Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-15-20 \ F ,i QtTNJ y/„ • 1 Cityof C MA % CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 I MEETING MINUTES Location:Carmel City Hall Council Chambers,2nd Floor, 1 Civic Square,Cannel,IN 46032 Members Present: Brad Grabow,Jeff Hill,Carrie Holle,Nick Kestner,Alan Potasnik,Kevin Rider,Sue Westermeier,Christine Zoccola Members Absent: Josh Kirsh Staff Present:Adrienne Keeling,Rachel Keesling,Alexia Lopez,Joe Shestak,Mike Hollibaugh, Legal Counsel: John Molitor Time of Meeting:6:00 PM Declaration of Quorum: President Grabow: 8 members present,we have a Quorum Approval of Meeting Minutes: A Motion made by Rider and seconded by Westermeier to approve the August 18,2020 PC meeting minutes. Approved 8-0,absent Kirsh. Communications,Bills,Expenditures,&Legal Counsel Report:John Molitor • We held an Executive Committee to update to Rules of Procedure in regarding lockout periods • A Petitioner would have to wait a minimum of 6 months to file again if they were previously denied • We will add this restriction to Article 10,Section 3 in the Rules of Procedure A Motion by Rider and seconded by Westermeier to amend the Plan Commission Rules of Procedure. Approved 8-0.Absent Kirsh Reports,Announcements&Department Concerns I. Outcome of Projects at Committees: a. Commercial i. Docket No.PZ-2020-00076 DP/ADLS: Avant Phase II—Favorable Recommendation to full PC 4-0 b. Residential i. Docket No.PZ-2020-00069 PUD: Ambleside Point PUD Rezone—Discussed then continued to Oct. 6 ii. Docket No. 19090013a OA: Group Home Ordinance Standards—Fay.Recommendation to full PC 4-0 iii. Docket No. 19090013b OA:Accessory Dwelling Ord. Standards—Tabled to Oct. 6 Committee Public Hearings: Brad: Explained the Rules of Procedure for a Public Hearing 1. Docket No.PZ-2020-00006 OA: Clay Terrace PUD Amendment The applicant seeks PUD Amendment approval to modify the existing Clay Terrace PUD in order to foster redevelopment of a portion of the site.The site is located generally at the SW corner of 146th Street and US 31.It is zoned Clay Terrace PUD Z-386-02. Filed by Steven Hardin of Faegre Drinker Biddle&Reath LLP. Petitioner: Steve Hardin: • With me from Washington Prime Group are Lisa Callahan,India Olson,and Jennifer Jones • Presented an aerial view of the subject site • Clay Terrace was originally proposed and approved 20 years ago • We have seen changes in the retail landscape and Washington Prime has looked at ways to adapt to those changes • Washington Prime is a spinoff from Simon Property Group • We have been working on plans and strategy for about a year. The Pandemic stopped our progress for a while. Plan Commission Minutes 9-15-20 1 • There are existing tenants that will need to relocate. The Pandemic has forced some businesses to shut down • Presented a site plan, our redevelopment plans include an office building,parking garage,4 story multi-family structure with first floor retail&restaurants,and a hotel • We will have to come back to the Plan Commission for DP and ADLS approvals • Presented renderings of the proposed buildings • Our goal is to make this area more pedestrian friendly by reducing Clay Terrace Blvd.to one way north and one way south between the existing roundabouts in Clay Terrace • Clay Terrace Blvd.north of the roundabout will remain the same,3 lanes outbound and 3 lanes inbound • We will invite Jeremy Kashman of Cannel Engineering Dept.to the Committee meeting to discuss the traffic.A traffic memo was done by Kimberly-Horn,the engineering consultant. • We are proposing to include an outdoor gathering greenspace • We hosted a neighborhood meeting on Sept. 10. Top issues brought up by the neighbors were concerns about traffic,noise from live music events,and drainage. We will come back to the Committee meeting with some answers to their concerns. Public Comments: Peter Griffin,co-owner of Sola Salons, 14179 Clay Terrace Blvd.: We have a lease until 2035. We are excited about this project,but we have concerns about the parking. The existing parking lot is usually full. Today we counted 47 parked cars. The existing parking will be removed and replaced with an office building. I know they are proposing a parking garage. We are asking consideration for additional parking. Our clients will not want to walk from the parking garage in the middle of winter. What are the min.requirements for parking?How does the handicap parking get calculated?During construction,where will our employees and clients park? Brent Beecher,224 John Street: We had a good neighborhood meeting and communication within our community. We are excited with this project,but we have some concerns. We want to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. We are concerned with the proposed building heights. We would like consideration to maintain a 45' building height for buildings adjacent to the residential areas. The taller buildings can be closer to US 31. The orientation of music and public events should be faced away from the neighborhood. There's an existing 50' wooded buffer,but can you increase the height of the 8' privacy fence along the parking at Clay Terrace?Traffic is a concern. Can a curbed median be installed to prevent U-turns on 146th Street?400-600 people will be added to this site with the hotel and multi-family units,can the security be improved?Can we add another entrance,entry way for hotel only users? Dave Taylor,Stonehedge Estates: I would want to second everything Mr.Brent Beecher has said. I was part of the original Clay Terrace development. We are in favor of this process of including the neighbor's input. Rebuttal to Public Comments: Steve Hardin • We will digest their comments and report back to the Committee meeting • I don't have a parking number to provide Mr. Griffin and Sola Salons,but we will research and report back with an answer at the Committee meeting Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • Originally approved in 2002,and they had the foresight to include uses such as working, dining, and living • They are proposing to add more office and residential living space • Overall building heights will increase • Amount of parking has been changed from what is allowed in the ordinance,and will be determined by a parking study for all the uses • Signage will be changing to allow many types of signs.The size and height allowed will increase. • We need to look at the all the proposed new uses and also look closely at a drive-up/pick-up lane for call ahead restaurant orders • How many apartments are they proposing? There's no number specified in the PUD. • There's an existing 50' tree buffer along the west and south and we want to preserve that area • We will continue to work with the petitioner on the PUD language,and Staff recommends this goes to the Commercial Committee with it coming back to the full Plan Commission for a final recommendation to the CC Plan Commission Minutes 9-15-20 2 Committee Comments: Kevin: When is the next neighborhood meeting? Steve Hardin: Next Tuesday at the former Forever 2 in Clay Terrace. ISue: This is a great project. I want the Commercial Committee to look at the traffic and the existing entrances,as well as the possibility of adding another entrance to this development. Carrie: Can you go over the layout of the site plan? What the existing site looks like now and what will be removed and added? Steve Hardin: Presented the existing layout and the proposed concept plan. Carrie: I've experienced a full parking lot at Clay Terrace. Parking is a real concern to consider. Jeff: With the two buildings being demoed,what's the net retail? What's being removed and added? A traffic memo would be helpful. How many apartment units? How tall is the building? How many hotel rooms?How many parking spaces for the parking garage?A pedestrian trail from the existing neighborhoods?Can you bring us renderings of how the greenspace is going to look?Steve Hardin: The amount of retail will decrease. The pedestrian trail will remain and go further into this development. We will bring the details to your questions to the Committee. Kevin: Before the Committee meeting,can Staff and the Petitioner meet with Engineering Department to discuss the possibility of another access point/entrance?Brad: Currently there are two access points and they create some challenges. A right in and right out has been discussed. We know it's difficult to work with Hamilton County on 146th Street and INDOT on US 31. We need to investigate if there's a possibility of another access point. Brad: What does the current PUD require for parking? Are those standards appropriate for the new uses?What are the net changes in the existing PUD compared to the amended PUD?We need to make sure we have an adequate level of parking. Christine: What are the heights for each proposed building?Steve Hardin: Approx. 85-95' for the mixed-use building, Ioffice building,and hotel. We will need to check on the height for the parking structure. Christine: Can the Committee look at the signage because some of the proposed signage is increasing and are quite large. Brad: We can look at other opportunities for signage on the proposed buildings and the east facade of the parking garage. Rachel Keesling: We don't allow signage on accessory structures,so we will need to discuss this.Brad:As for the garage,we will need to look at the 4-sided architecture,design, and color of the parking garage since it's in a high-profile location along US 31. Nick: The City has no regulations for the kiosks.I would like to see how these would work and the proposed locations. Come up with requirements on the kiosks.Make sure bike parking are in the right spots. Alan: Can you point out where the buildings are in relationship to the entrances?Can you bring a more detailed depiction of what you are proposing? Steve Hardin: The existing entrances and 3 lanes in and out will stay the same.Only between the two roundabouts the boulevard will go from 4 lanes to 2 lanes. We will bring additional renderings and info to the Committee meeting. Brad: Is there an opportunity to have any of the parking below grade?Steve Hardin: Our plan is not to over-park or under-park this site. The original plan for the parking garage was double the size as we are proposing it now. The City encouraged us to decrease the size of the garage. The proposed parking garage has 480-500 parking spaces. We will bring more details about the parking to our next meeting. A Motion by Hill and seconded by Zoccola to send PZ-2020-00006 OA to the Commercial Committee with the full Plan Commission having final voting authority. Approve 8-0,absent Kirsh. 2. Docket No.PZ-2020-00084 DP/ADLS: AT&T Maintenance Building 3. Docket No.PZ-2020-00118 ZW: Max.Accessory Bldg.Height 18 ft.,20 ft. proposed The applicant seeks site plan and design approval and waiver approval for a new accessory building and parking expansion.The new accessory building will be 20' tall and 1,920 sq. ft.42 new parking spaces will be added. Plan Commission Minutes 9-15-20 3 The overall site is 5.32 acres in size. It is located at 4160 E. 96th Street and is zoned B-3/Business. Filed by Nigel Downton of AT&T. Petitioner: Ashley Armbrustmacher,Architectural Designer at EXP 111 • Presented an aerial photo of the site • Presented renderings of the proposed building • We are proposing to install a new pre-engineered metal building that is 40'x48'. This building will match the existing building,which was recently painted in June 2020. We had complaints about the appearance. • We are proposing to add a secure parking lot to the north side of the site. We will use the existing parking spaces and add 42 new parking spaces. • We are relocating our climbing poles from the rear of the site to the front of the site • The height of the new building will be 2' higher than what is allowed. This is to allow us to store our vehicles and equipment Public Comments: None Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • Their request for the 2' increase(11%)in height is within the 35%allowable amount for a zoning waiver(ZW) • There are no architectural requirements for this area.This type of building is allowed. • The proposed maintenance building will be similar to the main building on site • The surrounding buildings in this area range from 22'-26' in height • The only outstanding item in the Department Report is regarding a sidewalk connection from the street to the front door. It is a requirement of the UDO to have an ADA accessible route. The Petitioner has agreed to install. • Staff recommends suspending the Rules of Procedure to vote on this item at tonight's meeting Committee Comments: Brad: What are the materials being used around the windows on the existing building? Ashley Armbrustmacher: They are stone panels. Brad: I drove by this building and they looked like plywood. It looks like boarded-up windows and doors,even after it's been recently painted. This looks like a vacant building because of those panels. Nigel Downton, AT&T: The panels are actually made of concrete sprayed with sand to make a rough texture. That was the recommended finish to seal the panels from the elements. Brad: Was the choice of color and treatment of the panels approved by Staff? Rachel Keesling: No,but we asked them to paint the existing building when this petition was filed. We don't know who recommended the color or texture for the window panels. Nigel Downton: We wanted to match the existing building with the proposed maintenance building. Kevin: Why can't we have them change the appearance of the existing building? A fresh paint job did not solve the issue with the appearance of the existing building. Rachel Keesling: The petitioner is not bringing forth the existing building to us,but rather the new maintenance building. We asked them to paint the existing building to make it look nicer than what it did.Kevin: We have leverage to have them change the appearance of the existing building in order to approve their proposed building.Brad: The panels disturb me,but I'll refer to the rest of Commission. Fresh landscaping will certainly help. Brad: Can you show where the automated gate will be located? Ashley Armbrustmacher: Presented site plan. The automatic gate will be located in the back and is where the company vehicles will be stored securely. Brad: Can you explain visually what the pole climbing training area will look like? Nigel Downton: Three wooden freestanding poles with guidewires that are 50' apart.They are used 3 days a month for training for our workers. Brad: Will there be any equipment stored in the training area? Nigel Downton: No equipment. Christine: I also drove by it and noticed there are existing hedges. Will those get removed for the training area?Nigel Downton: The hedge is being removed. Christine: How close is the adjacent car dealership? Nigel Downton: There will be a line of trees and a courtyard that will separate us from them.Kevin: Why are you moving the training poles from behind the building to where they can be seen? Nigel Downton: We are adding parking spaces where the poles currently exist.By adding our maintenance building/garage,we need to add hard surface space to allow our large work trucks to give them a large turning radius.Kevin: Have the removing of the hedges and their landscaping plan been approved? Rachel Keesling: Yes,the landscaping plan has been approved. Jeff: Was there a site plan to review for the parking addition?Is detention being required? Rachel Keesling: The site Plan Commission Minutes 9-15-20 4 plan is what is being presented to you. We have reviewed it. Detention has been proposed to be detained on site.They are being reviewed by the Engineering Department. They are doing all the right things. Nick: With the number of outstanding issues,I don't think we can approve this item tonight. We can forward it onto the Committee with final approval. A Motion by Kestner and seconded by Rider to forward this to the Commercial Committee with the Commercial Committee having final approval. Approved 8-0,absent Kirsh. Nigel Downton: I would like to proceed with the project without taking any more time. What exactly is the holdup on the white window panels?Would you prefer them to be gray?Brad: That's an option,but I'll leave it up to the Petitioner to find a solution. The panels give the appearance of a boarded-up window. Other holdups are the location and height of the training poles. Nigel Downton: There are mature trees in that area. Brad: There was a motion to forward this to the Oct. 6 Committee meeting but if you are prepared to make a commitment on the appearance of the panels,perhaps there will be a new motion. Nigel Downton: If you specify a color, we will make the changes. Alan: You need to commit to painting the reference areas. Follow Staff's recommendation. Nick: I'll withdraw my previous motion,and the Petitioner and Staff worked together on the building's appearance. Kevin: I'll withdraw my second. A Motion by Kestner and seconded by Rider to reconsider the previous made motion. Approved 8-0,absent Kirsh. A Motion by Potasnik and seconded by Rider to approve Docket Nos.PZ-2020-00084 DP/ADLS and PZ-2020- 00118 ZW with the Condition the Petitioner will consult with Carmel Planning Staff on the exterior colors and appearance of the existing AT&T building. Approved 8-0,absent Kirsh. 4. Docket No.PZ-2020-00127 Z: Huntington Bank C2 Rezone. The applicant seeks to rezone the property located at 1215 S. Range Line Road,from the B-8/Business District to the C-2/Mixed Use District. The site is generally located at the northeast corner of Range Line Rd. and Executive Dr. Filed by Mike Hollibaugh with the Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. Petitioner: Mike Hollibaugh,Department of Community Services: • This site is more commonly known as the old Walgreens site • Huntington Bank proposed a branch location in 2016 which was eventually withdrawn by a request from the City • The proposed rezone will align the property with zoning to the west • Currently,there's no proposed development plan,but we know that Huntington Bank will be the tenant at this site Public Comments: None Committee Comments: Rider: Huntington proposed two stories and height was a consideration since this is on the east side of Range Line Road. City Council pretty much had it approved but the Mayor wanted a larger building and to have parking for this location off- site. This would lead to parking across the street at the City Center parking center. This a problem for me. We can't promise parking spaces twice.The newer garage is for City Center and not for any other development. I have a problem of this going in front of the Cannel Redevelopment Commission(CRC)because it takes us out of the decision. I need to see a concept plan in order for me to support this. This project has to park itself. Mike Hollibaugh: There are no plans. I am not aware of any commitment that would cause residents or employees to park and walk from City Center parking garage all the way to this site. Kevin: I was present at the 2016 meetings where it was said people can walk across the street and Plan Commission Minutes 9-15-20 5 park at the City Center parking garage. Alan: Is there any parking on site? Mike Hollibaugh: The C-2 zoning has no parking requirements.It's hard to imagine that any ground floor tenant or Huntington would have no parking spaces in place. TIF will be allocated for a parking structure.Kevin: We under park some areas. This site will not park itself. I need to see a site plan. Brad: If no parking is created for this site,what does the parking look at the Proscenium,directly across the street? Mike Hollibaugh: The Proscenium has 6 buildings that will have the required office,retail,and resident parking for its uses. There may be parking spaces available,but not many. Parking will be developed to accommodate the uses of this site. Nick: Has the bank changed their business philosophy?Will they provide a drive-up window service or drive-up kiosks? Mike Hollibaugh: There's no concept plan. We know that Huntington will be a tenant. Other partners will be involved. It's a standard C-2 rezone.Brad: The C-2 district was created for creative redevelopment for the central-core of Carmel. It has worked very well.The CRC oversights any development in a C-2 zoning district.Any concerns should be expressed directly to the CRC. A Motion by Westermeier and seconded by Hill to suspend the Rules of Procedure to vote on this item tonight. Approved 7-1,Rider. Absent Kirsh. A Motion by Westermeier and seconded by Hill to forward this item to the City Council with a Favorable Recommendation. Approved 6-2,Kestner,Rider. Absent Kirsh. Old Business: 1. Docket No.PZ-2020-00076 DP/ADLS: Avant Phase II The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a multi-family building with 94 apartments. (14 townhome plots are also shown on this DP,but additional applications will be filed for Secondary Plat&ADLS approval at a later date.)The building is 135,243 gross sq. ft.and 4 stories/58' tall. The overall site is 3.82 acres in size. It is located just north of 12890 Old Meridian Street(Avant Phase I)and is zoned PUD(The District Z-587-14). Filed by Steven D. Hardin,Esq.,with Faegre Drinker,on behalf of Edward Rose Development. Petitioner: Steve Hardin: • Presented updated site plan, we have fulfilled the sidewalk connection,bike racks,a vehicular connection to the Olivia,and updated the plans to show the landscaped walkway. • We included an update to the details of the architectural design of the dumpster enclosure • Presented updated elevations, added red color to the rear facade • We are asking for approval at tonight's meeting Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • The Committee was supportive of all their changes • I walked the site today with the petitioner and City Engineering Department to talk about the sidewalk connection • The sidewalk connection to the Olivia is now shown in their plans • Staff recommends approval of this item Commercial Committee Review: Alan Potasnik,Committee Chair: • The Petitioner and Staff did a great job explaining the changes. I will let their comments stand as a recap. Committee Comments: Kevin: The parking is difficult for this site since the buildings in this area house restaurants and residential living. As people go out eat in the evenings at these restaurants,they will take up the residents' spaces who are coming home from work. By doing this landscaped pedestrian connection in the parking lot,we are taking away parking spots from these residents. We are creating parking wars. Sue: I agree.There's a problem with shared parking. There's always a fight to find parking.I believe the vehicular connection between the two properties should stay the same. They committed to it. Plan Commission Minutes 9-15-20 6 Carrie: If we allow that connectivity,then we are sharing parking lots. Sue: That was part of the master plan from the very beginning. IBrad: Can you show the site plan? Steve Hardin: Presented a site plan. Kevin: You have three entrances for the Olivia. Why do you need a fourth entrance to create a parking war? Why would we keep this connection?This is not connecting neighborhoods. What are we improving? Brad: For this connectivity to happen, it does appear that Keystone Group would have to agree to have a curb cut for access since there's not an existing stub or connection. If we planned this better,we could have supported the connectivity functionality better and made it easier to keep the traffic off of Old Meridian Street.As it stands right now,I don't see a practical benefit to having that access here. Kevin: I would make a motion to remove the vehicular access between the two properties. Brad: I think that is up to the Petitioner. Steve Hardin: Our preference is to not to have a connection,but we are willing to do as the PC wishes.Jeff: Isn't there a recorded commitment that requires this connection?If we vote on this tonight,wouldn't something need to be undone? Rachel Keesling: There is a recorded commitment on the Olivia site. It's listed in the Avant's PUD that they provide vehicular connectivity to the adjacent parking lot. We planned for three potential spots on the Olivia property. Olivia agreed they would work with the developer to the south when they came forward with a project and that is where we are today. John Molitor: I consulted with the Petitioner and it appears there is a requirement for connectivity in the PUD Ordinance that doesn't specify that it must be at a specific location. Steve Hardin: Staff is correct. Reads PUD Ordinance text. There's variation in the location.We will do what the PC wants us to do.Rachel Keesling: We would work with Keystone Group(Olivia site)to make sure they fulfill their recorded commitment. If they don't,they would have to seek a recourse to amend their commitment. A Motion made by Rider and seconded by Zoccola to approve Docket No.PZ-2020-00076 DP/ADLS. Approved 8-0.Absent Kirsh 2. Docket No. 19090013a OA: Group Home Ordinance Standards. (Proposed Accessory Dwelling portion remains in Residential Committee) The applicant seeks to amend the Unified Development Ordinance in order to establish standards and an approval process and to amend definitions for Group Homes. Filed by the Department of Community Services on behalf of the Cannel Plan Commission. Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling, Department of Community Services: • The Residential Committee decided to separate the Group Homes and Accessory Dwelling Units(ADU) standards into separate ordinances. Tonight,we are just dealing with the Group Homes standards. • A number of changes to the Group Home standards have been proposed,and approval of a Group Home would be through a Special Exception in front of a BZA Hearing Officer. • The exterior of the dwelling will resemble a residential home and not give the appearance that it is a Group Home • There's a range of recommendations to the number of proposed occupants. Not more than 8 unrelated persons shall generally be entitled to favorable consideration;Between 9-12 unrelated persons shall generally be entitled to favorable consideration,as long as the Director of Community Services does not oppose; 13 or more unrelated persons shall be entitled to favorable consideration only if the Director is supportive. • We have updated the definitions for Single-Family Dwelling,Family,and Group Home • We are proposing an effective date of January 1,2021 • Staff recommends Favorable Recommendation to the City Council Committee Comments: Christine: I don't recall discussing the definition of a Family. Should the definition of Family be part of the Accessory Dwelling Units and not Group Homes? John Molitor: It is important it remains with the Group Home part of the IOrdinance so we can limit the amount of people. The City of Springfield,IL. limits to 5 persons in their Ordinance,and the Supreme Court didn't have a problem with that.Our amendments include a lot of provisions that have been looked at and mentioned by Federal Judges in previous court cases. Kevin: Is this something we need to pass even if we don't like it?John Molitor: We need to setup a process that we can comply with a Federal Court decision. Kevin: What's a reason to deny a group home? John Molitor: The Ordinance Plan Commission Minutes 9-15-20 7 states reasons in how the Director can make their recommendation. If it's 13 or more,they are generally not entitled to a favorable consideration. Kevin: We don't want to decrease the property values in residential neighborhoods. John Molitor: Our Ordinance will allow the Director to look into all various factors. The Group Home has to resemble a residential home and not an institution. Christine: What's the current process now? John Molitor: We don't have a reliable process right now. If Staff thinks you need a Variance,but the BZA doesn't have the guidelines to make a favorable or unfavorable decision. The Federal Courts are stating the City gets the burden of proof. Carrie: We are at a standstill because there's not a lot we can do, legally. We went through piece by piece.Our hands are tied.John Molitor: We are under a lot of pressure and we've seen a few of these come through in the last few years. Brad: We need to be very careful on restricting uses on the types of people who occupy Group Homes.We are a welcoming community and we value diversity. We need to strike the balance between creating availability and what the Courts and Federal Law allow us to do. A legislative body needs to come up with a standard that our land use governing body can make decisions on. This Ordinance amendment is great start. Thank you for your efforts here. There will be more work done at the City Council level. A Motion made by Rider and seconded by Westermeier to send Docket No. 19090013a OA to the City Council with a Favorable Recommendation. Approved 8-0.Absent Kirsh. Meeting Adjourned at 8:35 p.m. 34416- Joe estak Plan Commission Secretary Brad rabo President Plan Commission Minutes 9-15-20 8