Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 11-19-24 City of Carmel 1 Plan Commission Minutes 11-19-24 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2024, MEETING MINUTES Location: Council Chambers Room, 2nd Floor, Carmel City Hall Members Present: Brad Grabow (President), Christine Zoccola (Vice), Adam Campagna, Jeff Hill, Josh Kirsh, Shannon Minnaar, Sue Westermeier Members Absent: Dubbie Buckler (Virtual Attendee) Staff Present: Alexia Lopez, Rachel Keesling, Christina Jesse, Mike Hollibaugh, and Bric Butler. Legal Counsel: Sergey Grechukhin Time of Meeting: 6:00 PM Declaration of Quorum: President Grabow: 7 members present, a quorum is present. Approval of the previous Meeting Minutes: A motion made by Grabow and seconded by Minnaar to approve the October 15th, 2024, PC meeting minutes. APPROVED 7-0 Reports, Announcements & Department Concerns 1. Outcome of Projects at Plan Commission Committee a. Docket No. PZ-2024-00028 PUD: Towne 146 PUD Rezone. Favorable Recommendation to PC b. Docket No. PZ-2024-00099 DP/ADLS: Spring Mill Shops. Tabled to December 3, 2024 c. Docket No. PZ-2024-00140 OA: Gramercy PUD Ordinance Amendment. Favorable Rec. to PC 2. Approval of 2025 PC Calander: ADOPTED 3. Director Hollibaugh provided the Commission with a finalized version of the Mayor’s Housing Task Force Report. Public Hearings: 1. TABLED TO DECEMBER 17: Docket No. PZ-2024-00173 PUD: Clay Cottages PUD Rezone. The applicant seeks PUD rezone approval to allow a new neighborhood with a mix of housing options ranging from estate lots to single-family detached homes to attached paired homes. The site is located at 12411 Towne Rd. and is zoned S-1/Residence. Filed by Jim Shinaver and Jon Dobosiewicz of Nelson & Frankenberger on behalf of Taylor Morrison of Indiana, LLC. Old Business 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: • Dobosiewicz provided updates on outstanding items identified by staff: o Rear yard drainage easements removed from encroaching into the wetland preservation easement area. o Add word “have” to a portion of the text to provide clarity on architectural requirements. o Carmel Engineering provided feedback on the revised preliminary drainage report that was to their satisfaction and provided their thoughts on the larger combined pond design which they were supportive of for better water quality. o A letter of communication was provided to Ambleside residents about the combined pond proposal and what the arrangement between the two HOAs would look like if approved. It was also noted that the pond itself would be owned by the Hamilton County Board of Commissioners and regulated by the Hamilton County Drainage Board which would have very strict and enforced maintenance provisions that both HOAs would be bound to follow. 2 Plan Commission Minutes 11-19-24 • Provided a general summary of the changes and progress made on the project since it was initially brought before the Plan Commission including but not limited to removal of the commercial node, reduction in units from 93 to 87, enhanced landscaping, and increased pedestrian connectivity. • Rental restrictions added to the development as previously requested. Department Report: Alexia Lopez: • All review concerns were addressed. Highlighted in particular, staff was pleased with the additional trail connections to the 146th Street multiuse path, the 10 trees per 1 acre of open space commitment, and additional masonry standards for all townhome units. • Carmel Engineering provided support for the drainage plan as updated. • Staff suggested the Plan Commission provide a favorable recommendation to Carmel City Council . Committee Comments: Zoccola: Thank you for sending out the notice to the Ambleside residents. I wanted to make sure that they were aware. When did you say you sent this out? (Petitioner stated Monday morning of the current week.) One thing about the pond I thought you were going to plant some extra trees? (The petitioner indicated on a displayed site plan where the trees were to be located.) Minnaar: In regard to the boardwalk, I think it would make sense for you to explain who would then be responsible for that boardwalk on this side of the property, because I think some of us had questions. Would Ambleside be responsible for that as well? Dobosiewicz: It is an obligation of the PUD so it would be an obligation long term of the HOA for this development exclusively. Minnaar: I just thought it needed to be said out loud for the record. Then for the landscaping surrounding the perimeter on this side of the project you guys have some great plans that look fantastic. So, I appreciate the effort that you put into that. Of course, I am always concerned about a “super pond” but if this seems to be the correct way to do it with the drainage and its recommended by Engineering and the county I am comfortable with that. Hill: I appreciate the addition of the pedestrian crossing on 146th Street connecting to 146th Street, and the additional trees parallel to the drainage easement are appreciated as well. One quick question, the park area the little grey squares in front of it, is that parking? (Petitioner confirmed yes.) Westermeier: Can you confirm from back in the beginning what the price range of these homes is to be? As you know we are very sensitive to affordable housing. Dobosiewicz: The homes along the south perimeter would be from a $350,000 to $375,000 price point. The homes along the north and west perimeter would be $375,000 to $400,000, and the townhomes would be in a range between $325,000 and $350,000. Westermeier: That is great because it’s a little bit lower than what came out in the beginning, at least what I had written down. Grabow: On page two of the commitments, section two, first paragraph at the top of the page, I would suggest that we put a period after the word home in the next to last line of that paragraph and by doing so broaden the scope of the prohibition on advertising beyond just online websites to any kind of advertising of rentals. I think the devil here is short term rentals not how short-term rentals are advertised. Sorry I described the period going in the wrong place… Dobosiewicz: That it is prohibited altogether. Grabow: Yes, that is the objective, and I love the idea that this is just part of the CCRs because if at some point the will of the homeowners is to lift that restriction they have the power to modify their own CCRs. ( The petitioner clarified that the text of the PUD would require the change to occur as an amendment to the PUD and require Plan Commission approval.) On the concept plan, maybe the committee looked at this, there is not a walkway or sidewalk on the north side of what I will call the principal entrance off Towne Road. Is there a grade issue or drainage issue that prevents a similar path on the north side of that street? (The petitioner explained they did not locate one there to try and minimize locations pedestrians would cross the street on a curve for line-of-sight reasons.) The PUD text allows for one subdivision entrance sign at each entry point, which would be four in number. That feels unnecessary to me. Dobosiewicz: We think we might have one more connection here and if there is concern about that we could modify it that it would be only at a public street connection, the fourth is towards the alley. I think what we would have at best is at the other two entrances like a column with a logo. (He went on to state that Lennar would agree to one primary sign and 3 Plan Commission Minutes 11-19-24 additional signage would be limited to one or two columns with logos.) Grabow: There was concern at the committee level about the potential success or challenges to the shared management of the retention pond. One thought was that we could give the petitioner time to flesh out that plan a little more fully. Then at the point when they come back with a development plan or whatever stage further down the road, the parties involved, the two HOAs, could come to us with a more concrete plan that is satisfactory to this group. Because that retention pond must be functional at all times. And if there is any kind of disagreement among the responsible parties that affects that function, that is the situation I think we want to avoid or we must avoid. So, I like the idea that the county is going to be involved here. It is the cooperation and willingness of the Ambleside homeowners that just learned about this yesterday, and I think that Lennar enters into this certainly willing to be a good partner, but we do not yet have a solution only a concept and I don’t think it’s a bad concept, but we really do not know what that solution ultimately will look like. So, I do not know if the department feels that this is an important issue or an important unresolved issue, but I think maybe if we give a little bit more time and we seek a final determination of the solution at a later point in the approval process, we can be more confident in that solution. Minnaar: Jon, I think if you could explain the county's purview over the pond and how that would affect two HOAs, that might be somewhat helpful. Dobosiewicz: The county is the owner of the real estate so it’s not like one party is sitting there with a disagreement with a third party and they have to figure out how to entertain an approval. The county has more authority and would be more aggressive than an individual HOA would be in compelling an adjoining owner if there was a disagreement about taking action necessary, that’s my editorial. I think it is fairly accurate that the county would be more aggressive in pursuing that, but the county already has a written agreement with developer and future owners to maintain that space which is on the Ambleside side of the property. When this goes for plat approval and the expanded pond gets reviewed by Technical Advisory Committee which would come back to the Plan Commission on the direction that the Surveyor’s office has provided because the request also has to go back to the Drainage Board, which is made up of the Hamilton County Commissioners, for approval for us to make modifications to the plan, and we would assume that they would apply the same standards that they have for the development of Ambleside onto this parcel. Then it would be clear what the obligations are on that side and the other side. The only other combined thing the HOAs would resolve in the future is if there was a need for silt to be removed from the pond, and that is something the county would likely coordinate between the two and be the responsible party for taking action on it at the expense of the two HOAs, because it is their real estate. We do not have a situation where we have to go to the other side and ask them to accept a bill for some action with an expectation of being paid. It goes back to the county as a backstop not a separate HOA. Grabow: So, what is to prevent the county from saying, hey, we are seeing too many kids around here, we are going to put up a four-foot fence around this pond? Dobosiewicz: We would be in the same position as all detention facilities that are controlled by Hamilton County are. We would not have any special privileges. It’s not been my experience that the county has done that. Campagna: I think this is my only hangup on the project, which is the understanding of where the county stands in relation to both this agreement and operation of the communities. I just am not totally comfortable with approving this without the county’s full buy in. I am not in favor of this right now. Grabow: That is kind of where I am going with this because I wanted to get the read of the committee, and it is a novel solution and not one that I was expecting, but it is not a final solution. I think maybe now instead of worrying whether two HOAs can get along and co-manage, and co-own the pond, now we need to figure out where the financial burden lies and where the maintenance lies. Because now there are questions, does the county get involved in silt removal? Does the county get involved in treating the pond so that the water does not get stagnant? You know, who allows or prohibits fishing and other activities around the pond? The same issues exist, now there is a new party that is involved. But the rest of the project I am very comfortable with. Frankly, I think you brought something back that is much better than what we first saw. So, I don't want to hold that piece of it up. But I am feeling like I would like a little more certainty about how the pond is going to be a success long-term. But perhaps that is a question that when we have this come to a vote, we can all address that in that way, unless the department has an idea? Lopez: I just wanted to add that I did speak with both, one of the members from the Hamilton County surveyor's office, and our Engineering Department and neither of them voiced big concerns about having a shared pond. There was not, “oh my gosh, we should not do this, we have never done this before, this will cause a lot of issues”, there were no big issues that they posed. I also did get a copy of the agreement with the board of commissioners of Hamilton County regarding the Ambleside pond and how the maintenance was written in this agreement. It basically says that Ambleside should require the homeowner’s association to be responsible for the maintenance of the retention pond, including things like mowing, removal of weeds, and other materials. No alteration of the size or shape of the pond or the grade of the land around the pond shall occur without their approval. In number 11 states the Hamilton County drainage board shall be responsible for 4 Plan Commission Minutes 11-19-24 the maintenance of the inlets and outlets of the pond and any maintenance that would adversely affect the flow of storm water. So, this is the agreement that is in place for the Ambleside pond. I am comfortable that, you know, that the combined pond would have a similar agreement where Ambleside would maintain their edge of the pond and Town 146 PUD would maintain their side of the pond and the county would handle any conflicts between the two. When I talked with them (the county), they said we have some ponds that are shared. Usually if there is an issue, they come to the city and say they are not maintaining their part, and then we can go out and enforce that. Grechukhin: I think this is a very common scenario. The way that the city deals with the county Drainage Board, number one, is through team. It happens all the time. The shared ponds, I cannot give you statistics how many of them are there, but they certainly exist. You know, our Engineering Department interacts with them routinely. We have a person in the Engineering Department that does drainage work and interacts with the Drainage Board, again, all the time. I just interacted with the drainage board last week. So it happens, the agreements between the city, between the private developers, and Drainage Boards are often quite routine. That was an example of that. Minnaar closed with a final question about the responsibility of maintenance and Dobosiewicz referenced a section of text that would be included on the final recorded plat. He also stressed that the project would have to return to Plan Commission for development review and that this issue could be further refined at that time. Motion by Hill, seconded by Westermeier, to provide a favorable recommendation for the petition (as amended) to the City Council. APPROVED 6-1 (Nay: Campagna) 2. 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: • The petition was provided a favorable recommendation at the October committee meeting to be forwarded back to the full Plan Commission on the condition of finalizing a few remaining review items before the full Plan Commission met. Such updates include as follows: o An amended townhouse character image exhibit was added into the text of the PUD. o Setback language for along City Center Drive changed from 5 feet to 10 feet minimum. Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • Original setback language for City Center Drive was reduced from 15 feet to 0 feet and after discussion a compromise was reached to ultimately set it at 10 feet. • Proper language with assistance from the legal team was added regarding references to previously deleted sections of the PUD ordinance. • More satisfied with newly provided character imagery of the townhomes but remained hesitant of some images and stressed that finalized design would still need to be reviewed and approved by staff and the Plan Commission. Motion by Kirsh, seconded by Campagna, to provide a favorable recommendation for the petition to the City Council. APPROVED 7-0 Meeting adjourned at 7:00 PM. _____________________________________ ________________________________________ Bric Butler PC Secretary Brad Grabow President