Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC Exec Committee 11-16-10of C V` A4 A THE� Mo C of arm e /NDIANN CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2010 City Hall Caucus Rooms, 2nd Floor One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 5:30 PM Members Present: Chairperson Jay Dorman, Brad Grabow, Nick Kestner, Steve Lawson, Woody Rider, Steve Stromquist, Ephraim Wilfong. DOCS Staff Present: Director Michael Hollibaugh. Angie Conn, Adrienne Keeling; Legal Counsel John Molitor. Also Alan Sutherland, Counsel for the City of Carmel, and Jeremy Kashman, Structurepoint /Carmel Engineering Ramona Hancock, Plan Commission Secretary was also present. Single Item Agenda: R -4 District Setback Amendment and Keystone Overlay, Docket No. 10110001 OA Overview, Michael Hollibaugh: The context of R -4 District Setback Amendment is to be presented to full Plan Commission this evening for a better understanding of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with planning goals, setbacks, and design setbacks. The genesis for this amendment is the situation at 116 and Keystone. The owner of the apartment complex would like to be certain that what the City ultimately is doing does not make their property less valuable. The Amendment today would mean that the building is within a 30 -foot setback and within the landscape /greenbelt for Keystone Parkway This Docket is a public hearing item this evening; it is anticipated that it will be forwarded to the Subdivision Committee for review. Current impact on the apartment complex? Response: Where there are buildings today that were legal before, with the right -of -way acquisition, they are now located inside the setback. The proposed amendment would make the apartment complex legal. It may make them legal, but does it substantially change the value of the property? Response: This may not be something the Plan Commission could remedy; it is between the City and the property owner —that is where the lawsuit would be. This still may go to trialwe are getting closer to S: /P1anCommission/ Minutes /CommitteeN inutes /ExecutiveCommittee /2010nov16 1 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 571 -2417 a dollar amount and some other details. The subject of an Ordinance Amendment that would accomplish this came up and it was well- received. The owner's attorney liked the idea of having an ordinance amendment that would make them legal. The Department recommends suspension of the Plan Commission's Rules of Procedure. The Amendment would make Woodland Springs Manor legal. In the long -term picture, there is re- development. In the meantime, for a sale, the development of this land is consistent with zoning as opposed to it now being "the notable exception" along Keystone Parkway for the lack of setback it has today. However, if renters and owners of real estate do not like the idea of the diminished setback, this could boomerang for the property owner and the City if we have a zoning standard for development that is counter to what the market would dictate. Eventually, the Parkway will be re- developed —there are very few in -fill opportunities currently. There is a lot of floodplain south around 106 Street, the Church property at Carmel Drive —the northeast quadrant is vacant; Smokey Row Road, the southwest corner is vacant...... The proposed Amendment does not dictate Zero, it gives a range. If the standard is not consistent with the market, ultimately we are not helping the City maximize property values John Molitor: In the interest of full disclosure, the Dept previously came up with an ordinance approximately one year ago. It was proposed at that time to have this resolved by the Board of Zoning Appeals; the BZA would determine whether or not this was a legal, non conforming use—it probably is because they were there before the City acquired the right -of -way for the roundabout. Regardless, they took a very strange approach —they argued against the Dept changing the Ordinance as if they did not want us to fix their problem but they wanted to maximize their value in a lawsuit. Alan Sutherland, Counsel for the City in the lawsuit, had the following comments: This is truly one of the most unusual situations he had ever encountered. The property owner complained about the setback, we were in the position where someone could say that they were in violation. We offered to fix it, and provide them with a variance that would make it clear that their building is not illegal. The property owner said "No, Thanks." We were really looking for a situation to be able to say that even though there were technically within the setback and could argue that their building is illegal, that is not the position the Dept was taking. We were looking for a vehicle to basically make it official; there are different ways to do that. The roundabout is fairly close to the corner unit. One of the difficulties in getting the case resolved is the argument about legal or illegal. Their position has been that we have made their building illegal and they are perhaps entitled to compensation. The landowner is still in the position that the case could still be tried for damages. What happens if something else occurs along the Keystone Parkway corridor? Michael Hollibaugh stated that this property is the only R -4 location along Keystone Parkway; this would be the only case like this. This proposal would impact all of the R -4 zoning, not just this property along Keystone. If the property owner is allowed to go to the Zero line, would the City have to negotiate with them to S: /P1anCommission/ Minutes/ CommitteeMinutes /ExecutiveCommittee /2010nov16 2 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 571 -2417 purchase right -of -way to expand the sidewalk? Michael Hollibaugh responded that the Dept has re- thought sidewalk widths and adjusted right -of -way needs to accommodate that. In the Overlay Zones, there is a specific sidewalk width-10 or 12 feet—in single family residential, we have stuck with a 5 -foot sidewalk within neighborhoods. We have tried to think through that. Is this being done to appease one situation—or does this make sense for the entire City? Michael Hollibaugh, response: The reason we went this route we felt that this is consistent with the direction we tried to go with the entire Smart Code process. There are properties between Keystone and US 31 that would have been rezoned had we been successful in getting that through the Council—it would have already had the setback changed up to Zero. This situation merges with planning and design roles the Dept has been working on steadily. Woodland Springs Manor would benefit immediately; all the other properties would not immediately benefit. Woodland Springs Manor Apartments' legal counsel may appear at public hearing this evening. If ever there was an instance of "spot zoning" that could be justified, this is it. However, by expanding the scope of solution not only beyond this property but to the whole community, the opportunity for problems may be magnified. Michael Hollibaugh, response: This only affects R -4 Residential and there are not that many. In everything we do, the law of unintended consequences comes into play. Even though we are looking at one, we are also looking at all; it does not take away from the site design review that the Plan Commission would do. All this does is relax those setbacks which are consistent with a lot of what we have done in the various Overlay Zones. For the most part, R -4 within the City is between Keystone and US 31, within the Smart Code Area. If we don't know that this is going to resolve the matter once and for all with the owner, why go big with the answer as opposed to trying a limited scope, since there is no guarantee that this resolves the law suit. If a law suit had never been mentioned, and the Dept wanted to look at changing R -4, it would have been a legitimate thing to consider. If you look at this as a single instance, whether it fixes the lawsuit or not is a separate issue. Would we do this regardless of the law suit? John Molitor suggested getting Alan Sutherland's recommendation/advice on the issues as to whether or not it helps resolve the law suit. Alan Sutherland said it was a little disconcerting that someone would complain about a setback violation and still want to rent their building to full capacity —which they are —and to the best of my knowledge, does not have any loss of rent from this corner unit, but at the same time reject our offer to walk them through the Variance process to alleviate their concern and complaint about the setback. Regardless whether we resolve the lawsuit or not, it makes sense, especially if it is consistent with what you are trying to do with the lot lines in and around town. If it does not help resolve the lawsuit in a short period of time, it is still just me to say, your building is not illegal, but if you think your building has been damaged, you will have to prove it to a jury based on how we caused you monetary damage. Every S: /P1anCommission/ Minutes/ CommitteeMinutes /ExecutiveCommittee /2010nov16 3 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 571 -2417 indication is that they want to keep the building rented, and keep it where it is currently located. There is one other situation where we have a setback issue because of a roundabout on Keystone, across from McDonald's. We avoided a lawsuitwe worked with the owners and walked them through the Variance process. Are there one or two other instances in the community where this would have some immediate applicability? If this were in place, would any R -4 want to build closer to take advantage? Michael Hollibaugh, response: None known, however it will affect every R -4 zone. If an R -4 has been just sitting on the fence about re- developing their site, although in this market probably not, if they could get 10 or 15% more yield from re- development, maybe that would be enough to start thinking about it. The reviewing Committee (Special Studies or Subdivision) should look at other R -4 properties. On the surface, the property owner looks like it is harmed and doing something spot is not good. However, they are renting full/capacity the entire time. The longer this goes on, the less their argument becomes. If that is their argument, then let us fix it. They are arguing against us fixing it, but yet arguing they are harmed and continuing to rent at full capacity. If the building had to be demolished, that would be an argument. They have a fully functioning building, but yet still want to remain in the "harmed" category. They are losing the argument. Alan Sutherland said he had had that argument with the property owner a number of times. The property owner was paid for the land taken for right -of -way, it is on deposit in escrow, no money has changed hands yet. Probably the way to do this is to separate the law suit and look at R -4 zoning. The Executive Committee was adjourned at 6:00 PM. The results of the Committee meeting were to be further explored at Executive Session immediately following the Plan Commission meeting. Jay Dorman, Chairperson Ramona Hancock, Secretary S: /P1anCommission/ Minutes/ CommitteeMinutes /ExecutiveCommittee /2010nov16 4 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 571 -2417