Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 08-17-106� nr of C City of arme �'�(NDIAN CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION TUESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2010 City Hall Council Chambers, 2 Floor One Civic Square, Carmel, IN 46032 6:00 PM Members Present: Leo Dierckman, Jay Dorman, Brad Grabow, Judy Hagan, Heather Irizarry, Nick Kestner, Kevin "Woody" Rider, Ephraim Wilfong. Members Absent: Steve Stromquist, Sue Westermeier DOCS Staff in Attendance: Director Michael Hollibaugh; Angie Conn, Planning Administrator; Adrienne Keeling, Long Range Planner. Legal Counsel John Molitor was also in attendance. Also Present: Ramona Hancock, Plan Commission Secretary Ephraim Wilfong was sworn in as the new Hamilton County appointment to the Plan Commission Jay Dorman was elected Vice President by Unanimous Consent Ephraim Wilfong was elected by Unanimous Consent, to serve as appointment to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Minutes of the July 20, 2010 meeting were approved as submitted. Legal Counsel Report, John Molitor: The case involving the Johnson Drive Garage is still pending and there has been no further activity. A motion is expected to be filed in the next week or two. Dept Announcements, Angie Conn: Hand -out regarding 2010 Land Use Update Video Seminar Series. If interested in attending, please let Dept know. F. 1. Plan Commission Resolution PC- 08- 17 -10: Resolution to implement increase in Parks and Recreation Impact Fee and ratify the scheduled fee increase for June 2011. Present for Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling, Dept of Community Services. Overview: Parks Recreation Impact Fee Ordinance was adopted last year Ordinance set out a schedule of impact fees over the following 48 month period Currently we are in months 1 through 12; the Impact Fee is $1,261.00 per dwelling Ordinance schedules an increase in months 13 through 24— amount to be $1,387.00 S:/ P1 anCommission/ Minutes/ P1 anCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2010 /PC- 2010 -Aug l7 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 -571 -2417 When Council adopted the Ordinance, it was stipulated that each subsequent increase should be approved; the Resolution presented this evening is to that effect The increase months 13 through 24 —would take effect June 11, 2011 Petitioner recommends sending this item to the Impact Fee Advisory Committee prior to forwarding to City Council for review Commission Comments /Questions: Impact Fee affects NEW construction of residential dwellings only Since the proposed Impact Fee has already been thru Plan Commission Committee, why is it being reviewed again —is this a required step? We are effectively re- ratifying the same numbers as a year ago, only now months 13 through 24? (Yes) When the Impact Fee was discussed a year ago, the dollar figure was based on a forecast for new dwelling construction —have these numbers been refreshed or re- evaluated by the Council to take into consideration any variation between actual and forecast new construction? Would like to avoid approving the Impact Fee at Commission level, forwarding to Council, discovering the numbers do not work, and then having to re -do the numbers. One of the dangers of this process is the time frame of implementation —it would be easy to forget the initial layout —Parks could have gone to a much higher number immediately, however, this is a phase -in and the hope is it will stay on schedule and be implemented John Molitor's response: Impact Fee Statute does not specifically address what happens when the Council reserves to itself the ability to approve specific increases from year to year, even though the Ordinance provides for phasing of the increase over the 5 -year life of the Ordinance. The Ordinance does not specify whether or not it should go through the normal process. In discussing with Parks Board attorney Deb Grisham, it was agreed that out of caution, the same process would be followed that State Law spells out for approval of the Zone Improvement Plan. The Increase will go to the Impact Fee Committee and forwarded to the full Commission before going to the City Council for approval. Further, when the Ordinance went through, the Plan Commission recommended and the Council accepted a proposal that phased in an increase over a 5 -year period. The actual Zone Improvement Plan justified an immediate increase to the final, fifth year level, but the proposal was to "step it in" because of the weak economy; the Plan Commission recommended that and the Council accepted it, subject to the Council's right to review it each year to make certain they were still comfortable with the amount of the proposed increase. The numbers are well within what would be justified as a legitimate impact fee under State Law. The Impact Fee Advisory Committee will have responsibility to review and verify. Plan Commission Resolution PC- 08 -17 -10 was sent to the Impact Fee Advisory Committee for further review on September 7, 2010 prior to regularly scheduled Committee meetings. G. Announcements, Angie Conn: Hand -outs were distributed regarding a Video Seminar Series for "Good Planning and Growing Smart." If interested, please let Ramona know. H. Public Hearings 1 -2. Docket No. 10050022 PP: Village of Mount Carmel, Section 11 The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 2 lots on 2.5 acres (formerly 4 lots on 5 acres). And, the subdivision control ordinance waiver requested is: S: /PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2010/PC- 2010 -Aug17 2 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 -571 -2417 Docket No. 10050023 SW from SCO Chapter 6.05.01 lot without road frontage The site is located at 1235 W. 146" St. and is zoned S- 2/Residence. Filed by Keith March. Present for petitioner: Charlie Frankenberger, attorney, Nelson and Frankenberger. Also present: Keith March, applicant; Gary McNutt, Estridge Companies; Jon Dobosiewicz, Land Use Professional with Nelson and Frankenberger; Brady Kuhn, Weihe Engineers. Overview: Site is located on southwest corner of 146 Street and Village Drive North, west of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Catholic Church Petitioner owns property adjacent to lot 6 and would like to plat approximately 2.6 acres of the adjacent real estate into two, large lots (shown as Lot 1 and Lot 2 in the exhibits) and the property for which primary plat approval is being requested Per the requirements of the County Highway, the existing roadcut on 146 Street will be eliminated and re- located for Lot 1 so that it connects to Village Drive North Lot 2 does not have frontage on a public right -of -way and in order to provide ingress /egress to Lot 2, the applicant is granting an access easement over Lot 6 to be located in the area of the existing drive shown The access easement may be re- located in the future on the southern boundary of Lot 6 Buffering for the benefit of neighbors to the south and west of Lot 2 will be in the form of pine trees, planted every 15 feet on center, along the south and western boundaries of Lot 2; 24 pines, 8 feet in height at planting. Per the recommendation of the Urban Forester, all pines will be spruce trees There is an existing berm along the southern boundary of Lot 6 that might be re- shaped if the access easement is re- located to the southern boundary of Lot 6. In the event the access easement and drive are later re- located to the southern boundary of Lot 6, resulting in the re- shaping of the existing berm and consequent, intermittent reductions in height of the existing berm, arborvitae would be planted, four feet on center, in all areas where the berm might later be reduced from its existing height Along the northern boundary of Lot 1, the petitioner will plant 12 trees, 15 feet on center, 8 feet in height at planting; per the recommendation of the urban forester, these would all be spruce trees. Along the eastern boundary of Lot 1, the petitioner will preserve the existing, healthy trees; the petitioner has the right to remove dead, dying trees from the tree preservation areas and as necessary to allow the road cut from 146 Street to Village Drive North Approval is being requested of the Primary Plat and the Subdivision Waiver Petitioner is also requesting suspension of the Rules of Procedure and a vote this evening rather than being referred to Committee The petitioner understands that the Dept of Engineering is in the process of reviewing drainage and realizes that approval is subject to the Dept of Engineering prior to the recordation of the Secondary Plat. Approval of the Subdivision Waiver is conditioned upon recordation of an Access Easement prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 2 Public Remonstrance: None Commission Questions /Comments: What is the plan for structures on the lots? S:/PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes20I O/PC- 2010 -Aug17 3 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 -571 -2417 Is there common area? Is there a pond on the property and if so, who maintains? Is the applicant requesting to be a part of and subject to the covenants, and take advantage of the benefits of the adjacent homeowner's association? Will the remaining structures on Lot 2 be consistent with the SCO, since they appear to be close to the eastern lot line? Not in favor of asking petitioner to commit to draft Architectural Design Guidelines unfair to ask petitioner to meet a standard that is still a work in process —not a reasonable expectation Charlie Frankenberger, Response: Existing structures on the lots include the March's prior home, (currently under a sale agreement) a barn structure that will be demolished and replaced by a residence; the smallest of the 3 structures on lot 2 will be demolished The pond is a variable drainage easement within the already platted subdivision of Village of Mount Carmel. The pond is not part of the plat approval request The applicant is not seeking to become a part of the adjacent HOA. Section 10 is a relatively small subdivision and has no amenities; the lots will not be a part of the pre- existing plat and will be called Village of Mount Carmel, Section 11 The setbacks applicable to the lot for the structures on both the north and east property lines meet the setback requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance Dept, Angie Conn stated that the pond was already approved, developed, and is maintained by the homeowners of Section 10. Motion: Woody Rider "To suspend the Rules of Procedure," seconded by Jay Dorman, approved 8 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstaining. Motion: Woody Rider "To approve Docket No. 10050022 PP, Village of Mount Carmel, Section 11, conditioned upon Engineering approval, and Docket No. 10050023 SW, conditioned upon the platting of an access easement;" seconded by Jay Dorman, approved 8 -0. 3. Docket No. 10060012 DP /ADLS: 116" Street Centre PUD Apartment Homes The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a 195 -unit apartment home community on 6.9acres. The site is located at the northeast corner of 116 St. College Ave. and is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Todd May of J.C. Hart Company, Inc. Present for Petitioner: Jesse Pohlman, Land Use Consultant, Baker Daniels; Todd May, J.C. Hart Company; Gary Weaver, architect, Sherman- Weaver Design; and Ed Fleming, Weihe Engineers Overview: Amendment granted last year to allow for the apartment homes Development Plan provides for 195 apartment units on 6.9 acres, clubhouse and swimming pool Plan also provides for 10 buildings -4 different building types —with a mixture of architecture Site located at northeast corner of 116 Street and College Avenue Department Report contains a number of outstanding comments; petitioner is continuing to work with the Staff hopeful to address the comments prior to Committee review S: /PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2010 /PC- 2010 -Augl 7 4 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 -571 -2417 Public Remonstrance: None Dept Comments, Angie Conn: Since the Dept Report was written and released, approximately half of the outstanding comments have been addressed. Dept recommends this item be sent to the Sept 7 th Subdivision Committee meeting for review and discussion Commission Questions and Comments: Request map showing the location of roads and surrounding area for Committee review Request petitioner bring a summary to help determine where development standards are and where the petition stands in terms of landscape plan, parking, photo metrics something that identifies the task for the committee as to compliance of development standards and where more work is necessary. Request petitioner look at rear of clubhouse— considered to be a weak spot, architecturally Location map of all on and off -site signs Clarification as to whether or not mall will be delivered to individual buildings or central mail location in clubhouse Inter- connectivity capability for future developments, sidewalks /paths Clarify parking garages shown on the plans— single garage for multiple spaces or individual garage units Sidewalks are proposed at various widths -5 feet, 4 feet, some cases only 3 feet —all seem fairly narrow. Need to know that sidewalks provided are the widest width possible Docket No. 10060012 DP /ADLS, 116 Street Centre PUD Apartment Homes was referred to Sept 7 th Subdivision Committee for review and discussion. 4. Docket No. 10070004 OA: Carmel Dr -Range Line Road Overlay Sunset Amendment The applicant seeks to amend the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 23F. Carmel Drive -Range Line Road Zone in order to remove the sunset clause. Filed by Carmel Dept. of Community Services. Present for Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling, Dept of Community Services Overview: Requesting removal of Overlay Sunset Amendment —in place since 2005 Originally adopted with sunset provision which expired December, 2006 Sunset Amendment has been renewed a number of times with anticipation of central business district plan Carmel Smart Code was to serve in capacity of central business district plan; however, it was not adopted Many arguments against Smart Code were neighborhood related and not the Range Line corridor location Request suspension of Rules of Procedure and favorable recommendation to City Council No Public Remonstrance S:/PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2010 /PC- 2010 -Aug 17 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317- 571 -2417 Commission Questions /Comments? Request for a One Year Extension? (Proposal removes the Sunset entirely from the Overlay) Any chance of applying good work of Smart Code to just this Overlay? (Could look at further if there are specific instances or things the Commission would like to see, Dept would be open) Motion: Woody Rider "To suspend the Rules of Procedure;" seconded by Jay Dorman, approved 8 -0 Motion: Woody Rider "To forward Docket No. 10070004 OA, Carmel Drive -Range Line Road Sunset Amendment to the City Council with a favorable recommendation;" seconded by Jay Dorman, approved 8 -0 5. Docket No. 10070005 CPA: SW Clay Collector Street Classification The applicant seeks to amend the Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan (C3 Plan 2009) in order to add a new street classification (Southwest Clay Collector Street) to the Thoroughfare Plan. Filed by Carmel Dept. of Community Services. Present for Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling, Dept of Community Services Overview: Request directly related to request from representatives of residents of Southwest Clay area Amendment would add a separate collector street to Comprehensive Plan Proposal would be a legend change to the Thoroughfare Plan Map from what is designated as a collector street per NOAX Agreement to the proposed Southwest Clay Collector Street classification Request this item be sent to Committee, in view of recent email correspondence Request forwarding to City Council with positive recommendation after review General Public Comments, Favorable: Dee Fox, 11389 Royal Court, generally in favor of proposed changes to southwest Clay road because it will help preserve the area's character to deter speeding, and protect property values. Unsure if changes can be done at this time thought changes had to wait until 2012 when the area had representation on Plan Commission. Committee review would be a good thing. Currently, there is a minimum right -of- way —would feel better if there were a maximum right -of- way. There is a lot of discussion and concern regarding the 6 foot width on the side paths; also a lot of concern regarding negative impact of large rights -of -way on Huntington -Chase neighborhood. Generally in favor of proposal; look forward to discussion at Committee. General Public Comments, Unfavorable: Ron Carter, 12715 Stanwich Place, spoke as Executive Director of Greenways Foundation. What is being asked for by representatives of Southwest Clay regarding multi -use paths is "inappropriate." The City might as well not waste its money putting in 5 or 6 foot multi -use paths that are too narrow and are a safety hazard. Making a Collector Street as narrow as proposed will make it absolutely necessary for bicyclists, pedestrians, roller bladers, etc. to use the multi -use path; a 5 to 6 foot path is really a problem. The standard for multi -use paths in the balance of the community is 8 to 10 feet, and that's what we should have throughout the City as a whole. Bike lanes are single use, very expensive to build, and not a good use of public tax dollars. "I would recommend this item either be referred to Committee or withdrawn." S•tPlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2010 /PC- 2010 -Augl7 6 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 -571 -2417 Township and there is a possibility that the greatest of intentions will net undesirable consequences— probably should have professional consultation to clear up drainage. In addition, there are some minor disagreements. Department, Adrienne Keeling: Department is open to Tabling to a definite date Dept is also open to sending this item to Committee Commission Questions /Comments: May not be the proper time for this because of southwest Clay's lack of representation on Council Rather than tabling or voting it down, prefer Dept consider withdrawing and re- working Uncertain as to the degree of public notice, public input, publicity, etc surrounding this Amendment Would like to ensure southwest Clay's participation and representation In its current form, proposal is dangerous prepared to vote down or have Dept withdraw Would like to see a consultant work with this to achieve desired result No point in talking about right -of -way width if we find out in the end that the right -of -way is needed for drainage Director Michael Hollibaugh's comments: Request initiated by NOAX Dept has been working closely with legal counsel for NOAX Request referral of proposed Amendment to Committee for review and discussion Motion: Woody Rider, "To suspend the Rules of Procedure;" seconded by Judy Hagan, approved 8 -0 Motion: Woody Rider, "To DENY Docket No. 10070005 CPA, SW Clay Collector Street Classification;" seconded by Judy Hagan; approved 8 -0 1. Old Business None J. New Business None K. Adjournment at 7:00 PM ona Hancock, gecretary .PrT� Leo Dierckman, President S;/PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinules /PCMinutes2010/PC- 2010 -Aug17 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317- 571 -2417