Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 08-16-11r LZ r of CAq u /NDIpNp City of Carmel CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION AUGUST 16, 2011 Carmel City Hall, Council Chambers One Civic Square Carmel IN 46032 6:00 PM Members Present: John Adams, Jay Dorman, Brad Grabow, Judy Hagan, Nick Kestner, Steve Lawson, Kevin "Woody" Rider, Sue Westermeier, Ephraim Wilfong Members Absent: Steve Stromquist DOCS Staff Present: Director Michael Hollibaugh, Angie Conn, Adrienne Keeling; Legal Counsel John Molitor Also Present: Ramona Hancock, Plan Commission Secretary The Minutes of the July 19, 2011 meeting were approved as submitted. r Legal Counsel Report, John Molitor: Mr. Lewis has demolished the garage up to the set -back line•, Mr. Lewis left the concrete pad, part of which encroaches into the setback —the court is keeping it under its jurisdiction until removal is complete. 1. PC Resolution No. PC- 08- 16 -11: Parks Recreation Impact Fee Ratification (2012). Resolution to implement increase in the Parks and Recreation Impact Fee and ratify the scheduled fee increase for June 2012. Present for Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling Overview: Park Impact Fee is imposed on NEW dwelling units only Fee is calculated on new park investment planned over a number of years divided by what is projected to be built (dwelling units) over a period of 5 to 10 years Impact Fee Ordinance was amended in 2009 with a detailed schedule of the fees per dwelling unit Impact Fee started out at $1,261.per new dwelling unit and increased mid -June to $1,387. Current proposal is to review ratify the next scheduled increase to $1,526. For months 25 thru 36 of the Ordinance, effective June 15, 2012 Council has advised the Dept to return every year to ratify the increase Impact Fee Advisory Committee will meet Tuesday, September 06 at 5:30 PM The fee is imposed on new construction only Commission Members Questions /Comments If Council determines that an increase is not warranted, does the existing fee come back to Plan Commission to validate for another 12 months? WWW.CARMEL.IN.GO\' PAGE 1 317- 571 -2417 Response, John Molitor: Council passed the Ordinance that set out the scheduled fee increase, but stated the increase would be subject to ratification each year. The assumption is that if an increase is not ratified, it would remain the same as it was the prior year. State law establishes a framework where it can be reviewed every five years it does not set for a template for review every year. Council added the one year review requirement. Announcements, Angie Conn: A submittal "wish list" from the North Meridian Heights Neighborhood Assoc was distributed to each member this evening regarding Meridian and Main 11, Docket No. 11060014 DP. H. Public Hearings: 1. Docket No. 11060014 DP: Meridian Main II The applicant seeks development plan approval for commercial and office uses on 26.8 acres. The site is located at 1304 W. Main St., and is zoned a mix of OM/MU Old Meridian Mixed Use on the southern portion and B- 6/Business and US 31 Corridor Overlay Zone on the northern portion. Filed by Jamie Browning for Meridian Heights Associates, LLC. Present for Petitioner: Jamie Browning, developer, 1473 Prestwick Place, Carmel. Overview: Meridian Heights properties acquired thru assembly of approx 48 homes 43 homes have now been demolished, excepting those who chose not to move Vacation of the roads has been requested Seeking approval for Development Plan Proposed Use for Bldgs 7 8 is Medical or Office Bldg 7A, 7B, 9A 9B are two stories probably will be mixed -use with professional uses due to its close proximity to Carmel St. Vincent's Hospital Pennsylvania Way will be constructed thru the Meridian Heights Subdivision The desire of all involved, including Engineering Dept is to have Pennsylvania Way traverse all the way to Old Meridian This development will be tied into the St. Vincent's campus Jamie Browning stated awareness of the letter from the remaining homeowners and will try to accommodate their requests Public Remonstrance-- Favorable/Unfavorable: None Jamie Browning said he is aware of comments from Engineering, and will be addressing those comments as they relate to public roads. There are also some drainage issues and those are being worked out with the property next door. There are 7 homes in the northeast corner that have been somewhat isolated from the balance of the development. Commission Member comments: Of the homes that are staying, where is driveway access? (Lynn Drive Sonna Drive) What is the timing of construction? (Probably will commence in Spring of 2012) Are there any open commitments at this time, fulfilled or unfulfilled? (No) Any agreement with St. Christopher's Church unfulfilled at this point? (Not aware of any there are mutual agreements and covenants the road goes thru St. Christopher's property) Docket No. 11060014 DP, Meridian Main 11 was referred to the Subdivision Committee for further review on Tuesday, September 06 at 6:00 PM. WWW.CARMEL.IN.GOV PAGE 2 317.571 2417 2. Docket No. 11060012 PP: Applegate Addition The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 3 residential lots on 0.51 acres. Also, a waiver is requested from the Subdivision Control Ordinance: 3. Docket No. 11060013 SW SCO Chptr 6.05.01: lot width at road right of way The site is located at 130 2n Street NW, just east of the Monon Greenway. It is zoned R- 4/Residence within the Character Subarea of the Old Town Overlay. Filed by Justin Moffett of The Old Town Design Group Present for Petitioner: Justin Moffett, Old Town Design Group Overview: Current Proposal provides for dividing the site into 3 custom home lots Lots are 45 feet wide, fronting on Second Ave NW the Monon Trail The rear of the lots faces east and an alley to be constructed Upon approval, architectural landscape plans would be reviewed by DOCS planning staff thru site design review process Anticipated market value of the homes is between $400,000 $500,000 all three lots are sold pending approval and recording of the Primary Plat Approval also requested for a subdivision waiver from lot width at road right -of -way The homes will be faced west, towards Second Ave NW the Monon Trail Concerns of adjacent neighbors have mostly been addressed Concerns at BZA hearing included traffic, congestion in the area, construction traffic Petitioner has committed to put together a construction traffic management plan Currently, house on property is abandoned overrun with weeds Multi family use is allowed as a Special Use on this site Current proposal is less intensive use than multi family Alley shown on County GIS Map shows as 10 feet —in checking records, no one owns it As a result of conversations with Engineering, petitioner will adjust the plat dedicate 20 feet of right -of -way on the site, thereby reducing the lot depth from 165 feet to 145 feet Petitioner committed to Engineering Dept to pave the access drive with pervious pavement surface Petitioner has also agreed to install a privacy fence between site existing homes to the north Public Remonstrance, Favorable: Jeff King, 431 First Avenue NW Mr. Mrs. King think the proposal is a great concept the lower density will be a good complement to the area Public Hearing Closed Dept Comments, Angie Conn: Petitioner has responded to all Dept outstanding comments Dept recommends suspension of Rules of Procedure vote this evening Dept recommends a favorable vote on both items Commission Members Comments /Questions: What is proposed for area between alleyway and access lane to the properties? (Petitioner states the space is right -of -way, controlled by Engineering with dedication of a greater amount of space, the risk of impacting existing utilities is limited) Lots sold to builders or individuals? (Petitioner has signed purchase agreements on all three lots, contingent upon plat approval Can construction on all 3 lots be staggered to alleviate construction parking? (Yes) WWW.CARMEL.IN GOV PAGE 3 317 -571 -2417 Positive move to have all 3 homes face the Monon Motion: Brad Grabow to suspend the Rules of Procedure seconded by Woody Rider, Approved 9-0 Motion: Brad Grabow to approve Docket No. 11060012 PP, Applegate Addition and Docket No. 11060013 SW, SCO Chapter 6.05.01, lot width at road right -of -way; subject to all commitments made to the Board of Zoning Appeals, seconded by Woody Rider, Approved 9 -0 4. Docket No. 11070009 CA: Yorktown Woods Commitment Amendment. The applicant seeks approval to amend the tree preservation commitments. The site is located near 2952 Highmount Ct., and is zoned R- 1/Residential ROSO. Filed by Jason Rowley, on behalf of the Yorktown Woods Homeowners Association. Present for Petitioner: Jason Rowley, 2592 Highmount Court, Carmel Overview: Request conversion of existing tree preservation area to a recreation/gathering area Subdivision consists of 33 lots No area available for children to play Existing tree preservation would still be maintained HOA has existed for two years Goal is to plant the trees strategically still have space for recreation Homeowners would like a play area similar to the one in Clay Terrace Recreation area would enhance the homes in the Subdivision Request Amendment of commitment to allow incorporation of a recreation area into the existing tree preservation area Public Remonstrance- Favorable/Unfavorable None Public Hearing Closed Dept Comments, Angie Conn: Commitments made by developer were so strict that residents could not construct a play area Dept supports this Commitment Amendment Dept recommends suspension of Rules of Procedure favorable vote Motion: Woody Rider to approve Docket No. 11070009 CA, Yorktown Woods Commitment Amendment, seconded by Brad Grabow. Motion Amended: Woody Rider The Draft of the Yorktown Woods Commitment Amendment should include the following at the end of Clause B: "shall be allowed;" The motion, as amended, was seconded by Brad Grabow, approved 9 -0 5. Docket No. 11070010 OA: Carmel Dr -Range Line Road Overlay Sunset Amendment. The applicant seeks to amend Zoning Ordinance Chapter 23F Carmel Drive -Range Line Road Overlay Zone in order to remove the sunset clause. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services. Present for Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling, Dept of Community Services. Sunset Amendment is an expiration date on a Chapter or Section of the Ordinance. WWW.CARIv[E1.IN.GOV PAGE 4 317- 571 -2417 Overview Carmel Drive -Range Line Road Overlay When initially adopted, the entire Overlay had an expiration date set of December 2006 The Overlay has been renewed year- after -year Sunset is now being proposed for removal and a permanent Overlay established in the Ordinance City Council thought it best to add another year to the Ordinance concern at the time was the required second story that added unnecessary cost to projects in a difficult or uncertain economy This Chapter is set to expire again, and again the Dept is proposing the removal of the Sunset clause stating that the Chapter expires December 2011 and that it will be a permanent part of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance The Dept feels the Overlay is an important tool for them and should be permanent Public Remonstrance, Favorable /Unfavorable: None Public Hearing Closed Dept Comments, Angie Conn: Request suspension of the Rules of Procedure Request forwarding to City Council with a favorable recommendation Commission Members Comments: To make this a blanket proposal, no matter what the use, has proven to not necessarily work The Sunset may be at risk for remaining totally intact The Sunset merits further review, discussion, and evaluation Any way of knowing how many people did not build because they could not meet the standards? The Sunset Amendment needs to be evaluated further, but maybe by City Council instead of Plan Commission From a design, land use, development standards perspective, it would be unfair to those developers/ owners who have been willing to share the vision of the City& fulfill the two -story requirement Economic impact issues are for another body to take up From a development design standpoint, the principals of the overlay remain sound Prefer to return the Sunset Amendment to City Council Motion: Brad Grabow to suspend the Rules of Procedure, seconded by Woody Rider, approved 9 -0 Motion: Brad Grabow to forward Docket No. 11070010 OA, Carmel Drive -Range Line Road Overlay Sunset Amendment to the City Council with a favorable recommendation, seconded by Susan Westermeier, Approved 9 in favor, zero opposed, zero abstaining. 6. Docket No. 11070011 OA: Old Town Overlay Demolition Sunset Amendment. The applicant seeks to amend Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 23D: Old Town District Overlay Zone in order to remove the sunset clause on the process for demolition of Contributing Buildings in the Overlay. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services. Present for Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling, Dept of Community Services Overview: Ordinance applies to Demolishing Contributing Buildings within the Overlay Sunset clause applies only to one section of the Overlay Overlay was amended in 2008 to require Director approval to demolish structures in the entire Overlay Along with the amendment, a Sunset Clause was added stating that the Chapter would expire WWW.CARMEL.IN GOV PAGE 5 317- 571 -2417 Prior to 2008. Director approval was required to demolish structures in the Range Line sub -area along Range Line Road Overlay Dept is proposing deletion of the expiration date Contributing building map included in packets and is key information Map will probably be up -dated Need to be mindful that the sunset will expire at end of year Public Remonstrance/Favorable None Public Remonstrance/Unfavorable Justin Moffett, co- owner, Old Town Design Group, 1132 South Range Line Road Presently working with 20 families to build homes in Old Town Carmel in next 2 years All these homes meet the Old Town Overlay Ordinance Additionally, has 15 un -sold, raw lots will build more custom homes Only 3 contributing homes were deleted to create those lots Opposition to proposed Amendment because map is severely flawed The Ordinance is good and will limit the demolition of homes that should be on the list; however, The Ordinance serves as a catch -all for the staff to be responsible for filtering which homes should stay or go List of contributing buildings should be given more scrutiny before moving foreward Examples given of homes that should be on the list and are not and vice -versa 40 homes on the list and not understood why; 20 homes that should be on the list and are not More thought should be given to the list A lot of the 40's era homes are rental properties and are not well maintained Suggest this proposal be reviewed at Committee level request public hearing be left open Dept response, Adrienne Keeling: Dept is committed to revising the map This particular section expires at year end; map may not be revised before that time frame Process needs to continue beyond year end Commission Members Comments /Questions: How long ago was the map put into place? Do houses really need to be targeted? What criteria was used for the map? Recommend extending for another year It would be helpful to have addresses of properties in addition to the map Within the next year, staff should be directed to review update the map There are a lot of inconsistencies in the map Adrienne Keeling Response: Map was put into place along with the Old Town Overlay Zone Ordinance was originally adopted in April, 2002 Specific criteria for map is unknown Mike Hollibaugh: Initially there was a lot -by -lot photo inventory made by the Consultant as a part of the process. Dept still has the 3 -ring binder and photos from that period, plus info on each property that could be utilized. At that time, there was also a report done by Ball State that looked at all the properties in the Old Town area. Not everyone agreed WWW.C.U1AfEL.IN.G0I' PAGE 6 317 -571 2417 as to the categorizing of buildings: historic, protection, preservation, etc. The report would also be a good source for information on the properties in Old Town. Further Comments, Commission Members: Are there other alternatives besides a map? Perhaps aspects of architectural standards can be worked into the list so that architect6ural quality character can be maintained Suggest a Committee be formed to look at and evaluate the houses, from a walking perspective, not by pictures or catalogue, or driving by What is the criteria for being on the list? Can you make someone be on the list? (Yes) At the time this was done, the Plan Commission pretty much relied on what the Consultant categorized as contributing buildings Suggestions: Extend Sunset for another year Staff to return next month with ideas Form a Committee, determine number members Committee to return perhaps March with an up -date Ultimate Goal of Sept, 2012 is that a version that can be voted on is before Plan Commission Possible forwarding to City Council before December 2012 Justin Moffett agreed to be a part of the proposed Committee Motion: Woody Rider to extend the Sunset Amendment for another year and in the interim, Staff is to formulate a Committee, determine an approach, identify contributing buildings, revise the map, and return to Plan Commission next month with a timeline; the ultimate goal is to forward a proposal to City Council for a vote on or before December 2012; Motion Passed 9 -0. I. Old Business 1. Docket No. 10110012 DP /ADLS: Legacy PUD Turkey Hill Minit Market. The appheant seeks site plan and design &"myW fff an moemebije fite! stfifieft 2. 4-€t fr-entyar-d building sethaek. The site is leeated at 77-29 Ed,. 1 46 th St. (at Riyer-Rd.) and is ze J. New Business None K. Adjournment 7:35 PM Jay Dorman, President r ona Hancock, Secretary i k WVWiCCARMEI.. N.GOV PAGE 7 317- 571 -2417 I