Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Sub 08-16-04 Special1,1`I y G`'`y of Cq,9y C ity CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE (Special Meeting) AUGUST 16, 2004 The Subdivision Committee of the Carmel Plan Commission met at 6:00 PM in the Department of Community Services Conference Room, City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. Members present were Stephanie Blackman; Dan Dutcher; Dianna Knoll; Rick Ripma; Susan Westermeier. Department of Community Services Staff in attendance: Mike Hollibaugh, Director; Jon Dobosiewicz, Adrienne Keeling, City Planner, John Molitor, Legal Counsel. Members of the public in attendance: Paul Reis, Attorney; Dave Coots, Attorney; Maureen Merhoff, Carmel Chamber of Commerce; Mark Fineberg, businessman and property owner, Range Line Road and Carmel Drive; Barbara Eden, Carson Designs; Debbie Shumate; Kevin O'Malia and Helen J. O'Malia. 1. Docket No. 04010027 OA: Proposed Chapter 23F: Range Line Road /Carmel Drive Overlay Zone The petitioner seeks to add new provisions regarding development standards for properties along portions of Range Line Road and Carmel Drive to the Zoning Ordinance. Filed by the Department of Community Services. There was open dialogue among the Committee and Members of the public—helpful comments regarding the revised Ordinance were received. Those sections that are undisputed will be "skipped over." The District Boundaries are a definite issue. The northern boundary stops at the current Old Town Overlay. Paul Reis said that public notice has not been sent to landowners in this area. Mr. Reis was concerned with the southern boundary. Dave Coots' position, as a landowner on Carmel Drive, stated that presently in place is an ADLS requirement for development in the B -8 and B -3, etc district. The Overlay proposal adds S :\P1anCommission \Minutes \SubdivisionCommittee \2004 \subdiv2004aug 16 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 additional expense and steps to the process because it does not exist. If the area is to be totally re- built, it would make sense; however, it deters the landowner from making changes, i.e. to enlarge or improve an existing facility. Committee questions. Dianna Knoll reiterated that the issue on district boundaries is not clearly defined. Mike Hollibaugh talked about the boundaries —the Department feels that the boundaries would include property from 116 Street north from Keystone and farther to the west. If some of the issues were better defined or resolved in the Ordinance, then the issue of "boundary" would not exist. Dan Dutcher was puzzled as to why the Department would want to exclude the area south of Carmel Drive to 116 Street. In terms of identifying the boundary for focus, that section of Rangeline between 116 and Carmel Drive cannot be justified for exclusion. Jon Dobosiewicz commented that one of the important things to point out is that this Overlay Ordinance is "Scrape and Build." Any improvement that would exceed 35% of the gross floor area of the site must be a scrape and build. There are no properties out there under this proposed Ordinance that would allow a 35% addition to the structure without going through the process of removing the existing building and putting a new one up. It is unlikely that anyone would want to add on to his building and not be able to do so with these standards in place. The City is not deterring people from making investments on their property —these will not be issues for the current owners. Mark Fineberg commented that the potential passing of this Ordinance has affected his business. Two interested parties inquired about the southeast corner of Carmel Drive and Range Line Road, (the old Ponderosa Restaurant location) but were hesitant to proceed because of the proposed Overlay Ordinance. Kevin O'Malia and mother Helen O'Malia, owner of the Fireplace Shop located on Range Line Road, said they had considered adding on to their structure to increase the floor space to the south of the existing building. However, to add a second story is somewhat expensive and it is space that will probably not be used. The 35% number would affect his business. Financially, it would be impossible to do and a second story would not be in keeping with their store. Rick Ripma said the Ordinance sounds like it would not affect anything except scrape and build. Jon Dobosiewicz said that in essence, this was designed so that the properties in the corridor would not be affected by the 35% unless it is a scrape and build. Generally speaking, this Amendment was designed so that only scrape and build would be affected. The Department is comfortable with the 35% language; Paul Reis commented that the 35% is not the heart of the problem—it is how to determine whether or not the 35% enhances the neighborhood. Barbara Eden, Carson Designs-35% must conform aesthetically. S:\P1anCommission \Minutes \SubdivisionCommittee \2004 \subdiv2004aug16 2 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 There was further discussion regarding the percentage. Rick Ripma as well as Dianna Knoll and Dan Dutcher were in favor of increasing to 50% and the Committee agreed. Residential Uses were discussed —types of uses single, multi family, any type.... and Permitted uses. Restoration after destruction of a building —the Department is comfortable with 90% Section 23FO501a. John Molitor will add a sentence to cover whatever utility easement might exist in front yards at 10 to 20 feet. 23F0601, building fronting streets requires an "L" shape building for properties at intersection of two streets? Language will be modified to uniform standard for corner buildings. 23F0701, Two floors of occupiable space is an issue. Dan Dutcher is in favor of limiting the extent of application in certain zones —the Department cannot selectively enforce. 23F0703B, 53 feet or 5 stories, whichever is greater— realistic number? 23F08, minim and maximum footprint. There is ability to obtain a waiver. Relationship is lot to building square footage. Over 20% requires additional maximum width rather than store frontage. The Department will work with this. 23F 1004, facade and relief elements are incorporated into the Overlay. 23F10010, Pedestrian scale detail on front elevationsA definition needs to be created for pedestrian scale. 23F11 -01 Shade trees are a concern regarding public cost being placed on private owners —City will maintain. Section 23F11.08 will be eliminated in its entirety 23F13, Signage. Eliminate 13.01 provision and consider amending City -Wide Sign Ordinance. Outstanding issue is the minim um/maximum building footprint ratio—minimum FAR of .5, increase maximum to 40,000 building footprint. S :\P1anCommission \Minutes \SubdivisionCommittee \2004 \subdiv2004aug 16 3 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 Dan Dutcher made formal motion to move forward with Chapter 2301, with the exception of the deletion of 23F01 and other changes agreed upon this evening, seconded by Dianna Knoll. The vote was 4 in favor one opposed (Rick Ripma.) There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 PM. Stephanie Blackman, Chairperson Ramona Hancock, Secretary S :\P1anCommission \Minutes \SubdivisionCommittee \2004 \subdiv2004aug 16 El ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417