Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 09-18-12[1 City of Carmel CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 City Hall Council Chambers One Civic Square Carmel IN 46032 6:00 PM Members present: John Adams, Brad Grabow, Nick Kestner, Joshua Kirsh, Steve Lawson, Alan Potasnik, Kevin "Woody" Rider, Steve Stromquist, Ephraim Wilfong Members Absent: Jay Dorman, Sue Westenneier DOCS Staff Present: Director Michael Hollibaugh, Planning Administrator Angie Conn; Legal Counsel; John Molitor Also Present: Ramona Hancock, Plan Commission Secretary The minutes of the August 21, 2012 meeting were approved as submitted Legal Counsel Report, John Molitor: The Executive Committee met briefly prior to full Plan Commission meeting this evening. The Executive Committee has recommended making two minor changes in the Plan Commission Rules of Procedure. Article VII, Section 9, currently requires notices to be published in the Indianapolis Star. However, with changes in the newspaper business and State law, the only daily newspaper published in Hamilton County is the Noblesville Times. The Indianapolis Star does not publish in Hamilton County and does not conform to State law. Therefore, the Executive Committee has recommended to the full Plan Commission that notice requirements should be changed to require publication in the Noblesville Times rather than the Indianapolis Star. The second change in the Rules of Procedure has to do with members of the public testifying for or against a project at public hearings. Article VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure requires that they state both their name and address. The Executive Committee has discussed this and suggests that the address is not a necessity unless they would like to get notice of a lawsuit, and this could be done thru a sign -up with the DOCS Staff. The Executive Committee proposes that all that should be required from the public is their name and community, not a street address. The Board of Zoning Appeals also met and has already adopted these two minor changes to their Rules of Procedure. Note: The Plan Commission felt it was important to comply with State statute, but also make the point that the legislation is hardly achieving its intent; this needs to be fixed where the problem originated. Motion: Woody Rider to approve the two minor changes in the Plan Commission's Rules of Procedure, 1 Sept. 18, 2012 Cannel Plan Commission Meeting seconded by Brad Grabow, Approved 9 -0 Department Announcements, Angie Conn: Public Hearing Item 3, Old Town Neighborhood Rezone, will require a suspension of the Rules of Procedure due to Notice Signs not being posted on each individual lot. Also, regarding Highpointe on Meridian PUD, the City Council last evening approved the Rezone with amendments. The petitioner is here this evening to present those amendments; the Commission can either vote on the amendments this evening or next meeting to either approve or disapprove the amendments. H. Public Hearings 1. 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. Present for Petitioner: Craig Kunkle, 5921 North Olney, Indianapolis Overview: • Family has purchased property at 14127 N Gray Road & will preserve existing house • Petitioner plans to build & inhabit new home on the property • Petitioner proposes to divide the 1.58 acres into two lots • Petitioner will install connections for Carmel sanitary sewer & water • One lot is proposed to be 15,820 square feet for the existing house to remain • Balance of acreage creates the second lot which will be a 2- story, 5 -6,000 square foot home • New house will be located where a barn exists today • Wedgewood Builders will construct proposed home • Design calls for northern-most curb cut to remain; southern curb cut will be removed • Proposed plan provides for access to both lots thru shared drive • Neighbor to the north has requested adequate screening & petitioner has agreed to provide along north property line • Neighbor to the south, John & Mary Parish, have represented that they support this project • Request consideration of suspension of the Rules of Procedure No Public Remonstrance — Public Hearing Closed Dept Report, Angie Conn: • Petitioner has made progress with Engineering Dept concerns since the release of Dept Report • Proposal is a 2 -lot Primary Plat; petitioner will return for Secondary Plat approval • Dept is comfortable changing its recommendation to a suspension of the Rules of Procedure and a favorable vote this evening, subject to the petitioner addressing any remaining Engineering Dept comments Commission Members' Comments /Questions: • Urgency? — Not in favor of voting this evening • Would like Committee review with final approval at Committee 2 Sept. 18, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting Motion: Woody Rider, to forward Docket No. 12060012 PP, Kunkle Family Minor Subdivision, to the Subdivision Committee on October 2, 2012, with full authority for Committee to grant approval; seconded by John Adams, approved 9 -0 2. Docket No. 12070017 OA: Aramore PUD Ordinance Amendment. The applicant seeks approval to amend text and exhibits for PUD Ordinance Z- 495 -06. (Related to Ordinance is Z- 527 -09.) The site is located at 9801 Westfield Blvd. and is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Pittman Partners, Inc. Present for Petitioner: Steve Pittman, Pittman Partners, 12400 North Meridian Street, Carmel, Nick Churchill, also with Pittman Partners; Development Partners: Rex Barrett, Barrett & Stokely, Tom Marrianny, also with Barrett & Stokely. Architects of Record on this development are: Brent Davis with CSO, and Gary Nance Design. Overview: • Petitioner is requesting an amendment to the Aramore PUD that was approved in 2006 and amended in 2009 • Petitioner is requesting permission to build luxury apartment homes with resort-style amenities • Site consists of 21.46 acres • Site is bounded on the west by Westfield Blvd, 96th Street on the south, Haverstick to the east, and 99th Street on the north. • The proposed plan contemplates 12 units per acre • Previous concept plan approved in 2006 has 201 residential units; the frontage closest to Westfield Blvd has 131 townhouses; the back portion of the property has 70 "court- homes" • Current proposal has 250 units which actually decreases the density & intensity of use • The main bldg under the "Manor Area" will have parking beneath & promotes green space • The main bldg has three floors and two elevators • The development will have a two -story fitness center, common area meeting room/conference area and coffee bar where people can meet, with large veranda overlooking the swimming pool, significant walkways throughout, and connection to the Monon Trail thru Lenape Trace • The proposed plan comprises 11, 2 -story townhome bldgs — every unit will have its own garage • Some parcels have been sold off to adjacent neighbors to increase buffering • Current proposal is for an amendment of the PUD; petitioner would return for ADLS review • Height restrictions previously approved with the PUD will not be changed • Extension of Monon Trail to Lenape Trace Trail and thru the Aramore development will provide a vital connection for Chesterton Subdivision, Maple, Lincoln, and Kittrell General Comments, Favorable: • Pat Rice, Wild Cherry Corner Community, a community with individual, one -acre lots; community has worked with Steve Pittman — residents are supportive of the development and feel it would be very good for the area. • Adam Kampana, Chesterton Community, has met with Steve Pittman and feels the development is an excellent addition to the area with residual benefits; the residents fully support this project Organized Remonstrance/Unfavorable: None 3 Sept. 18, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting General Public Remonstrance/Unfavorable: • Peter Sole, Maple Drive, has also met with Steve Pittman. — has concerns with proposed development at the opening of Maple Drive which is a "U" shape with Lincoln & Maple, entering & exiting off 96th Street. Maple Drive area consists of 21 homes with over 16 children under the age of 15. Residents do not have amenities in their area to support the increased traffic this development will bring. Currently, traffic in the area includes test drives from the car dealership at 96th & Keystone, and people trying to get to the roundabout from 96th Street and traveling at high rates of speed. If Maple Drive is opened, would like same amenities the development will have with connections to Maple Drive neighborhood. Currently there are 75 to 100 — maybe even 150 cars a day through the neighborhood. Traffic will increase immensely — maybe even 1,000 vehicles per day with this development, and traffic will cut thru Maple Drive to get to 96th Street. It makes no sense for Maple to accept the traffic volumes that will be created by this development. Mr. Sole asks that the Committee consider changing the rendering to provide for the elimination of the Maple Drive opening. • Michelle Truex, west side of Westfield Boulevard, small neighborhood with llhomes. The current proposal is an improvement over the previous plan, but still too much density and too much traffic. Impact study done on the schools — Orchard Park — although this development would be in Forest Dale district. Where will the trails cross — at the roundabout? "We don't want this kind of density." Homes to the east of this property are not selling — maybe the higher density will. • Steve Laine, Walden Pond, agreed with all comments made by Michelle Truex regarding density. Mr. Laine is an avid bike rider and the proposed density will create a major traffic issue — it is already difficult to cross Westfield and get to the roundabout. The homes in Inglenook are $350,000 and not selling. We are looking at proposed apartments because the economy will not support the purchase of homes • Grant Pullin, 99th Street, asked about a traffic study, especially with the influx of 500 additional cars and no traffic light, although maybe another roundabout in the future. It is difficult to get out of one's driveway, let alone access the trail with a dog. Rebuttal, Steve Pittman: Regarding the road connection to Maple Drive, street connectivity has been Carmel's policy, and if Carmel requires the connection, that will be done. However, if Carmel does not require it, the connection will not be made. There would be instances where the connection would be beneficial; the petitioner will continue to work with the neighbors. Maybe one of the solutions is to find a way to slow the traffic. The development will probably bring very few children into the school system; the school system is made aware of all projects proposed, and no representative from the school has ever appeared to object. The current proposal decreases the density. Either neighborhood could have been a rental community — home ownership was not a requirement in the previous proposal. Dept Comments, Angie Conn: • Dept is generally in favor of this proposal • Public has brought up good items for discussion at Committee • Recommend further review at October 2nd Subdivision Committee Commission Members' Comments /Questions: • Agree with connectivity policy; however, in older neighborhoods with no sidewalks, there is an 4 Sept. 18, 2012 Cannel Plan Commission Meeting issue with increasing traffic • Kudos to petitioner for reducing the amount of footprint for this development • Good that there is no detention pond -great that there is more useable greenspace • Some of the traffic will be resolved when the roundabout goes in at 96th & Keystone • Request traffic study be brought to Committee • Concern regarding parking— people use garages for storage and park in the driveway and block sidewalks (Garage storage can be addressed in the covenants & restrictions) • Who is the target market for this product as opposed to the original plan? (Commuters out -of- state, seniors, executives on short-term business assignment) • With the increased number of bedrooms per unit, is it reasonable to assume that more families will be locating in this development? (Yes) • The traffic question and Maple Drive question will be discussed at Committee • The Thoroughfare Plan will be a guide for 96th Street & future improvements Steve Pittman noted that on the Thoroughfare Plan, 98th Street connects to Chesterton and 96th Street frontage would have a small business designation, with the three streets of Lincoln, Kittrell, & Maple Drive becoming cul -de -sacs. Docket No. 12070017 OA, Aramore PUD Ordinance Amendment was forwarded to the Subdivision Committee for further review on Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 6:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. 3. Docket No. 12080007 Z: Old Town Neighborhood Rezone. The applicant seeks approval to rezone 22 parcels from the B -1 /Business, B- 3/Business and B- 5/Business District Classifications within the Old Town District Overlay Zone, Character Sub - Area to the R- 3/Residence, R -4 /Residence and B -5 /Business District Classifications within the Old Town District Overlay Zone, Character Sub -Area. The properties are located along 1St Avenue NW, 1st Avenue NE, 2nd Avenue NE, 1St Street NE, 2nd Street NE and 5th Street NE. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services. Motion: Woody Rider to waive the Rules of Procedure for placement of signage on individual properties, and to hear this item this evening, seconded by John Adams, approved 9 -0. Present for Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling, Dept of Community Services. Overview: • Rezone proposed for properties located north of Main Street and on the east & west sides of Range Line Road • Proposal for rezone involves 22 parcels – 2 located on First Ave NW, the balance located east of Range Line Road along First Street NE, First Ave NE, Second Ave NE, and Fifth Street NE • 20 parcels are proposed for rezone from Business classification to Residential classification to match their surroundings • Remaining 2 parcels located at the corner of First Street NE and First Ave NE are already zoned Business classification B -1, but proposed for rezone to a different Business classification of B -5 in order to limit the types of businesses that could be adjacent to the neighborhood 5 Sept. 18, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting • Surprisingly few comments have been received by the Dept, but those have been positive • The Dept does not anticipate any legal, non - conforming uses based on the rezoning General Public Remonstrance /Favorable: • Kevin Lavelle, 621 First Avenue NE, thanked the Dept for bringing the rezone forward – Old Town residents feel that this is a very important step to take to limit commercial intrusion into a residential neighborhood in the Old Town District General Public Remonstrance/Unfavorable: • Gary McCarty, 120 First Ave NE whose property is proposed for rezone from B -1 to R -3; asked what would be gained by changing the zoning – is the system currently broken? Mr. McCarty does not agree with going so deep into the neighborhood —from a business perspective it does not make sense where there are not a lot of main thoroughfares. When Mr. McCarty & wife acquired the property in 1986, they were zoned B -1. There was an opportunity to purchase a piece of property elsewhere, but chose the Carmel property because of the B -1 classification. Updates made to the property would allow a young professional to live upstairs and have their practice on the main floor – perfect for B -1. Mr. McCarty has made up -dates to his property with current zoning of B -1 and permitted uses as a guideline for those up- dates. Mr. McCarty thought it would be better to leave his property as B -1 and make the demarcation line as the alley north of and adjacent to his property; north of the alley would have residential, R -3 zoning. Mr. McCarty was NOT in favor of the zoning being changed on his property. • John Compton, owner & operator of Compton Realty at 211 North Range Line; John Compton & wife also own 3 other properties within the Arts & Design District, one of which is 140 First Street NE, currently zoned B -1, and used as a rental to a business. Mr. Compton is a certified appraiser, has been in the real estate business for over 40 years, and has never heard of a "reverse" zoning. Mr. Compton strongly disagrees with rezoning his property to R -3 residential. Mr. Compton gave background on re- financing his property and because of the Business zoning, had to pay a higher interest rate and had a lower loan to value ratio. Who would compensate him for that? A commercial property is worth more and appraises for more than a residential property At First Street and Third Ave, the BZA recently approved a Special Use for a Day Care Center. Mr. Compton said he also owned a property at Third Street which is operated as a Day Care. There are several properties being used as commercial that do not show on the map. One of the lots on the map is residential zoning and has Never been used as a residence, only business. Mr. Compton did not understand how the City could "reverse zone" without compensation – that is termed "condemnation." Rebuttal, Adrienne Keeling: Dept struggled with the zoning of properties on the southern fringe and decided to err on the side of caution and the residential character of the area. The Committee might consider rezoning the properties Mr. Compton spoke about zoning to B -5 rather than R -3 – perhaps that would be a compromise. The Dept will take further comments & suggestions from the property owners, both in writing and in person Dept Comments, Angie Conn: • Recommend forwarding to Special Studies Committee for further review on Tuesday, October 6 Sept. 18, 2012 Cannel Plan Commission Meeting 2nd at 6:00 PM Commission Members' Comments: • If we were to leave either one of the properties being discussed as B -1, can we limit the uses on specific B -1 properties? Or, if it were R -3, could it be "grandfathered" in? This can be explored at Committee • If someone were running a business in a B -1 zone and it was switched to an R -3 zone, would they be subject to penalty? • If someone is running a business in an R -3 or R -2 zone, are they subject to penalty as well? Response, Adrienne Keeling: If someone is operating a business out of a residential property, perhaps a home occupation and previously legally established, they would be considered a legal non - conforming use and could keep their business in operation, even though the zoning had changed. However, there are triggers if that business were to cease to exist — one year under the Ordinance — they would need to come into compliance with the existing zoning. If someone is operating business that is not in compliance with our current zoning ordinance, they would not be in compliance regarding of the rezone and could be subject to penalties. • If someone wanted to live in the property and have a business /practice as well, changing from B- 1 to R -3 may cause difficulty, but if the zoning were B -1 and changed to B -5, wouldn't they still be able to have that use — live there and work there? (Yes, it is possible, but B -5 would not allow for a restaurant use) Adrienne Keeling pointed out that these properties would still remain under the Old Town Overlay — that will not change — only the underlying zoning would change. The Overlay extends east to the traffic light at the high school, and just past the Monon to the west • At Committee review, would encourage extra attention to the properties just north of First Street NE, particularly with an eye to the development of the PNC Bank, designated C -2 at the corner of Range Line and Main Street, and the other two parcels that comprise that city block, being careful not to do anything that would interfere with redevelopment of this block and makes a logical transition to residential that is farther north. Docket No. 12080007 Z, Old Town Neighborhood Rezone was referred to the Special Studies Committee for further review on Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 6:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall Note: Dept is to bring a listing to Committee of permitted uses for B -1 and B -5 Districts. Old Business 1. Docket No. 12030010 DP Amend/ADLS: The Centre, Part B -- Southeast Corner Retail Building (Walgreen's). The applicant seeks site plan & design approvals for a partial redevelopment of the site. The site is located at 1342 -1430 S. Range Line Road. It is zoned B- 7 Sept. 18, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting 3/Business, within the Carmel Dr. Rangeline Rd. Overlay Zone. Filed by Paul Reis of Krieg Devault, for Kite Realty Co. Present for Petitioner: Paul Reis, Krieg Devault, 12800 North Meridian, Carmel; Ashley Biddel, project manager, Kite Realty & developer of The Centre. Overview: • Proposed Walgreens to be constructed where Old National Bank is currently • New bank bldg will be constructed to the west of the site • Elevation plans have been submitted • Design meets the needs of the tenant as well as addresses concerns of the Dept regarding architecture of the bldg • Committee reviewed the development & recommended approval by a 4 -0 vote Committee Report, Steve Stromquist: • Petitioner tabled a number of times to revise the plan & address concerns • Property is difficult for ingress /egress & traffic flow • Petitioner addressed most all concerns • Petitioner was asked to include a main entrance at the corner of Range Line & 116th Street, and this was just not possible for their design • Petitioner did an outstanding job in working with the Committee • Committee voted a 4 -0 favorable recommendation Commission Members' Questions /Comments: • Loading Dock Door would be a prominent feature for eastbound traffic on 116th – can the material be changed or is there room for a screen wall that would project out maybe 10 or 15 feet from the west elevation? • Perhaps carry on the colors of the bldg with the door Paul Reis responded that the loading area is completely enclosed in the bldg – the doors will be closed except for when the trucks go in and out. The bank bldg will pretty much hide/screen the loading area • Dumpster location? (Inside the bldg, accessed from the loading dock) • Outside storage or Vending? (No, prohibited under Range Line Rd Overlay Ordinance—storage must occur inside the bldg or inside an accessory bldg—no outside storage allowed) • What type of truck will be coming into the loading dock? (typical size is a box truck, not large semi - trailer trucks) Ashley Biddel stated that painting the doors a dark color would make them blend with the bldg; it is also less of a maintenance concern to keep them a solid color and factory finished The sign package is not a part of this petition; otherwise, all other components of The Centre redevelopment project, as well as the landscape plan, have been approved. Motion: Woody Rider to approve Docket No. 12030010 DP Amend/ADLS, The Centre, Part B – Southeast Corner Retail Building ( Walgreens) seconded by John Adams, Approved 9 -0 8 Sept. 18, 2012 Cannel Plan Commission Meeting 2. Docket No. 12050014 DP /ADLS: Olive Garden Restaurant. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a restaurant with parking area. 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 Digagne, and Art McIntosh, Darden Restaurant, Inc. Overview: • Approval being requested for Site Plan & Design • Proposed Olive Garden Restaurant is 7700 square feet, 245 seating capacity, with 142 parking spaces • Proposal has been reviewed by Subdivision Committee and DOCS Staff regarding architectural revisions • Changes include: speed bump associated with pedestrian crossing, guard rail at sidewalk in the front, and changes made to bldg elevations Art McIntosh, Design Manager for Darden Restaurants: • Changes to the bldg: o Added stone cap to service yard /dumpster wall o Extended elevation of entry tower two feet higher to become a prominent feature o Brick "clinkers" have been doubled in number and grouped in clusters o Closed shutters were added to the remaining round top features o Goose -neck lighting removed from the signage o Trellis and small round top feature removed from back elevation and added three large, shuttered round top features matching those shown on the left side —south elevation o Small section of wall material provided for display of what the bldg will look like Committee Report, Brad Grabow: • Committee reviewed extensively • A lot of discussion concerning architecture • Changes from review discussion included: o Stained or painted rough cedar, wooden guard rails around the retention pond to the front of the property o Raising the height of the tower to provide an architectural feature that better conforms with the Italianate requirement of the Overlay o Adding arches on the rear elevation o Number of "clinkers" o Stone cap on the Dumpster Wall o Addition of two pedestrian crossing traffic "humps" in the rear parking lot • This development is the first in the Michigan Road corridor to come in with an Italianate design • The Committee wanted to ensure that balance, proportion, and symmetry were achieved Dept Comments, Angie Conn: • Many hours were spent in Committee review • Dept is supportive of signage 9 Sept. 18, 2012 Cannel Plan Commission Meeting • Architecture is a blend of "Tuscan farm house meets Italianate" and is better than when first submitted • Remaining item is to seek a variance approval from BZA for percentage of EIFS or stucco • Dept will be generally in favor of the variance request • Dept recommends favorable consideration of this petition Ephraim Wilfong — dissenting Committee vote for Olive Garden, explained his reasons for voting in opposition. Not convinced that what is presented will be a good representation of Italianate. There were a number of examples that were reviewed & compared at Committee; concern is that other people could view this and try to get by with a lesser Italianate design. Motion: Brad Grabow to approve Docket No. 12050014 DP /ADLS, Olive Garden Restaurant, seconded by John Adams, Approved 8 in favor, 1 Opposed (Wilfong) Zero Abstaining. 3. Docket No. 12070021 OA: Carmel Dr -Range Line Road 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 Carmel Department of Community Services. Present for Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling, Dept of Community Services Overview: • Sunset Amendment is out of Special Studies Committee with a favorable recommendation • Discussion involved topics of comer entries and 2 -story requirements • Recommendation from Committee: o Comer Entrance Requirement, Section 23F.0605 is to be eliminated o Without agreement regarding the 2 -story requirement, & the need for Council to have 90 days to review this Amendment prior to the end of the year, the Committee also recommends that the Sunset be amended for another year, until 2013, in absence of the 2 -story requirement Committee Report, Steve Stromquist: • There are many benefits to keeping this Overlay Sunset Amendment • Two concerns discussed were: o Comer Entrances o 2 -story requirement • In order for Council to have a full 90 -day review period, the Committee recommended an extension to 12/31/2013 Dept Comments, Angie Conn: • Recommend forwarding to Council with a positive recommendation Commission Members' Comments /Questions: • Corner entrances are not always close & convenient for handicap patrons & parking • Sidewalk width agreed at 12 feet — what to do where it is existing 8 feet? 10 Sept. 18, 2012 Cannel Plan Commission Meeting • Do we not want to stay consistent? • With outdoor seating in some areas, this may work itself out — it is easier to have the width now than after the buildings are built Response, Adrienne Keeling: Existing sidewalk width at Fineberg bldg is 10 feet; 12 foot requirement comes from the Urban Commercial Sidewalk Classification in C -3 Plan, and it did not exist when the Range Line Road Overlay was adopted. Motion: Woody Rider to forward Docket No. 12070021 OA, Carmel Drive -Range Line Road Overlay Sunset Amendment to City Council with a positive recommendation, seconded by Alan Potasnik, Approved 9 -0. 4. Docket No. 12010005 OA: Patch Ordinance IX, As Amended by City Council, Ordinance Z- 558 -12. 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 Ordinance Chapter 2: Compliance with the Regulations, Chapter 3: Definitions, Chapter 5: S-1/Residence District, Chapter 6: S -2 /Residence District, Chapter 7: R- 1 /Residence District, Chapter 8: R -2 /Residence District, Chapter 9: R -3 /Residence District, Chapter 10: R -4 /Residence District, Chapter 20A: I -1 /Industrial District, Chapter 20G: Old Meridian District, Chapter 21: Special Uses & Special Exceptions, Chapter 23B: US Highway 31 Corridor Overlay Zone, Chapter 23C: US Highway 421 — Michigan Road Corridor Overlay Zone, Chapter 23F: Carmel Drive — Range Line Road Overlay Zone, Chapter 24: Development Plan and Architectural Design, Exterior Lighting, Landscaping & Signage Regulations, Chapter 25: Additional Use Regulations, Chapter 26: Additional Height, Yard, Lot Area and Buffering Regulations, Chapter 31: General Provisions and Appendix A: Schedule of Uses. 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: • Patch Ordinance was reviewed & amended by City Council on August 20, 2012 • Patch Ordinance IX Amendments were sent to Subdivision Committee for review • Two items were focused upon at Subdivision: o Subdivision Waivers • Lots of Discussion re Indiana Code & history of subdivision waivers approved over the past few years • Committee recommended that the section be changed to mirror Indiana Code Section 36 -7 -4 -702 • The 35% language and the 10% modification language that was enacted by City Council is problematic because in instances of subdivision waivers, there is no BZA process for varying from the Subdivision Control Ordinance; the only alternative is to either grant a waiver — if no waiver is granted, you are left with a rezone • The Committee felt that the State Statute rules in terms of Plan Commission action and not an action of City Council 1I Sept. 18, 2012 Cannel Plan Commission Meeting o Commitments • The Council amended the Ordinance to state that all Commitments must be in writing and recordable form and made available to all Commissioners prior to a final vote; however, the Plan Commission often receives commitments during meetings and it is problematic to delay the final vote until those commitments are put in writing • Rather, the Subdivision Committee recommends the following language: "All necessary subsequent approvals, including but not limited to development plans, plats, and improvement location permits will be withheld pending receipt of a recorded commitment. Failure to return a recorded commitment within 90 days shall nullify the Commission's approval." This puts the time clock on the petitioner to get the commitments recorded and return to DOCS — it does not mean the petitioner must wait 90 days, but that the Dept can take action within that 90 -day period. • Formal recommendation for items coming out of Council and reviewed by the Plan Commission — the Plan Commission would either approve or disapprove the Amendment. If the Commission agrees with the recommendations of the Subdivision Committee, a disapproval of the Council's Amendments would be returned to City Council Subdivision Committee Report, Brad Grabow: Regarding the waiver language, State Statute does not make a provision for amendments — it is either a waiver or not. The Committee had a list of the history of waivers granted to the Subdivision Control Ordinance dating back to 2004. The Committee concluded that this is not a case of waivers being granted to the point where we are diluting the Subdivision Control Ordinance. Unfortunately, we did not hear from the Council to educate us on what the intent was. Therefore, the Committee proposed to substitute the language in the State Statute for the original modification. The substitution does not preclude us from a case -by -case waiver tolerance. To go from 35% down to 10% is as good as closing the door on the waivers; and there did not seem to be cause to take that drastic approach. The Subdivision Committee proposed suggested language that would be substituted for the Amended form that was returned by Council. It was clear that the Council was addressing the petitioner's failure to record commitments as they are made and enacted. The enforcement power is proposed in the amendatory language that would allow the Dept to withhold development plans, plats, improvement location permits, etc. until evidence is provided of the recording of commitments, properly worded and in full force and effect. Dept Comments, Angie Conn: • Dept recommends disapproval of the Council amendment • Dept recommends returning the Amendment to Council with the Subdivision Committee's recommendations Motion: Alan Potasnik to disapprove the City Council's Amendment to Docket No. 12010005 OA, Patch Ordinance IX, as Amended by City Council, Ordinance Z- 558 -12, and to approve the Committee's recommended changes to Docket No. 12010005 OA, Patch Ordinance IX, and return it to City Council, seconded by Joshua Kirsh, Approved 9 -0 J. New Business 12 Sept. 18, 2012 Cannel Plan Commission Meeting Highpointe on Meridian PUD, Z- 559 -12 (Docket No. 11120027 Z) application for rezone of 27 acres to PUD /Planned Unit Development for commercial, office, and residential uses, located at the southwest corner of 136th Street and Illinois Street. Filed by Paul Reis of Krieg DeVault for Frank Regan, owner. Present for Petitioner: Paul Reis, attorney, Krieg DeVault, 12800 North Meridian Street, Suite 300, Carmel Overview: • Extensive amount of time spent with City Councilors, development team & neighbors • Changes made to the proposed PUD • Major Changes: o Section 2.3, Zoning Waivers – number of sections expanded that cannot be waived by the Plan Commission, subject to the 35% waiver currently in effect o At request of City Council, petitioner also stated that if one of the other sections that is allowed to have a waiver exceeds 10 %, it would go to the City Council for approval o Uses in 3.1: The possibility of any housing connected with a university was deleted o Section 3.4: Hours of Operation of certain uses were specified, since there was concern that there would be 24 -hour operations in use o Definition of bldg height was added – No building anywhere in this development will exceed 45 feet – if there is a building within 200 feet which can only be a commercial bldg or multi- family senior living, or Continuing Care Community, those will not exceed two stories or 35 feet o Exact minimum side & rear yards were specified to account for buffering areas which are 50 feet of landscape buffer and 56 feet of dry detention o No office bldg will be closer than 300 feet to the adjacent residential district o Building Charactefwas defined – an Exhibit C was included which shows & specifies that bldgs will match specific styles – also spelled out in Section 5.9 o Section 6, Landscaping: There were two different options – those options are now gone and the existing vegetation will be maintained. If there are gaps in the vegetation, the petitioner will plant Norway Green Spruce trees at an increased height from 6 to 8 feet; there are also certain areas where a legal drain must be installed, and there cannot be any vegetation or trees in those areas. The Ordinance specifies that petitioner will contact adjacent property owner and plant trees on their lots— plantings to be per the approval of the Director of the Dept of Community Services & the Urban Forester; the maintenance of the areas (page 14) is also specified regarding planting & removal of diseased & dead trees & replacement/substitute o Bicycle Parking was increased to equal one -half of the total units in the Community that do not have dedicated garages; wherever possible, outdoor bicycle parking will be sheltered o Section 10: Commercial delivery & trash pick -up was tweaked to between 8 AM and 5:00 PM Monday thru Friday, and 10 AM to 3 PM on Saturday. • Council voted a favorable 6 -1 last evening • Petitioner is asking for Plan Commission approval of the Council's changes to the PUD Ordinance 13 Sept. 18, 2012 Cannel Plan Commission Meeting Commission Members' Comments /Questions: • Two main concerns in meetings with the neighbors were height, and tightening of the language or wording in the PUD • Landscaping approved by Plan Commission? (Each piece of the development will return for specific landscape plan showing species to be reviewed by the Urban Forest and Staff, subject to approval of the Plan Commission) • There does not seem to be any point in voting on this — if everyone votes no, what will happen? (It goes back to the City Council and they will re- affirm it) Legal Counsel Comments, John Molitor: Council approved the rezone of the property to a PUD; Council has recommended various changes in the PUD Ordinance which are subject to review by the Plan Commission. Any objections or disagreements may be sent back to the Council and they would have 45 days to consider those. Motion: Woody Rider to agree with Council Amendments regarding Highpointe on Meridian PUD, Z- 559-12, 5 in favor, 4 opposed (Adams, Potasnik, Stromquist, Kestner) Motion Failed. Highpointe on Meridian PUD will remain at Plan Commission for 45 days. If no action is taken within those 45 days, the City Council Amendments will automatically take effect. There were additional comments from Commission members about the process and not having time to review the amendments made by Council. K. Adjournment at 8:25 PM ona Hancock, Secretary teve Stromquis Presid - t pro tem 14