HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 06-03-08
u
u
Ci'kRNIEL PLAN COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION COlVIMITTEE
DEPARTMENT REPORT
JUNE 3, 2008
2. Docket No. 07()1(}OOK Z: 11 Gill & Guilford Rezone
The appliGlllt seeks to rezonc approximately 9.5 acres from l-l/lndustrial to R-
I/Residencc. Tile site is loc~I[ecl at 1441 S. Guilford Rd. Filed by the Carmel Dept. of
Cornrnunily Services on beh~dr of the Carmel Plan Commission.
There are no developmcnt plans associalcd with this petition, nor are any proposed. However, due to
recent and proposed development in the .suHoLlncling area, a change in zoning is proposed to assure the
Carmel Plan Commission and Carmel City Coullcil have the greatest opportunity to review plans for the
property. should proposed redevelopment ever m;CLlr at this corner. UncleI' an 1-llIndustrial Zoning
Classification, a wide r~mge 01' i ncluslii ,tluscs would be permi tted by right, including warehousing,
storage ancllight manul'acturing; cUITcntly residential is not a permitted LIse. Given the manner in which
the area has recently evolved, It is propused Iu ['ezone this site to a more compatible zoning classification.
The proposed rezoning wuuld not affect Duke Energy's ability to maintain operations in the current
facility, nor would it pmhibit other non-residential uses allowed in the I-l/Industrial District from
occupying the current laci Iii)! r f the non-residential nse discontinues or the property is vacant for a
period longer than one (I) year, the pre III ises shaIJ thereafter cunform to the provisions of the rezone.
Though this proposal would not prohibit the property owner from requesting rezoning to a Business
District or Planned Unit Developrncnl illlhe future, there is a unique opportunity to take a proactive
approach lo this site.
This item was heard lltthe February 20, 2007 l~lan Commission meeting. At that meeting the land
owner's atlomcy spoke in (lPposition stating concerns for his client's continued and future use of the
property as pennitted by the indusli-i,11 zoning designation. Since then, the attorney for the property
owners lwei several disclIssions with stal}_
At the April I Committee meeting. the altomey representing the property owners requested this item be
tabled one month to ~lllow the property owners rime 10 resolve some issues. The current property owners
of the si te arc willing tu work wi I h the Ci ty on the rezone, ancl they also have a possible purchaser of the
property. They have some c:uncem wilh a rezone to a residential classification because it may impact the
value of the land, which is now zoned f-l/lndllsliral. However, a business or manufacturing zoning
classificatiol1 rezone would not be out of the question. Also, the transformer/power station will remain on
the site.
At the May 12 COlllmittee meeting. there was more dialog between the City, attorney representing the
property owners, and the cUlnrnittee. The city provided a handout of permitted uses they would like to see
at this sire, and [he attorney represellti ng the property owners handed out a list of land uses that the
property owners would like perlllilled. The City does not feel that relail uses should be permitted at this
site. The cOlllrnitlee feels lhal schaul or resiclcl1lialuses should not be permitted at this site, due to the
transformer location ancllhe pnor industrial lIse or the site.
The item was briefly heard at the J\iLiy 2l) Plan COl11missiol1ll1eeting, but sent back to committee for
further review. Since thervt~iY 20 meeting, DOCS is now open to expanding and modifying the existing
Park Place PUD (Planned Unit Development) ordin~1I1ce Z-SOO-06 so thal it includes the subject property.
The Park Place parcel is just north of the subject sileo The cunent Park Place PUD ordinance can be found
online at: j')up://cocdocs.ci.l2.<irmel.i ll.us/I,veblink/DocView.aspx?icl=230964 .The Department will
provide more infonllatioll at the June 3 meeting as to how it plans to proceed with a new rezone
petitiun.