Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDepartment Report 12-01-203 Carmel Plan Commission COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE Tuesday, December 1, 2020 Department Report 2. Docket No. PZ-2020-00080 DP/ADLS: Lakeside Apartments - Phase II The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for three new apartment buildings, housing a total of 110 units. The site is 3.73 acres in size. It is located at 645 W. Carmel Drive (just east of the new Braunability R&D building) and is currently zoned PUD (Atapco PUD – Z-581-13). It is not located within any overlay. Filed by Jim Shinaver and Jon Dobosiewicz of Nelson & Frankenberger on behalf of JC Hart Company, Inc. *Updates to the Dept. Report are in blue. Project Overview: The Petitioner seeks site plan and design approval for the residential portion of Phase II of the Atapco PUD. Three new multi-family apartment buildings are proposed. North/northeast of this site are commercial uses zoned M-3. To the west and northwest is commercial and residential that is part of the remainder of the Atapco PUD. The land to the west/southwest is zoned R-1 with single family homes. Abutting this property to the south is additional commercial uses, also zoned M-3. Please see the Petitioner’s Information packet for more details. Planned Unit Development (PUD) requirements the project MEETS: Section 8 – Lighting: • All light poles are mounted at 12’ tall – meets 15’ requirement for next to residential (within 90’) Section 9 – Signage: Complies with UDO Section 10 – Parking: • 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit are required (per council commitments): 220 spaces required and provided (garage, behind garage, shared) • Bike parking – Short term: 21 spaces required; 40 spaces provided • Bike parking – Long term: one space per garage (34 garages – OK) and ½ space per apartment, per building. 21 spaces provided inside Buildings 1 and 3 (OK), and 16 spaces provided within an outdoor pavilion for Building 2 (OK). Section 13 – Additional requirements: • Screening for utilities required and provided • 50’ ROW for Carmel Drive required and provided Exhibits D-F: • Minimum tract size for office/residential – 3 acres required; 3.73 acres provided • Minimum building setback from Carmel drive – 10’ required, 10.9’ provided • Maximum front building setback – 30’ allowed, 19.2’ provided • Min side/rear yard setback – 30’ allowed, 74.2’ provided for side, 112.4’ provided for rear • Maximum building height when building is not adjacent (within 100’ of property line per PUD) to Clark Street or R-1 zoned property – lesser of 60’ or 4 floors allowed, about 49’6” proposed • Maximum lot coverage – 80% allowed, 67.76% proposed • Minimum distance between buildings – 20’ required, 34.6’ proposed PUD requirements the project does NOT Meet, therefore a variance is required: • Exhibit F, Section E: Public entrances will be provided on the street side of all residential buildings located within 50’ of the street ROW. Private entrances to units are currently proposed. Site Plan, Parking and Engineering: The proposed buildings will be oriented towards and pulled up to Carmel Drive with parking located behind or to the side of each building. Parking is required at a rate of 2 spaces per unit. There are 110 units so 220 spaces are required. There are 126 surface parking spaces, 28 shared parking spaces with the office to the west, 34 garage spaces, and 32 tandem spaces behind the garages. The entrance will be modified in order to change the viewshed – it will now be a grassy island with a wall and sign, rather than just rows of parking. This was done to help direct traffic and provide a terminus to the view as one enters the site. 4 The trash enclosure shown on the plans is for the office component of the site. JC Hart will be providing a concierge trash service that will pick up the residents’ trash and take it over to the compactor located north of Carmel Drive. Therefore, there are no sidewalks leading to the trash area, as they do not want to emphasize the use of the office building’s trash area. HVAC units will be located both on the roof and on the ground for the apartments. The ground mounted units will be located behind the brick screen walls facing Carmel Drive. Transformer pads are also strategically placed behind this wall. Drainage for the site will be done through underground storage tanks in the parking lot areas of this site. This will ensure that the tree preservation areas along the south property line are kept untouched. Active Transportation: New 10’ wide asphalt path will be added along the front of the buildings adjacent to Carmel Drive. There will be eight sidewalk connections to the path from the buildings. Short term bicycle parking is located throughout the site, adjacent to each building. There will be four pods of five racks, which equals 40 total short-term bike parking spaces for the site. Long term bicycle parking is required within each building. Building Type 3, which are labeled Building 1 and Building 3 on the site plan, have bike parking rooms on the first floor. Building Type 2, which is the middle building, does not have space for a bike room inside the building. They have provided an outdoor covered pavilion for those 16 required spaces, which meets the PUD ordinance in terms of providing bike lockers. However, the proposed pavilion will be an upgraded version, since it will be a space connected to other site amenities. Architectural Design: The Petitioner is continuing the design of the buildings on the north side of Carmel Drive, using the same design of the 4 story buildings, with some slight modifications. Building materials include brick, horizontal siding and vertical panel siding. Because these buildings will front directly onto Carmel Drive, changes were needed to create 4 sided details for enhancing the elevations to look more like fronts. Staff has been working diligently with the Petitioner to improve the original design and meet the PUD requirements. We are very pleased with the results of working together to provide enhancements to the façades, which include: creating symmetry, adding entrances, including a wall along Carmel Drive with large pedestrian gateways to create the look of a continuous façade, and first floor brick wrap around garages. Lighting: The proposed site lighting fixtures will match the first phase of development and will be more traditional and residential in style and character. Wall sconces are also proposed and will be near entrances and by the garage doors. The lighting plan meets the 0.3 footcandle requirements along all property lines as required by the PUD. Landscaping: Daren Mindham has been working with the Petitioner on the proposed landscaping plan. He has two minor comments left to be addressed regarding tree preservation. All his other comments have been resolved and he is in support of the plan. Signage: The petitioner is proposing an additional Ground sign in conjunction with this petition. However, this sign is proposed on the property to northwest, not the subject property. This sign is permitted because the complex is considered a Multi- Tenant Building Complex, which allows for an additional Ground sign. The sign may be 8 ft. in height and 85 sq. ft. in size according to the Ground Sign Chart. Currently the signage is at 5’-4” in height and the sign structure is 8’-4” tall. This height is permitted by classifying the structure as a Non-residential Entryway Feature which allows for structures to be taller, but not the signage portion. The Petitioner has submitted sign details – the size will be 3’ x 28’4”, which equals the allowed 85 sq. ft. There will also not be any signage located on the buildings, other than addresses. Lastly, the sign will also act as a screen for the parking lot directly behind it. November 17 Public Hearing recap: The Petitioner went over details for the project, including the removal of the two existing office buildings. They are proposing 3 buildings with 110 apartments. Parking will be located to the side and behind the buildings. An additional entrance will be constructed to provide access to Guilford Road, as is required by the PUD for this phase of development. Plan Commission members had questions about the following: the split of units (30 are 1 bed, 64 are 2 bed, and 16 are 3 5 bed), bike parking details, access to mailboxes, installing a fence on east property line, building materials, design of access to Guilford, and concern about “porkchop” island for right-in/right-out to Carmel Drive at the east end of the property. We received two letters in remonstrance regarding this project. One was from a neighboring business, with concerns regarding drainage, greenspace, desiring a fence be constructed, building height, building placement/setback, and traffic. The second letter was from a nearby resident, with concerns about traffic, speed on Guilford, noise, and an excess of apartments in Carmel. The Plan Commission voted to send this to the Commercial Committee meeting on December 1, with the Committee having final voting authority. Remaining Comments/Concerns: • Tree preservation details requested in Project Dox for the landscape plan • Engineering Dept. is still working through their review on Project Dox • Fire Dept. needs the FDC moved closer to the building for Building 2. Recommendation: After all concerns are addressed, the Department of Community Services recommends the Commercial Committee votes to Approve this item this evening, subject to addressing all outstanding department reviews through Project Dox and obtaining BZA variance approval for the private entrances.