Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 07-17-12 Cq t r ,ll City of anne 1 DIANA CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION JULY 17, 2012 City Hall Council Chambers 2°d Floor, One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 6:00 PM Members Present: John Adams, Jay Dorman,Brad Grabow,Nick Kestner, Steve Lawson, Alan Potasnik,Kevin"Woody"Rider, Steve Stromquist, Susan Westermeier, Ephraim Wilfong Members Absent: Joshua Kirsh DOCS Staff Present: Director Michael Hollibaugh, Angie Conn; Legal Counsel John Molitor. Also Present: Connie Tingley, Plan Commission Secretary pro tem. The minutes of the June 19, 2012 meeting were approved as submitted Legal Counsel Report: None Dept Reports &Announcements: None H. Public Hearings 1. Docket No. 12060010 CPA: Transportation Plan Update. The applicant seeks to amend the Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan(C3 Plan 2009), in order to update the Transportation Plan, including street classifications,policies and maps. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services on behalf of the Cannel Plan Commission. Present for Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling, Dept of Community Services; also Brad Johnson, Ground Rules Incorporated. Overview: • Amendment will up-date Transportation Plan &Policies • Proposal will adjust format and terminology to be more consistent&user friendly • Proposal will also update standards to better reflect right-of-way needs&make minor map adjustments to reflect current& future conditions • Language will be strengthened in the Comprehensive Plan to ensure street connections between neighborhoods 9 Clarifying language will also be added to the north central objectives to better explain what compact urban form is, including narrower lots, smaller block sizes, discouraging cul-de-sacs, and curvilinear streets • The Thoroughfare Plan section of the document introduces more consistency in street naming 1 July 17,2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting • Rather than"minimum&maximum dimensions," the word"typical"is used more often because not all streets are created the same • In the current Comp Plan, three residential streets are cited,but not differentiated on the map; these will be combined into a"local" street classification • The use of the word"tree plot"has been confusing and this terminology will be changed to"tree lawn" • The proposed right of way or distances will now be listed in the legend • Roundabouts have been updated to reflect existing versus proposed • Keystone Parkway is now classified as its own classification and it will be designated as primary parkway • Streets such as Town Road,portions of Main Street, 116`h Street previously classified as primary parkway have now been classified as parkway arterial • The previous classification term"enhanced sidewalk"was a carryover from the previous Comprehensive Plan 20/20 and it never had a specification attached to it; the current proposal reclassifies "enhanced sidewalks"to "Urban Commercial Sidewalk"in the central core area, and outside that area in east or west Carmel, "enhanced sidewalks"will be classified as"side paths." • Both"Side path"and"Urban Commercial Sidewalk"are very detail specified in the plan • A trail connection has been added connecting Founders Park at 116`h &Hazeldell Parkway into a neighboring neighborhood where a dirt path currently exists • Finally, segments of the White River Greenway will be aligned with the River Road side paths in the segment between 126`h Street and 11 Oh Street / • The alignment of the White River Greenway has also been adjusted south of 116`h Street westward to reflect property the Utilities Dept has recently acquired Ui • The Engineer's office has suggested adding language for low impact development options, meaning rain gardens or impervious surfaces, maybe on-street parking, etc could be an option as part of the street cross section to alleviate storm water and water quality issues; the language will hopefully be presented at Committee • The petitioner is proposing this item for Subdivision Committee on August 07, 2012 at 6:00 pm Public Remonstrance: None Public Hearing Closed Commission Members Comments/Questions: • Will Street names change? • Legend on Thoroughfare Plan Map shows both current streets &proposed,but on the Bicycle& Pedestrian map, there is no indication of the proposed &existing Clarification, Brad Johnson, Ground Rules: This proposal will change some of the classifications of streets,but not the actual names of streets. Adrienne Keeling said there are other maps,not necessarily part of the Comp Plan, that show where trails do exist. The Dept is not opposed to showing the trail connections, especially those that are not constructed and shown as dashed lines- if that would further clarify. Further Clarification, John Molitor: Under State Law,the Mayor has the power to name or re-name 2 July 17,2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting streets, unless the City would pass an Ordinance transferring that power to the Plan Commission. �a Docket No. 12060010 CPA, Transportation Plan Update was forwarded to the Subdivision Committee for further review on Tuesday, August 07 and 6:00 PM. 2. TABLED TO AUGUST 21: Docket No. 12050013 Z: 146th & Gray Rezone. eeffifflitments) for-apfe"Ased :63p, .11.4-L -I . s; ed R+4Y-,� . 14 fit 4 t,, +w . f,46 ,-Qfriffi.iA 6�1��1FBt T��ni�1 T T D F T D !1 D ,a T r n �+ _� - , 1Vl , 3. Docket No. 12050015 PP: Gray Oaks Subdivision. The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 41 residential lots on 23.8 acres. The site is located at 14412 N. Gray Rd. and is zoned R-1/Residence. Filed by The Old Town Design Group, LLC. Present for Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewicz, Land Use Professional with Nelson&Frankenberger, Also in attendance: Justin Moffett, Old Town Design Group; Greg Eko, Crossroads Engineers; Jim Shinaver, Nelson&Frankenberger. Overview: • Subject site is approximately 23 acres, zoned R-1/Residential • Subject site is currently comprised of three parcels, occupied by two, single-family homes with associated out-buildings • Property is currently agricultural use with majority planted in soy beans • Surrounding area: Residential on the east side of Gray Road, Oakbook Subdivision to the south, Stafford Place Subdivision under development to the west, and single family&undeveloped parcels along 146`h Street to the north • Proposal provides for construction of 41 single family, residential lots at a density of 1.78 units per acre—well below the permitted density of 2.9 units per acre and further below the 4 to 8 units per acre supported by the Comprehensive Plan • Three approvals are required to allow this proposal: • Primary Plat Approval • Variance approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals(BZA) • Secondary Plat&Construction Plan Approval • Primary Plat being presented this evening • Variance Request presented to BZA on July 23, 2012 • Topography dictated drainage facilities to be located on the north side of the site • Design allows for one primary entrance access onto Gray Road • Additional access point provided as a connection within Stafford Place • Petitioner desires to preserve existing trees • Petitioner states site landscaping is in full compliance with standards of Zoning Ordinance& Subdivision Control Ordinance ( • Site landscaping consists of buffer yard plantings, street trees, common area plantings, & individual lot landscaping • Street trees will line both sides of all streets within the requested 6-foot tree lawn as opposed to the standard 4 to 5-foot wide tree lawn 3 July 17,2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting r112„�� • Buffer yard required along the south perimeter of the site adjacent to Oakbrook Subdivision is twice the width required by Ordinance and was designed as a common area rather than placed on individual lots to provide coordinated management&maintenance of proposed trees • Overall plat incorporates 30% common area open space where minimum Subdivision Control Ordinance standard is 20% • Required lot landscaping is unique to this proposal as it is not required by Zoning Ordinance • Architectural standards proposed for this development are not required by the Zoning Ordinance • Common design elements of Gray Oaks include prominent front porch, side-facing/recessed garage, and trim detailing appropriate to Craftsman style. • All proposed homes will be custom design&will comply with architectural design standards • Proposed development commitments were previously distributed to adjacent neighbors and to Commission members this evening • Concerns expressed by neighbors included density&preservation of existing trees along the south property line • Letters of support have been received and will be included in the public records • The petitioner is requesting this item be forwarded to the Subdivision Committee for further review&consideration on August 7, 2012 at 6:00 PM Public Remonstrance: General Comments/Favorable: • Karl Volkmar, 14265 Oakbrook Court, Carmel. The residents of Oakbrook have met on a couple l�t � of occasions with the petitioner and traded emails as well. Mr. Volkmar is in support of the current plan as are a number of his neighbors. No official action from the Oakbrook HOA; they have not yet had a chance to meet regarding this proposal. • Joan Graham, 14877 Morgan's Creek Court, east of the subject site. Ms. Graham and husband have worked with Justin Moffett previously and have personal experience with him as developer. Mrs. Graham,her husband, and several of their neighbors in Morgan's Creek support this proposed development by reason of quality of home, quality of builders, and the process by bringing in professional arborists and following thru on commitments No further remonstrance—public hearing closed Dept Comments, Angie Conn: • Three outstanding comments—can be addressed by petitioner adequately • Dept recommends this item be sent to Subdivision Committee on 8/07 at 6:00 PM Commission Members' Comments/Questions: • Would like to see a common fence&landscaping on Gray Road for those properties that will back up to Gray Rd—fencing should be consistent &nice • Consider a walking path on the northern property line so that the common drainage area become common area for use by the residents • Will there be street lighting, or lot lighting—lighting on each home? • Confusion regarding aggregate side yard building setbacks at 10 feet with the driveway and the commitment for two feet of landscaping • Engineering comments regarding the entrance location 170 feet south of proposed entrance due , to adjacent existing&planned access points off Gray Road—need to know location of access 4 July 17,2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting points in order to understand concerns • Perhaps make Fletcher Circle a one-way street and more narrow in order to increase the amount a' • of greenspace or the width of paths—less asphalt, more grass • Would like internal path connectivity from Gray Oaks leading north to pond amenity to west end, and connecting two ponds behind lots 28, 29, &30; maybe connecting from Fletcher Circle back to the north pond&running east/west,bisecting the greenspace on Fletcher Circle • Traffic concerns/line of sight concerns—consider swapping locations of entry way and lot one (1) so that entrance is moved one lot farther south&more centered on the green amenity area • Adequate information re Storm-water system • Re road to subdivision on the west—Stafford Place—is everything in place to assure that the road can be connected? Response: Construction plans for Stafford Place identify the construction of the road; once completed, the exact location will be verified to make sure they align&connect • Any plans to widen Gray Road to accommodate a left turn into the proposed subdivision while heading north? • Petitioner may want to consider"French drains"to alleviate water build-up, since the houses are so close • Petitioner should come to Committee prepared to better show ultimate connection to Stafford Place p„ 1 Petitioner states that adequate accel/decal lanes &tapers will have to be constructed on Gray Road to accommodate the entrance on Gray Road as well as the connection point to Stafford Place Petitioner is working with Engineering regarding proposed one-way Fletcher Circle and narrower road widths Docket No. 12050015 PP, Gray Oaks Subdivision was forwarded to the Subdivision Committee for further review on Tuesday, August 7, 2012 at 6:00 PM. 4. Docket No. 12050014 DP/ADLS: Olive Garden Restaurant. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a restaurant. The site is located at 10206 N. Michigan Rd. It is zoned I-1/Industrial,within the US 421/Michigan Rd. Corridor Overlay Zone. Filed by Janet Reid of GHA Architects on behalf of Darden Restaurants, Inc. Present for Petitioner: Jack DeGagne,Darden Restaurants, Orlando, Florida. Overview: • Design of the Olive Garden is "Tuscan Farmhouse” Italian-style architecture stone with tile roof • Petitioner states that bldg design is Italianate • Restaurant seating capacity is 245; 142 parking spaces Site bounded by US 421, future Retail Parkway to the north, existing private drive to the south Site has dual access 5 July 17,2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting • Petitioner believes site circulation is excellent for patrons&deliveries • Landscape plan meets&exceeds the Ordinance • Prominent architecture consists of multi-level roof features (tower, &overhang) bracketed cornice, &arched faux windows • Materials include stucco(10%maximum accent feature)&thin brick veneer with EIFS accents • A variance is being requested from the BZA for the roof design • The HVAC equipment is hidden by a parapet wall capped with file-- soldier-course below Public Remonstrance: None Public Hearing Closed Department Comments,Angie Conn: • Staff has worked with petitioner to pull architectural elements from Italianate-style architecture • Additional design revisions at Committee level will enhance this project • Clay file roof not permitted in the 421 Overlay and BZA variance is being requested • Variance approval also being requested for number of signs(5 requested,2 permitted) • Dept recommends this item be sent to August 7 Subdivision Committee for further review Commission Members' Comments/Questions: • Concern regarding parking lot connecting north/south road &being used as a shortcut—somethings should be used to temper the flow • Pedestrian access or cross/hatch could be used to delineate • Bicycle parking? • Concern with signage -- should be give/take with corporate branding design/architecture and less signage • Request info from Dept regarding proposed monument sign and its standards&compliance • Would encourage no traffic directional signage internal to the site, given the high profile & short distance cars would travel • Architectural issues will continue to be discussed at Committee • Front&back elevations are not balanced • Italianate deign theme consistent with the Overlay requires a defined base & the brick veneer is heavier than Coronado stone—this building design does not have a defined,unified base • Front entrance tower element does not appear to be a part of the building • Would consider the roof to also be a fagade because of the dominant amount of roof displayed and the varying levels • Request petitioner minimize material variety • Is this a typical rendering of all Olive Garden Restaurants? • Windows in the tower functional or only for aesthetics? • Clay tile roof is a plus; rendering does not do it justice Response, Jack DeGagne: Pedestrian access & bike racks will be provided. Traffic access points were aligned as a part of the review process with the Dept. Tuscan Farm House is tile roof and full stone with brick accents over the windows;what is presented is a departure from the standard,stone building. 6 July 17,2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting Docket No. 12050014 DP/ADLS Olive Garden Restaurant was referred to the Subdivision Committee for „ further review on Tuesday,August 7, 2012. I. Old Business 1. 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 136th 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. Present for Petitioner: Paul Reis, attorney, Krieg Devault, 12800 North Meridian Street, Carmel. Also present: Gary Weaver, Project Architect, Weaver-Sherman Design,Indianapolis; J.C. Hart, and Opus Development. Overview of Changes, Gary Weaver: • Site plan has been re-worked to respond to neighbors' concerns • 50 foot buffer allows edge of existing neighbors properties&berm to stay in place as well as existing vegetation adjacent to the pond • Pond was built prior to today's standards and has very steep slopes—vegetation actually holding edges of pond in place • Still anticipating developing a drainage system that works behind existing preservation area --a dry detention basin and a series of detention areas � • Detention area provides a 100 foot buffer to any built structure on site • Senior living facility is on the east side of the property • Wooded area will still be preserved • Apartments are grouped to the middle of the site • Only one single office building provided in the plan • Moving towards the neighbors' property, all 2-story buildings along the perimeter; 3-story buildings are towards the front (Illinois Street) and reflective of the character of the buildings along the street • Most of the patio and deck areas of residential buildings are oriented toward the center and developed as courtyard buildings; the front of the buildings are much more urban in character and reflective of the office style of building • In terms of greenspace, the petitioner is providing the buffer along the perimeter so that existing trees can be saved. • Internally, a street has been developed to create an urban character, anchored on one end by a roundabout and on the other end by a small pocket park • Club building would be used in conjunction with the office building&residential buildings • Commercial/office building—parking has been pulled back in order to provide for a 100-foot buffer to shield headlights away from existing neighborhood • Moving away from the site, the buildings reduce in scale to become reflective of the senior living facility Paul Reis regarding Traffic: • As noted, access road to 136th Street has been eliminated 7 July 17,2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting • Extensive discussions have been held with Engineering Dept and DOCS which resulted in a trip- generation report from A&F Traffic Engineers delivered to City Engineering Dept ` • If developed as 100%office,the site would generate 8,601 trips per day • If developed at current proposal, the site would generate 3,390 trips per day • Engineering Dept reported that Illinois Street and US 31 improvements are being designed to accommodate traffic that would have been generated from this site as if developed as office at current zoning • Trip generation report indicates that the proposed use will produce significantly less peak hour& daily traffic than the current zoning. • No further traffic study was required by Engineering in association with this rezone request Gary Weaver, continued: • Mechanical equipment is screened behind a parapet wall • Club building will tie into both facilities • View from Illinois Street is 2-stories towards residential &3-stories towards the wooded area • Scale of residential buildings has been reduced to tie into adjacent buildings • Petitioner is providing separation from residential by way of the berm and trees • Large buildings are to the front,but they break down in scale closer to residential • Petitioner has provided a 50-foot buffer&two options to neighbors: 1)preserve existing trees; 2) plant a continuous row of evergreens so that it will develop into a tall hedgerow over time and will provide complete visual separation from the property Paul Reis, Closing Comments: In working with DOCS Staff, a definitive obligation was included that within 200 feet of any residential lot,if there is any building within 200 feet, the building can be no taller than two stories or 45 feet. Time for Delivery and Trash Pick Up were added to the PUD Ordinance. The Staff Report indicates that under the Comprehensive Plan,the use of multi-family housing is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The design of the development has now been addressed so that the buildings are situated, laid out, designed, constructed,to be complementary to those residential areas. Under the Ordinance, there is a 20-foot landscape buffer required; the petitioner will have 106 feet of buffering—50 feet of preserved tree area, and mounding, and another 56 feet of dry retention. The petitioner has also eliminated one of the office buildings. The petitioner feels he has been responsive to the neighbors' concerns, and the proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. Committee Report, Steve Stromquist: • Several meetings held with lots of discussion • Several residents from adjacent communities in attendance at Committee meetings • Comments made at last meeting: • The project does not feel right for this location • Difficult piece of property to develop • No amenities available by walking from this location—possibly biking • Vote from Committee was one in favor of positive recommendation • Negative recommendation to the Plan Commissioner%��� July 17,2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting Dept Comments, Angie Conn: • Petitioner&Chairperson have covered changes to the plan • Three Committee meetings occurred • Biggest Issues discussed at Committee: o Land Use—multi-family o Buffer o Petitioner not Adhering to Covenants made in 1991 in connection with the Rezone • Concerns have been addressed by Petitioner: Transitioning,building height, etc. • Dept is comfortable with mix of land use rather than office only • Dept recommends Plan Commission send a positive recommendation to City Council Commission Members' Comments: • Petitioner did a good job of responding to neighbors concerns &making adjustments to the plan • In the end, it just did not feel right putting these three components on this parcel of land • Comprehensive Plan is what the public thinks and how a property should be developed—what do we want to see our community look like &environment we want to live in City-wide in order to enhance our quality of life? • Petitioners, planners, &developers use the same document to argue the Comprehensive Plan and come out with different uses/interpretations • Does this proposal maintain our quality of life? (No) • Does this proposal maintain our property values? (No, especially for the bordering neighbors) • The image of this proposal projected from Meridian is not the image of the Comprehensive Plan • Apartments/multiple family dwelling is a major, major issue—underlying zoning and Meridian corridor requirements exclude this type of use • Covenants attached to this parcel as to use that was enacted in 1995 • Not comfortable using the PUD process to circumvent existing Ordinances unless there is a benefit to the community&residential areas nearby • The right decision is to deny this proposal • The petitioner should look for a more suitable location • Again, this proposed development just does not fit in the Meridian corridor • Not enough amenities for the senior living facility—too many components to the proposal • Concerns voiced at the public hearing included: o Buffering—berm &6 foot fence o Operating hours for the commercial parcel o Limited delivery hours at senior living component o More brick exterior,more pitched roofs, reduced height o Lighting bleeding into the residential area o School capacity o Drive-thru for the commercial portion o Integrating the three components & compatibility of uses o Addition of amenities for the senior living facility In response to that public input, Petitioner has made numerous concessions &accommodations to address the concerns of the neighbors& staff—height reductions, setbacks, additional buffering, additional mounding, increased landscaping within the buffers, complete streets, on-street parking, 9 July 17,2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting pocket parks, harmonious materials, no access points off 1361" Street This piece of ground is unique and does not really fit the normal zoning&design standards process Illinois Street has been added since the property was last rezoned;the pipeline has been moved at least once during the owner's tenure—all of which have made the site even more difficult to develop—and yet the proposal accommodate all of those as well as the design standards and attempts to address concerns of the neighbors The setback-based height limits proposed by Petition are better(lower) than what currently exists today The proposal meets & exceeds the Ordinance Would prefer that there be a cap on hours of operation for the clubhouse&pool/patio area Motion: John Adams to forward Docket No. 11120027 Z,Highpointe on Meridian PUD to the Common Council of the City of Carmel with an unfavorable recommendation; seconded by Alan Potasnik. Motion Approved 8 in favor, two opposed(Rider, Grabow) Docket No. 11120027 Z,Highpointe on Meridian PUD was forwarded to the City Council with an unfavorable recommendation. 2. TABLED TO AUGUST 21: Docket No. 11090004 OA: Sign Ordinance Update. The appheant seeks appr-eyal te amend Chapter-25.07; Sign 04nanee ef the Zoning GWinanee in er-der- te update and revise the r-eplatiens fer- signage, as well as amend/-update Chapter- ' Definitions, Chapt@�B-ABuii��fie ,-rhapter- 21�C !/City CefA°, Distfiet� thapt° d Tevffi ilia + Chapter-209: 0PA/01.a Meridian Dist et Chapter-232: US L7;..L.,<..,<. t3�Gt--Crcccpcvrcv�vrrn v�raz�=crrannrn ��.aa..., va.t.,...a ...,.. �.... �.ab.a....� 31 Cefr-id er-Overlay Zee;Chapter- 23Q US Highway_421-- Miehagan Read Ceff der- r1yer4°y 7 Chapter-23D! Old T.,...« D a+..:a+ (1yer4ay 7. ne, Chapter-23L. TJ...Y.°Dlas Dist iet Overlay f-cmG—c�iim7t . f.J�IIO,ZiiA�7TG1Tr7TJ�r0Ilio�1-"iLi�.aay. v.va awl Zene; Chapter- 23F; CaFmel Drive Range Line Read Oveday Zene, Chapter- 23H- Meneft &eenway Oveflay Zone, Chapter- 24! Development Plan ead AmWteraklFw Design, Exte Lighting, Landseaping A Sig ge ion ,S Chapter- 25. A ddifi nal Use Regulations, and of the cafffiel Plan Genffnissien.- J. New Business 1. WITHDRAWN: Docket No. 12020024 ADLS: Meridian and Main,Parcel 1,Building 1. The appheant seeks design appr-eyal for-a fnedieal building en the neAhem half of tWs parvel. The site is leea+°d a the„,.Ahea..+ eemer-of 111" St P. Denffis yania Way, at 14 4 0 W. Main St. 11 er dia,,, 111 T T r 2. Docket No. 12070001 ADLS Amend: Abbey Taphouse (D Wilkinson's Addition, Lot 32). The applicant seeks approval for exterior building and site modifications for a small brewery. aw- The site is located at 32 First Ave NE and is zoned B-1Business, within the Old Town Overlay, 10 July 17,2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting �f Character Subarea. Filed by Bruce Berry of BAB Associates Architecture, Inc. « � Present for Petitioner: Bruce Berry, BAB Associates, Architecture; representing Kevin Paul, owner of Brockway Pub, Carmel. Overview: • Site is a former day care center • Proposal is for the removal of the existing carport and the addition to the south side of the building to house the brewery component • Proposed plan includes aligning First Ave NE and First Street NE • Property is within the Old Town Overlay, Character Subarea • Petitioner is maintaining existing building to reflect the residential style &character • The proposed addition will have large, arched windows reminiscent of a factory building • Proposed location for the tanks was pointed out • Abbey Taphouse will be a micro-brewery • Elevated grain bin element was shown • Beer-garden area will be added with three-seasons structure • 6-foot Privacy Fence proposed along the north side& 3-foot wrought iron fence along the parking edge with hedge in front of it • Festooned lighting will be strung along the perimeter fence ,r • Signage revised according to Ordinance • Urban Forester has indicated that landscaping is OK �j • Two Variances being sought thru BZA—one for the bldg addition, one for parking in the front yard Dept Comments, Angie Conn: • Proposed Use is permitted in both Overlay Zone and underlying zoning • Two Variances requested have mostly to do with site lying in the Character Sub-Area that does not allow parking in the front yard and setbacks; however, site is located at an intersection and does have two front yards • Dept Report has 4 or 5 outstanding comments that need to be addressed • Dept recommends approval conditioned upon petitioner working with City Engineering Dept • Dept is not recommending referral to Committee because it is an ADLS petition and Commission may vote this evening • If referred to Committee,would prefer Special Studies, with an option of final voting authority Commission Members' Comments/Questions: • From the number of public in attendance,proposal should be sent to Committee • Is the property within the Overlay? • Aligning the intersection—does it then become a 2-way stop with thru traffic east/west? • Are detached structures allowed such as the one proposed for the beer garden? • Parking—how many spaces required? • Is the "grain elevator"operational? (Yes) • Is this franchise or individual ownership? (individual) • Any outreach to the neighbors? (Petitioner has received one positive comment, one negative 11 July 17,2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting letter of remonstrance) • Proposed use is permitted by existing zoning for this property • Do all elements of the proposal harmonize with adjacent properties &zoning standards? John Molitor noted that the two variances to be heard by BZA are pretty serious issues with a lot to be considered. Depending upon the BZA's response, it may be moot point for the Committee meeting. • Seating capacity of the building, inside? (approximately 30 persons) • Like the concept, do not like the location • Suggest/recommend working with the neighbors before coming to public hearing • BZA hearing date? (July 23rd) Docket No. 12070001 ADLS Amend, Abbey Taphouse(D Wilkinson's Addition, Lot 32)was referred to Special Studies Committee for further review on Tuesday, August 7, 2012 at 6:00 PM. K. Adjournment @ 8:25 PM of i 41 f A 4 4W 4 Efod Jay Dorma ,President �JI mona Hancock, Secretary 12