side of 146th Street. So, while the Comp Plan with the
West Neighborhoods and Typical Corridor gives us the latitude for something like a commercial node given the fact there is
commercial just across the street so to speak. It feels like we have the latitude to kind of consider that West Neighborhood
over the Typical Corridor. I am open to ideas but somewhat similar opinions on the commercial side. I guess if the
neighborhood survives or comes to us in a revised condition with residential product one thing I would pass along is that I am
empathetic to some of the increased density compared to some of the neighborhoods that have been established for 10, 15, or
4
Plan Commission Minutes 8-20-24
20 years. The cost of infrastructure, the cost of real estate, the cost of entitlement and building projects like this is higher than
ever and so I am open and supportive of a little more density that what might typically be allowed. Although Ambleside to the
east does set maybe a pretty good bar that maybe we ought to use for comparisons. I like what Lennar has done with the
transitional elements from Saddle Creek to single family to the for-sale townhome type units. Admittedly I am not an
architectural guru, but I guess I do feel like the townhomes have a somewhat of a suburban apartment complex look. So, if
there was a little something more unique we could bring to those that would be of interest to me but again that’s not my
expertise. I am interested to hear more about the pond and what is worked out there, and I would be interested in tree
preservation not only on the east side. I do see a landscape buffer mentioned along the southern property line and then
drainage easement to the west if there is some landscaping and buffering that could be considered there whatever the
neighborhood looks like I think that would be of interest. One thing I would like to hear more about at the committee, maybe
it’s pretty easy to consider is pedestrian connections from the development across the ditch to the trail along 146th Street. I
know some other neighborhoods have done those whether it’s a crossing or two it sure would be nice to get folks directly to
that, so they only have to go along the frontage road and back, and then if parallel parking survives on the frontage road, I just
want to make sure that site distances are squared away.
Kirsh: I do want to kind of remind my fellow commissioners that there was a project a long time ago that was like “this has
never happened before you can’t put commercial there”, I won’t even tell you which project it was but just because it’s never
happened doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen. Sometimes when I go visit that commercial spot some of the very people who
stood in this room saying it was an impossibility are the same people I see shopping in that commercial area. I think we should
look at it I don’t know that we should just be a no or just be a yes, but just because something was the way it was doesn’t
mean it shouldn’t always be the way that it is type of thing.
Grabow: Jeff [Commissioner Hill] my head nodded vigorously when you talked about pedestrian access across old 146th
Street to the multipurpose pathway along new 146th. New 146th to speak to that there is a sharp contrast when you look farther
east at residential developments that were developed prior to the reconstruction of 146th. The level of traffic that was present
and the width of that road then, and then when you get farther west where we now have the frontage road that is old 146th,
obviously the nature of the development along the much more commercial appearance of 146th really changes the dynamic of
what is appropriate and suited to be developed along 146th , and to that point I think the logic of this proposal with the
townhomes and the commercial along that heavier traffic area generally makes good sense and follows sound design
principles. On the other hand, where this would be I would say this is commercial developed with a scalpel while across 146th
we have commercial being developed with a sledgehammer, and so is there really a need for what I think is well conceived
neighborhood serving retail on this corner when you are going to have just about everything across the city boundaries on the
north side. That doesn’t make this bad, but it does raise the bar a little bit that this does have to be particularly well conceived
to earn our support when there is going to be so much commercial across the street.
Jon, the 35 ft. building height if the PUD text could be refined. If this is your intent my first thought was that 35 ft. was going
to be necessary for the townhomes only, but in your presentation, you mentioned that the two-story detached residential would
be built to a 35-foot building height. If that’s truly necessary fine, but if the text language could constrict the 35-foot language
to just the townhome area that would be good.
Dobosiewicz: We used that as an underlying standard from the UDO. We can further refine it so that it drills down on height
of the homes along the south perimeter, the townhomes, the two story, the commercial as well. They are all shorter than that
35 feet and two stories in height, we can get a lot closer to the actual height.
Grabow: We have asked questions about how the shared detention pond would work both physically and legally. I am sure
there are precedents on how costs can be shared but it sounds like one HOA is trouble enough while two HOAs working
together I haven’t seen it yet so that could be a challenge. Jon you are proposing a 7,000 sq. ft. maximum tenant bay in the
commercial space, that seems large. A common breakfast restaurant or restaurant of any kind might be around 5,000 sq. ft. our
next petitioner is questing a single tenant building that is only 5,000 sq. ft. or there abouts so if we could squeeze that down
unless you have a specific tenant in mind that seems potentially excessive.
Consuel question for you. If this project were to go, were to be converted to build for rent wouldn’t that require multifamily
zoning?
Grechukhin: Not necessarily, it depends what kind of underlying buildings we are talking about. If it is a single-family home
it can still be rented out.
Grabow: So, it would follow the guidelines of 1-4 family residential verses...Ok so then we do need to continue to address
that the zoning itself would not be a limiting factor.
Grechukhin: Correct exactly it could be part of the PUD ordinance itself or as Jon mentioned as a commitment. A
commitment would be recorded so it will probably be a little bit more…we will probably have a little more teeth than just
5
Plan Commission Minutes 8-20-24
including it in the ordinance. We can do both at the same time.
Grabow: One last comment on the commercial, I apricate the architectural design I think what is proposed is interesting and
what you are suggesting, and the scale is about the same size by reference as the building where Wild Eggs and Noble
Romans is at Main and Meridian. There are two buildings there but just that one building is about just under 15,000 sq. ft. and
scale wise that does feel scaled down and compatible with neighborhood serving retail. So that the size of this I don’t think is
the issue, its just is it necessary with everything that will go up across the street on the other side of 146th.
Minnaar: Question for counsel as well, back to the build to rent rentals type of thing. So, it is not appropriate, I just want to be
clear, rental restrictions in a PUD is that what you are saying?
Grechukhin: No, that is not what I am saying. You can certainly put certain restrictions in a PUD, a PUD is a legislative act,
and it has quite a wide latitude to what you can put there as long as it is a reasonable restriction or reasonable commitment
then it is fair game. So, I think certain restrictions on rent could maybe be reasonable if you so deem.
Minnaar: Well with density if this were to be approved the way it is and we have sixty townhomes, and then suddenly 20%
of those become rentals that takes the ownership portion out of and kind of defeats the purpose of the housing taskforce. So, I
would encourage personally putting…
Dobosiewicz: Sorry I didn’t mean to interrupt. One of the advantages of it as a commitment is it is a separate recordable
instrument that will show up on title when an individual buys their house. Between you and me I live in a PUD, and I have
never read my entire zoning ordinance that is applicable to my real estate, verses a separate recordable instrument I am going
to pick that up on title and its not going to be like I didn’t know.
Campagna: I would also strongly encourage reconsidering where the location of the mailboxes are. It seems like the west side
of the site is likely the high entry and exit point of the property, and with commercial access potential I think it would be smart
to move to a different location.
Zoccola: In one of the redline drafts it hard four acres of open space now it has three acres was the loss of an acre just from
going to two ponds from one pond?
Dobosiewicz: Yes, it was predominately reconfiguration of the ponds.
Motion by Hill, seconded by Buckler to send the petition to the Combined Residential and Commercial Committee
with final voting authority remaining with the full Plan Commission.
APPROVED 8-0
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 provided an overview of the three building 14,870 sq. ft. retail commercial center. The northern and
southern building are both proposed to be 4,920 sq. ft. and the middle building shall be 5,030 sq. ft. The
buildings are designed to a smaller neighborhood commercial scale. There are a total of 15 tenant spaces or 5
per building.
• Elevations were provided that indicated a mixture of flat and gabled roof structures for the three buildings.
• The parking lot is already partially installed as part of the residential development portion of JG Village.
Public Comments: None.
Department Report: Alexia Lopez:
• The petitioner is developing in line with the concept plan by having three buildings brought up to Spring Mill
Road.
• The total proposed square footage is 14,870 sq. ft. which is less than the 20,000 sq. ft. maximum permitted.
• 65 parking spaces are to be provided, more than the 45 spaces required. Bicycle parking provided adjacent to each
building on the site, with a total of 24 spaces.
• Sidewalks will be installed around almost the entirety of all the buildings, and a pedestrian connection will be