The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCorrespondence Conn, Angelina V From: John Molitor [jmolitor @prodigy.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 6:48 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: Re: Z-571-13 rezone Attachments: Z-571-13 As Amended redline blueline.doc.doc Wow! This creates all sorts of issues! In my opinion, there are at least two major concerns here: (1) The Council does NOT have the power to unilaterally amend a proposed rezoning (unless its a PUD district ordinance). Under IC 36-7-4-608, the Council is supposed to either adopt or reject a proposed rezoning; it can make amendments only when it is considering a proposed text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, under IC 36-7-4-607. However, I would note that a recent case indicated that the owners of a parcel up for rezoning may have the power to amend their own proposal (say, from R-2 to R-1) when they are the ones .who are petitioning for a rezoning. (2) Even if the Council did have the power to amend a simple rezoning proposal under IC 36-7-4-608, it would NOT have the power to add language requiring that a "design plan, project agreement, use,and all related matters (except for ADLS)" be approved by either the Redevelopment Commission or the Common Council, prior to building permits being issued. Under IC 36-7-4-1402, those sorts of approval powers can be delegated only to the Plan Commission -- or to the Plan Commission staff, or to a hearing examiner or committee of the Plan Commission. Substantively, the Council amendment has the effect of requiring that the affected properties go through two additional steps before they really can be considered to have the C-1 zoning classification -- approval of the Development Plan and virtually all project details by the Redevelopment Commission, and then yet another approval of the Development Plan and virtually all project details by the Council itself. As indicated above, this process effectively divests the Plan Commission of its exclusive powers in respect to Development Plan approvals. Consequently, I don't know that there is any good way to proceed from here. I wouldn't recommend that we ask the Plan Commission to ratify the Council's "amendment", because I think it violates state law (besides impinging on the statutory authority of the Plan Commission itself). If I were asked to craft a way to make this legislative act enforceable (despite the above concerns), I might suggest that we treat it all as a "Commitment" that was allowed to be made by (or forced upon) the property owners under IC 36-7-4-1015. Without more information, though, I can't tell whether the owners are willing (or not) to agree to these "amendments" as a condition of the Council's approval of the rezoning. If that is what the City wants to accomplish here, then I would advise that we draft a Commitment containing these provisions and see if we can get the property owners to execute the Commitment and then have it recorded. Beyond that, if the City wants to do something here that actually complies with state law, then we should propose that the C-1 zoning classification be abolished and that the affected properties instead be rezoned into a PUD district. Under IC 36-7-4-1509 and 36-7-4-1511, the Council may reserve to itself certain approval powers (including the ability to hear appeals) regarding PUD's. John t S P E C K & A S S 0 C I A T E S L L C February 22, 2012 P. Christopher Kirles Vice President, Development Flaherty & Collins Properties cc: David Flaherty Les Olds, Cannel Redevelopment Commission Dan Moriarity and Randy Schumacher, CSO Paul Moore, AECOM Robert Gibbs, Gibbs Planning David Lach, Cripe A+E Dear Chris: It was a pleasure meeting with you and David Flaherty during our planning workshop a few weeks ago. In response to your email, and as a part of our designated study area planning effort, I wanted to share with you this proposal for the Party Time site. As discussed at the workshop and subsequently with the City, both of your current plans present strong urbanism and demonstrate a good understanding of the City's goals for the site. We agreed that the version with structured parking results in a superior site design but requires a burdensome additional investment that seems too large to be justified by its benefits. As suggested by Bob Gibbs at the workshop,we have investigated how some of the advantages of the structured version could be preserved in a version that relies on only surface parking. This proposal, shown on the next page, reintroduces a central mews that begins on Range Line Road, cascades down into the heart of the block, and terminates on a community pool, with its clubhouse located against Veteran's Way to the west. It includes the following features: • The parking is split between two lots that connect through a narrow road across the pedestrian mews. This road receives a speed table so that the mews axis is dominant across it. • For Wow Effect, the cascading stair includes a cascading fountain that leads to a linear water feature through the mews. This axis is punctuated with a central fountain(surrounded by benches) and terminates with a virtual (not actual) waterfall into the pool. This is clearly not necessary, but would be exciting. One way to build it cheaply and to code (I think) is to run water down a central channel that is only depressed 1" below the surrounding pavement, thus not presenting a walking or wheelchair impediment. BUILDINGS BLOCKS STREETS NEIGHBORHOODS DISTRICTS CORRIDORS TOWNS CITIES REGIONS 990 FLORIDA AVENUE NW WASHINGTON DC 20001 202.236.0140 JEFF @JEFFSPECK.COM S P E C K & A S S O C I A T E S L L C • Veterans Way and the street to the north are configured within a 60-foot right of way as follows: 5-8-7-10-10-7-8-5, with 5-foot sidewalks, 8-foot tree strips, 7- foot parking lanes, and 10-foot travel lanes. The City may want wider lanes but these are ideal. • As before, rowhouses face west but, in keeping with tradition, they do not stagger. They have stoops occupying a 6-foot setback. The clubhouse sits between two groups of seven rowhouses,with zero setback. It is imagined as a tall one-story building with a long gable facing east-west. • A pool is shown with both leisure and lap sections. A tot lot is placed in the northwest corner of the site, and could be supplemented by play equipment across the street. • As in my other work with CSO in Gramercy,the super-large main building is conceptually split into several smaller buildings by creating truly distinct elevations on different areas. It is clear from the elevation at right how ridiculously long this building will look if it isn't broken up in this way. I recommend a central "building" flanked by two other large buildings that reach to the corners. These would then be flanked by elevations conceptualized as repetitive rowhouses, with doors and stoops serving each lower unit. I am not proposing a change to the floor plans, but merely a breaking-up of the elevations. For this elevation fiction to work, each section must truly look like a different building. • The central building presents a symmetrical composition framing the entry cascade into the mews. As indicated in the section, I recommend that the hemicycle curve facing the mews continue to the full height of the building. • I have slightly expanded the location of on-street parking on the surrounding streets based on my understanding of current best practices. These may vary slightly from the Carmel standard but are similar to what we are proposing in my several Carmel projects,with City support. • This proposal makes use of a novel structure called a"lot-liner" apartment building,which places apartments atop a row of-garages, served by a central stair. As shown in this drawing,they are about 75 feet long, each containing a one- bedroom and a two-bedroom apartment atop 7 parking spaces. To the parking lot, this structure presents a garage with a building atop it. To the other side, it presents a two-story building with small unglazed windows downstairs and a welcoming entryway that leads to the stairs. Above, the apartments can receive large windows and also balconies facing the front. These upstairs apartments can also contain an additional bedroom in the roof, if desired. A typical (though different) lot-liner is shown on the next page. 4 BUILDINGS BLOCKS STREETS NEIGHBORHOODS DISTRICTS CORRIDORS TOWNS CITIES REGIONS 990 FLORIDA AVENUE NW WASHINGTON 00 20001 202.236.0140 JEFF @JEFFSPECK.COM S P E C K & A S S 0 C I A T E S L L C mil I II 11111_!_1 1bl 111111 (I 11 (fl►Iii_I-% � uh I . $ 0 4 0 t $ $ $ 0 0 4 4 FRONT ELEVATION r 1-- � l, c z " c SECOND FLOOR � � 1 I S , GROUND FLOOR A slightly larger version of the proposed lot-liners. In this scheme, each entry stair serves one one-bedroom unit and one two-bedroom unit. Plan by DPZ. This proposal, by my count,provides parking as follows: - Standard Lot Spaces: 152 -Lot-Liner Garage Spaces: 42 - Tandem Spaces: 93 - On-Street Spaces: 95 TOTAL SPACES: 382 This number represents a slight increase over the 354 spaces of the previous scheme, which gives me confidence that the revised plan does not sacrifice any yield in the name of urbanism. • I am very excited about the potential of the revised plan. Where do we go from here? This scheme will be included in the plan for Midtown. I am hopeful, given our current relationship, that CSO will be able to work skillfully with Flaherty and Collins to 5 BUILDINGS BLOCKS STREETS NEIGHBORHOODS DISTRICTS CORRIDORS TOWNS CITIES REGIONS 990 FLORIDA AVENUE NW WASHINGTON DC 20001 202.236.0140 JEFF@JEFFSPECK.COM S P E C K SE A S S 0 C I A T E S L L C detel ine how this revision meets its needs, and will feel comfortable reaching out to Speck& Associates for further input as the scheme is refined. I look forward to all of your reactions to this proposal. With best wishes, Jeff Speck. AICP CNU-A LEED-AP Honorary ASLA Attached via email:'peg of revised plan. 6 BUILDINGS BLOCKS STREETS NEIGHBORHOODS DISTRICTS CORRIDORS TOWNS CITIES REGIONS .990 FLORIDA AVENUE NW WASHINGTON DC 20001 202.236.0140 JEFF@aJEFFSPECK.COM