[2. Docket No. PZ-2024-00221 PUD: Jackson's Grant Village - Phase II.]
[00:00:16]
>>> GOOD EVENING, WELCOME TO THE CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MEETING, TUESDAY, 2025 BUT TONIGHT WE HAVE ONE ITEM ON OUR DOCKET WHICH IS 2024-0 GRANT VILLAGE, PHASE 2. THE APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL TO REZONE A RESIDENTIAL LOT FOR A NEW TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT TO BE INCORPORATED BY BOTH DESIGN AND LAYOUT INTO THE SURROUNDING JACKSON'S PUD. THE 1.6 75 LOCATED AT CURRENTLY ZONED AS TWO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND IS WITHIN THE WEST 116TH STREET OVERLAY. ON BEHALF OF MCKENZIE.
COMMISSIONER. >> FRANKENBERGER. I HAVE GOT A HANDOUT I CAN USE. SO. SOMEBODY TOLD ME THE PURDUE GAME STARTS AT 7:00 SO I DON'T KNOW HOW --
>> FROM WHAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD THE DOCUMENT VIEWER IS NOT WORKING. PETITIONER, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE PROCEED? WOULD YOU WANT TO WAIT A MINUTE AND SEE IF THEY CAN GET IT GOING?
>> LET FROM THE END OF THE PRESENTATION BACK TO THE FRONT. AND THE AND DOESN'T REQUIRE -- WE PROVIDED THAT PLAN AT YOUR MEETING, STAFF REVIEWED AND THEIR STAFF REPORT INDICATES THEY ARE RECOMMENDING FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OR THE BOARD COUNCIL WITH APPROVAL. THE HANDOUT THAT I JUST PROVIDED WAS A SINGLE ASKED FOR. IS THERE ONE MORE COPY? DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT, RACHEL? I DON'T, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU HAD IT.
AND THE RECOMMENDATION WAS TO MODIFY THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH SO THAT WE WERE INTRODUCING THE NUMBER OF PLANTINGS.
THEM INTO THE TREE PRESERVATION CLOSER TO 116TH, WE AGREED TO THAT. LUNCH AND YOU DON'T SEE ON THE SINGLE PAGES AND PARAGRAPHS WOULD BE THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, WE ARE PROPOSING TO DELETE THAT LAST SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH B WHICH STARTS WITH AND ALL OTHER
[00:05:06]
SO WE WILL JUST NEED TO WORK AROUND THAT TO PROVIDE ONE CONNECTION OF A SIDEWALK AND THEN THEY WANTED TO WORK THROUGH SOME KINKS IN THE SIDEWALK CONNECTIVITY HERE AS WELL AS RIGHT HERE TO THE PARKING LOT AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM ON THOSE TWO MATTERS. IN ADVANCE OF COMING BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE LIKELY SOMETIME , JULY, AUGUST, DEPENDING ON HOW QUICKLY THEY CAN PREPARE PLANS AND IN THE EVENT THE COUNCIL ADOPTS THE REZONING REQUEST. WITH THAT I WILL CONCLUDE , AT THE CONCLUSION OF YOUR LIBERATION THIS EVENING, WE ASKED THE COMMITTEE CONSIDER MAKING RECOMMENDATION. THE MOTION WAS MADE TO ALLOW THE COMMITTEE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION TO COMING BACK TO A SUBSEQUENT MEETING OF THE FULL 10 COMMISSION IN FEBRUARY SO WE WOULD LIKE THOSE EXTRA TWO WEEKS IN THE EVENT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS COMFORTABLE TO ADVANCE THEIR REQUEST ON TO COUNSEL REVIEW.>> THANK YOU, JOHN. DEPARTMENT, THANK YOU. RACHEL WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SERVICES , JUST TO GO OVER A FEW OTHER DETAILS OF THE PROJECT, DEAR FILLING IN THIS PARTNER WITH 12 TOWNHOMES. THE SIX TOWNHOMES THAT ARE THE SOUTHERNMOST, 75 THROUGH 80 , THOSE ARE REORIENTED TO THE SOUTH TOWARD 116TH STREET WHICH PROVIDED FRONTS TO FACE 116TH STREET SO WE WERE HAPPY TO SEE THAT CHANGE. THE DESIGN OF THE TOWNHOMES WILL GO OFF OF DEVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGNS FOR THE REST OF THE JACKSON'S GRANT VILLAGE TOWNHOMES SURROUNDING THE REST OF THIS PARCEL. SO THEY WILL NOT BE COMING BACK TO US FOR AN ADOS PETITION BECAUSE THEY WILL HEAR TO THE PREVIOUS APPROVED ADOS APPROVAL FOR THE DESIGN OF THE OTHER TOWNHOMES.
THEY WILL STILL HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE ARCHITECTURAL ANTI-MONOTONY CODES THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THE EXISTING JACKSON'S GRANT VILLAGE PUD . THAT EXHIBIT IS I THINK EXHIBIT E IN THE ORIGINAL PUD, IT WILL NOW BE EXHIBIT D IN THIS NEW PUD AND THE PHASE 2 JUST AS A REFERENCE SO IT WILL BE EASILY RIGHT THERE SO WE CAN REVIEW IT AND WE COME IN FOR THEIR BUILDING PERMIT FOR THAT IF EVERYTHING IS FOR. JOHN TALKED ABOUT THE PLANTINGS ON 116 STREET IN THE ABOVE YARD, THAT WAS REALLY THE MAJOR OUTSTANDING ITEM THAT WE HAD. INSTEAD OF REDUCING THE AMOUNT BY HALF WHICH WAS THEIR ORIGINAL PROPOSAL , WE TALKED ABOUT IT AND THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE THOSE PLANTINGS AND RELOCATE THEM, PUT THEM INTO THE TREE PRESERVATION AREA TO THE EAST WHICH I THINK WOULD BE HELPFUL AND BENEFICIAL TO MAKE THAT FILLED BACK IN BETTER WITH ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS AND THEN WE WOULD NOT BE SHORTED ANY PLANTINGS. SO, I THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD COMPROMISE AND ALSO AS HE WAS MENTIONING ABOUT THE SIDEWALKS, THIS IS STILL A CONCEPT PLAN ALTHOUGH IT IS VERY, VERY CLOSE TO BEING EXACTLY , YOU KNOW, WE JUST NEED A FULL CIVIL SUCH THAT SHOWS IT ALL EXACTLY DRAWN OUT BUT THIS IS STILL A CONCEPT PLAN AND SO THERE IS THE ABILITY TO MOVE SIDEWALKS AROUND AND TRY TO GET THINGS TO LINE UP A LITTLE BIT BETTER. SO WE WILL KEEP WORKING ON THAT AND HE IS EXACTLY RIGHT, WE JUST WANTED THEM TO KNOW THAT AND HEAR IT AND LET IT BE ON THE RECORD THAT WE WILL ASK FOR THAT WHEN THEY COME BACK FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN. SO WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT, WE DO RECOMMEND THAT YOU SEND IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL TONIGHT WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. THANK
YOU. >> THANK YOU, DEPARTMENT. FELLOW
COMMISSIONERS. >> IS THERE ANY ITEM THAT, WHEN IT IS TIME TO MAKE THE MOTION, IS THERE ANY ITEM THAT WOULD BE CONDITIONED UPON OR DEPENDENT UPON? SO THE MOTION --
>> NO. WELL, WITH THE CHANGES THAT JOHN PRESENTED TO US
TONIGHT, THOSE LANGUAGE CHANGES. >> AND THERE IS NOTHING ELSE?
>> NO OTHER ISSUES. >> ALL RIGHT, THANKS.
>> I APPRECIATE THE LANGUAGE ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF HALF ALONG 16TH STREET. THAT WAS A GOOD CHANGE. I THINK THERE , IT SEEMS
[00:10:03]
LIKE THERE IS STILL QUITE A BIT OF GRAY AREA WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE, RIGHT? IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION ON HOW MANY TREES MIGHT FILL IN THE AREA? OR CAN YOU PROVIDE SOMESORT OF COMMITMENT? >> IT IS A TYPE D BUFFER SO THERE IS THE NUMBER , THE PROJECT OX RESPONSE, I THINK THERE WERE EIGHT SHADE TREES, THREE OR FOUR ORNAMENTAL TREES AND 55 SHRUBS. THAT WOULD BE THE STANDARD AND IN FRONT OF THOSE BUILDINGS YOU WILL HAVE BUILDING BASED LANDSCAPING LIKE FOUNDATION PLANTINGS AND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT SIDEWALK, NOT THE PAST ON 116TH STREET BUT THERE WILL ALSO BE MORE PLANTINGS AND THE BACKSTOP IS THE URBAN FORRESTER, THE PROVISION YOU SEE IN THERE IS THAT WE MAY, INSTEAD OF REDUCING IT BY HALF WE ARE PROVIDING EVERYTHING BUT WHATEVER WE DON'T USE IN FRONT OF THE BUILDINGS, SUBJECTTO FORRESTER'S APPROVAL, GOES INTO THAT SPACE. AND STAFF WAS COMFORTABLE WITH THAT CONDITION BECAUSE UNTIL WE ENGINEER IT WE WANT TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT LAYOUT IS AND THERE IS A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT CURRENTLY WORKING ON IT , LARRY HAMM, WHO HAS DONE THE OTHER DESIGN FOR GRANT PARK VILLAGE, IS LAYING THAT OUT FOR THE DEVELOPER TO SHOW WHAT THE -- WHAT HE THINKS MAKES SENSE IN TERMS OF SPACING ALONG THAT FRONTAGE.
>> ADAM, IF I COULD JUST GET GOING ON THAT, JUST WHEN YOU COMBINE THE BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS AND THE BUILDING FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS, IT JUST ADDS UP TO BE QUITE A FEW NUMBER OF TREES AND SHRUBS AND THE ORNAMENTAL TREES AS WELL. AND THEN THERE IS THE RECOMMENDED SPACING FOR EACH OF THOSE THINGS AND IT WILL LOOK LIKE A FOREST IN FRONT OF THOSE HOUSES, WHICH ISN'T EXACTLY WHAT WE WANTED. IF WE PLANTED EVERYTHING IN THAT SMALL AREA, THEN THEY WOULDN'T HAVE ENOUGH ROOM TO GROW AND IT WOULD BE BETTER IF WE COULD SPACE IT OUT. SO. THAT IS WHY.
>> I GUESS A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION, IF I MAY. WITH THE , I WILL SAY THE SHIFT OF SOME OF THE LANDSCAPING TO THE TREE PRESERVATION AREA, THAT TO ME , IT LOOKS FAIRLY DENSE RIGHT NOW.
DOES THE PETITIONER WORK WITH URBAN FORRESTER TO CLEAR OUT SOME OF THE INVASIVE STUFF SO THAT THERE IS ROOM FOR THOSE
THINGS TO FLOURISH? >> YES. THERE IS ROOM BECAUSE
SOME OF THE EDGES HAVE BEEN -- >> UNPRESERVED?
>> NOT PRESERVED AS WELL AS THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN, MAYBE. AND WITH THE WAY THAT THESE TOWNHOMES ARE BEING MOVED OVER CLOSER INTO THAT AREA, THERE'S GOING TO BE ROOM TO FIND STUFF BACK SO THEY WILL WORK WITH DARREN TO MAKE SURE THAT GOES BACK TO THE WAY IT WAS LOOKING.
>> AND THE PLAN COMMISSION, WHEN WE COME BACK , WELL THERE IS AN 80 LS, THERE IS STILL BUILDING PLANNING. THE PLAN THAT WE ULTIMATELY BRING BACK TO THE PLAN COMMISSION WILL HAVE , BE BETTER REVIEWED BY THE FOUR STRAND PART OF THE PUBLIC
HEARING IN YOUR REVIEW. >> I GET THAT. I GUESS WE ARE TASKED WITH TRYING TO SAY YES OR NO WITH THE SKETCH WE HAVE TODAY AND I GUESS WHAT I LOOK AT IS ALONG THE 75 THROUGH 80, THERE IS NO GREEN CIRCLES OR SHRUBS THAT LOOKS LIKE TREES. OKAY, WHAT IS IT GOING TO LOOK LIKE? SO WE ARE TRYING TO SAY YES OR NO BASED ON A CONCEPT AND THEN, THE DIALOGUE IS HELPFUL. THE OTHER THING I THINK OF, THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF EVERGREEN TREES THERE TODAY ALONG THE AND HIM FRONTAGE. ANY CHANCE THOSE
SURVIVE OR ARE CLEARED OUT? >> THERE IN THE LOCATION WHERE THE BUILDINGS ARE PROMOTED. THEY SET BACK FAR ENOUGH RIGHT AWAY.
I'M ALL DONE. >> JUST SOME QUICK POINTS TO SOME OF THE NEW COMMISSIONERS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN A PART OF THIS COMMITTEE. THIS LIBERTY AS YOU KNOW HAS BEEN SITTING VACANT FOR A LONG TIME , AND THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL PUZZLES THAT HAVE COME THROUGH , ONLY ONE SINCE I HAVE SAT ON COUNSEL THAT HAVE COME THROUGH FOR THIS PARCEL. THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS ABSOLUTELY OPPOSED TO IT. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT TOWNHOMES IN CARMEL, WITH WHAT IS HAPPENED WITH ANOTHER PROJECT THAT HAS JUST PASSED THROUGH CITY COUNCIL LAST NIGHT, THIS SPOT HERE TO ME, AND I AM JUST GOING TO SAY THIS FOR THE RECORD, IS A REALLY GOOD USE OF THE LAND BECAUSE I CAN'T IMAGINE YOU PUTTING SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL HOMES ON SUCH A SMALL PARCEL OF LAND, THAT IS NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, IT WOULDN'T FIT IN WITH WHAT IS ALREADY THERE AND SO , YOU KNOW,
[00:15:03]
FOR ME, I THINK THIS IS A REALLY GOOD USE OF THE LAND AND THAT IS JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION. SECOND COMMENT , I MISSED SOMEWHAT OF THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE , BECAUSE I WAS READING AND I APOLOGIZE, FOR THE SIDEWALKS AMONG THERE, CAN YOU MAP THAT OUT FOR ME AGAIN JOHN, IF YOU DON'T MIND?>> THE TWO COMMENTS THAT CAME FROM STAFF WHERE THERE IS NOT HERE, THEY WANTED TO SEE THIS WALK DOWN TO THIS ONE, IT IS ALREADY THERE. THIS, THEY WANTED US TO FLATTEN THAT OUT WITH HER IT WAS MORE DIRECT AND DIDN'T HAVE THE 90 DEGREE ZIGZAG SO IT CONNECTS ACROSS THE LAND WHERE THERE ARE TWO BLOCKS HERE THAT INTERSECT THE PAST, THEY WANT TO DONATE THIS AND WALK OVER HERE TO THE EXISTING SIDEWALK THAT INTERSECTS WITH THE PAST SO THERE ARE NOT TWO SECOND SIDE-BY-SIDE OR WITHIN A SHORT DISTANCE. YOU CAN'T SEE IT WELL, I APOLOGIZE. BUT IT IS RIGHT HERE WHERE THERE ARE TWO SIDEWALKS CONNECTED, THEY WOULD WANT ONE, WILL PULL BACK THE OTHER WALK AND HAVE IT CONNECTED TO THE OTHER SIDEWALK FURTHER NORTH.
>> SO IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME THERE WILL BE SOMEWHAT OF A CIRCULAR -- NONCIRCULAR, RECTANGULAR PATH OF WALKING TRAILS FOR THAT
PARCEL? >> THE UNITS THEMSELVES , TOXIC AT THE FRONT DOOR DO NOT INTERSECT THE PATH 116TH STREET, THEY INTERSECT AN INTERVENING SIDEWALK THAT IS 15 PLUS OR MINUS FEET AWAY FROM THAT IN THE STREET SO THIS IS THE PATH THAT IS ALONG THE STREET FRONTAGE. AND THEN BEYOND THAT CLOSER TO THE DEALINGS OF THE SIDEWALK, IT WILL WRAP AROUND TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO INDIVIDUAL DOORS, EVERYBODY THE INDIVIDUAL DOOR DOESN'T HAVE A SIDEWALK THAT INTERSECTS WITH THE PATH 160.
IT'S GOING TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF SEPARATION. I DON'T WANT TO CALL IT PRIVACY BUT ENOUGH SEPARATION WHERE IT GIVES SOME PUBLIC SPACE VERSUS PRIVATE SPACE DEFINITION.
>> JUST TO REITERATE MY COMMENT , I AM JUST NOT REALLY SURE WHAT ELSE WOULD BE PUT ON THIS PARCEL OF LAND. AND TO MY FELLOW PLAN COMMISSIONERS , I AM IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPERTY.
>> I AM THRILLED THEY ARE PROPOSING THIS, THAT IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT GETS BOXED AROUND. I AM ACTUALLY, I DON'T LOVE HIM AHEAD TURNAROUNDS BUT THIS IS A GOOD USE FOR ONE. OF THE ORIENTATION OF THE BUILDINGS FACING 116TH STREET. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET A COMPLIMENT OR LANDSCAPING ACROSS THE FRONTAGE. AGAIN, WE HAVE THIS ONE CONCEPT PLAN AND I GUESS WE WILL GET TO SEE SOME OTHER PLANS DOWN THE LINE SO THAT I JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS THE INTEREST IN CONTINUED HIGH-QUALITY
LANDSCAPING ALONG THE FRONTAGE. >> I WOULD ECHO THOSE COMMENTS AS WELL. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT. WELL, DITTO. IT IS NOT OFTEN THAT WE SEE A PROPOSAL FOR TOWNHOMES THAT , WHERE IT REALLY WORKS. AND THIS IS ONE OF THE FEW WHERE IT REALLY WORKS. SO, WITH THAT , I WILL MISSED THE LAST MEETING BUT IS THERE 35 ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES NOW WITH THIS PART TWO COMING IN ON THE --
>> I DON'T HAVE AN EXACT NUMBER BUT WE ARE NOT PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE STANDARDS IN PLACE TODAY. WITHIN JACKSON'S GRANT
VILLAGE. SO -- >> YOU KNOW, I READ THAT SOMEWHERE AND THEN I DIDN'T SEE IT AND I THOUGHT YOU MISSED --
IF YOU DON'T KNOW IT, THEN -- >> THERE'S NOT SPECIFICITY IN THE ORDINANCE THAT AT 35 SPACES, THEIR SPECIFICITY IN THE ORDINANCE THAT HAS THE SAME STANDARD FOR PARKING THAT IS IN PLACE TODAY FOR THE REST OF JACKSON'S GRANT VILLAGE.
>> SO THERE WOULD BE MORE PARKING?
>> ABSOLUTELY, THERE WOULD BE -- WHAT IS THERE TODAY? PLUS WHATEVER THE RATIO IS PERMITTED FOR THE 12 ADDITIONAL DARLINGS.
>> IF YOU COUNT THE NUMBER THAT IS THERE, IT IS 35. BUT THOSE WOULD BE DIVIDED BETWEEN , THEY ARE TRYING TO SEPARATE SPACES THAT WOULD BE MORE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL GUEST PARKING SPACES VERSUS OPEN TO ANYONE TO USE PARKING SPACES. SO IT DOESN'T PRODUCE ANY COMMERCIAL. IT DOES NOT REDUCE THE COMMERCIAL AT ALL. IT WOULD GIVE EXTRA BUFFERING FOR THE COMMERCIAL
>> COMMERCIAL USES, I MEAN. >> OKAY. SO, THERE IS NO SIGNAGE
[00:20:01]
ON 116TH STREET? JUST VERIFYING THAT. SO WHEN THE DP PLAN COMES BACK, THAT IS WHEN WE WILL SEE, JEFF HAS ASKED STREETSCAPE, WE WILL KNOW IT IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE . WE WILL KNOW WHAT THE LANDSCAPING IS GOING TO BE, JUST LIKE WE WOULD EVEN THOUGH IT ISONLY DEVELOPMENT PLAN. >> THE ADL US -- ADLS NOT COMING BACK TO IS ONLY REALLY TWO TO THE DRILLING DESIGN. SO YOU WILL SEE THE FULL LANDSCAPING, ANY ADDITIONAL SIDELINING. IF THERE IS ANYTHING PLANNED ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE, THERE IS AN EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN ON THE ENTRANCE WHICH WOULD REMAIN.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE A
MOTION ON WHAT TO DO TONIGHT? >> JUST TO BE CLEAR FOR THOSE WHO MIGHT BE WATCHING, THE MOTION WILL BE TO APPROVE THE REZONING APPROVAL , AND THIS IS NOT APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLANS AS WE HAVE SEEN IT BUT THAT WILL COME BACK. SO WITH THAT, I MOVE ADOPTION OF DOCKET ITEM PZ 2020 400221 WITH THE STRICKEN LANGUAGE IN ITEM A AND WITH THE STRICKEN LAST SENTENCE IN ITEM D, THE STRICKEN SENTENCE IN ITEM NUMBER A BEING TO ELIMINATE SHALL BE REDUCED BY HALF , REGARDING LANDSCAPING AND THE STRICKEN SENTENCE IN ITEM B , TO REMOVE A SENTENCE THAT IS
REDUNDANT. >> WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
>> S, WITH A FAVORABLE COMMENDATION, NOW THAT I GOT THE
DETAILS OUT OF THE WAY, YES. >> SHE WAS GETTING READY TO SAY
RECOMMENDATION. >> I WILL SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED TO FORWARD WITH A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL , THE APPROVAL OF THIS DOCKET THIS EVENING. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. OPPOSE? THIS
WILL GO FORWARDED ON. >> THANK YOU.
>> I DO TOO.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.