Loading...
PC 12-18-18 0 OF CA/1� w �,,StTNFlW,4 c ,.411111111 Cityof Carmel I41111017 INDIANA CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2018 1 MEETING MINUTES Location:Cannel City Hall Council Chambers,2"d Floor, 1 Civic Square,Cannel,IN 46032 Members Present: John Adams,Laura Campbell,Brad Grabow,Nick Kestner,Joshua Kirsh,Alan Potasnik,Susan Westermeier Members Absent: Michael Casati,Tom Kegley Staff Present:Alexia Lopez,Rachel Keesling,John Molitor,Joe Shestak,Mike Hollibaugh Time of Meeting:6:00 PM Declaration of Quorum: Brad Grabow: 7 members present,we have a Quorum Approval of Minutes: A motion made by John Adams and seconded by Josh Kirsh to approve the minutes form the November 20,2018 PC meeting. Motion passes 7-0,2 absent Casati,Kegley Communications,Bills,Expenditures,&Legal Counsel Report: John Molitor: The Federal government is looking into changing the definition of waters of the United States. Reports,Announcements&Department Concerns Rachel Keesling: Items 1 &2 on tonight's agenda under Public Hearing are tabled. The petitioner will redo the public notice when they are ready to be heard in a future public hearing. I1. Outcome of Projects at Committees: Rachel Keesling: a. Commercial: i. Docket No. 18090015 DP/ADLS: Onyx Office Suites—Approved 4-0 ii. Docket No. 18100007 OA: UDO Patch Amendment—Sent back to Plan Commission(tonight)with a Favorable Recommendation 4-0 b. Residential: i. Docket No. 18010004 Z: Westbridge PUD Rezone—Tabled to Jan. 3 Committee meeting ii. Docket No. 18070015 Z: 2724 E 136` St. PUD Rezone—Sent back to Plan Commission(tonight)with a Favorable Recommendation 3-1 iii. Docket No. 18100001 PUD: 106th and Ditch PUD Rezone—Tabled to Jan.3 Committee mtg. 2. Suspension of Rules request for Item#3,Bank of America,which only provided 14 day notice in the paper vs. the required 21 day. This was due to a scheduling issue over the Thanksgiving holiday week. A motion made by Susan Westermeier and seconded by Laura Campbell to Suspend the Rules of Procedure in regards to the public notice deadline. Motion passes 7-0,2 absent Casati,Kegley Public Hearings: 1. TABLED pending further review by petitioner.Public Notice will be redone before a public hearing. Docket No. 18090012 Z: Sherman Drive Townhomes Rezone . . . 1' •. • . 2. TABLED pending further review by petitioner.Public Notice will be redone before a public hearing. Docket No. 18090013 DP/ADLS: Sherman Drive Townhomes ii . . •. . - • • 1 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 12-18-18 3. Docket No. 18100014 DP/ADLS: Bank of America The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a new bank on 7.54 acres. The site is located at about 10850 N. Michigan Rd. The site is zoned B3/Business and is within the US 421 Overlay. Filed by Zak Klobucar of Gensler on behalf of Bank of America. Petitioner: Zak Klobucar: • Presented a site map • We have adhered to the design requirements that were provided to us • The design of the building incorporates the Federal style • Tab 4 of the info packet has the perspectives of the exterior design • We projected the entrance out 8' which gives the building a more dynamic emphasis and it allows natural light in • The rear facade will have two drive up ATMs and two future bays for ATMs • The front facade will face the main road • Materials used will be red brick, limestone,crystal gray glass,and metallic aluminum • The signs are in compliance and will contain back lit illumination Steve Grant,Omega Engineers • Presented a site plan • Setbacks are per the overlay district,and are 8' along the north property line • The 24' drive lane will be revised to a 25' drive lane • The entrances are in compliance with the ordinance • Landscaping will meet the City standards Public Comments: None Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • The building will be about 8,000 sq. ft. and 1.5 stories tall • The land will be split into 3 parcels • A road will be constructed on the west side of the building and will eventually connect to Redd Rd.to the north • It will have a Federal architecture style • 38 parking spaces provided,where 34 are required • Lot coverage is at 65%,where 80%is allowed • No variances are requested for this project • The trash dumpster,bike parking, lighting plan,and landscape plan are items that will still need Staff approval • We recommend this is forwarded to the Commercial Committee on Jan. 3 with final voting authority Committee Comments: Nick: The pathway to the front door from Michigan Rd. needs to be marked with different paving or striping Josh: Why do we allow this site design in Michigan Rd. area,but we have a higher standard everywhere else in Carmel? Rachel: They meet all the requirements per the Michigan Rd. Overlay,which was written years ago. Josh: The back of building looks like a real nice prison. You can add more to it at the Committee. More landscaping can be added. Josh: Do they meet the setbacks? Rachel: The max building setback per UDO is 120' and it is at 110'. They are allowed two rows max parking in front of the building. Susan: Will there be another access off of Michigan Rd.? I only see an access off of Nottingham Rd.from Michigan Rd. Rachel: There will be access from 106th Street through Nottingham Road. The State will not allow another cut off of Michigan Rd. The next cut on Michigan Rd. is north at Bennet Pkwy.,which will allow access to rear of the building from Redd Rd. once that area develops. Alan: In the past,when that Italian restaurant came in on Michigan Rd.,we were very concerned about the style of the building we wanted them to conform to. What is the style of architecture here? Rachel: The overlay requirements have four architecture choices; Federal,Georgian,Italianate, or Greek Revival. They chose the Federal style. There are certain characteristics of the Federal style, such as a symmetrical building design,window placement,and decorative brick cornice. It's not an exact replica of a federal style. If there's additional work that needs to be done on this building, we can do that. Alan: If you take the top off of the building, it looks like any other building in a strip center. It doesn't 2 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 12-18-18 seem like the other projects we've seen come through here. I'm with Josh here, 1 don't know what exactly to do but it doesn't look good to me. Brad: I think we have struggled with new projects along Michigan Road. The overlay is here for us and the petitioner. IWe have to look at the designs and not to have every building looking like from 1990's. Something needs to break up that expanse of the rear of the building. I don't see any of the architecture standards. This isn't it right now. A motion made by Josh Kirsh and seconded by Susan Westermeier to send Docket No. 18100014 DP/ADLS to Commercial Committee on January 3,2019,but comes back to full PC for final voting authority. Motion passes 7-0,2 absent Casati,Kegley 4. Docket No. 18100015 DP/ADLS: Aloft&Element Hotels 5. Docket No. 18100016 V : UDO Section 2.40 MC—Minimum Front Yard Setback(to US 31): 50' required, 24' proposed 6. Docket No. 18100017 V: UDO Section 5.39.E.6.—Sign proposed to be installed above cornice line,which is not allowed per the UDO 7. Docket No. 18100018 V: UDO Section 5.07.C.2.—60% Clear glazing required on the ground floor façade, less than 60% requested 8. Docket No. 18100019 V: UDO Section 5.07.D.3.—Lots greater than 300'wide shall have at least 2 principal bldgs.covering 75% of the lot's width,one building proposed covering 17.95% of the lot width (784.54') 9. Docket No. 18110003 V: UDO Section 5.07.E.1.—Along US 31,any façade greater than 5 stories shall be stepped back at or below the 6th story,no Stepback proposed 10. Docket No. 18110004 V:UDO Section 5.39.I.2.b.—Wall sign requirements for Multi-tenant,Multi-Level Office Building proposed,Single Tenant Building classification required The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a new dual branded hotel on 5.35 acres.It will be 6 stories/70' tall with 230 rooms combined. The site is located at 10101 N. Meridian Street(the previous Cadillac dealership site,new address to be assigned for this use).The site is zoned MC/Meridian Corridor and is not located within any overlay zone. Filed by Jim Shinaver and Jon Dobosiewicz of Nelson&Frankenberger,LLC on behalf of Ascent Hospitality Management Co.,LLC. Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewicz: • With me tonight,Nash Patel—Ascent Hospitality,Mark Eriksson—Project Architect,Rusty Spiars—Project Engineer,and Jim Shinaver-Attorney • Presented an aerial map of the site, shown in Tab 2 of the info packet • The applicant has worked the past several months with DOCS in regarding zoning requirements and building architecture • The Cadillac dealership existed here prior to the US 31 enhancements • Surrounding this site is the Comfort Inn to the north,Methodist Medical Plaza to the southeast,and Pennsylvania Pkwy to the east • Presented the proposed site plan • Access to the site will be provided at Pennsylvania Pkwy,with a right in,right out • Existing trees along Pennsylvania Pkwy will provide buffers for the site • Storm water management will be provided underground in the parking lot • Presented three building perspectives, shown in Tab 5 • The Element Hotelis located on the east side,and Aloft Hotel will be on the west side of the building. Each has a separate entrance canopy on the south side of the building. • 6 stories for each hotel, 120 guestrooms in Aloft,and 112 guestrooms in Element • Tab 6 includes the exterior building materials and we will bring in material examples to the Committee meeting • Wall sign details and locations are shown in renderings in Tab 6 • A ground sign will be along Pennsylvania Pkwy • The applicant will continue to work with Staff on the signage plan and will come back to Committee with other alternate sign options • Landscaping, lighting,and sign details are located in the info packet • We believe this building will be an enhancement to the Meridian Street Corridor 3 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 12-18-18 Public Comments: None Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • Two hotels brands will be located in one full service hotel building • The petitioner requested the Plan Commission to act as a combination committee for the approval of the development plan,ADLS,and six variance requests • There are 232 rooms with 245 parking spaces. That meets the parking requirements per the UDO • Will have an artistic rooftop element with a rainbow effect • We do not support the variance request for the signage. Signage can be used on the canopy versus additional signs at the top of the building • We have some details we need to work through and believe we can do this at the Committee • We recommend this to go to the Jan. 3 Commercial Committee and then come back to the Plan Commission for a final vote Committee Comments: Nick: Do they meet the requirement for meeting room space? Rachel: Yes.40 sq. ft. of meeting room space per room and they exceed that requirement Jon Dobosiewicz: 9912 sq.ft. Rachel: This full service hotel meets all the requirements,which includes 24 hour receptionist,24 hour restaurant,and conference space. Susan: What's the difference between the two hotels? Jon Dobosiewicz: There are two brands,and they are not represented in the Indy market today. They share the first floor. They will have two separate check-in desks and elevator banks. You will be in a separate hotel once you are above the first floor. Susan: Is one hotel noticeably more expensive than the other? Nash Patel: Both are at the same price point. Aloft is more known as a transient property,where Element has larger rooms,and is known for longer stays for families,or groups of people. Susan: Can you see the rooftop and mechanical equipment of the hotel from 465? Jon Dobosiewicz: The short answer is yes but the distance is in the thousands of feet and the grade is 30'-35' lower than the interstate. Josh: Can you get a perspective(photo)shot from the 465 ramp and from the Comfort Inn? Jon Dobosiewicz: Yes Josh: I want to make sure the Commercial Committee is aware the hotel's awning has a blue lit light to it. Jon Dobosiewicz: We were asked by Staff to provide additional details about the lit awning. This area is a reflective surface and is not internally illuminated. It will not be seen like a neon light,but it will have a soft glow to it. Josh: I think it looks nice,and I don't have a negative opinion of the light. The north and south elevations are complementary of each other. Jon Dobosiewicz: The north side is very heavily wooded and the north facade won't be visible from any other adjacent site. The north facade will be buffered from people traveling on US 31 Alan: What's the vacancy rate of this particular product? Jon Dobosiewicz: I can present that to you at the Commercial Committee. Alan: What are the common areas for both hotels? Jon Dobosiewicz: Presented the l'floor plan. The first floor has separate entrances,check-ins and elevator banks. The common areas include the bar/restaurant amenities,conference meeting rooms,and outdoor dining. Alan: Is there enough parking to accommodate the full service restaurant,bar, conference rooms,and two full hotels? Nash Patel: We operate 32 hotels and the majority of the hotel restaurants are geared towards the customers staying at the hotels. There are a very small percentage of people from the community that would use the restaurant as a non-guest. I believe the restaurant is particularly for the hotel guests. John Adams: Does the hotel restaurant offer a variety of selections for all meals of the day or just specific selections? Nash Patel: Both of the restaurants do cook-to-orders meals throughout the day and for room service. Laura: I think this is a good fit for this parcel. I like the north and south elevations but the west and east seem kind of bland. Is this typical for this type of brand? Or just for this area? Nash Patel: This is typical for this type of brand. We have worked with Staff to try to enhance it the best we can. If Staff or the PC has any other suggestions to improve the building,we will incorporate it. I want to deliver the best product I can. Brad Grabow: • Can you provide some parking numbers of other hotels in this area with the same amenities? It would be 4 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 12-18-18 interesting to see the different parking capacities of these properties. Jon: We can provide that at Committee. • I agree with Laura to add more to the east and west elevations • I believe out of town visitors need to be able to identify their destination and having an identity sign on the west façade(facing 465/31)would help this. • I believe the majority of exiting traffic would be trying to get back to US 31 and also head north towards Carmel. There's only a right out onto Pennsylvania Pkwy, it's a divided boulevard,and you would have to make an immediate U-turn at the entrance at Methodist Medical Plaza. With only one lane going out, if we proposed two lanes going out;one lane directing traffic to make the U-turn to the north,and one lane directing traffic to stay to the right to continue eastbound,would that simplify the morning exit from the hotels? The north entrance seems like an unnecessary access point,except if it's there from a public safety standpoint. Jon: The north entrance allows for a coach bus to access and exit the site. It also allows access to the dumpster enclosure that is located nearby. We will have additional dialogue with the City about signage in the street ROW to direct them back to US 31. We will consider those items you brought up. Josh: The City understands parking requirements as it pertains to UBER and Lyft. What does your Hotel use as a guideline for parking requirements? Seems to me more people would be getting dropped off then parking a rented car. This could help us validate our parking concerns. Alan: What's the distance of the north end of the building to the north property line? Jon: Between 15-20'. It meets the setback. Rachel: The ordinance requires a 20' setback for the trash enclosure A motion made by Susan Westermeier and seconded by Josh Kirsh to send Aloft&Element Hotels to Commercial Committee on January 3,2019 and have it return to full Plan Commission with final voting authority. Motion passes 7-0,2 absent Casati,Kegley Old Business 1. Docket No. 18070015 Z: 2724 E 136th St.PUD Rezone The applicant seeks approval to rezone 59 acres to PUD/Planned Unit Development in order to develop approximately 100 single-family dwellings and 100 condominiums/townhomes. The site is located at the NE corner of Keystone Parkway and 136th Street. It is zoned R-1/Residential within the Keystone Parkway Overlay Zone. Filed by Justin Moffett of Old Town Design Companies LLC. Petitioner: Justin Moffett: • Passed out packets to members of the Plan Commission • We will explain what has changed since the last hearing • We filed as a PUD because there wasn't an underlying zoning classification that met all the product types we are proposing in this development • Our original filing had 235 residential units and now been reduced to 200 units to meet the requests of Staff and adjacent neighbors for park space and additional bufferyards. • Presented the current site plan • We had five meetings with neighborhood groups to discuss their concerns • We would have to go through the ADLS process for architecture and design standards • We wanted to show what 100 multi-family units would look like • All proposed condo structures will be located west of the main boulevard • The townhomes are 3 stories,22' by 40',with parking located underneath • The townhome is similar to a single family cottage home,except it's 4 units that are attached to each other • The townhome and condos are low maintenance products • We want to attract an older demographic for this development • Presented topography of the site.The condos would be a similar height to the adjacent single family homes and will not sit above the nearby residential homes. • Presented an open space map. 47%of the site is open space,driven by the creek,the historic home,park space and bufferyards. • Presented site plan for signage location and trail access points • We need approval from the DNR to cross the creek with a path/trail • Presented a site plan for tree preservation areas and best efforts to preserve trees 5 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 12-18-18 • A number of commitments that were requested by the Plan Commission are included in the packet o Roundabout will be constructed prior to 30%of homes being built,up to 60 residential units o To acquire easements to build a path from our development to the Hagen Burke Trail o Construction traffic access will be provided with the existing gravel road off of Keystone and not through existing neighborhoods o Design guidelines that discuss the minimum architecture standards for all housing types are attached to the PUD • We have made adjustments to our development plan to the best of our ability • 0' is required as a bufferyard from adjacent properties,we initially gave 20' and now it's a 40' buffer • We committed to no construction and open space east of the creek • We committed to no condos east of the main boulevard • We reduced the total number units by 15% • We are proposing 3.3 units per acre • We feel this plan provides a significant amount of green space and buffers, it preserves the historic home, meets the need for senior housing,and it complies with the Comprehensive Plan Department Report: Alexia Lopez: • The petitioner has addressed our comments and concerns • Based on the Comprehensive Plan,the townhomes/condos are considered a conditional fit and single family homes are considered a best fit next to the existing single family residential homes • They are providing large bufferyards and green space in the southern portion of the development which is the townhomes&condos area • Architecture standards will be included in the PUD • PRIF should be used for the path and needs to be constructed first,before it is used for the historic home, if public access is allowed to the historic home • Staff recommends you forward this to City Council with favorable recommendation after all comments are addressed Residential Committee Report: Josh Kirsh • Staff did what the committee asked for • We want the ability to fine tune the architecture designs and guidelines when it comes to ADLS,and we thought this was a good starting point • We applied a lot of the comments in both meetings and the petitioner made great compromises • We feel we are bringing a good compliant product to the City Committee Comments: Brad: In referring to the tree preservation area plan,why isn't the existing wooded area southeast of historic home area not labeled for tree preservation? Justin Moffett: We knew that area would be a park space, and we wanted to define the corridor of the creek. We can expand on preserving trees once that site plan is known. Brad: My same question would apply for the area by the main entrance. Justin: The Engineering Dept.will let us know where they want the access road and walking path. Once we have a final plan,we will expand on tree preservation. Brad: For enhanced architecture for the end units of townhomes, is that a redline addition to the commitments or PUD? Justin Moffett: Four-sided architecture has always been a standard in our single family projects. We did include this for the townhomes and condos. Same quantities of windows and materials per level and sides are required. Josh: The Residential Committee has always emphasized on the side facing architecture and details. Laura: I've always had concerns about the density and traffic. Even if you say it's just during rush hour,those are the most critical times for people trying to get to their destination on time. How will the newly constructed roundabout resolve this? Justin Moffett: Our traffic engineer presented this at the first meeting. We asked the traffic engineer to look at paths of travel. The feedback we got is we will not be pushing traffic out of our neighborhood throughout the adjacent neighborhoods. Because of our connections,existing neighborhoods will use this development to cut through to Keystone. The traffic at 136th and Keystone will not go away. The new Lowes Way extension from 146th to Keystone will hopefully eliminate some of the traffic that travels southbound on Carey and Gray Roads to get to Keystone via 6 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 12-18-18 136th. The proposed wishbone design extends the roundabout which potentially can change the condition that causes the stacking that occurs on the Keystone ramp. It's not the private land owner's ability to come up with a traffic plan. Our traffic engineer answered all the traffic questions to the best of his ability. I can't answer if we can resolve this by Ireducing density by a certain percentage. A motion by Josh Kirsh,and seconded by Alan Potasnik to forward Docket No. 18070015 PUD Rezone to City Council with a favorable recommendation. Motion fails 4-3,Adams,Campbell,Kestner,2 Absent Casati,Kegley Brad: 4 out of 9 votes does not constitute majority of the body, so no action is taken. Is there another motion? Does anyone want to make a motion for an unfavorable recommendation?Nick: We can motion for no recommendation. Josh: The Council asked us not to forward it with no recommendation. Brad: The Chair is looking for a motion to forward with a negative recommendation. Josh: What happens if no one gives us the second motion that we are looking for? John Molitor: It's automatically continued to the next meeting. Ultimately,the case law indicates we must forward it on so the Council can take jurisdiction on it. It's not proper for us to hang onto this indefinitely. Justin Moffett: I would you request you forward it with no recommendation,and record stands there was a 4-3 favorable vote. Josh: May I ask the President of City Council,who's in attendance tonight a question? Brad: Yes. Josh: Councilman Rider, in the past you have requested that we do not send with no recommendation. Kevin Rider: I have said in the past that you aren't doing your job if you send it with no recommendation. As Mr.Molitor stated,you can't just let it sit here forever. I think the petitioner's comment to send it with no recommendation,but it's on record the favorable recommendation vote was 4-3,would be taken into consideration when it is in front of City Council. , Brad: The fact is we haven't sent it to Council with any recommendation. It remains with this body until we take action. IAlan: What was the vote in Committee? Josh: 3-1 with positive recommendation. Alan: Are there any issues that were not resolved to the Committees' favor, if this went back to the Residential Committee,to work things out and return it back? Nick: I was the one who voted no for traffic concerns. They did an outstanding job with the rest of the project. Alan: It sounds like there's no reason to send it back to Committee and to have it come back to generate a new voting result. Josh: I understand the concern for traffic. I am happy to discuss our comments about traffic. We have addressed traffic concerns there with traffic metering. Traffic pressure occurred due to the construction on Gray Rd.The new Lowes Way overpass that will be completed in near future should address those concerns. The City Engineer's opinion with the additional wishbone extension to the existing roundabout should alleviate some concerns. Making this a two lane roundabout would address those concerns during the rush hours. The age demographic in which this development will attract can address those concerns. All of these things can be factored in. The traffic situation could get better with all of these factors. Laura: I appreciate the explanation,but I still have concerns about the traffic and I will not change my vote. A motion by made by Josh Kirsh and seconded by Susan Westermeier to forward with no recommendation Docket No. 18070015 PUD Rezone to City Council. 5-2 Motion passes,Campbell,Potasnik,2 absent,Casati,Kegley 2. Docket No. 18100007 OA: UDO Patch Amendment The applicant seeks to amend the Unified Development Ordinance in order to(A)amend the standards for Fences,Bufferyards,Parking,Bicycle Parking,General Yard Standards and Waivers of Development Standards; (B)amend Article 9: Processes and Article 11: Definitions; and(C)correct a variety of errors and omissions from the conversion to the Unified Development Ordinance format. Filed by the Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling: • We discussed the amendments line by line and only a few changes were proposed at the Commercial Committee 7 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 12-18-18 • A simple cross reference was added to the Fence section to add clarity • In working with the Urban Forester,a revision was made to the residential and commercial bufferyard tables to make them more similar to match • The most discussed point was the proposed reduction of parking for vertical mixed use. We agreed this reduction would be case by case at the Director's discretion and not automatically the entire 25%. • One new item that was suggested with Line 72, is the R3 District corresponds better with the Urban Residential land classification(rather than Suburban classification),because it has a maximum density of 5 units per acre and is currently concentrated in the Old Town and Home Place areas on the zoning map • We recommend this is forwarded to the City Council with a favorable recommendation after all comments and concerns are addressed Department Report: None Commercial Committee Comments: None A motion by John Adams and seconded by Laura Campbell to forward Docket No. 18100007 OA to City Council with a favorable recommendation. Motion passes 7-0,2 Absent Casati, Kegley Meeting Adjourned at 8:02 p.m. J Shestak Plan Commission Secretary Brad Grabow President 8 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 12-18-18