Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 9-18-12 ,c4 cRs �� `tiyin ' 3 City of C /NOIANp 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 Westermeier 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 Carmel 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 Carmel 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 Character was 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 Carmel 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 Steve Stromquist, President pro tem Ramona Hancock, Secretary 14