Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 01-15-19 ..,,,0,-.,„ f-[w�e31 , Cityof Cl ! . /NDIANp CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2019 I MEETING MINUTES Location:Carmel City Hall Council Chambers,2°'Floor, 1 Civic Square,Carmel,IN 46032 Members Present: John Adams,Laura Campbell,Brad Grabow,Tom Kegley,Nick Kestner,Joshua Kirsh,Alan Potasnik, Susan Westermeier Members Absent: Michael Casati Staff Present:Alexia Lopez,Rachel Keesling,John Molitor,Joe Shestak,Mike Hollibaugh Time of Meeting:6:00 PM Declaration of Quorum:Brad Grabow: 8 members present,we have a Quorum 1. Election of President(Brad Grabow)-Alan moves to approve,seconded by John,Motion passes 8-0,absent Casati 2. Election of Vice-President (Alan Potasnik) - Josh moves to approve, seconded by Tom, Motion passes 8-0, absent Casati 3. Election of Member to the Board of Zoning Appeals (Brad Grabow) - John moves to approve, seconded by Josh, Motion passes 8-0,absent Casati 4. Election of Member to Hamilton County Plan Commission(Laura Campbell)—Josh moves to approve, seconded by Sue. Motion passes 8-0,absent Casati 5. Election of Member-at-Large(Susan Westermeier)—Nick moves to approve, seconded by Josh. Motion passes 8-0, absent Casati. Approval of Minutes: A motion made by Josh and seconded by Laura to approve the minutes from the December 18,2018 PC meeting. Motion passes 8-0,absent Casati Communications,Bills,Expenditures,&Legal Counsel Report: John Molitor: • Senate Bill 535 is pending at the State Legislature. It abolishes extra territory in jurisdictions. The City of Carmel is not affected by this since we no longer have extra territories. • We need to schedule an Executive Committee meeting to discuss Committee appointments and a few changes to the Rules of Procedures. Plan Commission Resolution PC-1-15-2019-a: Bruce Donaldson:An amendment to the"North Illinois Street Economic Development Area"in order to expand the boundaries and rename the expansion area to: "106t and Illinois Street Allocation Area" If passed by Plan Commission, it will be then heard at City Council. A motion made by Tom,and seconded by Laura to adopt resolution. Motion Adopted 8-0,absent Casati. Plan Commission Resolution PC-1-15-2019-b:Bruce Donaldson: An amendment to the existing"Amended 126 'Street Allocation Area,"by removing certain property and creating a new"South Rangeline Allocation Area"for such removed property.This will isolate the TIF funds that will help pay for a parking garage that will help support this development. A motion made by Josh,and seconded by Sue to adopt resolution.Motion Adopted 8-0,absent Casati IReports,Announcements&Department Concerns 1. Outcome of Projects at Committees: Rachel Keesling: a. Commercial: i. Docket No. 18100014 DP/ADLS: Bank of America—Tabled to Feb. 5 Committee mtg. ii. Docket No. 18100015 DP/ADLS: Aloft&Element Hotels—Sent back to Plan Commission with a 1 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 1-15-19 Favorable Recommendation, subject to 2 conditions 3-0(absent Campbell) b. Residential: i. Docket No. 18010004 Z: Westbridge PUD Rezone—this item will not be heard tonight under old • business,but will be tabled to the Feb. 5 Residential Committee meeting since it was not heard earlier at the special Committee meeting. ii. Docket No. 18100001 Z: 106th and Ditch PUD Rezone—Tabled to Feb. 5 Committee mtg. Public Hearings: Brad Grabow: Explained the Plan Commission's Rules of Procedures for a public hearing. 1. Docket No. 18100012 DP/ADLS: Freddy's Frozen Custard & Steakburgers 2. Docket No. 18100013 SP: Replat,North Augusta,Lots 8& 9 The applicant seeks site plan and design,as well as replat approval(from two lots into one lot)for a new restaurant building on 1.38 acres. The site is located at 9701-9703 North Michigan Road. It is zoned B- 2/Business and is within the US 421 Overlay Zone.Filed by Eric Gleissner of Civil Site Group on behalf of the owner. Petitioner: Eric Gleissner: • We are currently expanding in Indiana and think this is a perfect location for Cannel • We are combining two parcels into one • We were previously approved for a variance for drive-thru use and green-belt buffer along Michigan Rd. • Presented the landscape plan • We will provide a 30' landscape buffer along the eastern boundary • The building architecture is complimentary to the Italianated design theme • We request this to be sent to the February 5th Commercial Committee and grant them final voting authority • Blake Epperson, local franchisee for Freddy's is here to help to answer questions Public Comments: None Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • The building will be 3,710 sq. ft.with room for 110 inside seating and 30 seats for the outdoor patio • 67 parking spaces will be provided where 47 are required per UDO • The drive-thru will be able to stack 10 cars • Two variances were previously approved by BZA Hearing officer for drive-thru use and green-belt buffer • It's on a corner parcel so it's difficult to hide the drive thru lane • They are seeking a secondary plat approval which will combine the two lots into one • The hotel adjacent to the north went through the same plat approval process, in combining three lots into one • The Petitioner is working with the hotel owners in connecting vehicular and pedestrian access lanes • The Petitioner is working on addressing the Engineer Dept. review comments on drainage • Sidewalks will be provided to connect to Michigan Rd. and 97th St. • Four short-term bicycle racks will be installed next to the entrance • Italianate style includes a flat roof, symmetrical rectangle shape,prominent cornice,corner pilasters,tower elements and awning between pilasters • The menu boards were provided to staff today and meet the sign ordinance requirements • Two wall signs have been proposed • Details were added such as brick-in window areas • They reduced the height of the towers where the signs are placed. The towers are now more balanced with the rest of the building. • We recommend this is sent to February 5th Commercial Committee,with final voting authority Committee Comments: Brad: Do the wall mounted light fixtures on the north elevation provide light underneath the awnings? Rachel: We are 2 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 1-15-19 still working on this. The Petitioner proposed two types,underneath the awnings,and the goose-neck lights over the awnings. They proposed additional wall path lights will be installed to illuminate the drive thru. Brad: At Committee, Ican you show where the lights will be at? Eric Gleissner: The lights will be mounted underneath and above the awnings. The goose neck lights are accent and aesthetic lighting. They don't provide much illumination. It is important to us to have the drive-thru illuminated well. We will continue to work on this with staff as we go forward to the Committee. Josh: What are the materials that will be used on the building? Is there something else that can be considered besides the stone?I feel this stone material product is overplayed. Eric Gleissner: We won't have any issues to substitute this with something else. The architect has been working with Staff on this. Josh: I would like to make a recommendation to the Committee to look into other materials. Sue: Is there any stacking limit on the drive thru? Rachel: The Michigan Road Overlay has certain stacking requirements,and it's the only overlay that has the requirement of 10 spaces for restaurants with a drive thru.Eric Gleissner: Our restaurant in Westfield has a similar layout. I rarely see it stacked past 10 spaces. If we were to be over capacity,we have plenty of room to stack them. I don't think that will be an issue. Brad: At the BZA hearing,we were told this restaurant does a higher rate of sit down dining then drive thru service. Sue: I just have a safety concern with people parking their cars and backing up to the cars waiting in line. Alan: Can you bring more detailed renderings to the Committee meeting? Bring more details of what it will look like as you approach the menu order area at the drive thru. Are there one or two lanes? Eric Gleissner: There will be two lanes that merge into one lane as they come to the side of the building. Alan: Can you bring a better drawing to better depict this? Eric Gleissner: I can bring that to the Committee meeting. Alan: Do the windows have glass block or cement block? Eric Gleissner: It's just a bricked-in(looking)window. It's Ia building accent to simulate a window. It's a different brick to break up the facade. Alan: Will you have answers to the Staff's outstanding items? Eric Gleissner: We will have comments to provide the Staff. We will continue to work with Staff on the awning design, lighting details,vehicular and sidewalk connections to the north,and regional waste approvals. The landscape plan will be finalized with the Urban Forester. Brad: Will the roof top mechanics be screened or hidden on the roof? Eric Gleissner: Sheet A3 in the packet shows the mechanical units. They will be completely screened in. Brad: I'm concerned with the durability of the awning materials and it looking cheap. Are there other durable options for materials to be used as the awning? Can you address that in Committee? Eric Gleissner: Yes Nick: For the blocked in brick windows,maybe put in fake windows instead of brick. Eric Gleissner: I will work with Staff and the Architect to see if that's possible. A motion made by Josh and seconded by Laura to send Docket Nos. 18100012 DP/ADLS& 18100013 SP to Commercial Committee on February 5,2019,with final voting authority. Motion passes 8-0, 1 absent Casati 3. Docket No. 18110010 PP: Hampstead Garden Subdivision,Primary Plat(aka Camferdam) 4. Docket No. 18110012 SW: Hampstead Waiver-UDO 7.25.E.3: Connectivity: All developments shall provide stub streets The applicant seeks primary plat and design standard waiver approval for a 12 lot subdivision on 18 acres. The site is located on the east side of Hoover Road,north of 116th Street.It is zoned S-1/Residential. Filed by Nelson and Frankenberger,on behalf of Platinum Properties Management Company. 3 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 1-15-19 Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewicz: • Tim Walter,Jim Shinaver,and other members of our development team are here tonight • Presented an aerial map, included in Tab 2 of the info packet • Presented a site plan, showed the layout of subdivision • We are proposing 12 residential lots ranging from 0.5 to 3.5 acres • Access to the subdivision will be at Hoover Road • 32%open space will be provided,the UDO requires minimum of 25% • 60%of the woodlands will be preserved • Storm water detention will be placed north and south of the lots • The pipeline easement is 50' wide and runs through lots 6& 7 • Lot prices will $250-$300k,with homes in the$700k to$1 million plus price range • We are requesting approval in not providing a stub street in connection to the adjoining parcel to the south • Providing a stub street will result in the loss of trees and character in this area • We think the preservation of the woodlands outweighs the need for a connection to an adjacent development • We believe this will be respectful addition to this area • We will continue to work with Staff in consideration of this waiver request Public Comments: Don Hayes, lives directly north of the subject property: What are the prices of the lots and houses? What will you do around and with the creek? The creek goes through my property. Dee Fox, lives in West Cannel: I would like to thank the land owners and the developer for this rare true S-1 development proposal. It actually fits the West Cannel Comprehensive Plan. It's not trying to build the minimum or maximum lot capacities. It shows respect for wildlife,tree preservation,and its adjacent neighbors. I hope the Plan Commission will work for maximizing the tree preservation. I would like to see the details of where the tree preservation will take place and if more than 60%can be preserved. I hope the Plan Commission will grant the waiver of the Petitioner's request to not have a stub street. This small subdivision is quite small and doesn't need a stub street. Petitioner Rebuttal: Jon Dobosiewicz • A dry retention area will be along Clay Creek • Referring to site map,the yellow area includes the tree preservation • There are more trees on lots 6 and 7 and will try to preserve as many as possible • Lot prices are$200k-$350k,houses will start at 700k and go up from there Brad: I would like to note the property values, lot or home prices are not a factor in our consideration as the Plan Commission. Department Report: Alexia Lopez: • They are proposing to create 12 single family lots on a cul-de-sac with 32%open space • 1 lot per acre for maximum density is allowed and they are proposing a max of 0.65 lots per acre • They meet all the UDO standards,min. lot size, front,rear,and side yard setbacks • The connectivity requirement per UDO was not met • There's already an approved primary plat,all new developments must connect to a stub street that is proposed for a neighboring subdivision • Its meets the land use and development goals of the Comprehensive Plan • We asked for more trees to be placed around the detention areas • They did not propose any entrance signage • In the department report, Staff included the approved primary plat(from 2005)directly to the south and their proposed stub street,where connectivity would be required. • If that's not the ideal spot for the stub street because of the grading and existing trees,we could possibility move the stub street to another area • We recommend this goes to Residential Committee on February 5th for further review and discussion 4 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 1-15-19 Committee Comments: Josh: The rendering of the retention areas looks gorgeous,but I see residents of putting up tennis courts,basketball Icourts,and storage sheds on this. We need to discuss in Committee how to preserve this area. We had to rectify this problem with another development. Bring your ideas in how to preserve this area and prevent people for putting up courts and sheds. Jon Dobosiewicz: These retention areas are in the common areas,and that's maintained by the HOA. Josh: For example in Foster Estates,that was a common area,and people put up landscaping mounds, sheds,basketball and tennis courts. Alexia: Will these retention areas be mowed or will this be natural vegetation? Jon Dobosiewicz: I'll have an answer to that at Committee. Laura: How will there be a house on Lot 7 with the pipeline going right through it? Jon Dobosiewicz: The house will be set to the west of the easement. The site layout can be deceptive but these are 3 acre lots. There's more than enough room to put a house on these lots adjacent to the pipeline. Nothing will be constructed on the eastside of lots 6& 7. This will preserve the existing trees. We will bring some site layouts of the building pads to the Committee. Sue: Where would a stub street be placed at to meet up with the proposed stub street to the south? Jon Dobosiewicz: Referring to layout, if a street were constructed on our site in Lot 7,the trees would have to be cleared out all the way to the creek line,because of the large differences in the grade. We think there's a greater sense to preserve this area. The area directly south of this was plated in 2005. That primary plat was filed before the City passed an ordinance that restricted development along 116th Street to a minimum of 3 acre per lot.The proposed lots are 1 acre in size,and that's why they filed the plat before the ordinance was passed. I don't think much thought was put in the proposed location of their stub street. Staff indicated there might be a better location for a stub street. We know the City can compel that owner to provide a plan that is different than what was proposed and approved. Brad: Will a multi-use path be provided in this subdivision? The pipeline easement provides an opportunity for such a path. Jon Dobosiewicz: There are single residential estates to the north and east. We would construct a path in front of Iour subdivision for future connectivity to 116th. We will also have 5' wide sidewalks in our subdivision. The biggest benefit is the ability to get to Coxhall Gardens. Brad: You could construct a path along the east side in the common area of the tree preservation area and run along the south property line. Jon Dobosiewicz: Lots 6& 7 are not in a common area. The common area is along the south edge of the perimeter. We can look into additional opportunities for pedestrian access. Brad: Even those would be enhancements. Brad: Is there any multi-use path that will tie into the frontage of this subdivision? Jon Dobosiewicz: There is a path that is north of our development,on the east side of Hoover Road,but that ends at the entrance of VOWC.There is no path south of our development on the east side of Hoover Road. There is a path that goes along Hoover Road on the west side of the road. Josh: It would be helpful to have a stretch of path on the frontage of Mr.Hayes' property. Brad: Was a path required on the frontage for the two estate properties(Foyt&Irsay)northeast of Mr.Hayes property? Alexia: I'll check and see what was required. A motion made by Josh and seconded by Laura to send Docket Nos. 18110010 PP& 18110012 SW to Residential Committee on February 5,2019,with the full Plan Commission having final voting authority. Motion passes 8-0, 1 absent Casati Old Business 1. Tabled Docket No. 18010004 Z: Westbridge PUD Rezone with ISBG Capital,LLC. 5 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 1-15-19 2. Docket No. 18100015 DP/ADLS: Aloft& Element Hotels 3. Docket No. 18100016 V : UDO Section 2.40 MC—Minimum Front Yard Setback(to US 31): 50' required, 24' proposed 4. 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 5. Docket No. 18100018 V: UDO Section 5.07.C.2.—60% Clear glazing required on the ground floor façade, less than 60% requested 6. 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') 7. 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 8. 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 are Nash Patel,Jim Shinaver,and members of our development team,the project engineer and architect • We've been previously heard at the Plan Commission in December,and the Commercial Committee in January • Presented an aerial site map • Presented elevations of the south and west building perimeter • The applicant has made the following adjustments to the building plans: o Removed the small, south facing Aloft wall sign o Removed all accent blue&magenta horizontal lighting bands that were placed on the building. The Commercial Committee recommended for the removal of these lights. • Presented a night time view to show all the night time building lighting • The up-lights that illuminate both sides of the blade/fin is the only visible lighting on the building • Staff asked us to amend the ground sign • Staff asked for removal of the building sign on the south side of the building • There will be an Aloft sign and an Element sign on the west side along the roof line of the building • We request you approve our variance and DP/ADLS requests,with the removal of the variance needed for the south facing wall sign Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • The Petitioner has been working with staff to address our concerns and comments • The blue rectangular entry feature on the Element side has a blue light above the cornice line • The lighting color bands have been removed from the Aloft side • The tower elements on the corner on the Aloft side are now gray to match the Element side • They provided us additional views of their courtyard • They provided views from exit ramp on 465 going north towards 31 to show you won't see the mechanical roof top equipment • The landscape plan has been approved by the Urban Forester • They are proposing four total signs,two for Element,one for Aloft, and one combined ground sign • We ask for approval after the removal of the south facing Aloft sign John Molitor: It's not required to follow the BZA's Rules of Procedure in regards to written ballots.You may follow the Plan Commission's Rules of Procedure which requires only a motion,and the President to execute the formal findings. 6 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 1-15-19 Commercial Committee Report: Alan Potasnik • There was a lot of discussion of the architecture design and color of the upper half of the building. We did not have the night view of the building at Committee but they presented to it us now. Their rendering of the night view clears up some of those questions. Committee Comments: Tom Kegley: If you are driving east bound on 465,there's no signage visible for Aloft. I think the removal of the south facing sign in that location is a mistake. Alan: Does this building sit in the 31 Corridor? Jon Dobosiewicz: It's in the MC zone. Alan: Do the old restrictions apply? Jon Dobosiewicz: They do apply. The 31 Corridor is the predecessor to the MC zone. Alan: How does this apply to the old 31 Overlay restrictions? Jon Dobosiewicz: The variances we requested would been the same variances we would have requested under the old Overlay. Alan: Does the light shine upwards under the canopy of the drive thru? Mark Erickson,Architect: Referring to night time rendering. The light you see going up the side of the building, is mounted to the bottom of the fin/blade. There's no canopy or awning underneath the light. The canopy covers up the bottom of the middle light. Alan: What about the interior lights that make a T at the fin? Mark Erickson: Those lights are coming through the windows that are from the 24-7 lights from the public corridor area of the hotel,by the elevator bays. Alan: What about the white light that is in the soffit that goes around the building? Are those individual lights? Mark Erickson: That is known as a LED strip light or a tape light. Alan: What about the lights shown underneath the canopy? Mark Erickson: Referring to east rendering,there are 6 cam lights underneath the canopy. Alan: Will the lights ever change in color,or just stay a white light? Mark Erickson: They will stay the same color,a white light as shown in the rendering in front of you tonight. Alan: Will the light on the top of roof of the Aloft building ever change colors? Jon Dobosiewicz: The light does not generate a color. The light is only reflecting off a blue painted surface. Alan: Can you show the renderings of the view from the 465 ramp. Jon Dobosiewicz: Referring to rendering, when traveling west bound on 465 heading north on the ramp to 31,you would see half way up the 2°d floor,and not see the 1st floor. You would see the top of the canopy above the drop off area. Josh: Can you point out the signage? Jon Dobosiewicz: Referring to the rendering,the Aloft sign and the circular Element sign are on the west side of the building, facing the 465 ramp to 31. This rendering is still showing the Aloft sign on the south facing side of the building. Brad: Let's come back to Tom's comment about the visibility of the south facing sign. Jon Dobosiewicz: Referring to the rendering, it was discussed at Committee that the Aloft sign at the top of the building gave it great exposure. Alan: The main entrance will be very visible for guests during the day or night. Brad: To add to Tom's comment,I think there's significant value of the proposed Aloft sign facing the south. If this is an office building,we have no issues with multiple tenants placing their signage high on the building. The other lodging property in this area has four signs on their property. I don't have a problem with the variance of the additional Aloft sign on the south elevation. According to the Department Report,the Petitioner has agreed to remove the sign. Jon Dobosiewicz: We would defer to the will of the Plan Commission on this issue. We can support and accept either decision. Brad: What's Staff's issue with this sign? Rachel: This will be a destination oriented hotel. If you are traveling westbound on 465,you will have to exit at 106th Street and drive back north to the hotel. We would prefer no signage on the top of the building on the south elevation and let them utilize the awning signage over the entrances. Once you have arrived,the signage on the awning will tell you where to go. There's no need for the additional signage at the top of the building when the signage on the awning will let you know where you are at. This is a single use building, even though there are two tenants in the building. This is similar to a grocery store or a car dealership. This will be a destination oriented place. Brad: I think about the several multi-brand auto dealerships on 96th Street and we allow Imultiple signs to represent each of their brands. I don't see any difference in this case. Two distinctly, independent operated hotels on a dual branded property,this additional signage has business merit. Alan: It was brought up at Committee that Carmel has no ordinance with regards to commercial office buildings that have multiple tenants which allow additional signage. But this is a unique property in Cannel and there's nothing in the Ordinance to address this type of hotel. That is why the Committee took the direction we did on this. Maybe the Plan Commission needs to readdress our Ordinance in regards to adding a multiple tenant hotel building. Josh: This is a real unique site and you 7 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 1-15-19 don't have the opportunity to see the canopy sign or signage on the door from street level. I agree with Staff's assessment. Most people are going to rely on their GPS or Uber drive to get them to their destination. But I don't think it makes Cannel look trashy to add one more sign to this building. Tom: Putting myself in the place of travel and going to a destination hotel. I've never been there before,and I only see one sign that says Element. Am I lost? I'm looking for some reassurance that I'm in the right place. If the extra sign is there,then I see it when I drive by. Brad: The Aloft and Element will be run as two separate businesses. If this was an office building,we would not be having this conversation. There's brand awareness and business value to the signage. Alan: The sign on the south side was not a part of discussion when we were at Committee. For this specific property,we studied the whole thing and there's nothing that addresses this situation. Josh: Even in light what President Grabow described for a multi-tenant buildings. Alan: There are multi-tenant office buildings in Cannel that the Staff brought up to our attention that are covered in the Ordinance. If we choose to do this,then we are doing without it being allowed in our Ordinance. I feel strongly in following Staff's recommendation and that's why I'm voting the way I am. A motion made by Josh and seconded by John to approve Docket Nos. 18100015 DP/ADLS, 18100016-19 V,and 18110003 V(18110004 V was excluded from the motion to include the additional sign on the south elevation) Motion passes 7-1,Potasnik,absent Casati Meeting Adjourned at 7:56 p.m. J Shestak Plan Commission Secretary Brad Grabow President 8 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 1-15-19