HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee MemoOF CA R�F�
+n
PORTOMO C o C arm e l
/ND MAO
CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM-
Date: July 1, 2010
To: Special Studies Committee
From: Adrienne Keeling
Department of Community Services
Re: Docket No. 100040014 OA: Patch VIII
Enclosed is additional information regarding the Patch Ordinance. Items with discussion at the June 1 st
Special Studies Committee meeting are shaded below and corresponding revisions are highlighted in the
ordinance draft. If you have any questions, please contact me at akeeling(c or 571 -2417.
FARM ANIMALS, MINIMUM ACREAGE REQUIREMENT:
ISSUE: The City Code and Zoning Ordinance contradict one another, requiring 3 vs. 5 acres,
respectively in order to maintain farm animals.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Proceed with amendment to reduce Farm to 3 acres. Also, allow 3 hens per
property under 3 acres, and no roosters. O See language on page 6 of the ordinance draft.
FOOD STANDS, PROCEDURES FOR TEMPORARY PLACEMENT:
ISSUE: Food Stands have become more popular (and we have fielded several questions this spring).
Currently, there is no clear process for their review or approval.
PROPOSED SOLUTION: CHAPTER 3, CHAPTER 25: Modify Food Stand definition to include fruits,
vegetables and prepared food items. Include food stands as separate a type of Temporary Use. See
also Docket 10050001 OA, amendment to Appendix A.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Food Stands should have a separate section of requirements. The
Department should recommend standards relating to size, music, lights, tables chairs, time limits (or
not), hours. See new Food Stands section on page 7 of the ordinance draft.
NOTE: These regulations apply to Food Stands locating on Private Property. Location in rights -of -way
would be a separate approval determined by the Board of Public Works.
SEASONAL SALES TIMELINES
ISSUE: The Ordinance currently places a 30 day limit on Seasonal Outdoor Sales. Some types may be
appropriate to extend for longer periods.
PROPOSED SOLUTION: CHAPTER 25: Establish a time limit for Seasonal Outdoor Sales which is based
upon the type of item sold.
Page 1
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARVi EL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: There was no objection to requiring non profit proposals to be reviewed under
the same process as others, with no filing fee. This is the current practice.
NOTE: There is a similar approval process for Special Outdoor Events and Outdoor Sales for up to 5
days each.
OVERLAY ZONE BOUNDARIES (WHEN PARCEL IS BOTH IN AND OUT OF AN OVERLAY
ISSUE: Questions have recently been raised about parcels whose boundaries fall only partially in an
overlay. The ordinance requires DP and /or ADLS approval for the entire parcel; however, the
ordinance does not specifically state that the DP or ADLS must meet the requirements of the overlay.
PROPOSED SOLUTION: CHAPTERS 23B, 23C, 23E: Add /re- arrange consistent language across US 31,
Michigan Rd and Home Place Overlay zones which specifies that the DP and /or ADLS must meet the
overlay zone requirements.
REDUCE FAST FOOD PARKING RATIO
ISSUE: Restaurants are over parked. Until an amendment in 2006, fast food parking requirements were
based upon the number of patron seats and employees. For long term accountability, it is currently
based on square footage of the building; however, this forces extra spaces for areas devoted to offices,
kitchen or storage. The US median ratio is one space per 100 sqft. of floor area.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: There were differing opinions, including keeping the existing 50 sqft per space,
and using a figure closer to the existing average of approximately 80 sqft per space.
PROPOSED SOLUTION: CHAPTER 27: Reduce ratio from one space per 50 sqft. to one space per 80
sqft. of floor area.
Existing Fast Food Parking Ratios
Name Location Total Spaces Spaces SQFT Year
Spaces SQFT per 50 per 100 per
sqft. sqft. Space
Taco Bell 615 E Carmel Dr 50 4,455 0.6 1.1 89.1 2009 Remodel
(proposed) BostM kt
Dairy Queen 951 N Range Line 42 4,000 0.5 1.1 95.2 2008 Rebuild
KFC /Taco Bell Michigan Rd 36 2,912 0.6 1.2 80.9 2008 Variance
(proposed)
Burger King
9853 Michigan Rd
35
2,935
1.2
83.9
2007 Variance
KFC
1331 S Range Line
35
3,218
0.5
1.1
91.9
2005
Wendy's
10585 Michigan Rd
36
3,163
1.1
87.9
2001
Taco Bell
1391 S Range Line
23
2,121
0
1.1
92.2
1998
Hardee's
2350 E 116th St
48
3,315
1.4
69.1
1994
Wendy's
2370 E 116th St
51
2,940
0.9
1.7
57.6
AVG
83.1
MEDIAN
87.9
IMPACT FEE CLARIFICATIONS
ISSUE: There has recently been confusion regarding what improvements are entitled in lieu of the Parks
and Recreation Impact Fee. Our Ordinance is not congruent with that stated in Indiana Code.
Page 2
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARVi EL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
PROPOSED SOLUTION: CHAPTER 29: Modify the language to more closely follow Indiana Code 36 -7 -4-
1335.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Asked the Department to revise the language. See amended language on
page 10 of the draft.
SIGN APPROVAL PROCESS, MAKING ADLS AMENDMENTS AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL
ISSUE: Businesses come and go in both multi- tenant buildings as well as single tenant buildings. If a
property does not have a Sign Plan in place by way of ADLS approval, they must return to the Plan
Commission committee to ask for any change in signage. This can cause issues for the business if they
are on a tight schedule and were not aware of our deadlines, as is often the case. In addition, the
Department prepares the applicants so that they meet the Sign Ordinance requirements before they
arrive at the meeting, making little discussion necessary for approval.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Asked the Department to research how neighboring jurisdictions handle sign
approvals. RESULTS:
After speaking with sign reviewers in Fishers, Noblesville and Westfield, we found that Carmel's
existing process for sign approval is unique in that our signs require approval by the Plan
Commission.
With the exception of a committee in Fishers, dedicated only the their "Town Center District," the
other jurisdictions approve signs administratively for compliance with the Sign Ordinance.
Westfield requires a sign plan to be submitted to staff for all center identification signs prior to
permitting signs for the center or its tenants.
PROPOSED SOLUTION: CHAPTERS: 23B, 23C, 23D, 23E, 23F, 24, and 25.07. Instead of requiring
Commission approval, amend the ordinance to necessitate only Director (staff) approval for signage
changes for existing buildings. New buildings /projects would still be required to submit Sign Plans as
part of the DP/ADLS approval process.
2010 -0701; 10040014 OA; Committee Memo.rtf
Page 3
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARVi EL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417