Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Sub 11-01-11OF C4 , F! p�nx�'eR,��� Nilitiv INO I AO City of Carmel Carmel Plan Commission SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE November 1, 2011 Meeting LOCATION: CAUCUS ROOMS, 2nd FLR CARMEL CITY HALL ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, IN 46032 TIME: 6:00 P.M. (DOORS OPEN AT 5:30 P.M.) The Subdivision Committee will meet to consider the following items: Representing the Committee: Brad Grabow, Chairperson; John Adams;, Judy Hagan, Steve Lawson, Ephraim Wilfong Representing the Department: Adrienne Keeling; Alexia Donahue -Wold, Mike Hollibaugh; Lisa Stewart, Recording Secretary Of Counsel: John Molitor 1. Docket No. 11100007 ADLS Amend: Tru Worth Auto. The applicant seeks approval to remodel the exterior fascia of the building. This is in conjunction with new signage and an existing interior remodel already in process. The site is located at 3130 E. 96th St. and is zoned B- 3/Business. It is not located within any Overlay Zone. Filed by Mike Balay of Balay Architecture on behalf of Larry Heid, VP, Tom Wood Management. Mike Balay presented for the Petitioner. • The is the site of the former body shop which has moved • We have previously received signage approval • This is a remodel of a Tom Wood Dealership used car and collision • There is a new use for this property Tru Worth Auto Sales • It is a new business model for used car sales • This was initially an interior remodel and new signage, however, a few weeks ago the contractor discovered some structural and mold problems in the fascia where the roof has been leaking. The fascia has been run into several times by trucks. • The Petitioner requests to removed all the old EFIS and replace with a more modern look • Color renderings have been submitted. Adrienne Keeling spoke for the Department • The Department does not have any further concerns. The signage was approved in July. The Department believes it will help with future damage relating to truck traffic. Committee: • Are the colors an accurate depiction ONE CIVIC SQUARE Page 1 of 1 CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 -571 -2417 November 1, 2011 Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee • The gray depicted in drawing is darker than it is • The ACM metallic fascia that is pretty close — it is a clear aluminum Judy Hagan made a motion to approve Docket No. 11100007 ADLS Amend: Tru Worth Auto John Adams seconded the motion Approved 4 -1 (Ephraim Wilfong) Docket No. 11100010 ADLS Amend: Happy Dog Hotel & Spa. The applicant seeks approval to place one new wall sign and update the exterior of the building. The site is located at 233 2 °a Ave. SW and is zoned I- 1/Industrial. It is not located within any Overlay Zone. Filed by Beverly Schroeder, owner. Beverly Schroeder presented. Per the pictures of the building included in your packet, the building needs a facelift. Intention is to be a nice addition to the neighborhood. It is a high traveled area along the Monon Trail she has a business partner — Jim Bremner who is not able to attend this evening and we have high standards on how the business will function. She added swatches of the colors she will using and they will have black awnings. They will have signage over the door along with lighting. Adrienne spoke with for the Department. Regarding the landscaping, it is completely paved all she will have to request a variance for the BZA for the perimeter buffering to get that approved, but is planning to have planters in front of the building with vegetation. The signage is in order and meets the Ordinance, we want to verify that the wall pack lights are full cut off — they are 90 degree. John Adams — why does she need a variance Adrienne — because there is nothing there currently that makes a good case and she has a good argument for the variance, however, the perimeter buffering requirements require landscaping on a sight whether it is existing or not. There is no relief other than a variance — even if it is on blacktop. WE recommend positive approval of this Docket. Ephraim stated that the approval here does not include the landscaping. Only to be approved by the BZA. Steve Lawson — how many sq. ft is the building Just under 6000 — it goes back a good distance - all kennels are interior Ephraim — the fenced area is that portion of the parking lot being removed? Yes and then turf will be installed Steve — will parking lot be resurfaced Yes, too late now, but next year when warmer John Adams made motion to approve Docket No. 11100010 ADLS Amend: Happy Dog Hotel & Spa Judy Hagan seconded the motion Approved 5 -0 3. 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 ONE CIVIC SQUARE Page 2 of 1 CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 -571 -2417 November 1, 2011 Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee 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. 4. Docket No. 11080013 OA: Monon Overlay Ordinance 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. Adrienne Keeling presented for the Department. She brought everyone up to date. The Department Reports suggests that this go back to the full Plan Commission if everyone is satisfied. If it needs to stay in Committee you will not get any objection from the Department. The revisions that you have received were based on the last meeting. The main concern was the townhomes and the larger multifamily developments being close to the trail. • The draft now separates setbacks based upon single and two family residential versus attached and multifamily residential and then even further separated the accessory structures based on whether it was larger or not because we heard from at least one resident that having a large set back on a small storage shed would be onerous to a property owner — they do not want the storage shed in the middle of their backyard. • Ongoing issue on how to accommodate existing and recently approved PUD's and subdivisions and existing property owners to make sure that this overlay Ordinance does not put any strain on work that was recently done. • Still concerns with US 31 Overlay where it intersects with the Monon Overlay, and making sure which Overlay is in control • Question regarding the boundary — is it a jagged boundary based on parcel lines versus one that is based on a center line Committee discussion: Center Line: • Existing 33 ft. is from edge of asphalt • No it is from some center line supposedly the center of the trail • This is what Adrienne has found as she has gone through looking at the individual properties that reference a center line of the railroad. • All new numbers that are being referenced are beyond the 33 ft. • Should we have these setbacks be enforced on the existing residential users it seems the rezone purpose is for a future development and how provide the best aesthetic look in the future ie, 50 years from now, in case of a natural disaster that destroys buildings, etc, that would give someone the opportunity to combine lots to make that section look good. Does not see any reason to change existing residences. • If something has been there 10 years or longer it should be considered compliant, so if they have a shed that is already there, and it needs to be replaced with the same footprint and same place it should be fine • If someone currently has the right to put in a shed in their backyard and it currently isn't within some sort of buffer requirement they could do it today, but when the rezone would go into affect there will be some people who will be hindered, maybe a year from now if they sell it and the ONE CIVIC SQUARE Page 3 of 1 CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 571 -2417 November 1, 2011 Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee new owner decides he wants to put in a shed and then they find out they cannot, but if the owner who is selling the house, says I am getting the shed put in now it could be. It would be beneficial for the existing residences if they were not hindered by that aspect of the rezone. • Do we have to have the accessory building section or if that part comes out, along with existing principals coming out, then the underlying zoning governs — correct. Which is the same thing that folks would have today. • Yes it would be wise to clarify a section under accessory buildings to say "as per underlying zoning" so that it is clear. Wise to mention and make clear we are referencing the underlying zoning rather than just taking it out completely. • If a property owner of a single family residence along the Monon decides to demolish and rebuild a new home would I be required to use the existing zoning or the new one and move my house back from the Monon. Not trying to replat or taking 2 or 3 more lots and building apartments, just with the existing home. • Adrienne directed the Committee to look at page 4, the very top paragraph that is in blue these are exemptions that we have proposed. It states structures within subdivisions recorded prior to January 2012 may continue to follow the requirements of the underlying primary zoning district. • Perhaps could be further clarified to state even a new structure in a subdivision can still follow the underlying zoning district. For example, if you are tearing one down to replace one in a subdivision that is acceptable. • The following sentence says "however subsequent primary or secondary plat amendments for the purpose of constructing a new principal building shall comply with the minimum Greenway setback. This is what John would like to have answered. If he has a property and he decides to sell that property and my neighbor does the same thing and someone comes in and does a replat and wants to build an apartment building that is what we do not want, so this would be done under the new requirements. • Mr. Medley who is here tonight mentioned the lots at 146th street which are vacant right now but are already platted in a subdivision, so this would allow him to build on those lots in accordance with existing subdivision. That subdivision may have covenants or restrictions in further setbacks that are specific to that subdivision and he would still have to abide by those. That would take care of anyone who wanted to add onto a house in a subdivision that might be closer to the 60 ft. line or that 30 ft. line • John Adams I want to preserve the character of the Monon, but do not want the Plan Commission to put a "noose" around somebody's neck that will encumber their property or if they want to sell it, we do not want to have something in place that would hinder a property owner on a normal sale. • If someone buys up a lot of properties to put up a hotel that is different, then we look at the PUD's and setbacks, etc. • We are deleting accessory building section and additions. • John Molitor stated that since the exception is so large that it almost consumes the entire rule. His suggests that the Committee start with the main rule, which is, if you are in an existing subdivision than that is all you are ever going to have to be concerned about, whatever the current restrictions are for that subdivision. The new regulations are only going to affect the ground that is not in an existing subdivision. • So our first rule is #4 — structures within subdivisions recorded prior to January 2012 may continue. 1,2,3 all come out and you are starting with `B" on top of page 4. So that becomes #1 and number 2 needs to clarify the rules for ground that is not in an existing subdivision, and that makes it clear for everyone. Not changing language just reordering. • What about setbacks when someone does purchase 5 lots — three are a lot nice things happening ONE CIVIC SQUARE Page 4 of 1 CARI\IEL, INDIANA 46032 317 - 571 -2417 November 1, 2011 Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee in Old Town and we do not want to mess that up. The problem with the Old Town Overlay is the side yard restrictions regardless of the underlying zoning category goes to 5. That is what was pushing the residents up against the overlay. The example we just approved really works, The Old Town Overlay needs to be untangled that potentially could negatively impact the Monon. • In the Old Town Overlay we reference the dominant existing development on Rangeline Road for example, so that is how we got to the dominant existing development in Old Town along the Monon • John —if I walk the Monon going south and go past Bazbeaux's and you come to series of apartments, I find that, especially after dark, pleasing and comforting. The units are nice and are nicely landscaped and they have porch lights. I have no problem with that at all. This is very close to the Monon and is pleasing. Do we not have the ability under this Ordinance to look at each development and make some objective determination to make sure it is compatible with the surrounding area? • Hypothetical question —re Map #8 - if you have 60 ft. — specifically the Grace Court area - hypothetical and far in the future and as we can imagine if zoning like this was put in place, removing it would probably never happen — what would happen with these 3 lots in particular if that would get sold. As a developer view, those three lots would never be sold for future development even if they were some inhabitable state simple because who ever would want to buy 3 lots adjacent to the Monon would see that over half of the property is now encumbered by a 60 ft. setback and there is almost zero use that could occur there except for green space. This would only be triggered under a replat and that is why I am bringing this up as well because imagine all of Grace Court would be replatted and all torn up and these property owners would probably have a hard time getting it sold at a fair price. This could be problematic for this area if the new zoning 60 ft. were implemented • All very hypothetical • A more realistic hypothetical would be further south on Number 8 at First NW and Second Street NW west of First Avenue NW. Let's say there was another Sophia Square or that suddenly becomes a popular way to exist (they took up a mini city block) say there are other areas that would do that. The same could occur due north of there where those lots would have that area immediately unavailable. It also brings up are we happy with the way the City looks along the Monon now and just how do we want to have it look in the future. Adrienne maybe the example is across the trail where the apartments are now. Higher density would require that we have the 60 ft. setback. Things up close are not necessarily a detriment, especially with the 80 ft facade width that is described in the ordinance would create an option for structures instead of being lengthwise like we see at Smokey Row and the Monon, just the narrow part of them would abut and then there would be space between buildings, what I imagine that 80 ft. was trying to do or it would create different angles which I think it says 60 degree angle. That is why pushing it back that far is necessarily that important with the 80 ft. facade width limiter. Judy currently the dominant is 60 ft. and the linear park at that point is such a community asset that it needs to be protected from future development. John Adams still struggles with how far we can go before we are commandeering people's property without paying for it. I think for the benefit of the community there is a certain piece of this that we have to put in place and we have to enforce, but on the other hand the benefit of the property owners there is a limit to how far we can go and then all of a sudden we are devaluing the assets. We are limiting the property owners ability to utilize the asset they own. I think there is a limit as to how far we can go with that, my personal opinion. Not sure of what that is, but gut opinion is 60 ft. is too much, but on the other hand is 30 ft. too little. Steve, if they can rebuild what they already have and whether it is a garage or a shed or even a house that has burned down they can build where it is, they are grandfathered in. ONE CIVIC SQUARE Page 5 of 1 CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 571 2417 November 1, 2011 Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee If we are intruding on that I would agree with John , but we are talking about folks who all sell to a developer and that developer has different rules, I don't think setting that 60 ft. setback is taking anything away from them. Steve likes the ones up close in a certain area and from south of Main Street there is a stretch through there that you can do that and that is appropriate but then as you get outside — maybe the key is there needs to be an upfront understanding by developers that if they do such a thing, they understand they will need to comply with regulations, which are different then the existing property owners have to. • Judy stated that this would be a benefit to developers to be on the Monon — they are not devaluing it. New development/plats /new projects if we don't set the guideline everything will be an exception and pretty soon we have a tunnel. That is what she is pushing back against. • Citizen spoke: missed the last meeting — • Alice Craig — is one of the property owners — four years ago Pulte — the people across the Monon they were going to put in 3 story condos with over 100 units backing right up to someone else's back yard — what is happening with this ordinance would keep another developer from attempting to do this again. • Ron Carter spoke — no one ever walks down an alley in downtown Indianapolis unless they have to because the buildings are so close and so tall and makes it so dark that it is very uninviting on the other hand the Monon has over a million user visits a year as counted by the cameras that are mounted by Bazbeaux's. The reason it has over a million user visits a year is because it is an inviting space that is in fact a linear park. When someone says they don't want to take money away from property owners that are adjacent we have to balance that by how much we have increased the property value for all the people who live along the Monon has been exponential increase in value going from a linear junkyard to a linear park. Now they have a much higher valued property than 12 -15 years ago. The Monon is the goose that laid the golden egg in this community, it is so important, we have almost 'A a billion dollars invested right up the way much of which has been brought to us because the Monon went right through the center of it. I don't want to see us say it is ok to bring the sides in and let the user experience be encroached upon any more than it needs to be because it is the user experience. Most users want a green tunnel if they can get that. The majority of users do not want to see what is on either side, they would rather see trees and foliage. • Ephraim as far as this term of the Monon being a linear park it is not necessarily a City park currently — is it? How is it defined? Is it defined as a City park? • Adrienne - the ground is primarily owned by the City, but we have an agreement with the Parks Department to maintain it. • Ephraim does this give the Parks Director authority over 33 ft. on either side plus the asphalt and gravel area. • Adrienne yes and how connections might be made. • Judy = US 31 is the top dog in this correct • Adrienne directed Judy to page 2, Section 23H .01.04 — paragraph in blue that says Conflicts = wherever there exists a conflict between the US 31 Corridor Overlay Zone and the Monon Greenway , the US 31 Corridor Overlay Zone shall govern. She recommends adding a sentence that says "however Monon Greenway setbacks are set forth shall also remain in effect. • Have Adrienne put together what we have talked about and have one more review before we take it to the Committee. • Judy are we requiring developments that are coming in along the Monon now, if that is only easement that they have to donate that — we talked about that when this was originally done. They have to provide a copy of the deed, but are we also just like a road right -of -way getting ownership of that? Adrienne stated we can, but by the Monon's inclusion at a 33 ft. ROW on ONE CIVIC SQUARE Page 6 of 1 CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 571 2417 November 1, 2011 Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee the Transportation Plan would allow us • The developments of Village Green and Traditions on the Monon land was acquired before the ground had been acquired previously before those development plans came in and if we have another development come in the future (although there is not a lot of ground left) then if it is in the Thoroughfare Plan then part of the Ordinance would require that the development plan must reflect compliance with the Thoroughfare Plans. • Ephraim 23H11.02 Part B Tree Preservation Requirements — is this something that gets triggered during the replat or say because it is talking about the Greenway Easement or Right -Of- Way which I believe that is describing the 33 ft. existing, so if a current homeowner or a person who wanted to do something new to a property but there are scrub trees there and they want to eliminate all the green growing stuff because it is scrubby and not necessarily of quality — would this rezone prevent property owners from clear cutting? • This just gives further zoning teeth to say that the City can take action against them - this only pertains to projects that require Plan Commission approval. • Private yards do not apply • If there any idea of how this 60 ft. would exist in the future? Adrienne will take all suggestions /comments and return next month with a new draft. Approved: Brad Grabow Chairperson ONE CIVIC SQUARE Submitted: Lisa M. Stewart Recording Secretary File SUBD - 2011 -1101 doc Page 7 of 1 CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 - 571 -2417