Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 02-21-12City of Carmel CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 2012 Carmel City Hall 2 floor Council Chambers One Civic Square Carmel IN 46032 Members Present: John Adams, Jay Dorman, Brad Grabow, Nick Kestner, Joshua Kirsh, Steve Lawson, Alan Potasnik, Kevin "Woody" Rider, Ephraim Wilfong Members Absent: Steve Stromquist, Susan Westermeier DOCS Staff Present: Director Michael Hollibaugh, Angie Conn; Legal Counsel John Molitor Also Present: Ramona Hancock, Plan Commission Secretary The Minutes of the January 18, 2012 meeting were approved as submitted Announcements, Angie Conn: The CoCo Commons rezone petition was withdrawn before hearing at City Council. The proposed amendments to the Plan Commission Rules of Procedure will be discussed as the last item of business. The Department suggests re- ordering the Agenda to hear Public Hearing #3West Carmel Commons, and New Business Item #1 West Carmel Commons Outback Steakhouse concurrently. 1. Proposed amendments to Plan Commission Rules of Procedure moved to the end of the meeting. H. Public Hearings 1. TABLED TO MAR. 20: Docket No. 11100022 DP /ADLS: Gramercy PUD (Mohawk Hills Redevelopment). 2. Docket No. 11120027 Z: Highpointe on Meridian PUD. The applicant seeks approval to rezone 27 acres to PUD/Planned Unit Development for commercial, office, and residential uses. The site is located at the southwest corner of 136 St. Illinois St. It is zoned B- 5/Business within the US 31 Corridor Overlay Zone. Filed by Paul Reis of Krieg Devault for Frank Regan, owner. Note: Woody Rider moved to Suspend the Rules of Procedure to allow additional time for comments; motion was duly seconded and approved 9 -0 Present for Petitioner: Paul Reis, Krieg Devault,12800 North Meridian Street, Carmel,; Members of the 1 development team: John Hart, Todd May, Johnny Hart of J C Hart Company; Mike Longfellow, Spectrum Retirement Communities; representative from The Opus Group; Gary Weaver Randy Shuman, Weaver Sherman Architects Site Design Consultants; Jim Shields, Weihe Engineers. Overview: Site consists of 27 acres Site is located south west of the intersection of 136 Oakridge Rd, west of Illinois Street, Bentley Oaks residential neighborhood to the north, City pumping station, Parks at Springmill, Village of Mount Carmel is north of 136` Street Significant Site Features: o A 50 -foot gas pipeline easement is located adjacent to the multi -use path o A 10 -foot, storm -water drainage easement on the north side of the site o A 20 -foot, storm -water drainage easement in Bentley Oaks in favor of the County and the County drainage system o Along 136` Street there are overhead power lines that will come into play, primarily in dealing with perimeter landscaping Lighting standards will be in accordance with US 31 Overlay No wall signs on any facade that faces a single family residential area Petitioner has met with 3 HOA groups and discussed the project Many of the issues discussed with the neighborhood groups are not reflected in the information packets distributed to the Commission members 6 -foot privacy fence with an earthen berm was discussed with neighbors will continue to discuss Site is designated as an `Employment Node" in the Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan also provides for: o Professional business office o Hospital medical office o Small scale restaurants, coffee houses, print shops office supply stores o Residential on 4 or higher floors (contradictory with bldg height) o Maximum bldg height of 3 stories along Illinois Street where adjacent to existing residential areas o Significant bldg setback from single family residential areas Proposed PUD Provisions: o Professional, general business medical office uses consistent with the Comp Plan o Limited retail service uses per US 31 Overlay Zone o Multi- family Senior Living uses with residential bldg design o Maximum bldg height currently under review o Bldgs brought up to Illinois Street to maximize setback from single family residential areas Site landscaping will include a screen fence and retaining wall A &F Engineering has been engaged to conduct a traffic analysis Traffic will be discussed further at the Committee level Todd May, J C Hart Company, 805 City Center Drive, Carmel Overview of Apartment Component: J.C.Hart Company has been developing apartments since 1976 in central Indiana and Ohio J.C.Hart Company has developed over 35 communities in this area Developments enumerated displayed Most recently completed community includes Legacy Towns Flats Continuing dialogue with neighboring communities' representatives Same company will be responsible for construction, managing operating on a daily basis, and ownership Owner intends to be in being for a long time 2 Randy Sherman, Architect Land Planner, 6201 North Carrollton Avenue, Indianapolis Overview of Site Plan: Lay -out of bldgs, size, scale placement on site Bldgs brought closer to Illinois Street for a consistent streetscape All bldgs designed to have a front back Guest parking on street Bldgs along Illinois Street are a little larger in scale Main entry is off Illinois Street clubhouse would anchor the view Smaller buildings are clustered closer to single family residential neighborhood of Bentley Oaks those homes along 136 Street to the north Open space adjacent to the street is a dry detention area Mike Longfellow, Senior Vice President of Construction Development, and in -house architect for Spectrum Retirement Communities, 200 Spruce Street, Denver, Colorado 83130 Overview of Retirement Community Developer, Owner Operator of Retirement Communities, Operations will be by citizens /residents of Carmel Spectrum builds operates Independent Living, Assisted Living Memory Care Communities Proposal is not for institutional structures or "Nursing Homes" Structures are residential in character designed to create a life style for the residents Typical location is on the boundary of residential and commercial shopping area Retirement communities provide a transitional buffer Resident homes offer one bedroom and two- bedroom suites Amenities include lounges, library, beauty salon, theatre, multiple dining rooms Spectrum is positioned between Opus Office and J.C.Hart multi family Proposal is for independent living, assisted living, and memory care Exterior is very residential in appearance John Cumming, Opus Development, Indianapolis Overview of Office Component Pictures were displayed of completed Opus Office Developments Opus is a 59 -year old, privately held, family owned company based in Minneapolis Opus has been in the Indianapolis market for 13 years Opus is primarily an office and industrial developer, but also retail, institutional, residential, government and mixed use developments This particular proposal takes advantage of the visibility along US 31 Site is to be positioned for a build -to -suit, whether general office or medical healthcare project Proposal is a cohesive, mixed -use project Public Comments: General/Favorable None Organized Remonstrance Unfavorable Brad Cisco, 221 Wyandotte Drive, Park Meadow, currently serving 2 consecutive term as President of the Parks Springmill HOA which incorporates the Park Meadow and Park Place neighborhoods. As of today, residents have had very limited input, although two meetings have occurred with Paul Reis and some members of the development team with limited exchange. Many of the residents have expressed that they do not want high density development on the Regan parcel; however, they are amenable to responsible development in accordance with the current zoning and Comprehensive Plan. We support the west Carmel policies objectives, City-wide policies objectives, as well as the US 31 Corridor Plan, and objectives section of the C -3Plan as it pertains to preserving the character of west Carmel, 3 protecting large lot, residential areas, encouraging neighborhood support centers, encouraging walk ability and bike ability, promoting appropriate transition, limiting building heights to two stories, the preservation of residential areas, limiting the mass scale of developments, and requiring appropriate buffers. However, with the exception of the buffer on 136th Street, the plan before the Plan Commission is mostly void of these issues and this request for rezoning is not supported. Note: Brad Cisco submitted an extensive document of opposition to the proposed rezone to PUD the original of which is included in the public records file. Robert White, 1346 Bentley Way, President, Bentley Oaks HOA does not want this parcel developed as a PUD, since it will directly affect approximately 43% of the homeowners that abut this property. The biggest concern is the density of the apartments, and related problems it would bring into the neighborhood surrounding areas such as crime; the traffic study was not done correctly and does not take into account the homes that will be directly affected. Also, a 3 -foot berm with a shadowbox fence will not provide an adequate, visual screen between the homeowners and the proposed development. The homeowners vote "No" for the proposed rezone to PUD and request that the C3 Plan be adhered to. Peter Ten Eyck, 13451 Versailles Drive, Park Meadow Subdivision. More specific concerns regarding this proposal include: 1). What is the plan for this PUD? The purpose of a PUD is: a) To provide opportunities to create more desirable environments thru flexible diversified development standards b) Intended to encourage the application of new techniques new technologies to the community resulting in superior living, and c) Development arrangements with lasting values. 2) Failure to meet the 5 criteria necessary for a rezone recited in Indiana Code Section 36 C 74603, and 3) Additional recommendations if the Commission approves this rezone application. The components of the PUD do not seem to go together at all. It is doubtful that senior citizens are clamoring to live within a stone's throw of a huge, commercial office complex, and most apartment dwellers would rather not live within an office complex, or next door to a retirement home. There does not seem to be a site design or landscape plan linking this all together, other than separation by a roundabout in the middle. This proposal seems to be more not less specific than a straight development under B -5 zoning, because it is writing its own rules. There also does not seem to be any benefit to the community with this development. This seems to be a PUD in name only and an attempt to squeeze 3 square pegs in a round hole on an odd shaped parcel with not a lot of space. The PUD also provides for a 35% variance of its plan upon approval —we think that is way too much. There is insufficient buffer between the PUD and Park Meadow; light pollution, hours of operation, other commercial aspects of the development, as well as a six -foot privacy fence on top of a small mound will not stop noise or screen a six -floor bldg. The height of the buildings is unacceptable compared to the height of the homes in the area. The density of the PUD is way too intense for the area, and this will lead to traffic concerns as well. The proposal does not show compliance with the C3Plan; the buildings are not unique, nothing that stands out from existing bldgs along US 31, no protection in the plan for existing vegetation next to Park Meadow and Bentley Oaks, very little landscaping on the parking lot/commercial side of the development and very little green space as well. The plan should provide two -story buildings with sloped roofs that would match the residential character of the area. The proposal discourages homogenous development and corporate brand, proto typical architecture. Mr. Ten Eyck referred to covenants /commitments made at the time the land was originally rezoned in 1991 that would limit the height of buildings along US 31 to two stories that those specific covenants /commitments should run with the land and should control the development of this parcel. The proposed PUD will weaken property values in the area, and does not provide for responsible development and growth. The plans are vague, the drawings are conceptual, and there is little in the plan to link it all together, either within the PUD or to the surrounding neighborhoods We would like to see a lot more planning go into this PUD and would like the Commission to deny this proposal; however, if it does go forward, we would suggest: building height restrictions of 35 feet imposed, brick exteriors, pitched roofs, elimination of the 35% post approval dimensional variance, significant bldg setbacks from single family residential areas, shielding of building and parking lot lighting, no lighting within 200 feet of current single family residence, hours of operation limitations, trash and mechanical areas/loading docks should all be hidden from view, no recycling or trash dumpster 4 service in the evenings or early morning, preservation of mature trees on the property, no big -box 24- hour operation, more green space, require extensive preservation of the existing vegetation along the perimeter, much taller landscape mound, much nicer shadowbox fence with stone columns or maybe masonry fence much better buffering than proposed thus far, and would like a berm constructed around entire site before construction commences. General Public Comments/Unfavorable: Mary Hogan, Bentley Oaks Subdivision, has spoken with a lot of neighbors who are in opposition and would like to protect their investment in their homes which will be sorely affected by this PUD it is not the right plan for this land; requests denial of this proposal. John Westermeier, 595 Memory Lane, Village of Mount Carmel, objected to the proposal by reason of traffic which would make his dead -end street a thru street and increase traffic substantially throughout the entire subdivision. Mr. Westermeier agreed with previous speakers. Margaret Abbott, 13702 Thistlewood Drive East, feels the school system will be greatly impacted by multi family, apartments housing on this parcel. Ms Abbott also agreed with points made by previous speakers. Rebecca Hubbard, 1170 West 136"' Street, represents 3 of the 4 homes directly across from this proposed PUD. A median was placed in front of their homes at the time 136 Street was re- constructed access out of their driveway, directly west, is now limited—cannot cross the median to head east. In order to exit their drive, must either make a u -turn, or drive around the block. There is already a traffic problem; did not know about the traffic study, never saw it, and were never asked. Agreed with previous speaker regarding building height. Rush hour is not the only time residents are affected by the traffic it is all the time. Please keep in mind that requests to rezone this property to multi family in the past were denied; multi family housing was not found to be a good use of the ground at that time. The neighbors are not opposed to development and not opposed to progress, but feel this proposal in appropriate for this ground. Karen Stromquist, 1363 Stoney Creek Circle, agreed with previous speakers, especially regarding the impact on the school system, and any development from here on out needs to be strongly looked at and monitored. Ms. Stromquist stated that there are a lot of apartment complexes in Carmel do we need more? For this development and this parcel of land, is this the best use? Do we need this? As you make a decision and vote, please think about all of the other things that have come into fruition with your planning decisions. Rob Nellis, 1339 Bentley Way. The whole issue is about trust. Before we purchase our home, we researched the zoning and found the vacant parcel was zoned B -5. Carmel is successful, it is growing, and a lot of that is because the citizens and business leaders trust what the Plan Commission has always done —you have always made good decisions —we trust that you will make the right decision in this case. It has been pointed out that this project is ill- conceived, poorly planned, and not a good fit for this property. The residents trust that the Plan Commission will make the best decision for the City of Carmel and our neighborhood. Within B -5 uses, we would love to have an office building of the proper scope we just don't think this development is a good choice. Public Hearing Closed. Rebuttal, Paul Reis: Thanked everyone for coming forward with their input and constructive ideas. The ground was rezoned in 1991 from residential to B -5 district. There are no recorded covenants on this property. The actual ordinance does not reference any covenants whatsoever, and the minutes of the meeting reflect that the Councilors approved the Ordinance with no conditions on the approval. Mr. Reis' opinion is that there are no binding covenants on this land and the maximum height and standards are governed currently by the B -5 district and US 31 Overlay Zone. However, we will consider all comments and look at design, height, traffic. This ground is currently zoned for business; the reference to the C3Plan to west Carmel does not apply to this 5 particular site and its location relative to the US 31corridor. However, we will look again at screening and landscaping. When a particular piece of this project is ready to go, it will go through the ADLS process set forth in the PUD and will be considered again. The petitioner looks forward to working with the Committee and the adjacent homeowners. Dept Report, Angie Conn: Most topics covered by the remonstrance In reviewing the1991 rezone file, a draft copy of covenants was found that restricted bldg height also referred to residential architecture for any buildings built on this site Several factors within the Comprehensive Plan help guide policies and design, i.e. transition and scale and mass of the buildings, to respect the residential areas that are mostly two stories tall Dept would like to see more buffering trees shrubs —in addition to the wall and berm Dept is OK with the mix of uses, but site design would play a big role as well transitions, building height, shielding of lights, adding greenspace Outstanding comments regarding PUD text can be gone over at Committee level Dept recommends forwarding to the Special Studies Committee Commission Members' Questions /Comments: Uncomfortable with apartment use on the property, since it does not seem to be a compatible use and does not create a transition Would like a cross access easement to alleviate any future problems Why deviation from Urban Forestry Standards? No apparent reason for deviating from on -street parking requirements, sidewalks, paths, bike parking, and sign ordinance changes Would like to see backyard property lines /sight lines adjacent to the subject site Would like to consider maximum height with no variances Concern regarding traffic study traffic back -up on 136 Street Connectivity, bike trails, etc. Design Uncertainties Walking/on -site recreation opportunities for Senior as well as multi- family living Not a lot of useable greenspace, other than the pipeline area inherited with this site Opus renderings, even thought conceptual, are disappointing long, blank facades, little variety in bldg materials Would like Ordinance to prohibit any drive -thru for any purpose Would like improvement in integration/compatibility of the three uses, i.e. one single development and not three developments that happen to be next door to one another Trying to find the sensitivity in this real estate between the remonstrators and the petitioner Question concerning the status of the commitments on this property recorded, enforceable? Not convinced this PUD is appropriate for this site At the time of rezone to B -5, the area residents expected that this parcel would be developed under that particular zoning, not a PUD What is the exact number of multi family unites? How many units in the senior living area and in the memory care unit? How can it be stated that something will be done when approval has not yet been obtained? What are the two buildings in the greenspace amenity area? What date was traffic study done? From an ecological standpoint, would like to see as much space conserved as possible watersheds, wetlands, etc. From a social perspective, would like to see both developer neighbors encourage walk ability, ease of access to alleviate congestion 6 Problem with the proposal is the degree of non conformance with the existing standards requirements The PUD is a total remake of the underlying, existing Ordinances Why? can only assume it is based on commercial financial reason; maybe under B -5 zoning, it would not be viable from that standpoint Uncomfortable with the level degree of non conformance in the proposal with respect to current Overlay Zoning There is an obligation to ensure that neighboring residential commercial areas are not infringed upon and there is reasonable transition and we preserve the privacy, enjoyment, security safety of those neighborhoods that are impacted by this kind of development There must be a lot of dialogues with the neighborhoods their interests must be preserved As soon as an opinion is available regarding commitments /conditions on the property, it should be distributed to the Commission public asap Opposed to the 35% change in development provision the building height will also be "locked in —no possibility of a variance Cannot see building height exceeding what is already allowed in the Overlay Buffers for this type of proposal would have to be unique a simple shadowbox fence is inadequate A PUD done properly would allow us to work with adjoining properties to give them specific things needed that can't always be done with the underlying zoning Recommend petitioner meet with the neighbors prior to committee to work out details Questions regarding location of the gas line Michael Hollibaugh addressed the Commission and reported that the gas line was moved as part of the construction for Illinois Street, not as a part of the original rezone. Criteria for traffic study requirements? Angie Conn noted that a resolution was adopted in the 1990's that spelled out criteria for traffic studies will pass it along to the petitioner. Traffic Study should be funded by the petitioner but contracted by the City of Carmel Senior Living Facility percentage of each type of facility how would the memory care facility residents be protected from the ponds Suggest ponds contain fountains rather than standing water only Buffering fencing needs to be up- graded substantially Dumpster location, time of pick -up, deliveries needs to be addressed Public Input at Committee will be at the discretion of the Committee Chair Building Height covenants/commitments, whether recorded or not, would depend on dialogue, intent, and understanding of the parties as indicated in the minutes and should be enforced Docket No. 11120027 Z, Highpointe on Meridian PUD was referred to the Special Studies Committee for further review on March 06, 2012. Note: Jay Dorman asked that the Subdivision Committee establish criteria under which a PUD should be proposed or considered rather than leaving it up to the discretion of a petitioner. After a 5- minute recess, the Commission continued with the Agenda items 3. Docket No. 11120029 DP /PP: West Carmel Commons. The applicant seeks development plan primary plat approval for 4 commercial lots on 8.64 acres. The site is located at 10220 N. Michigan Rd. It is zoned B-2/Business I- 1/Industrial, within the US 421/ Michigan Rd. Corridor Overlay Zone. Filed by Don Potter of Thompson Thrift Development, Inc. Note: Docket No. 11120028 ADLS, West Carmel Commons, Lot 1 Outback Steakhouse, Item 1 under New Business, was heard together with Docket No. 11120029 DP /PP, West Carmel Commons. Present for Petitioner: Don Potter, Thompson Thrift Development, Fishers, Indiana, appeared on bealf of West 7 Carmel Commons Development Plan and Primary Plat; Joe Calderon, attorney, Bose, McKinney Evans, appeared on behalf of Lot 1, West Carmel Commons, Outback Steak House. Overview, Don Potter: Developing property into 3 lots western-most lot is already a part of Park Northwestern Subdivision will include the detention pond 2 lots front Michigan Road; lot 3 to the west of lots 1 2 Existing curb -cut off Michigan Road to access lots 1 2 Access Easements on the property Right in/right -out off Michigan Road provides access for Lot 3 and onto Lots 1 2 Existing curb -cut at light at Retail Parkway Will install a temporary drive thru Lot 2 to provide access to Lot 1 Petitioner has met with INDOT regarding the existing curb cuts provided INDOT with traffic analysis Outback Restaurant is proposed for Lot 1 Public Remonstrance: Brian Shapiro, 4610 Woodhaven Drive, Clay Township, Zionsville. The Outback is needed for this area and sure to be successful. Brian Shapiro worked with a number of persons to create the Michigan Road Overlay Zone and the "TIF" District —one of the most successful TIF Districts in Carmel. The architectural design of the Outback is not apparent Georgian, Italianate, or Colonial. The Outback can be a great opportunity for us to work together. The residents want "the feel" of Michigan Road, we do not want this corridor and west Carmel to look like a hodge -podge of design; we would rather have some resemblance of a common theme. The wall of the Outback is not broken up, it is pretty straight; also the front of the building needs to be re- worked to be more in line with Georgian architecture. If the patio were to the rear of the building, it is another opportunity for screening —the building would screen noise. The parking to the front of the building should be adequately screened. Shelley Williams, 9789 Mill Creek Place, Shelley and her Father own the building directly behind this project. Question is: What is going to happen with that area of the land? a retention pond? Rebuttal: Don Potter: There is a row of trees behind the building, the building, a pipeline easement, and more trees before the lot. The trees on the west side will stay as well as the pipeline, then the location of the detention pond. Public Hearing Closed Dept Comments, Angie Conn: Two outstanding issues relate to the Engineering Dept o Drainage petitioner is working with Engineering o Extension of Retail Parkway which currently dead -ends into the site o Proposed Extension would be along the southern edge of proposed lots 2 3 Dept recommends forwarding to March 06 Subdivision Committee Commission Members Comments /Questions: Request Staff bring specifics from Michigan Road Overlay to Committee Would like to continue to adhere to Overlay Is this proposal for a new cut on Michigan or utilize existing? (existing) Lot 1 used for Outback, Lot 2 used for retention? Don Potter responded Lot 1 is Outback, lot 2 is temp access to light-- -up to lot 1, Lot 3 shows a building pad, lot 4 is a part of Northwestern and contains the detention pond When the temporary access crossing lot 2 goes away, what happens to the curb cut between lots 1 and 2? Don Potter responded that the right in/right -out will stay in place 8 Would like to explore the temporary access at Committee level opposed to this access point Difficult to determine access and how to access lots 2 3 eventually Architectural design does not comply with Michigan Road Overlay Would like to see a pedestrian route across parking lot, bicycle racks Who controls the property to the south? Coverdale Darden Group When does the expansion of Retail Parkway come into play? Once Retail Parkway is extended, the connections will be made and temporary access eliminated Rather than having the road cut through lots 1 2 and connect to the right in/right -out, why wouldn't you start this in the initial approach, or are you waiting for lot 3 to occur before considering; does that affect the parking numbers? It is just a matter of when lot 3 comes in it would eliminate two parking spaces The overall flow is very uncomfortable It would seem the east/west road that splits lots 1 2 would be better served if lots 1 2 were accessed from the rear of the site let's not put a lot of splinter roads that detract from the safety of Michigan Rd Docket No. 11120029 DP/PP, West Carmel Commons was referred to the Subdivision Committee for further review on March 06, 2012. Docket No. 11120028 ADLS, West Carmel Commons, Lot 1 Outback Steakhouse Present for Petitioner: Joe Calderon, attorney, Bose, McKinney Evans; Stacey Miller, OSI Restaurant Partners, Tampa, Florida Overview: Have not rec'd any negative comments from staff regarding the architectural design Parking is over by 3 spaces Bicycle parking has been established, per the Overlay Regarding location of the outdoor patio it is a provision for the future may or may not happen The patio as proposed does not violate the Ordinance Petitioner will coordinate striping for pedestrian walkway with Thompson Thrift 4 Urban Forester has accepted approved the landscape plan Future connectivity is shown on the site plan Petitioner believes he is in full compliance with materials, placement of windows, wall breaks All mechanicals/HVAC will be screened behind the parapet on the roof Meters on the ground will be screened by landscape material Materials are less that 10% EIFS and mostly brick Petitioner will be completely compliant with the Sign Package Commission Members Questions /Comments: Outside Storage specifically the dumpster stored internally or behind the wall? Dumpster is located behind the wall enclosed, but no roof —walls will be high enough to screen dumpster Request perspective renderings for Committee Docket No. 11120028 ADLS, West Carmel Commons, Lot 1 Outback Steakhouse was referred to the Subdivision Committee for further review on March 06, 2012. 4. Docket No. 12010005 OA: Patch Ordinance IX. The applicant seeks to amend Subdivision Control Ordinance Chapter 3: General Provisions and Chapter 7: Open Space Standards for Major Subdivisions. The applicant also seeks to amend Zoning 9 Ordinance Chapter 2: Compliance with the Regulations, Chapter 3: Definitions, Chapter 5: S- 1 /Residence District, Chapter 20A: I -1 /Industrial District, Chapter 21: Special Uses Special Exceptions, Chapter 23C: US Highway 421 Michigan Road Corridor Overlay Zone, Chapter 25: Additional Use Regulations, Chapter 26: Additional Height, Yard, Lot Area and Buffering Regulations and Appendix A: Schedule of Uses. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. Present for Petitioner: Alexia Donahue -Wold, DOCS. Overview: Combined several smaller Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance into one, "Patch" Ordinance. Purposes of Terminology changed to better reflect the C3 Comprehensive Plan CCRC definition added to Definitions section using State Code as a guideline Deleting lot coverage both definitions covered in lot coverage and lot coverage maximum Propose adding a section for landscaping standards for I- 1/Industrial Zone Old Meridian District Carmel Drive/Range Line Road Overlay sections are being changed to exempt bldgs from the buffer -yard requirements due to their own landscaping requirements which promotes a more urban design; these districts also contain compatible uses and promotion of connectivity between the uses Michigan Road Overlay proposed change basically clarifies the standard for foundation plantings and plantings within the medians Additional Use Regulations amendment will exempt multi- family residential developments from the maximum accessory building size 24X30 Additional Buffering Regulations proposed amendment will clarify as to when buffer yard requirements are triggered Appendix A Schedule of Uses category for Continuing Care Retirement Communities added Minor change from Keystone Avenue Overlay designation to Keystone Parkway Overlay No Public Remonstrance John Molitor: Some changes /amendments brought about to be in compliance with Indiana Code Commission Members Comments /Questions: Would like to make Overlay Section of Schedule of Uses consistent with remainder of the Table what is permitted, what is excluded Is it possible to add to the State's definition of CCRC? (would not recommend changing definition, maybe change the terminology, perhaps a "Senior CCRC Docket No. 12010005 OA, Patch Ordinance IX was referred to the Subdivision Committee for further review on March 06, 2012. I. Old Business None J. New Business 1. Docket No. 11120028 ADLS: West Carmel Commons, Lot 1 Outback Steakhouse. The applicant seeks architectural design site plan approval for a restaurant on 1.7 acres. The site is located at 10220 N. Michigan Rd. It is zoned B-2/Business within the US 421/Michigan Rd. Corridor 10 Overlay Zone. Filed by Joe Calderon of Bose McKinney Evans, LLP on behalf of OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC. Note: This item heard with Docket No. 11120029 DP /PP, West Carmel Commons, Item 3 under Public Hearings Rules of Procedure Changes: Executive Committee to meet prior to Next Month's Commission meeting to go over proposed Rule Changes. K. Adjournment 9:00 PM R na Hancock, Secretary Jay Dorman, President 11 1