Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 12-18-12ct OF CAN, CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION December 18, 2012 2nd Floor, City Hall Council Chambers One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 6:00 PM Members Present: John Adams, Brad Grabow, Joshua Kirsh, Steve Lawson, Alan Potasnik, Kevin Woody" Rider, Steve Stromquist, Sue Westermeier, Ephraim Wilfong Members Absent: Jay Dorman, Nick Kestner DOCS Staff Present: Director Michael Hollibaugh, City Planner Angie Conn; Legal Counsel John Molitor Also Present: Ramona Hancock, Plan Commission Secretary Minutes of the November 20, 2012 meeting were approved as submitted John Molitor, Legal Counsel Report: Aramore PUD Ordinance Amendment — Petitioner has submitted a text amendment to the PUD Ordinance that was made by City Council. The text change is coming back to the Plan Commission for further review in terms of whether or not the Commission wants to ratify the changes made by City Council or would disagree and propose different language. City Council also imposed a condition with the passage of the PUD Ordinance; the condition is not subject to Commission review, however the language change is subject to Commission review. 1. Aramore PUD Ordinance Amendment (Plan Commission Docket No. 12070017 OA and Council Ordinance Z- 569 -12). The Commission needs to vote to affirm or deny the changes made /approved by Council. Steve Pittman addressed the Commission regarding the text change to the Aramore PUD Ordinance Amendment made by City Council. Overall the Council was pleased with the Ordinance Amendment, but they did make a minor change in that anything greater than 10% would be returned to Council. The change in language is agreeable. Motion: Brad Grabow moved to affirm the text changes made by City Council to Aramore PUD 2 -569- 12 Ordinance, seconded by Joshua Kirsh, approved 9 -0. G. Reports, Announcements & Department Concerns, Angie Conn: Item No. 2 under Public Hearings, Meijer Outlot B, has been tabled to January 15, 2013 1 December 18, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting The Subdivision Committee looked at PUD Ordinances from other communities with a view of a template" for PUD's. To date, nothing has been formally proposed; PUD proposals are still in order and it is up to the Conunission to review them and allow them to proceed thru normal process. Brad Grabow, Chairperson, Subdivision Committee: As this Docket goes forward to Committee, it will be reviewed & treated under guidelines for PUD's that the Committee was studying. The Committee spent several months reviewing PUD's until the Council proposed a moratorium & made the Committee work moot for the time being, although the Committee continues to welcome input from the Council regarding PUD's. Woody Rider commented that City Council had suggested that the Plan Commission & City Council get together for a working relationship between the two, and that will be coming soon. It is exciting that this area is to be developed as residential, something thought never to happen! Questions /Comments, Commission Members: Why developing under a PUD and not the current S -1 zoning? Response: Rather than cover the entire property with residential lots & lose the trees, encroach the wetlands, etc, PUD allows more sensitivity to protect the features of the site & how the property integrates with its neighbors & minimizing its impact This may be a perfect example of why PUD's are a good idea Petitioner is to be commended for preserving quality space, not just scrub space – please preserve the natural state of the property as much as possible Please consider minimum lot frontage & setting two standards, one for the "pie- shape" lots maybe 50 feet) & one for traditional, "parallel elevation" lots. Also consider the Location of the HVAC equipment which may consume the 5 -foot side -yard setback Please look at design standards and detached garages – explore in more detail Chimneys — please extend to the ground to appear more substantial Roof pitch & overhang needs to be explored with a view of raising the 50% requirement Fences – questions regarding chainllink—need to set a standard for fence style throughout the subdivision Petitioner to bring a comparison chart to Committee that lays out development standards under S -1 as opposed to the development standards of the proposed PUD Docket No. 12100017 Z, Hadley Grove PUD Rezone (with Primary Plat) was forwarded to the Subdivision Committee for further review on Wednesday, January 2, 2013 at 6:00 PM. 2. TABLLI) TO JAN. 15 - Docket No. 12100018 DP /ADLS: Carmel Corners Retail Center Meijer Outlot B). The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a 7,780 sq. ft. multi - tenant commercial building that fronts on Pennsylvania St. The site is located at 1425 W. Carmel Dr. and is zoned OM/M: Old Meridian District, Meijer Subarea. Filed by Eric Carter of Weihe Engineers, on behalf of Versa Development. 3. Docket No. 12100014 PP: Park Grenshire Minor Subdivision - Primary Plat. The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 2 residential lots on 2 acres. The site is located at 3 December 18, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting Up -scale PUD Community approved in June, 2011 located on approx 63 acres Site is situated on southwest quadrant of US 31, 116th Street on the east side of Spring Mill Road, and north of 111th Street Three Use Blocks within The Bridges PUD -- current request relates to the Commercial Amenity Use Block in the northern portion of the site on the west side of Illinois Street Approval is being requested to allow a CVS Building and adjacent commercial bldg CVS Bldg will be located on the west side; commercial bldg on the east side Site Plan provides for integrated, pedestrian connectivity Entrance will be distinctively appointed with a bridge and attractive water feature Site will be fully landscaped & in complete compliance with The Bridges PUD Ordinance Renderings were shown of the CVS bldg & the commercial bldg Petitioner has met with representatives from Spring Mill & Williams Mill neighborhoods; an email from the neighborhood expressed strong support for this matter & suspension of the Rules of Procedure The petitioner's request complies in all respects with The Bridges PUD Ordinance & standards Public Remonstrance /Favorable: None General Public Comments/Unfavorable: Jay Dorman, Ashbury Park, Cannel. Suggested that the Executive Committee of Plan Commission, either under New Business each month or maybe quarterly, or at workshops, look at lessons learned." Example: At one time, the Commission approved a wall, it is not remembered the color of brick, how tall, or how wide the panels — looking at that wall today, it is UGLY! How to improve? -- Maybe landscape, plant ivy, etc. for an improvement. Can we learn from that mistake? Additions to the Rules of Procedure: "CTC" —" Communicate to Council" If an item is sent to Council with a negative recommendation, send the Plan Commission President or his designee to Council, specifically for a PUD or Rezone, and at a public hearing state why the findings were presented in a negative manner. ATC" — "Ask The Council" Once Council has approved a PUD or Rezone, the responsibility falls upon the Dept of Community Services and the Plan Commission. Depending upon the terms & conditions of those approvals, there may be an instance where the Plan Commission needs to formally ask the Council, "Is this really what you intended ?" If that avenue is not available, perhaps the Commission could use the "blue card process" to request time to address the Council. The overall intent of "CTC" and "ATC" is to enhance the communication, to leverage the expertise and growth potential of the Dept of Community Services plus, of course, take advantage of the hours, the review, and the dedication of the Commission members as volunteers. Did the Council really intend for a CVS to be on the corner of Spring Mill Road and 116th Street? This could have been an instance where Ask the Council would have been useful. 5 December 18, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting out entrance off Illinois Street to the south of the site —a right exit would be to the north, around the roundabout, then head south. Neither the CVS nor the Commercial Bldg will be issued a certificate of occupancy until the drives & access points on Illinois Street are constructed as seen on the site plan. The petitioner will bring an exhibit to committee to further illustrate. Currently, Illinois Street is being constructed halfway between 111th & 106th Streets; the other portion will be bid from that halfway point in the Spring Liking or not liking the CVS is irrelevant – if it fits the PUD, we are not here to decide whether this location can be a CVS, we are here for architectural review Illinois will eventually go south to 1 03`1 Street which will be improved & stubbed to Springmill with a roundabout on Springmill where it will connect Rotate the bldg 90 degrees counter- clockwise – this is a premium intersection and viewing the back of the bldg is bothersome This PUD raised the bar for perimeter buffering not seen before in Carmel – part of the job of the Plan Commission now is to ensure that the buffering standard is upheld with each development that is proposed within the PUD; this proposal does that – the perimeter buffering is wonderful Request that the Committee not only look at perimeter buffering but the ability to provide a visual buffering of parking area located on the interior so that cars could be screened but signage on the side of the bldg can be visible The proposed plan is commendable for the entrance scheme that allows more landscape buffer to wrap around the property on three sides Could more be done to minimize the impact of service uses proposed for the west elevation of the building? If the west & east elevation could be flipped to make the dumpsters & drive -thru more to the south side, interior to The Bridges, it would be preferable Is a third drive -thru lane really necessary? There could be less asphalt & more greenspace Bike Rack location? Lighting: Fixtures specified for parking lot use are a little disappointing—there is a missed opportunity to carry out the proposed "Prairie" theme in the PUD Request that the Committee be judicious regarding number & location of signage throughout the CVS portion of this development Docket Nos. 12100019 DP, The Bridges PUD – Commercial Amenity Use Block, Phase, 12100020 ADLS, CVS Pharmacy, and 12100021 ADLS, Commercial Building, were forwarded to the Special Studies Committee for further review on Wednesday, January 2, 2013 at 6:00 PM. 7. TABLED TO JAN. 1 Docket No. 12080004 Z: Springmill Court PUD Rezone. The applicant seeks approval to rezone approximately 15 acres to PUD/Planned Unit Development for multiple - family dwellings, from S- 2/Residence. The site is located at 400 W. 96th Street, at the northwest corner of 96th St. & Springmill Rd. Filed by Timothy Ochs of Ice Miller, LLP, on behalf of Sexton Development, LLC. 8. TABLED TO JAN. 15 .,. Docket No, 12090019 DP /ADLS: Sterler Productions (Park Northwestern, Lot 8A1). The applicant seeks approval for a 10,000 sq. ft. building with parking area. The site is located at 4796 Northwestern Dr. and is zoned I- 1/Industrial. Filed by Bud Snyder of Hewes Concrete Polishing, LLC, for Sterler Holdings, LLC. 7 December 18, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting Ground signage requires a variance for the length of sign — DOCS has determined that the second sign is permitted by right, and a variance would not be required — it complies with the size, height, and location Dept Report, Angie Conn: Dept is requesting approval of this petition with two conditions: Removal of speed humps Gas canopy will be green color discussed at Committee, non - illuminated, and free of signage or logo Motion: Woody Rider, to approve Docket Nos. 12030014 DP, 9800 North Michigan Road, and 12030016 ADLS, Dunkin' Donuts, C -Store & Gas Canopy, conditioned upon removal of speed bumps, color of gas canopy to be green, none - illuminated, and free of signage or logo; seconded by John Adams, approved 9 -0 3. Docket No. 12050013 Z: 146th & Gray Rezone. The applicant seeks approval to rezone 4.59 acres from S- 1/Residence to B-1/Business (with commitments) for a proposed fuel/gas station, with a surrounding 7 -acre tree preservation/buffer area to remain zoned S -1. The site is located at 4927 E. 146th St., at the southeast comer of 146th St. and Gray Rd. Filed by Joseph Scimia of Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP for L & Q Realty, LLC. Present for Petitioner: Joe Scimia, Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP, 600 East 96th Street, Carmel. Overview: Request approval to rezone 4.59 acres to allow for a fuel station & Ricker's convenience store Site is located at southeast corner of 146th Street & Gray Road Public Hearing was held in August, 2012 Proposed plan is consistent with Comprehensive Plan recommendations Architectural design standards and materials were incorporated into the plan Significant buffer provided between proposed development & neighborhood residential uses Traffic was discussed; traffic study was done by A & F Traffic Engineers Striking an appropriate balance between the legitimate interests of the developer & the surrounding neighborhood& community was also discussed Special Studies Committee reviewed this proposal for several months Development plan has been revised based on recommendations & committee review Traffic Study was done with respect to the impact of proposed development on the area & found to be neutral on its face Study done by Mundell & Assoc., experts in these types of facilities, because of concerns raised regarding the effect on Carmel's wellhead protection area Input from Dept of Engineering Number of pumps reduced to 8 from 10; also reduction in size & location of canopy Enhanced buffer area added to the south & east of proposed development Buffering is in form of evergreens, 15 feet staggered, together with ornamental trees & ground plantings to provide year -round buffering of the project to residents south & east of the site Unusual to have this level of detail at rezone stage 9 December 18, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting cross - county highway leads one to believe that a gas station & convenience store along 146th Street where none exists from 151st Street & US 31 until Road 37 is an appropriate use for some location along 146th Street A gas station is compatible use for 146`h Street & would provide a service for businesses as well as residents It makes sense to see this rezone to allow this type of use Buffering is appropriate, the building is attractive, the facility represents the design standards of Carmel well and will be harmonious with the residential uses nearby Cannot be in favor for a number of reasons Agreement with favorable consideration and in support Tough decision — unsure Initially opposed, but the buffering/tree preservation is a very forward move on the part of the petitioner Main concern is traffic entering & exiting Ask petitioner to review again what might be done for the single residence - -the first property south of the site that borders Gray Road Site will be developed at some time; this proposal is a good benefit for the area Tonight is not the final decision; this item will be referred to City Council which starts the process again The greenspace is great, the design is good, but a gas station is not the right occupancy for this property Motion: Woody Rider to forward Docket No. 12050013 Z, 146th & Gray Rezone, to City Council with a positive recommendation; seconded by John Adams. The vote was 5 in favor 4 opposed (Potasnik, Stromquist, Westermeier, Kirsh) No Action Vote Motion: Woody Rider to forward Docket No. 12050013 Z, 146`h & Gray Rezone, to City Council with No Recommendation, seconded by John Adams. The vote was 8 in favor, one opposed (Potasnik) Docket No. 12050013 Z, 146th & Gray Rezone, will move forward to City Council with a No Recommendation vote. I. New Business -- None J. Adjournment 8:00 PM amona Hancock, Secretary Steve Stromq ist, Vice Pr dent 11