Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 04-19-11�CNILTNE p A C i ty o f C arme l /NDIANp CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 2011 City Hall Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 1 Civic Square, Carmel, IN 46032 6:00 PM Members Present: Leo Dierckman, Brad Grabow, Judy Hagan, Heather Irizarry, Nick Kestner, Steve Lawson, Kevin "Woody" Rider, Steve Stromquist, Susan Westermeier, Ephraim Wilfong Members Absent: Jay Dorman DOCS Staff Present: Director Michael Hollibaugh, Angie Conn; Legal Counsel John Molitor. Also Present: Ramona Hancock, Secretary, Carmel Plan Commission The Minutes of the March 15, 2011 meeting were approved as submitted. Legal Counsel Report, John Molitor: House Bill 1311 legislation is pending before General Assembly and planning and zoning it has not yet gone to the Governor's desk, but no problem is anticipated will keep the Commission posted. Department Reports No Concerns H. Public Hearings 1. TABLED TO MAY 17: Docket No. 10110012 DP /ADLS: Legacy PUD Turkey Hill Minit Market. 2. DeelrNo 10110013 W-. Seetion 9.02, Legaey PUD Z 501 07, 15 and o €t frontyard building setbaek. is zene he site is leeeted at `elep -er-d ee 77''�� 6 h S gat River- Rd f p Ffankeabergen ei mei�ile �1 2e Y r-m* rnvcrg�r vrrrcr�vx v� r Nels 3. Docket No. 11020013 DP /ADLS: Woodland Terrace CCRC The applicant seeks site plan design approval for a continuing care retirement community (CCRC) on 7 acres. The application also seeks the following zoning waiver request: 4. Docket No. 11030006 ZW: Ordinance Chapter 23.08.01.1): front building setback The site is located at 136`" Street and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B-6/Business, within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger, on behalf of Justus Homes, Inc. S: /PlanCommission/ Minutes /PlanC ommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011 /PC- 2011 -apr19 www.cannel.in.gov in.gov 317- 571 -2417 Present for Petitioner: James Shinaver, attorney, Nelson Frankenberger; Walt Justus, President of The Justus Company, Scott Jeske, Vice President of The Justus Company; Consultant Chris White, owner of Site Solutions Group; Dan Ware, Inter Design; Engineers Rich Kelly and Rick Reynolds, EMH and Jon Dobosiewicz, Land Planner with Nelson Frankenberger Overview: Justus Companies owns manages approx 2,475 independent and assisted senior living units within Indpls market Justus desires to construct a new, state -of -the -art, senior living facility on subject parcel Subject site located at intersection of Smokey Row Road and Pro -Med Drive Senior Living Facility would be known as Woodland Terrace of Carmel Property is zoned B -6 Business, within the US 31 corridor Overlay Zone Proposed facility classified as a Continuing Care Retirement Community under Carmel Zoning Ordinance CCRC is a permitted use on the real estate Levels of service offered: Independent living, Assisted Living, Skilled Rehabilitation Care Development Plan and ADLS request are fully detailed in information booklets Rendering of the site shown, including landscape plan Urban Forester has no concerns with the landscape plan In addition to plantings along buildings and parking areas, tree preservation and buffer area along the eastern border will be a main consideration Tree preservation area is adjacent to Kensington neighborhood to the immediate east Required buffer yard along the east, per zoning ordinance, is 15 feet; however, per zoning commitments from the rezone for this site, the tree preservation area proposed by Justus is approx 50 feet in width along the entire eastern border of the project Building will be set back approx 65 feet from the Kensington neighborhood Eastern tree preservation area takes advantage of mature and existing tree cover, and preserves creates a natural buffer between the proposed use and the neighbors to the east Combining tree preservation area with the 65 foot building setback helps promote buffering between the proposed use and homes to the east Additional tree buffering has been designated adjacent to Smokey Row Road Justus is proposing a tree preservation area along Smokey Row Road that would alternate between 20 to 40 feet in width The petitioner exceeds both the planting and buffer -yard widths Regarding the request for zoning waiver —when the property was platted in 1997, a provision was made for a 40 -foot, front yard building setback. In meeting with DOCS, there is a possibility that the zoning ordinance could be interpreted to require a 60 -foot front yard building setback along Pro -Med Drive. Justus Company is seeking a 35% reduction in the front yard building setback requirement from Pro -Med Drive to allow the building to remain at a 40 -foot setback from the previously approved plat. Approval of zoning waiver request will allow for expanded tree preservation buffer area along the east side of the property will also allow Justus to preserve more of the existing, mature tree cover Absent zoning waiver approval, the building would need to be set back another 20 feet from Pro Med Drive to comply with the 50 -foot setback and would also require Justus to adjust the building location S:/ PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes201 I /PC- 2011 -apr 19 2 www.carmel.in.gov 317 571 -2417 It would be to everyone's benefit to seek the zoning waiver to preserve more landscape and buffer area along the eastern side of the property It is the petitioner's understanding that the Dept supports their request for zoning waiver Color building perspectives were shown Proposed CCRC would contain a total of 185 units consisting of 59 assisted living units, 126 independent living units, and features and amenities such as dining areas, physical therapy and fitness areas, a library, activities room, and wireless technology integrated into every living unit Zoning for this site would allow a building height of 100 feet, but as a result of a prior rezone approval, and a previous zoning commitment with the neighbors regarding, there is an agreed upon building height not to exceed 50 feet the proposed building will comply with the prior commitment Petitioner has met with members of the Kensington HOA Board Dept of Engineering advises that no substantial issues at this time Items 1 thru 8 on the Dept Report are fairly self explanatory Petitioner is prepared to address Dept Report items 9, 10, and 11 at the Committee meeting Item 11 of the Dept Report that relates to architecture of the proposed garage structures Justus will work with the Committee for an approved design that fully complies —no variance from the architectural standards will be sought The petitioner looks forward to Committee meeting on May 4` Remonstrance/Favorable: None Remonstrance/Unfavorable: Sharon Oldham, 13534 Kensington Place, President of Kensington Place HOA. Kensington Place townhomes are adjacent to property under consideration this eve. The CCRC proposal consists of 44, one bedroom independent care units, 28, one bedroom assisted living units, 82, two- bedroom independent care units, and 31, studio assisted living units. The residents of Kensington Place have prepared a handbook of concerns and will distribute to the Commission this evening. Concerns will be presented this evening by six neighbors /residents of Kensington Place, each speaking on a separate topic. Virginia Kerr, 13595 Kensington Place, referred to item 23B, US Highway 31 Overlay Zone, as support for reasons the Plan Commission should deny the petitioner's application for the CCRC. Either all or some of the 10 lots in Kensington Place are in the US 31 corridor. Ms. Kerr read highlights from the zoning ordinance and parts of the application that explicitly deviate from the requirements of the US 32 Overlay Zone the purpose of which is to promote and protect the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare by providing for consistent and coordinated treatment of the properties bordering US 31. It also states that the US 31 corridor is a premier office location. A topography map is included in the handbook. Appendix A outlines the permitted uses, and CCRC is not included as a definition. Ms. Kerr also made reference to the Carmel Comprehensive Plan and quoted "Building heights should not exceed three stories when adjacent to existing, residential neighborhoods." Ms. Kerr asked that the US 31 Overlay Zone and the Comprehensive Plan be reviewed in conjunction with this proposed project. A point of concern is also potential devaluation of properties in Kensington Place. Jill Gauss, 685 West 146` Street. Ms. Gauss has been working in health care communities for 25 years as an administrator and a consultant in Indiana, Kentucky, Kansas, Nebraska, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico and Missouri. Ms. Gauss read the definition of a CCRC according to the S: /PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011 /PC- 2011 -apr19 3 www.carmel.in.gov 317 571 -2417 Indiana Health Care Association. "Continuing Care Retirement Community -A housing community that provides different levels of care based on what each resident needs over time sometimes called life care —and can range from independent living in an apartment to assisted living, to full time care in a nursing home. Residents move from one setting to another based on their needs, but continue to live as part of the community." The Justus Communities business model has been apartment living for quite some time in the Indianapolis area. Ms. Gauss also gave the average price point for the different levels of living in a Justus community. A personal care agency, "Freedom," provides additional care, but it is not a medical model only personal services such as bathing, dressing, bed making, etc. Ms. Gauss said she had researched seven facilities currently in the market that would be in direct competition: The Stratford, The Barrington, Manor Care, Crown Point of Carmel, Sunrise at Old Meridian, Sanders Glenn Westfield, and Sunrise of Carmel. The Barrington has actually been selling since 2008 and has not yet broken ground; they are projecting 271 units and have sold 67 to date. The Stratford opened in 2008 with 208 units, approximately 100 of them sold. Manor Care has been in the marketplace since 1985 and currently has 168 occupied. Crown Point is actually an assisted living in the Carmel area since 2001 with 30 units occupied. Sunrise at Old Meridian, since 2009 has 70 units. Sanders Glenn has been in the market for a number of years with 103 units occupied out of 111. Sunrise of Carmel is actually an Alzheimer's facility with 60 beds, 54 occupied. The Bridgewater, a new facility at the corner of 146` and Carey Road will be opening next month with 120 units. We are trying to identify a lack of need for this type of care facility, since there are currently several within the community. A new facility could easily remain empty or close to empty for a significant amount of time. The conclusions of the market research are that all CCRC facilities are struggling with occupancy, except for Manor Care, and they have been in the market for a very long time and are stable. Facilities that have been open a number of years are running respectable occupancies; facilities that have opened or started selling since 2008 have significant, unsold units running at 40 to 50% occupied. Carmel currently does not need additional, independent living, assisted living, or skilled care units or beds. Ms. Gauss noted that the Justus application was in direct conflict with the Indiana Health Assoc definition of three, distinct levels of care which includes a licensed, skilled nursing unit. The application does not speak to the skilled, nursing, licensing process. There is abundant ambiguity with references to private duty care, and services being provided by a skilled representative this does not meet the definition of a licensed, skilled, nursing care facility. The application also states that the facility will be constructed in phases with phase one being the construction of the main, 123 independent living apartments; the east and west wings would be future phases, only to be built as market conditions dictate. Research clearly indicates that there is not a need now or in the foreseeable future for this type of facility. Potentially, the Justus Company could build the first phase only- independent living apartments -and never complete phase two. Apartment construction within the US 31 Overlay is forbidden. For all of the reasons outlined, we recommend denial of the Justus application. However, if the Commission approves the plan, we recommend that they require the Justus Company to comply with Federal and State licensing requirements. Regarding parking, there is no more than one space per unit, one each for potential staff, and no parking planned for visitors. Susan Schellebarger, 13571 Kensington Place. The Kensington residents strongly believe that the Woodland Terrace proposal violates several sections of the City's zoning ordinance as follows: Section 23B.00.01 purpose of the US 31 Overlay Zone is to promote and protect the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare by providing for consistent, coordinated treatment of the properties bordering US Highway 31. The Kensington residents S: /PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011 /PC- 2011 -apr 19 4 www.carmel.in.gov 317 -571 2417 have concerns specifically regarding public safety. Visitors and Staff for the CCRC would create additional traffic burden at US 31 and Smokey Row Road, especially during rush hour. Stopping distance and response time for drivers in this area, especially in an older age group, is also a concern. In addition, the Kensington neighborhood feels that with the influx of residents and outside service providers, their security will be compromised. Accident statistics have been requested for this intersection —not yet received. Other concerns: noise from air conditioners, automobiles, service trucks; odor associated with garbage /refuse and the attraction of raccoons and other animals in the area. Section 24.02.A.3 of the zoning ordinance requires the development plan to provide a plan for management of traffic in a manner that creates conditions favorable to the health, safety, convenience and harmonious development of the community. These points need to be considered by the Plan Commission; has such a plan been made by the Justus Co. for Kensington review? Section 24.02.13.3a of the zoning ordinance requires the developer to perform a traffic study —has such a traffic study been performed? Section 23B.14 addresses bicycle and pedestrian access this requires linking bicycle and pedestrian facilities to adjacent development, the overall US 31 corridor, and the Carmel community's overall system of bicycle and pedestrian trails and routes. To the Kensington residents' knowledge, the current Development Plan does not meet these requirements. Gary Doxstater, 13559 Kensington Place moved to Kensington Place in 1994 for the quality of life.....likes wildlife, trees, parks, trails, and Meadowlark Park. Kensington Place was the first place in the State to receive a wildlife friendly neighborhood certification —every townhome is certified wildlife is an important part of the quality of life. Mr. Doxstater reviewed the benefits of tree preservation areas, including increased property values, as specified in a pamphlet from the Carmel Urban Forestry Dept. Major concern is the crowding of the proposed facility which will be up against the tree preservation area —it is quite possible that construction of the buildings and parking lot will kill the existing trees in the preservation area. Water management is also a concern the site has complex, physical characteristics —the geology, the soils, the topography —it is very diversified and difficult to design a good watershed management program. All three watersheds come together at the park; it is a maintenance problem for Meadowlark Park. The City Engineer is aware of the problems in the area. The Kensington Place residents' quality of life is being threatened by the expansion of man's progress. Sharon Oldham addressed the Commission again and noted a proposal in 2008 for a Holiday Inn on this parcel. The Plan Commission denied the application for the Holiday Inn, and the petitioner sued the City/Plan Commission. There were Findings of Fact rendered for the denial of the Holiday Inn which enumerated 11 reasons those 11 reasons /concerns are the same concerns the residents of Kensington Place have many of those same concerns. John Kerr, 13595 Kensington Place, also the Managing Partner of Kensington Partners. After the first 7 units were built, the Kensington Partners bought the rest of the land and Mr. Kerr has been responsible as a general contractor to hire contractors to build additional townhomes. Mr. KIerr took exception with the Justus Company summary on file with the Dept which says they "intend" to comply with the City of Carmel ordinance under the auspices of a CCRC. Mr. Kerr stated he was "required" to comply....... The residents of Kensington Place feel that this petition should be denied by the Plan Commission. If the petition is not denied, the Kensington Place neighbors request that the City require Justus Homes to obtain all Federal and State licenses prior to breaking ground or doing any construction whatsoever. If licenses are not required prior to construction, the phase I building would be a multiple family dwelling, and that is excluded within the US 31 Overlay Zone. The Kensington owners understand that the use next door has S: /PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011 /PC- 2011 -apr19 5 www.cannel.in.gov 317 571 -2417 been a continuing use for an office park, and the residents would like to see the office park be in harmony with the environment and neighborhood of Kensington Place. The Plan Commission members are invited to drive thru the area and see what the impact of the proposed facility would be on Kensington Place. General Public Comments/Unfavorable Susie White, 62 -year resident, owner of Diva Hair Salon and also owner of her mother's home at 540 West Smokey Row Road neither in favor or opposition to the proposal, but has concerns about the widening of Smokey Row Road. How much of the property will be taken from the residents that live along Smokey Row? The kids use Smokey Row as a short-cut and there is concern with traffic. Rebuttal, Jon Dobosiewicz: Requested copy of booklet of remonstrance from Kensington Place in order to address items Petitioner has met on several occasions with DOCS Staff regarding the US 31 Overlay standards Petitioner is requesting relief from one of the standards regarding setback from Smokey Row Road in the absence of the waiver request, the building would need to be pushed farther south and east closer to Kensington Place and farther south into Pro -Med. There is 15 feet between the buffer required and the building fagade, but would like to pull the bldg as far west as possible, farther from Kensington Place neighborhood. The petitioner has a written determination from Staff that the CCRC would meet the City's requirement A CCRC designation will not be found on the appendix A a CCRC is permitted under appendix A as a nursing, single retirement, or convalescing facility, which you will see under the Residential section, Exhibit A appendix, a residential use and a permitted use in the B -6 zone and not an excluded use within the US 31 Overlay B -6 zoning within the US 31 Overlay, nursing, retirement, or convalescent facility —of which a CCRC is one —is a permitted use on the property today Regarding Parking, the parking meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance; we are not seeking relief from the zoning standards in place for this use within the City of Carmel; today, parking meets that requirement Traffic and Access: Those two points have been addressed with the City Engineer's office and they have indicated that a traffic study is not required of this site; the US 31 Overlay does not require nor mandate a traffic study, but we have produced an analysis and shared that with Engineering. The office that the Plan Commission approved in 2007 the office building itself, not including the hotel that was denied by the Plan Commission —our proposed use generates less traffic than the office that was approved by the Plan Commission. In regard to traffic and traffic generated by this use, this proposal generates less traffic than the office that was previously approved by the Plan Commission on a portion of the site, not including the hotel property. Regarding Access on Smokey Row Road: Both the Fire Dept and City Engineer's Office have given the petitioner favorable consideration regarding the access point. Bike Pedestrian Requirements: The petitioner has met with David Littlejohn, the Alternative Transportation Coordinator for the City of Carmel, and he has granted his approval and indicates no additional questions or comments relative to the question before the Commission TPA was mentioned —an acronym for Tree Protection Area —as indicated in the presentation, S: /PlanCommission/ Minutes /PlanCommissionMinutes /PCM inutes2011 /PC- 2011 -apr 19 6 www.carmel.in.gov 317 571 2417 the tree protection area is required to be 50 feet in width; that 50 feet was agreed to in 1990 at the time of the rezone of the property the Kerrs were involved in Kensington Place at that time and the Ordinance called for a much narrower tree buffer. The developer at the time agreed that there would be a 50 -foot tree protection area rather than a reduced (20 feet required today) buffer area. The petitioner is providing two and one -half times the buffer area that would otherwise be required between the two uses in place today. Water Management Urban Forester review: Daren Mindham, Carmel Urban Forester, has forwarded to the DOCS Staff that all of his comments and concerns with regard to the site were addressed. The petitioner met with Daren and specifically addressed the tree protection areas along both along the east side of the property and along Smokey Row Road these items were addressed to Daren Mindham's satisfaction. Regarding Water Management and the City Engineer's office, the petitioner is at a place, as described by the City Engineer, that is much further along than a typical DP /ADLS petition in front of the Plan Commission, specifically with regard to drainage approvals. This site had already been through the drainage review process when the office use was approved in 2007 those same standards and requirements and evaluation that was done by the City in 2007 are being relied upon, re- reviewed by the City today as part of their storm water review process and it is indicated by Gary Duncan, City Engineer's office, that while there is additional review to be done, we are in a place that they are comfortable with at this stage in their review process. After an opportunity to review the handbooks provided by the Kensington neighbors, we will come to the Committee meeting prepared to address all of the Committee's concerns as well as those items that are contained within the comments /questions that have been delivered to the Plan Commission by the public DOCS Staff Comments, Angie Conn: The Department would also like a copy of the Kensington booklet distributed this evening There are only 2 or 3 outstanding items and the petitioner has been working with the Dept to address concerns The public has brought up several good points, and the Dept looks forward to discussing that at the May 04, 2011 Subdivision Committee meeting Commission Members Comments /Questions: Will this be a licensed facility by the State of Indiana? (No) Will this CCRC be apartments? (Within the zoning ordinance is a definition of CCRC that is also included within the retirement, nursing, convalescent facility, and it meets those requirements. The petitioner can provide a summary of those requirements) What are the components in this project? (Chris White's response: This facility will have independent care housing, and assisted care facility which can be licensed or unlicensed. Most of the Justus Homes communities have unlicensed facilities. This particular facility will be an unlicensed care facility, but still an assisted care facility. There will also be skilled nursing rehab facilities in the building. Skilled nursing must be licensed by the State of Indiana, unless it is provided via home (Chris White —this will be the rehab portion of that care) There is confusion for benefit of the Committee, please bring what is going to be licensed and what is Not going to be licensed. Is the petitioner willing to commit to an age 55 or older population on a permanent basis? Perhaps through Deed Restriction (Jon Dobosiewicz stated the petitioner would commit to age 55 and older, but that there is an issue a distinction between S:/PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011 /PC- 2011 -apr19 7 www.cannel.in.gov 317 571 -2417 what the zoning ordinance classifies for this type of facility and what state licensing may or may not permit. The petitioner met with Staff on a few occasions to review that, specifically, so that they were comfortable that we met the standards in the zoning ordinance to allow this use on the property as proposed.) It is confusing- -from a state licensure standpoint, a CCRC provides three levels of care as just referenced, usually in a different format where it is not a home health care provided with some service such as assisted living, provided by the actual employees of the facility What is Sunrise facility? (Dept: Both independent and assisted living —it is not known if they are licensed) This is probably an area we need to clean up from the standpoint of the zoning code —there are a lot of conflicting terms Concern regarding parking any areas that can be land banked for future parking? With couples usually comes two cars, unless there are regulations that specify one car per unit (Response: It would be incumbent upon us, as the facility is occupied, to make sure that we are at all times meeting the City's requirements with regard to providing an adequate amount of parking. We would not intend to over -park the site and over burden the property with asphalt we would intend to meet the minimum standards that are established under the ordinance so that we are in compliance with that standard) Asking if there are additional areas available for parking if needed. Secondly, the garages look like a mini warehouse; some are hidden, some are visible from Smokey Row would like to see a better design. (Response: We will work on that at Committee) Clarification: Within this application, is it possible than you would only build apartments? (No) Are you guaranteeing that this will be assisted living and skilled nursing? )We are not permitted to build just apartments —we are required to meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance with regard to the CCRC and nursing, retirement, convalescent facility standards within the definition section of the zoning ordinance. You will provide skilled, nursing home type facilities? (Yes, we will provide all the services required by the zoning ordinances to conform with the requirements of the CCRC We are not proposing to build apartments, we are proposing to build a CCRC —we can't just have apartment services at the site —it is not permitted under the zoning ordinance and we would not comply it would be in violation and we could be cited.) If someone had severe dementia, and they were living in the apartments, would there be a place for them to go —not just a memory place but a place that is skilled care on this site or would they have to re- locate? (We will have a better answer for that question at Committee) What type of greenspace how much and where? (There are courtyard areas between the two wings of the building, plus an outdoor seating area) Would like to see a lot more greenspace (There will be access to the Meadowlark park facility; there is a designated area whereby the Justus community would connect to a sidewalk rather than coming back out onto Smokey Row Road and down to Old Meridian to the trail next to St. Vincent's; we would be able to get through the office area on sidewalk to the park facility as opposed to people having to walk out onto Smokey Row, Old Meridian, then into the park) The petitioner agreed to show a safe approach to Meadowlark Park on the plan Pin -point the park and what are the facilities to the south? (Park location was shown on the overhead, and the sidewalk connection through the office development was pin pointed. A walking route was traced. The office development is a condominium ownership; the buildings are separated into different quadrants and individually owned) Chris White: Those areas in lighter blue are designated future phases —those wings would be S: /PlanCommission /Minutes /PlanCommission Minutes /PCMinutes2011 /PC- 2011 -apr 19 8 www.carmel.in.gov 317- 571 -2417 constructed at a later date based on occupancy need the two wings consist of 64 units of the 185 total units. The parking lot and all of the facilities in front will be constructed up -front as part of phase I. The phasing of the two wings would be the buildings themselves. There are additional, lighter shaded garages on the interior of the parking lot area that would be constructed at a later date. Initially, those would be surface parking, but would be converted to garages. Behind Tab 3, the sidewalk is missing at the southern end —it should show on some drawing. Would also like to see what the access is to the park and is it a public access /street? (Pro -Med is a public street) There may not be sidewalks there. Would like to understand the history of the commitments that were made and the tree preservation area from the prior years. Clarify a CCRC under the City's Zoning Ordinances. Signage: Are there only two ground signs? (Yes) Dept Report. item 7 explain removing part of a non access easement. How would the petitioner protect the treed area from the bulldozers if this is approved? Would like to see a commitment to that effect. Three issues to address at committee: Please prepare some sort of visual that helps in understanding the height distances to the lowest point in Kensington Place to the highest point of structure on this site —in other words, how much of the project would be visible from the lowest point in Kensington Place; some of the folks who will work at this facility would be contractors as opposed to employees? For purposes of determining parking adequacy, are there any service providers who would be coming to the facility on a day to day basis or once per week? And, when you get to the point where the garages are constructed, what is the plan to continue to provide adequate parking while those spaces are lost temporarily due to construction of the garages. Is there excess capacity to continue to provide adequate spaces? If you build the two wings at a later date, would you be building the courtyard prior to the construction of the buildings —would the courtyard be finished? The Council has been requested to extend part of the Overlay requirement from 131 Street up to 136 Street. If that were to happen, would it apply to this petition, since it has already been filed, and if it would apply, how would it affect the petitioner? e Response, Jon Dobosiewicz: No, it would not affect this petition, since it has already been filed, and the standard that was a concern at the time of the rezone was a building height issue. At the time the Ordinance was amended, the permissible building height was 100 feet and the developer at the time agreed to reduce the building height to a maximum of 4 stories or 50 feet in height. The standard that the residents would like to have applied to this would be a reduction that would only allow the building to be 40% as tall as the setback. If it was setback as it is currently, the maximum building height would be 24 feet rather than the 50 feet and 4 stories at the time of rezone in 1990. Additional Response, John Molitor: The bar in retro- activities stems from State Statute as to the builders association. Once an application is on file, you cannot apply any change in the ordinance to that application for at least three years Docket No. 11020013 DP./ADLS, Woodland Terrace CCRC, and Docket No. 11030006 ZW, Zoning Waiver, Ordinance Chapter 23.08.01D, front building setback were forwarded to the Subdivision Committee for further review on Wednesday, May 04, 2011. Oldf usiness None, New Business T None. Adjournment �7a OP 1 R ona cock, 9' cretary Steve Stromquist, S `P1anCommission/Minutes/ Plan[ 'ommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011 /Pt 2011 -aprN www.cannel.in.gov :e President 9 317 -571 -2417