Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 08-21-12 c\�q of C4 �OAT Q?.f,�p! City of a e ' �NDIANa CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2012 Members in attendance: Jay Dorman,Brad Grabow,Nick Kestner, Joshua Kirsh, Steve Lawson,Alan Potasnik, Kevin "Woody"Rider, Steve Stromquist, Susan Westermeier,Ephraim Wilfong Members Absent: John Adams DOCS Staff in Attendance: Director Michael Hollibaugh, Angie Conn,Adrienne Keeling,Rachel Boone; Legal Counsel John Molitor Also Present: Ramona Hancock,Plan Commission Secretary The Minutes of the July 17, 2012 meeting were approved as submitted. F. No Legal Counsel Report G. Dept Announcements, Angie Conn: The Kunkle Family Minor Subdivision, Item 1 under Public Hearings,has been tabled to September 18, 2012. „ Director Michael Hollibaugh addressed the Commission and advised that the City Council has passed a Resolution last evening that laced a moratorium on Planned Unit Developments (PUD's.) The g P Resolution is timely because of the Committee Special Project 1 report this evening involving Criteria for Planned Unit Developments. (There is no expiration date on the moratorium.) Michael Hollibaugh distributed letters from the Fire Dept, Police Dept, Street Dept, School District, and the Health By Design people as to why it makes sense to connect neighborhoods and why stub streets are important. It is the hope that at the next Commission meeting, these topics will be discussed and perhaps a Resolution would be forth-coming that would re-commit the Plan Commission to this policy as well. Regarding the PUD's Special Project, Councilperson Woody Rider noted that the moratorium is infinite until such time as an agreement is reached — it does not stop anyone from filing or the process from going to the Plan Commission or maybe even City Council, but that this sent a negative message for development. John Molitor, Legal Counsel, said he would submit comments in writing regarding the proposed Ordinance. 1. Update on Committee Special Project 1: Criteria for Planned Unit Developments(PUD's). Brad Grabow, speaking on behalf of the Subdivision Committee, reported that there are concerns about PUD's, but that they are various and varied. The work at the Committee level has been to identify exactly what the demons are that are associated with PUD's so that as procedural changes are made, and legislative changes are recommended to the Council, the Plan Commission can be responsive and on point with those changes. There are 29 PUD's currently in Carmel — the first of which was the Village of WestClay, 1 August 21,2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting J/iriv followed by Providence on Old Meridian; very little in common was seen throughout the PUD projects. ���% The focus was then shifted to the PUD process to make it less burdensome for the Commission and the p Council — some ideas included asking the petitioners to write their PUD language in a consistent manner �� that parallels the other zoning districts included in the Ordinance to make it easier to work through the document. Additionally, the Committee felt that asking petitioners to provide a comparison chart beginning with the base zoning in place and for each component piece that does not fit the zoning, they would pick the best-fit zoning ordinance or zoning district from the current ordinance as their base starting point for each component—the petitioner would then demonstrate the need to deviate from the various parameters of the two zoning districts for their particular use. The idea is to create an environment where they are deviating less from the zoning districts and complying more with those districts while still giving them the latitude to be creative and come up with innovative uses for the property. From a process standpoint, having a comparison chart would be much easier to see where there are components in the proposed PUD language that represent significant deviations from what is permitted within the base district/existing zoning in order to address the perception that PUD's are used only as"end- runs" to go thru a more complicated process but in the end result, achieve a much more intense use than might otherwise be possible. Changes would ultimately be through changes in the Rules of Procedure and/or changes in the zoning ordinance itself as it governs how a petitioner can file for a PUD and what is required to go thru the process. A change in the zoning ordinance would require a new docket, a public hearing, and start the process thru formal procedures associated with any legislative change that comes thru the Plan Commission and moves on to the full Council. The purpose of reporting this evening is to share this information with the full Plan Commission and ��, determine if there are particular concerns or questions at this point that would send the Committee in a 'i different direction than is headed. If concurrence is achieved, then the Committee would work with Staff to start the process — again, subject to the resolution, to change the zoning ordinance to amend how we govern the PUD process. Woody Rider commented that it was important for the Committee and the Council to get together with the DOCS Director and Staff and work this out quickly so that we can erase what is felt to be a negative message, and so that the Resolution, as soon as this is completed,will go away. Woody Rider issued an open invitation to Brad Grabow and interested parties to appear before the Land Use Committee of the City Council. John Molitor commented that a meeting of three or more members of the Subdivision Committee would require public notice, and that it could be a joint meeting of the City Council Land Use Committee and members of the Subdivision Committee. As Chairman of the Subdivision Committee, Brad Grabow could attend the Council Committee with no problem. 2. Update on Patch Ordinance IX(Docket No. 12010005 OA, Council Ordinance Z-558-12). Adrienne Keeling of DOCS explained the updates on the Patch Ordinance IX, with some amendments being made as late as last evening at City Council. The yellow high-lighted portion of the draft represents changes made by City Council since it was certified to the Council, and those amendments were explained to the Commission. There were questions from Commission members regarding the 10% rule and whether or not it could be waived; anything over 10% would need to be ratified by the Council. (In John Molitor's opinion, the 10% waiver cannot be waived & the Commission may wish to send this back to Committee & ask 2 August 21,2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting Council members what the purpose of that provision would be) Woody Rider suggested that questions should be directed to Councilperson Carol Schleif, Motion: Woody Rider to re-order the Agenda to hear Old Business Item number 3, Docket No. 11100022 DP/ADLS: Gramercy PUD (Mohawk Hills Redevelopment) as the first item under Old Business. H. Public Hearings 1. TAltLEI) TO SEPT. 18: Docket No. 12060012 PP: Kunkle Family Minor Subdivision. The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 2 residential lots on 1.58 acres. The site is located at 14127 N. Gray Rd. and is zoned S-1/Residence. Filed by Craig Kunkle. 2. Docket No. 12050013 Z: 146th & Gray Rezone. The applicant seeks approval to rezone 11.6 acres from S-1/Residence to B-1/Business (with commitments) for a proposed fuel/gas station,with the rest for tree preservation. The site is located at 4927 E. 146th St., at the southeast corner of 146th St. and Gray Rd. Filed by Joseph Scimia of Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP for L&Q Realty, LLC. Present for Petitioner: Joe Scimia, attorney,Faegre Baker Daniels, 600 East 96th Street. Jesse Pohlman, Land Use Consultant with Faegre Baker Daniels; Jay Ricker, Chairman of Ricker Oil Company and principal applicant of this petition. Overview: • Proposal is for a rezone of 11.6 Acres located at southeast corner of 146th & Gray Road • Proposal would rezone property from S-1/Residence to B-I/Business (with commitments) • Map was displayed showing locations of 11 existing fuel stations in Carmel • 146th Street is designated a primary arterial in Carmel's Comprehensive Plan • Currently, the site is densely populated with trees • Southeast corner of site is a low area and does not have a lot of vegetation • Since 2001, site has been subject of 4 unsuccessful zoning proposals o Townhomes,2001 o General Office Use, 2006 o Professional Office,Retail &Bank, 2007 o A similar version of office,retail with a change in the southeast sensitive area, 2008 • Current plan is for a Ricker's fueling station&canopy, a 4,200 square foot convenience store, detention area, and various access points • Proposed development only occupies 4.5 acres; 7.1 acres are being left in their natural state and will provide buffering to the neighboring uses, accomplished in one of three ways: • Create a conservation easement in favor of a 501(c) 3 • Deed the property to a 501(c) 3 or the Parks Dept • Withdraw the rezone request for the 7.1 acres and maintain current S-1 zoning • Intent of the commitments is to ensure that the 7.2 acres remains as buffered area in a natural state and provides a transition from the proposed use to the neighboring residents • Architectural materials are brick and stone as well as metal-seam PP roofing; supports for the canopies are similar material of brick and stone • The petitioner is tendering commitments in accordance with the site plan proposed which limits 3 August 21,2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting the building height to no more than one story, incorporates the architectural design requirements borrowed from most of the Overlay districts regarding bldg facades, types of materials, how the entrances would be articulated, how the awnings could be used as well as the roof design • Lighting would comply with the Ordinance requirement • A natural tree preservation area is also provided • The petitioner has agreed to remove certain uses permitted in B-1 and will provide a list to the Dept to that effect • Traffic analysis was prepared by A&F Traffic Engineers and focuses primarily on the AM and PM peak hours—the current level of service is C and that level will remain during the AM peak hour even after development of this project; during PM peak hours, the level of service drops from C to D, except that D will be attained anyway by its natural state with or without this development • Public Safety&Wellhead Protection Consultant,Mundell Consulting Professionals,were engaged to study this area • Under the Wellhead Protection program, areas subject to concern are identified by either a one (1)year time of travel are,which this is not in, or a five(5)year time of travel project, which this is in • If there were a spill of contaminants,how long would it take for that plume to travel and possibly impact Carmel's wellhead? If in the one year time of travel area, it would take a year•, if in the five year area,it would take 5 years • The petitioner has met with Westfield and Carmel Utilities and they have reported no basis to object to this proposal • General underground storage tanks restrictions &requirements were gone over for the benefit of the Commission , • The petitioner states that they meet all the requirements • Even though not required,the petitioner has volunteered to meet all the requirements for a station that would be located in a one year time of travel • Extra protection measures have been included in the site development plan • The detention system on site has the ability to retain 8,000 gallons • The integrity of the tanks will be tested on a monthly basis • The Mundell Report contains a study of what happens to contamination, (plume) should it occur • Petitioner states he not only complies with all State&Federal regulations, he exceeds them in all respects • The proposed use&development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan • The petitioner has incorporated superior, architectural design materials to meet the standards that Carmel deserves and is used to seeing • The petitioner has provided significant buffer between the proposed development and the neighboring residential uses. • The proposed development will not negatively affect traffic as reported in the traffic study for the area • The proposed development will have state of the art equipment designed to protect the environment • The proposed development strikes an appropriate balance between the legitimate interest of the project developer and the neighborhood residents 4 August 21,2012 Carmel Plan Commission Mceting �t Motion: Steve Stromquist to suspend the Rules of Procedure in order to allow additional time for public comments, seconded by Woody Rider, approved 10-0 Public Remonstrance, Organized/Unfavorable: Cesare Turrin, 5436 Woodfield,Drive, President of Woodfield HOA, 186 homeowners. Woodfield homeowners believe that the development of the southeast corner of 140" & Gray Road is inevitable and they do not stand in opposition to development and welcome development that is fitting to their community; however, it must be incongruous and complement existing development. The HOA is firmly opposed to the proposal for a gasoline station and convenience store. The HOA is not opposed to commercial development, but is opposed to encroachment of development on residential housing. The residents recognize that L&Q Realty has gone to great lengths to address the concerns of the Woodfield residents adjacent to the property. L&Q proposes to set aside 7.1 acres or 61%of the site as a preservation buffer, limit building height, &construct an attractive convenience store. Notwithstanding L& Q's best intentions,we believe this project is not in the community's best interest. There are currently gas stations at State Road 37 & 146`h Street, 96`h &Allisonville Road, 96`h &Keystone, 90h & US 31, 151S1 Street&US 31—major commercial areas and entrance ways to Carmel,but not shown on the petitioner's map. There are also several service stations in or near downtown Carmel. The HOA sponsored an on-line petition to gauge the community's reaction to construction of a new gas station and convenience store. There are over 190 respondents who are not interested in gas or convenience—no respondents left favorable remarks. Mr. Turrin does not agree that this proposal will increase the City's tax base. Also, the level of anticipated traffic at this intersection will not be conducive to generate economic development where Carmel needs it most and introduces additional risk to persons using the 146th Street Hagan-Burke pedestrian path and the Moron Trail. The Mundell study was to ensure that L&Q's safeguards would adequately protect Carmel's public water supply; however, the study is a containment plan, and no containment plan is 100% effective. Tom Kallio, 14167 Williamsburg Drive, hydro-geologist and Woodfield Subdivision resident, spoke of concerns regarding environmental risks, spill protection &the importance of ground water protection, soils in the area, and competition among Westfield's well-field, Indpls well-field north of 146`h Street, and Carmel's well-field as water passes thru the 146`h Street corridor. Mr. Kallio also talked about "pathways for contaminants to travel,"and the human factor. Once a contaminant is in the ground, it is there—it may break down and alter itself into other components, but they all have an effect on the water supply. The ground surface is permeable. Mr. Kallio was surprised that John Duffy of the Carmel Utilities Dept had no concerns regarding this proposal. John Koven,14280 Oakbrook Court, President of the Oakbrook HOA, stated that as a Subdivision, they were never contacted by the developer, developer's lawyer,or representative. Mr. Koven referred to the Gray Oaks Subdivision located to the west of the intersection of 146`h &Gray Road that was recently reviewed by the Plan Commission. Mr. Koven also wanted to remind the Commission that 146`h Street is a County Road and that Carmel does not have jurisdiction_ this is also a TIF District. Oakbrook residents are opposed to this proposal because it does not meet the"spirit or intent"of the County Ordinance that provided for the design and reconstruction of 146`h Street to become the major thoroughfare as an access across Hamilton County. The reconstruction of 146`h Street was with the intent that it would not become a commercial development corridor ripe with numerous curb cuts and "' traffic lights. It was discussed &expected that commercial development would be in larEe parcels with many establishments using their own private access road and with limited access on 146` Street. This concept was accepted (but not committed to writing)by the only joint meeting of the Common Councils of Carmel,Fishers, Noblesville, & Westfield during the summer of 2002 following the completion of the 5 August 21,2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting rl 146" Street construction and reflected in the center at the southeast corner of Hazel Dell & 146th Street, and the Lowe's center at Clay Terrace in Carmel, multi-tenant properties; the same is true for the north side of 140" Street in Westfield and Noblesville. The subject parcel is a single use parcel and does not meet the development standards that were anticipated when this road was developed. Traffic on Gray Road is already significant during the peak hours &will make ingress/egress to this site even more difficult and dangerous. Mr. Koven asked the Plan Commission to deny this proposal. Remonstrance, General Public/Unfavorable Chris Iafrato, 4870 Morgan's Creek Court, did not receive notice of the hearing&proposal. Mrs. Iafrato is concerned as a parent and questioned when a traffic study was done—Mrs. Iafrato thought the traffic study was done in the summer when school was not in session—her children go to Guerrin Catholic School and this proposal will increase traffic dramatically. Gray Road narrows and there is no place for bicycles or walking. Mrs. Iafrato is also concerned with the number of traffic accidents/ fatalities at this intersection and questions who the emergency respondents are,whether County, City of Westfield, City of Carmel, etc. Steve Steiner, 5163 Sue Drive, Woodfield neighborhood. Does not need,want, nor desire a gas station or a convenience store to be built at this location. No difficulty currently obtaining gas for his family automobiles or items for their convenience. Mr. Steiner expressed concern regarding possible negative effect on property values, light,noise,pollution, and danger at this site contributing to the worsening condition of our neighborhoods. Biking and/or walking with children to Hagan-Burke Trail and the Farmer's Market is becoming very dangerous with the traffic situation. ���»� Alexander Pryll, 14417 North Gray Road, speaking for wife and self. Mr. Pryll's home is at a low , grade and if gas is pumped every day, Mr. Pryll is afraid the gas fumes will get to him. Also, there are no ��� ' sidewalks on the east or west side of Gray Road; traffic is a difficult situation. Mr. Pryll has not seen any traffic counters for this area—Mr. Pryll is not in favor of the proposed gas station. Steve Dauby, 5151 Sue Drive. The neighbors were very close at one time in working with the owner for developing this site; the residents felt that the developer just missed the market. We want to be good neighbors, -- we are not anti-development,we will work with the developer again, but we would like to see this site developed as something the neighbors would like to see. There are other sites available for a gasoline/fueling facility; this is not a situation where this facility must be in this location—why would we take a chance? Currently there is a neighborhood petition circulating with approximately 200 signatures in opposition to this fueling station proposal. Please read the petition; there are some very good comments and input from the residents. Jim Kraft, 5187 Sue Drive, Woodfield subdivision, commented that the layout of the proposed facility lacks convenient access for entering, fueling, &exiting the site-- a gas station would be better suited to the north side of 146th Street. Also, even with the tree barrier, the facility would be visible in the winter when here are not leaves on the trees. Rafik Bishara,Morgan's Creek Court. Most everything has been said; wanted to compliment petitioner on the soil studies done, but wanted to mention that traffic to Guerrin High School would be affected. Traffic on Gray Road is already horrible,but with the new, 44 lot subdivision(Gray Oaks) it will be even worse. Mr Bishara said he would welcome a gas station, but not at this location. Public Hearing Closed. Rebuttal, Joe Scimia: No matter where this gas station were located, there would be opposition. It is understood that there is a petition circulating with 190 respondents—less than point two percent of the population of Carmel and 6 August 21,2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting less than 2%that live in this Council district. As with any opposition with this type of use, the people are mainly adjacent to it. The proposed use is located several hundred feet–a football field, three homes–from any residential and includes a 7 acre buffer, and does encroach on residential in any traditional sense. The petitioner and consultant met with John Duffy–of course his preference is that nothing be established in Carmel that could ever affect the water supply,but to oppose the use is not being said. EPA, IDEM, John Duffy, John Mundell, etc. are experts --there is no basis to think they have been derelict in their duties by not appearing to object to this proposal. There is no basis to believe that the petitioner will create a situation that will endanger the Carmel water source. The petitioner has met all the notice requirements set forth in the Rules of Procedure; the residents of Woodfield have been very fair and professional to work with and the petitioner has done nothing to in any way impede discussion or contact with the neighbors. Two-thirds of the property is being used to create a buffer rather than putting additional uses on the site. The petitioner is trying to create a use and appropriate balance between this development and the adjoining property owners; the property qualifies for multi-tenants,the petitioner is just not putting multi-tenants on the site—that has been tried. In each of the previous cases, there was organized remonstrance and petitions filed, and those were withdrawn because of opposition. The traffic study was done in May while school was in session–the traffic study recites those dates and makes a special point to note that school was in session when the study was done. The petitioner has worked with City Engineer Mike McBride as well as County Engineers to come up with a design to address some of the concerns and come up with the best possible solutions. There are reasons for the access locations–one is to create reasonable distance for stacking between entrances and the intersection; secondly, internal stacking is provided so that persons exiting the site can stay on the interior access roads–the concept u� referred to by Mr. Koven. The professionals that look at traffic safety&design, Engineer, are professionals and know what they are doing. There are o advesse comments from OCS Staff as a result of the process. The site is large–there is no"squeezing"this development on this site-- probably one of the most open sites in Carmel. The petitioner believes that this project is very responsible, and that all concerns have been addressed. Dept Comments, Angie Conn: • Regarding protection of waterways above ground and underground water, we have faith in our City Utilities Dept and John Duffy to design a"beefed-up"plan that would address this type of use • The site is on a very busy primary, arterial street &City Planners in Westfield &Noblesville were contacted–they feel that this use would be appropriate pending the plan for underground storage tanks • Site history was reiterated: this is the fifth re-zone attempt for this site • Regarding the Comprehensive Plan, the entire stretch of 146`h Street is marked as a"Special Study,"due to the fact that 146`h Street is becoming very busy with traffic, and single family, detached homes may not be the best use. • A neighborhood support center would be appropriate at this corner as a best fit against suburban residential uses,but the Comprehensive Plan mentions no gasoline sales and the Committee would have to work thru this • The Dept feels that this development would be adequate, as long as it is installed with sensitivity to the adjacent land uses 7 August 21,2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting • The Dept supports this rezone and is in favor of the unprecedented amount of open space in this petition t ' i • The Dept would like to see a limit on the types of land uses for this site—a straight B-1 re-zone would not be preferred • The Dept recommends this Docket be referred to the Sept 04 Special Studies Committee for further review &discussion Commission Members' Comments/Questions: • Parks Board would probably not be interested in a 7acre parcel but would support the proposed conservancy/green space in its natural state • Asks that the Committee explore the possibility of Woodfield or other neighborhoods in the area of their interest level in becoming more deeply involved–perhaps thru outright ownership–of the preservation easement, and maximizing the community value of the easement. If it is land & brush and can't be used, it still serves a purpose,but perhaps a higher purpose if it were partially developed into a recreational area or a small"pocket"park. • The Committee should consider whether the proposal is in full compliance with all IDEM and other applicable state and federal laws governing environmental issues • The 44-lot Subdivision of Gray Oaks is still in Committee and has not been approved • Walking roads,paths, &traffic are a major concern • Have the access points been approved by the County? (No) h Docket No. 12050013 Z, 146 t &Gray Rezone was referred to the September 04, 2012 Special Studies r Committee for further review. r % 3. Docket No. 12070020 OA: Old Town Overlay Demolition Sunset Amendment. The applicant seeks to amend the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 23D: Old Town District Overlay Zone in order to enact a 1-year extension to the sunset clause(expiration date) on the process for demolition of Contributing Buildings in the Overlay. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. Present for Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling, Dept of Community Services Overview: • Ordinance amended in 2008 to require Director approval prior to demolishing contributing bldgs within the Old Town Overlay • Along with amendments in 2008, a Sunset provision or expiration date was established • In 2011, at suggestion of Plan Commission, City Council adopted an extension of one year to December, 2012 with a request that a committee be formed to perform a detailed review of the accuracy&need of the contributing bldg map • Perhaps simultaneously, a Carmel Historic Preservation Commission was forming • Carmel Historic Preservation Commission prevue is City wide,but it is anticipated they will ultimately conduct a review of the structures in Old Town; the review will help determine the future of the contributing building map • Proposal will extend Sunset provisions in Old Town Guidelines for another year to allow Historic Preservation Commission time to get established&make formal recommendations • Dept recommends suspension of Rules of Procedure&forwarding to City Council with a 8 August 21,2012 Cannel Plan Commission Meeting i/ positive recommendation r% G No Public Remonstrance–Public Hearing Closed Commission Comments/Questions: • Group now fonned that will be evaluating Old Town Carmel? (Yes, group has been formed,but not actively studying the evaluation of the Old Town Area as yet) • Is this Ordinance superfluous? (No–proposal keeps the protection of contributing bldgs thru the extra step of requiring Director approval until such time as the Preservation Commission can make a formal recommendation) • Basically,this Ordinance will go "off the books"unless we decide to extend it? (Yes) • Interested in outcome of the study at the time this goes to Council Motion: Sue Westermeier to suspend the Rules of Procedure, seconded by Alan Potasnik, Approved 10- 0 Motion: Brad Grabow to forward Docket No. 12070020 OA, Old Town Overlay Demolition Sunset Amendment to City Council with a positive recommendation, seconded by Alan Potasnik, Approved 10- 0 4. Docket No. 12070021 OA: Carmel Dr.-Range Line Rd. Overlay Sunset Amendment. The applicant seeks to amend the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 23F: Carmel Drive-Range Line Road Overlay Zone in order to modify development standards and remove the sunset clause (expiration date). Filed by the Cannel Department of Community Services on behalf of the Cannel Plan Commission. Present for Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling,Dept of Community Services Overview: • Originally adopted in 2005 and initially extended in 2006 • Main purpose was to encourage a range of activities&use environment along Cannel Drive abutting Range Line Road • Sunset clause added to the Overlay Zone due to initial concerns&has been extended since • Sunset was given to test the Ordinance to see how it worked • Dept is proposing to eliminate the sunset expiration date&also proposing some changes to the Ordinance • Proposal will no longer limit uses to 75%of a projects gross floor area–proposal would allow for ultimate flexibility&use of the land • Much if not all the land along Range Line Road is zoned to allow commercial but not necessarily residential • Building Orientation: Currently, it is required that 70%of all frontages be occupied by bldgs the proposal makes it clear that only 70%of the frontage along Cannel Drive or Range Line Road would need to be occupied and the requirement would not be applied to side streets such as h Fifth Street, Sixth Street, or Executive Drive • Proposal also adds under Building Orientation; corner bldgs shall have a door at the corner to alleviate some concerns with projects that have come before � hH • Building Footprint: Currently there is a floor area ratio minimum requirement of point 5— basically meaning that the equivalent of one-half of the square footage of the lot must have 9 August 21,2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting buildable square footage; the Proposal is to eliminate this provision • Pedestrian Circulation : Proposal increases the sidewalk width from 8 to 10 feet and would be in line with what is currently being proposed with the Thoroughfare Plan along Urban Commercial Streets to have 12-foot wide sidewalks • Parking Section: Proposal provides that the parking requirement would not apply to the second and higher floors • Bicycle Parking: Currently stated in the Ordinance at one space per 100 feet of frontage; this Ordinance was in place prior to the formal Bicycle Parking Ordinance–bicycle parking is being proposed as a reference to the Bicycle Parking Ordinance • Proposal eliminates the Sunset Provision which actually should read 12/31/12 and not 2011 • Petitioner requests Committee Review No Public Remonstrance–Public Hearing Closed Commission Members' Comments/Questions: • Does sidewalk width apply to all side streets as well? (Yes, if they are public streets) • "Corner bldgs shall have a door at the corner..."corner of what—curb cut in the middle of the parcel, or corner represented by an alley? (Discuss at Committee) • Same with corner bldgs that are single-tenant–even if it is a multi-tenant bldg? (Discuss at Committee) • Under Building Orientation: Clarify point A theory fy p (No minimum on the side street–in theo could be Zero on the side street) • Single tenant bldg on corner shall have a corner entrance–bad idea–example: CVS on Range Line Road --not our place to tell retail how their building functions • Not willing to leave it up to the lender as far as whether or not the bldg will work–problem with building a second floor that will never be used–waste of money Docket No. 12070021 OA, Carmel Dr–Range Line Road Overlay Sunset Amendment was referred to the Special Studies Committee for further review&discussion on Tuesday, September 04, 2012 at 6:00 PM I. Old Business 1. Docket No. 11100022 DP/ADLS: Gramercy PUD (Mohawk Hills Redevelopment) The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a multifamily residential infill and renovation project on 116.4 acres. The site is located at approximately 751 E. 126`h Street, at the Southwest corner of 126th St. and Keystone Pkwy. The site is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Matthew Griffin of Buckingham Companies. Present for Petitioner: Matt Griffin, Buckingham Companies, 941 N. Meridian Street, Indianapolis; Tim Ochs, Attorney, Ice Miller, One American Square, Indianapolis Overview: • Public Hearing process started in December 2011 • R esponded to pub c comments & went back to the drawing board � 10 August 21,2012 Cannel Plan Commission Meeting • Returned for another public hearing in March 2012 with a revised plan • Reviewed by Subdivision Committee several months • Addressed concerns from Plan Commission, City Council, residents &neighbors • Proposal this evening is a good result of lots of planning&professional input • Additional Commitments have been made to protect the residents of Auman Addition • Commitments limit the use of the property adjacent to Auman Addition, including NOT requesting a connection to Auman Drive • Design concerns were finalized at Committee • The access cut to Keystone Parkway has been removed from the design • A right-in/right-out cut at the deceleration ramp from Keystone Parkway is now shown&would be a convenience to the Gramercy residents, but this may or may not occur • The Committee voted a unanimous,positive recommendation to the Plan Commission Committee Report, Brad Grabow: • The Committee reviewed all terms of the Gramercy PUD Ordinance& documented how the current version of the petition complies with every one of them • The Committee's work addressed a large contingent of remonstrators' concerns • The concern was that the Development Plan differs dramatically from the intensity that was permitted by the 2006 PUD Ordinance • The Committee's work focused on the roads network within the project, greenspace&recreation areas, bike&multi-purpose paths circulation on the land subject to the Development Plan, parking, architecture, building materials building heights & set-backs and combination of bldg heights with respect to individual set-backs, the issue of resident re-locations to minimize inconvenience, construction times of day, sequencing - things that affect quality of life _. buffering on all sides of the development&appropriateness of the buffering, access points on 126th Street,Keystone Parkway, and to the south (subject of a later petition)and connectivity. Signage will be addressed separately • The Committee voted 4-0 for a favorable recommendation to the Commission Commission Members' Comments/Concerns: • Connectivity options not taken advantage of but OK with outcome • Disappointed in lack of connectivity thru adjoining neighborhood • Keystone access/reconfiguration was explained to satisfaction • Is Board of Public Works approval required for this cut? (Yes) • Feel better about the development,but not comfortable with the cut as located • Events at Clubhouse should be scheduled so that sounds do not interfere with residents Motion: Joshua Kirsh to approve Docket No. 11100022 DP/ADLS: Gramercy PUD (Mohawk Hills Redevelopment,) seconded by Kevin "Woody"Rider, Approved 9 in favor, one opposed(Potasnik) 2. Docket No. 11090004 OA: Sign Ordinance Update. The applicant seeks approval to amend Chapter 25.07: Sign Ordinance of the Zoning Ordinance in order to update and revise the regulations for signage, as well as amend/update Chapter 3: Definitions, Chapter 19: B-/Business District, Chapter 20E:C-1/City Center District, Chapter 20F:C-2/Old Town District, Chapter 20G: OM/Old Meridian District, Chapter 23B: US Highway 11 August 21,2012 Carmel Plan Commission Mecting 31 Corridor Overlay Zone, Chapter 23C: US Highway 421 — Michigan Road Corridor Overlay Zone, Chapter 23D: Old Town District Overlay Zone, Chapter 23E: Home Place District Overlay Zone; Chapter 23F: Carmel Drive Range Line Road Overlay Zone, Chapter 23H: Monon �� Greenway Overlay Zone, Chapter 24: Development Plan and Architectural Design, Exterior Lighting, Landscaping & Signage Regulations, Chapter 25: Additional Use Regulations, and Chapter 29: Administration. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. Present for Petitioner: Rachel Boone,Dept of Community Services. Overview: • Goals of Sign Ordinance Amendment: o More User Friendly o Easier for laymen to understand without having to hire a professional o Promote Fairness in applying the Ordinance to all types of businesses o Streamline the process • Process to review&amend started at least 9 months ago • Dept has worked closely with the Carmel Chamber of Commerce to address business concerns • Final Draft being presented this evening for review and approval with Chamber's input • Both Chamber&Dept are to agree on draft before sending to Council • • Specific Chapters will no longer be referenced, only the"Sign Ordinance"will be referenced rill Biggest change to Chapters is to allow the Dept administrative a roval for si n buildings; new buildings would still have to go thru the process as they do currenntly a on existing • If the Director feels a sign plan does not fit general forwarded to a Committee with final approval capability elines of Carmel, the application can be • If a petitioner prefers Committee review as opposed to Department, that option is available • The Fees are proposed for reduction Commission Members Comments/Questions: • Are multiple real estate signs allowed at intersections? (No, currently prohibited & will still be prohibited—it is a matter of enforcement) • Anything in the Amendment that provides for a sunset, or return for re-evaluation no horizon unless there is public outcry? (No—if something is omitted, it can be addressed in a"Patch") • Would it make sense to review in one year for possible changes? (Yes, it could be done) Committee Report, Steve Stromquist: • Kudos to Rachel Boone for an outstanding job • Recap of timeline for review of Sign Ordinance • Unanimous favorable vote from Committee to Plan Commission Motion: "Woody"Rider to forward Docket No. 11090004 OA: Sign Ordinance Update, to City Council with a positive recommendation, seconded by Alan Potasnik, Approved 10-0 as Woody Rider requested that an updated version of the Sign Ordinance Amendment be sent to all Council members asap. 12 August 21,2012 Carmcl Plan Commission Meeting 3. 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 Carmel Plan Commission. Present for Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling, DOCS;Brad Johnson, Ground Rules, Inc. Overview: • Policies & Objectives updated • Approaching 5-year mark of work on C-3 Plan • Discrepancies are being stream-lined&language will reflect those changes • Street connectivity: Committee felt this topic warranted its own objectives—Objective 1.5 has been added to accomplish this • North Central policies &objectives: Objective 1.1 now reads more clearly • Transportation.Plan Cross Section: Language has been added to acknowledge the fact that green infrastructure is a possibility and a solution, and that the Dept would be willing to entertain or review within the right-of-way—hence a sub-section has been added under Street Features titled Green Infrastructure and acknowledges rain gardens,permeable pavers, any number of solutions that might be possible within the right-of-way • Collector Streets are typically two lanes;previously read as four lanes&will be changed; same green infrastructure language will be added to this page under Street Features • Parkway Collector Streets: Green Infrastructure has also been added to the street features & removed the mention of on-street parking as a secondary priority because that cross section states that on-street parking is not permitted;however,it is included as a traffic management option • Local Street Cross Section: Three,previously residential street classifications have never been demarcated or differentiated on a map, and those are being renamed to "local street'in recognition that it could be applied in commercial settings as well as residential; the 42-foot cross section has been further clarified as to where it is appropriate; green infrastructure option has been added • No changes to the Thoroughfare Plan Map other than better delineation in some classifications • Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Map: Off-street trails not yet built will be denoted with a"dash"line to indicate where the trails will exist • The old Cherry Tree Road configuration has been deleted, since this area is now a developed subdivision • Instead of showing a bicycle lane along Michigan Road where the City has no jurisdiction, the proposal provides for moving the bicycle lane over to Commerce Drive, immediately east of Michigan Road Committee Report, Steve Stromquist: • Committee reviewed up-dated Transportation Plan, including street classifications,policies, objectives, and maps • Discussed Transportation&Text • Discussed Definitions,Objectives, Classifications, Thoroughfare Plan,Maps, Bicycle Plan& Maps • Kudos to Adrienne Keeling for Defining the Changes 13 August 21,2012 Carmel Plan Commission Mccting • The Committee voted 4-0 unanimous to recommend approval to the Plan Commission Commission Members' Comments/Questions: • Regarding Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Map,should there be distinction shown between existing and future side paths? Adrienne Keeling,response: There is a trail inventory which also includes the side paths;however,side paths are installed so frequently,it would be difficult to keep current on the map in terns of amendments. There are fewer off-street trails proposed and it would be easier to keep updated on existing versus proposed Motion: Kevin"Woody"Rider to forward Docket No. 12060010 CPA,Transportation Plan Update to the City Council with a favorable recommendation;seconded by Steve Lawson,approved 10-0 J. New Business (None) K. Adjournment Q 9:20 PM. Jay Dorman,President 7Ra na Hancock,georetuy 14