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.