Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 09-20-11y- yyy City of arme CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 Carmel City Hall Council Chambers, 2" d Floor One Civic Square Carmel IN 46032 6:00 PM Members Present: John Adams, Jay Dorman, Brad Grabow, Judy Hagan, Nick Kestner, Steve Lawson, Alan Potasnik, Kevin "Woody" Rider, Sue Westenneier, Ephraim Wilfong. Members Absent: Steve Stromquist DOCS Staff Present: Director Michael Hollibaugh, City Planner Angie Conn, Legal Counsel John Molitor Also Present: Ramona Hancock, Plan Commission Secretary Alan Potasnik was introduced as the Mayoral appointment to the Plan Commission; Mr. Potasnik will also serve as the Mayor's appointment to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The minutes of the August 16, 2011 meeting were approved as submitted. F. Communications, Bills, Expenditures, Legal Counsel Report 1. Docket #11060014 DP: Meridian Main II Discuss granting the Committee the final voting authority. Angie Conn reported that at the last Committee meeting, the Dept saw this project as moving along favorably and the option was discussed of possibly granting final voting authority to the Committee at its October 4 meeting rather than returning to the full Commission. Brad Grabow, Subdivision Committee chairperson said it was a matter of making the petitioner aware that approval at the Committee level was a procedural option that was available, but it is uncertain, from a progress standpoint, that this item is prepared to move on; there was a litany of changes requested, but none forthcoming. The Committee is not necessarily at a point that they can dispense with the petition. Brad did not foresee the need of granting final voting authority to the Committee for October 4, and the Commission took no such action. 2. Update on Old Town Contributing Building Review Process. Adrienne Keeling gave an up -date regarding the Old Town Contributing Building Review Process. The Dept is working on forming a 5- member Committee to be represented by the Plan Commission, a builder /developer, a member of the Historical Society, and either two residents, or one resident and a member of the Council. The intent is to get started as soon as possible to walk Old Town and look at the houses while the weather is still decent. The Dept would like to have a kick -off meeting to determine the criteria for contributing buildings, bringing the group up -to -date with the history of the Overlay and where we are today. The committee would make site walks, site visits, review, and ultimately make a recommendation to the Plan Commission. More information will be available at a later date. Note: It was the consensus of the Commission that the committee should consist of 7 members rather than 5, and the more representation by the residents of the area the better. G. Reports, Announcements Department Concerns, Angie Conn: The Woods at Lions Creek Commitment Amendment has been TABLED until the October 18, 2011 meeting. Also, the Monon Overlay Rezone did not meet the notice requirements of the Plan Commission; in order to hear this item, the Commission would have to suspend its Rules of Procedure. Adrienne Keeling addressed the Commission regarding the Overlay Rezone notice requirements. There were approximately 450 notices mailed at the first class rate rather than certified mail; the City saved a little over $2,300 in postage fees in this phase of the rezone. The Rule Suspension would apply to the signs; the Dept did not place a sign on all 117 specific properties, but rather at highly visible intersections and the Monon trailhead off Rohrer Road for the benefit of trail users as well as motorists. H. Public Hearings 1. TABLED TO OC 18 Docket No. 11070022 Z: CoCo Commons PUD 146` /Towne Y.. -o D '1 vv�vf 1 1 1 6 h Ct d T .1 i .1 b. Q+ o f B a MeKi P. E vans T T D f anner- 2. TABLED TO OCT.18 Docket No. 11070019 CA: The Woods at Lions Creek Commitment Amendment. The appheant seekf, approval to amend the eewanitments fff this development. The site is leeated near- 13700 West Rd., and is zoned 9 !A�esidenfiah Filed by Steven Har-din ef Baker- Dani T—Up en- behalf of Pulte Homes of Indiana, LLG. Docket No. 11080011 Z: Monon Overlay Rezone, Natural Section North. The applicant seeks approval to rezone properties which abut the Monon Greenway north of First Street NW, to include them in the Monon Greenway Overlay Zone. This overlay district is super- imposed over the primary zoning districts, and its regulations shall supersede those of the primary zoning districts. The properties which are included in the rezone consist of properties which abut the Monon Greenway from 146 Street to First Street NW. Filed by the Carmel Dept. of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. Motion: Sue Westermeier to suspend the Rules of Procedure in order to hear the Monon Rezone item;" seconded by Judy Hagan, approved 10 -0. Note: The Monon Overlay Rezone, Natural Section North, and the Monon Overlay Amendment were heard together. 4. Docket No. 11080013 OA: Monon Overlay Amendment. The applicant seeks approval to amend Chapter 23H. Monon Greenway Overlay Zone of the Zoning Ordinance in order to modify the regulations as need be during the rezoning of the affected parcels in the Natural Section North. Filed by the Carmel Dept. of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. Present for Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling, Dept of Community Services Background: Process Established in 2007 -2008 to establish guidelines, regulations, development standards specific to developments along the Monon Greenway from 146` Street to 96` Street Effort was made in response to concerns expressed by Council Members, Plan Commission, Citizens 2 over many developments that were either under construction or proposed along the Monon Greenway Result was Chapter 23 H, Monon Greenway Overlay Zone, of the Zoning Ordinance Monon Overlay was ultimately adopted by Council— Ordinance Z- 5 -15 -07 effective 4/21/08 Process at that time was merely a Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, and that a rezone would be in order at a future date The Development Standards were established, but no properties were identified on the map as being within the Monon Overlay Zone The map distinctly establishes two types of section of the Monon: The urban the natural section Urban Section of the Monon runs from Old Town, just north of Main Street, south to Carmel Drive Natural Section refers to areas which lie from First Street NW, just north of Bub's Burgers, to 146 Street; there is another natural section south of Carmel Drive The north section will be discussed this evening —from First Street NW to 146` Street; the balance would be re- noticed and rezoned in future phases Development standards for the natural section involve residences and maintaining the current character of the Monon Trail. Currently, both north south natural sections are primarily residential with back yards facing the Monon Trail and heavy tree lines Development Standards were written adopted to preserve the natural character as much as possible New homes would be required to be built at least 60 feet from the Monon right -of -way which is an assumed 33 -foot one -half. Existing residences would be allowed to construct additions to allow flexibility for existing homes as close as 30 feet from the Monon right -of -way Starting at 146 Street, the proposal is to include only those properties which lie east of the Monon Trail down to where it curves away from Rohrer Road The properties on the west side of Rohrer Road would not be included, since these are the fronts of homes and they face the street Continuing south, properties on both sides of the Trail would be included down to US 31 Continuing south of US 31, both sides of the trail are included Recent projects along theTrail include Traditions on the Monon, Reading Tree Park —as yet unconstructed— Village Green Townhomes, Main Street on the Monon Apartments At Second Avenue along the Trail, those homes are not included The proposed boundary for this evening's discussion ends at First Street NW Ongoing concern has been the need to protect recently approved or recently constructed projects such as Reading Tree Park, Cobblestone Commons, so that re -work is not created for projects Public Remonstrance, Favorable: Terry Coyle, 315 Stone Hedge Drive, trying to understand exactly what is trying to be accomplished and what is the goal and how will the homeowners be affected? Russ Schwartz, 510 First Avenue NW, very much in favor of preserving the trees and natural character along the Monon. At one time, Mr. Schwartz' wife encouraged people adjacent to the Monon to include language in real estate deeds to their property to preserve the trees along the Trail very much in support Organized Remonstrance, Unfavorable: Lee Medley, attorney,30 East Main Street, representing self spouse, owners of Lot #1 along 146 Street; Doug Anna Kanneman, owners of Lot 3; Jack Mona Schneider, owners of Lot 2. Mr. Medley mentioned the late notice to the property owners, and that notice was by regular mail, not certified. Mr. Medley felt that the boundaries are arbitrary and unnecessary to accomplish what the City seeks to accomplish. A 10 -foot "zone" would be sufficient to take care of the goals that the City or Commission may have, and that is to beautify the areas along the Monon Trail. A consistent area along the Trail would eliminate a lot of problems —the zig -zag pattern would be hard to police and enforce. If property owners along the Monon wanted to do anything with their property, it would require an un- staked survey and that is an unusual burden. Regarding Lot #1 in particular, any rezoning would constitute a taking by the City without compensation and would be a deprivation of the land owners' Constitutional Rights to own property and not have it confiscated by the government without payment. The proposed Ordinance renders Lot #1 virtually unusable for any purpose, given the 60 foot buffer. To Mr. Medley's knowledge, there is no other zone in the City with a 60 -foot buffer requirement. The parties Mr. Medley represents have held this property for 20 years as an investment property; nothing has been built on it —the parties are holding the property as an investment for profit. The proposal would devalue these parcels and may have a catastrophic effect as far as marketing the lots. The proposal would destroy the proposed plan of the partnership. Please reconsider the proposal and the effect it would have on the property owners. General Public Remonstrance, Unfavorable Ann Brooke, 340 West Smokey Row Road, agreed with Mr. Medley that this seems like a "land grab." Mrs. Brooke said she has been paying taxes seemingly high taxes —for 30 years on the property and if someone came in and now said that it would be only for people walking on the Monon and the property owner would not be able to do anything with their property it just does not seem right. Justin Moffett, co- owner, Old Town Design Group, offices on South Range Line Road, Carmel. Mr. Moffett has been assured that some previously approved projects will not be affected by this proposal. If the properties are not currently developed, the proposal could affect them at a future date. The proposal does affect general property rights for people in the area. Two stated goals of the proposed Overlay Zone: 1) the sixty-foot buffer is to maintain tree cover and preserve the overall character of the residential areas along the trail Monon right -of -way in total is approximately 66 feet to propose an additional 60 foot right -of -way for setback for new construction would be essentially creating a 186 foot right -of -way along the Monon Trail, not too dissimilar to Keystone Parkway. The proposal is probably more to preserve the Monon tree canopy than the residential character. This is a worthy objective, but on some of the properties owned by Old Town Design, there are no wooded areas outside of the 33 -foot Monon ri ght -of -way; in fact, on some properties it is a 12 -foot right -of -way and a 21 -foot easement. We would be providing a 60 -foot tree preservation buffer on our lots for a 33 -foot wide tree canopy an enormous buffer for 33 feet of trees. Reading Tree Park on the Monon Trail would have a 60 -foot swath 12501inear feet that could not be built on- 1.7 acres of buffer or 25% of the property. This particular property in partly in a flood zone, and 3 of the 4 lots would be un- buildable because the homes would need to be built within that 60 foot setback. Similarly, at Cobblestone Commons, just of 136' Street on the east side of the Trail, 4 of the 12 lots would be lost if this proposal was approved and Cobblestone Commons was not "grandfathered in." If this proposal is approved, the City would be taking right -of- way from land owners via eminent domain, disguised as a simple refining of the zoning ordinance in the spirit of tree preservation. It does not take 60 feet of buffer to preserve a 33 -foot canopy. This proposal will severely restrict the property owners' rights if this 60 -foot buffer were to be instituted. Property owners should not have to seek waivers or variances to use their property for its intended use. If we can't invest up -front in writing Overlay rules that protect property owners' rights, we need to stop applying the Overlays to properties in Carmel because each time we write Overlays, it requires property owners to prove to the City that they can use their own land. Cindy Heimlicker, 344 Stone Hedge Drive, Does not understand the objective of the Overlay, does not think they were properly notified, does not know how the Overlay will affect her, and would like to have it thoroughly explained. It would seem that Carmel wants to take the brush property behind her house after they already agreed not to come past the fencing. Still questioning what this is all about and has not been informed. Tammy Paz, 38 Circle Drive whose property does not show on the map, is looking for some consistency; the overlay zig -zags over 300 feet in some areas, other areas almost an entire city block in downtown Carmel. Why can it not be 50 -feet and consistent so that homeowners can figure it out on their own if they want to build something without having to go to the expense of a staked survey 4 Public Hearing Closed Adrienne Keeling: Purpose of the proposed Overlay is to preserve the existing tree canopy and keep thecharacter of the Monon as it is today The setbacks established along the trial, looking at aerials and dominating setbacks between the trail and the backs of homes, are approximately 60 feet The 30 -foot dimension was added to allow existing homeowners to be able to add onto their homes without running afoul of the Overlay Zone. The purpose is to preserve the tree canopy and keep the character as it is today along the Monon Trail in the natural sections The boundary line is proposed based on existing parcel lines The Dept would prefer the boundary line based on a certain distance from the center line of the Monon There does not seem to be a surveyed center line for the trail in the City GIS system By following parcel lines, it is an attempt to determine which parcels are affected Mr. Medley at the north end of the trail would be affected by Hamilton County and the bridge they are working on to span the trail over 140 Street. It is unknown how high the bridge will be, and the 60 -foot setback may not apply in this particular instance Chapter 23H is an Open Public Hearing and there will be opportunities to make amendments to the development standards without having to start all over Dept Comments, Angie Conn: Recommend referral to Oct 04 Subdivision Committee Commission Questions /Comments: Reason for choosing the demarcation areas? Not all current zoning requirements will remain? It is not clearly understood what the issue is with determining a center line— either CSX or the City's records those records must be somewhere What is the intent what are we guarding against? Adrienne Keeling: Response First Street NW is the demarcation between strictly residential portion of the trail to the more commercial/ urbanized portion of the trail now there is Sophia Square but the area seemed to be more urban. Reference to residential in this respect is single family detached residential. In Chapter 23 Development Standards the differences between Urban Standards and Natural standards are based on where the buildings are situated in relation to the trail. In the Urban section, the buildings front the trail and are much closer and potentially taller than single family. In many places, the development standards refer back to the underlying zoning. Will research and report at Committee how existing owners would be affected The Dept is trying to come up with Development Standards that were consistent along the entire length of the Monon Trail to protect the character of the tree canopy and the nature of the trail. It was facilitated by the perceived encroachment of development into the character of the Trail. Clarification: The process for someone to add on to their house or build a garage or accessory structure does not change because of this Overlay, although the permissible distance from the structure to the Trail may change; the main thing is the distance from the trail The intent is not to take away any abilities homeowners have, but only to protect the trail and maintain the rural 5 character of the trail without it becoming a canyon. This is being done in sections because of the sheer number of property owners along the trail the 60 foot figure is an arbitrary number. The goal is to preserve the integrity of the linear park Would like for Committee to discuss different scenarios for specific addresses along the Monon how they would look with 60 -foot setback if different construction was proposed such as a building add -on or accessory structure, etc. and how many properties would be rendered un- useable. The setback must be based off some sort of legal description for accuracy the area needs to be defined. It would also help the Committee if two or three cross sections were submitted showing streetscape /landscape to see how the Overlay would affect different parts of the trail. examples would show tree height, setbacks, existing structures, and where the new setback lines would fall. Docket No. 11080011 Z Monon Overlay Rezone, Natural Section North and Docket No. 11080013 OA, Monon Overlay Ordinance Amendment were as referred to the Subdivision Committee for further review on Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 6:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. I. Old Business 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, Dept of Community Services. Overview: Proposal last month was to increase Parks Impact Fee to $1,526. Starting June 2012 for one year Park Impact Fee Committee met September 06 and gave a unanimous, favorable recommendation for the proposed fee increase Next step is to forward to City Council for adoption of a resolution to ratify the Park Impact Fee Increase Motion: Judy Hagan to forward PC Resolution No. PC- 08 -16 -11 Parks Recreation Impact Fee Ratification (2012) to the City Council w th a favorable recommendation;" seconded by Alan Potasnik, approved 10 -0. 2. TABLED TO OCT. 18 Docket No. 10110012 DP /ADLS: Legacy PUD Turkey Hill Minit Market. The appheant seeks site plan and design approval for- an autemebile fuel station, retail store, ear-wash and a4se seeks the following zen ..3r-evah. 3. TABLED TO OCT. 18 Docket No. 10110013 ZW: Section 9.02, Legacy PUD ordinance Z- 501-07, maximum 15 -ft front yard building setback. The si -is leeated-at 772 E. 146 1h St-{ River- Rd.) and is zened PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Char-lie Fr-ankenber-ger- of Nelson J. New Business None Meeting Adjourned at 7:30 PM amona Hancock, Secretary Jay Dorman, President G