Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-16-21 City of Carmel 1 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 2-16-21 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2021 | MEETING MINUTES Location: Virtual Meeting Members Present: Brad Grabow, Jeff Hill, Carrie Holle, Nick Kestner, Josh Kirsh, Alan Potasnik, Kevin Rider, Sue Westermeier, Christine Zoccola Staff Present: Nathan Chavez, Rachel Keesling, Alexia Lopez, Mike Hollibaugh, Lisa Motz, Joe Shestak Legal Counsel: Paul Reis, Jon Oberlander Time of Meeting: 6:00 PM Declaration of Quorum: President Grabow: 9 members present, we have a Quorum Approval of Meeting Minutes: A Motion made by Kirsh and seconded by Rider to approve the January 19, 2021 PC meeting minutes. Approved 9-0. Communications, Bills, Expenditures, & Legal Counsel Report: 1. Paul Reis: Legislature bill going through State House on the regulation of certain building materials that would be allowed in municipalities, and there some concern that cheaper substitutions of building materials would be used. 2. Pending action from City Council on 2-15-2021: Adrienne Keeling: City Council denied Ordinance Z-663-20 (PC Docket No. 19090013b OA: Accessory Dwelling, previously included Group Home Standards). Staff recommends the PC to vote to accept the denial. Kevin Rider, City Council: When it at the Committee level, it became more complicated. It was argued in how it would be implemented. It was turned down because a consensus was not agreed upon. A Motion made by Zoccola and seconded by Westermeier to accept City Council’s vote against the OA. Approved 9 -0. 3. Comprehensive Plan Update: Adrienne Keeling: Keep an eye out for an email invitation for a webinar about our updates to the Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan. Reports, Announcements & Department Concern s: 1. Announcement of Committee Assignments: • Commercial Committee: Hill, Kestner, Potasnik, Rider • Residential Committee: Holle, Kirsh, Westermeier, Zoccola 2. Outcome of Projects at Committees: a. Commercial i. Docket No. PZ-2020-00198 DP/ADLS: The Avenue at Bennett Farm. All Approved 4-0 Docket No. PZ-2020-00206 ZW: 20’ Maximum Building height, 22’6” and 22’4” requested. Docket No. PZ-2020-00207 ZW: 30’ minimum Greenbelt width required, 28’ requested. Docket No. PZ-2020-00208 ZW: Number of Parking spaces – 88 required, 77 requested. ii. Docket No. PZ-2020-00210 DP Amend/ADLS Amend: Pennwood Office Park. Both Approved 4-0 Docket No. PZ-2020-00225 V: UDO Section 3.17.A.1.b. – Secondary vehicular entrances shall not be through residential areas. Requesting emergency vehicle-only secondary access from Washington Blvd. iii. Docket No. PZ-2020-00119 OA: Sign Standards Amendments – 4-0 Favorable Recommendation to PC b. Residential i. Docket No. PZ-2020-00155 Z: Albany Village PUD – 3-1 Negative Recommendation to PC Public Hearings: Brad: Explained the Rules of Procedure for a Public Hearing. We continue to meet virtually, so our public hearing has been modified for written comments in lieu of in-person public comments. 2 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 2-16-21 1. Docket No. 20020004 DP/ADLS: Warehouse Bldg. Addition – 4511 W. 99th Street. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a 13,000 sq. ft. building addition to the existing warehouse facility (About 16,000 sq. ft.). The overall site is 2.47 acres in size. It is located at 4511 W. 99 th Street and is zoned I-1. It is not within any overlay zone. Filed by Todd Katz of JADAM Property Group, LLC. Petitioner: Don Humphrey, Total Engineering Solutions Co. • With me tonight is Todd Katz of JADAM Property Group and can answer any questions you may have • Requesting an addition along the western side of the existing building that has been part of Mayflower Park since 1990. Concrete pavement and a wooden area currently exists on the west side of the building. • Some trees will be removed during the construction process and we will be replaced with landscaping and trees • The same building materials, colors, and look will be incorporated to the building addition • The existing wetland areas in the wooded area will be mitigated. We will finalize any needed permits by mid- March to early April (2021). • There are existing drainage issues in the Mayflower Park area. We are planning to detain any stormwater runoff in this new portion of our addition. We will not have a negative effect on the current drainage system. We are working with TAC and the Carmel Engineering, so our release rate meets the City’s drainage standards. • One truck dock will be part of the addition Public Comments: None Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • All yard and lot coverage requirements of the I-1 zoning district are met • Parking requirements call for 1 parking space per employee. Up to 16 employees are anticipated with 19 spaces. • The Landscape Plan was approved by the Urban Forester • Either a Variance or Waiver is needed for no curbs in the detention area. Staff is supportive of this request. • The design of the building will match the existing structure • We requested an updated lighting plan • They will need to obtain sign permit approval for the existing wall sign on site • We ask the Commission to suspend the rules of procedure in order to vote in favor of this item subject to the items needing approval • On-going approval will be needed by the Carmel Engineering Dept and address any remaining ProjectDox comments from TAC members Committee Comments: Josh: Is Mayflower Drive privately owned? Rachel Keesling: Yes. Josh: Do all existing tenants along this drive contribute to the maintenance plan of this drive? Rachel Keesling: I’m not sure. Brad: How much is spent yearly on the maintenance of this drive? The drive is made of concrete and is often in bad shape. Josh: There has been conversations of the City taking over this drive, but they are in bad shape so they City couldn’t take over ownership. Todd Katz: The Common Owners Association has a fund that pays for these roads, and we had the roads paved last year. Brad: Since there are no sidewalks in Mayflower Park, would it be productive to install sidewalks or contribute to the sidewalk fund? Rachel Keesling: They will contribute to the fund for the multi-use path and the Alternative Transportation Coordinator has approved their plan. Josh: I ask that this multi-use path goes all the way to the property line instead of stopping 2’ short of the property line. Rachel Keesling: Yes, it goes all the way. Don Humphrey: Our intention is to have it from property line to property line. A Motion by Hill and seconded by Rider to Suspend the Rules of Procedure in order to vote on Docket No. 20020004 DP/ADLS. Approved 9-0. A Motion by Rider and seconded by Kirsh to approve Docket No. 20020004 DP/ADLS subject to the outstanding items listed in the Department Report. Approved 9-0. 3 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 2-16-21 2. Docket No. PZ-2020-00221 DP/ADLS: 146th Street and Monon Townhomes. The applicant seeks development plan and site & architectural design approval for 15 townhome lots on 1.26 acres. The site is located at the southwest corner of 146th St. and Rolling Hill Dr. It is zoned 146th and Monon PUD/Planned Unit Development (Z-654-20). Filed by Jim Shinaver and Jon Dobosiewicz of Nelson and Frankenberger on behalf of Estridge Development Management, LLC. Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewicz: • Presented location map and concept plan, a more detailed engineered site plan is required part of the DP approval process, and is provided behind Tab 12 of the info packet • Access will be from and entry drive along Rolling Hill Drive • Significant landscape will be provided along the south property line and Rolling Hill Drive • Presented an Elevation exhibit, the fronts are oriented toward the Monon Trail, 146th Street, and Rolling Hill Drive, framing the view from the perimeter of the site • Each townhome will accommodate parking for two cars and 30 guest parking spaces • Building materials will consist of brick, masonry, hardy plank, and significant window treatments • Presented a detailed Landscape Plan • Presented photometric plan, three types of lighting fixtures will be located throughout the site on buildings, walls, and within the landscaping Public Comments: Written comments were submitted by Rolling Meadows resident, Maureen Coyle-Williams, who was concerned with Rolling Hills Drive being blocked by construction traffic and the drainage being thoroughly reviewed. This email can be viewed in Laserfiche. Rebuttal to Public Comments: Jon Dobosiewicz: • TAC and Engineering will review and have to approve all drainage plans • No one will be allowed to block a public street without the approval of BPW. There’s no plan to block access to Rolling Hill Drive. Department Report: Alexia Lopez: • The Engineering Dept. will not release this project until all drainage is satisfactory to Carmel standards • Discussion about improving the location for the mailbox kiosk • Adding a rear window to Building 1 to help break up the upper floor • Will the backs of the taller parapet walls be visible and what will they look like? • Provide the elevations for the wall along 146th Street • Show the location of the A/C units on the landscape plan and how they will be screened • Address the Parks Dept. comment regarding the landscaping along the western bufferyard • Staff recommends sending this item to the March 2 Residential Committee for further review Committee Comments: Brad: Do the plans include the dimensions of the parapet wall height verses the roof surface height? Jon Dobosiewicz: Presented line of sight diagram from Rolling Hills Drive to Building 4. This illustration shows the parapet wall will not be visible from Rolling Hills Drive. Brad: Will the mechanical units be located on the roofs or at ground level? Jon Dobosiewicz: I will bring an answer to Committee. The architect is not on this call. Josh: The Parks Department has requested what the tree line will look like along the western perimeter of this site. I ask that you accommodate the Parks Department requests. Can more landscaping and buffering be added along the dumpster enclosure and mailboxes? Jon Dobosiewicz: We will work on these for Committee. We reached out to the Post Office and they recommended that location. We will include all the existing trees that are along our property and the Monon in an aerial view. We can reach out to the Parks Department to meet their needs. Josh: Can we discuss further at Committee the pedestrian connectivity and bicycle parking throughout the site. Christine: What’s the status on the no on-street parking on Rolling Hill Drive? We discussed this during the Plan Commission rezoning process. Jon Dobosiewicz: That was our commitment during the rezoning process. We will reach out to the CPD on that status and bring our findings to the Committee meeting 4 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 2-16-21 Carrie: Can Staff show us where the additional rear window to be placed? Alexia Lopez: Presented Site Plan, third floor on Building 1, has a blank exterior wall facing and visible from 146th Street. Reviewing the floor plan, this wall is a bedroom. Brad: We need to look at the practicality use of the bedroom space. Builders typically leave a blank space along one wall which they can position the larger furniture of the room. Nick: Make sure there’s enough space to park a car next to the mailbox kiosk so other cars can pass by if a car is stopped/parked to pick up their mail. A Motion by Zoccola and seconded by Westermeier to forward Docket No. PZ-2020-00221 DP/ADLS to the March 2nd Residential Committee with them having final voting authority. Approved 9-0. 3. Docket No. PZ-2020-00223 PP: Jackson’s Grant Village Primary Plat. The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 19 lots on 22 acres. The site is located at the NW corner of 116th Street and Springmill Road. It is zoned Jackson’s Grant Village PUD (Ordinance Z-653-20). Filed by Douglas Wagner with Republic Development LLC. Petitioner: Doug Wagner: • With me tonight are Larry Moon of Republic Development and Gordan Kritz of Stoeppelwerth & Associates • Presented site plan, this PP proposal only includes the 19 single-family detached lots • The townhomes and commercial area must go through a separate DP/ADLS process • The criteria of the PUD is met in the single-family detached area • Staff has asked us to increase the buffer from 20’ to 25’ at the northwest corner where it abuts Dr. Noland’s property/home • Staff asked us to label the street light heights. Our streetlights will be 15’ height in our residential area. • “No Construction Traffic” signs will be placed at the intersections of Hamlet Drive/Springmill and Otto Lane/Hamlet. We will show this on the PP and construction plans • We received two concerned letters addressing the Tree Preservation Areas (TPA). We have committed to extend the TPA (tree row) along the northern property line that is just north of our pond. We responded to the two letters. Public Comments: Written comments were submitted by Jackson’s Grant residents, Jay Benjamin, and Jane Herndon. The Petitioner responded to their emails. The emails can be viewed in Laserfiche. Department Report: Alexia Lopez: • The PP is just for the single-family residential portion and the associated streets. Future phases of JGV will require DP/ADLS approval from the Plan Commission for townhome and commercial sections • The PP is in line with their concept plan. They will need to update their open space plan. • They will need to label any benches or pergolas along the pond and paths • Staff recommends this is continued at the March 2 Residential Committee for further review Committee Comments: Alan: What roads are included in this PP approval process? Doug Wagner: All the roads are included, but none of alleys or parking will be included in this process. Josh: I do like “No Construction Traffic” signs that are red in nature and that you provide a green sign that shows where the construction entrance is. Can you bring to the Committee the details of the areas around the ponds? I do not like when the grass is mowed all the way to the edge of the water. Doug Wagner: We have committed in our PUD to have 50% of native grasses and plants around our ponds. We do like mowing the grass to the edge of the water, so the pond is more visible and an amenity for the homeowners. We can bring our details to the Committee. Jeff: Do you intend to install angled parking along Village Creek Drive? Doug Wagner: We will provide angled parking along Village Creek Drive and Keaton Drive. We will also update our PP plans to show the angled parking along our common area along 116th Street. Jeff: Will there be any prohibition against west bound traffic on Village Creek Drive 5 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 2-16-21 turning 120 degrees into a parking space? Doug Wagner: We have not heard any comments yet from Carmel Engineering Jeff: You are showing storm sewer being installed across the area you are not requesting approvals for. Doug Wagner: Some of the drainage pipe shown in the commercial area will not have to go in as a part of this PP. We will remove that in our PP. Brad: The drainage features require a 20’ wide along the easements. Is there room along the pond for the drainage, 20’ easement and the TPA? Doug Wagner: The 20’ wide easement is for algae control in our common areas. A Motion by Kirsh and seconded by Hill to forward PZ-2020-00223 PP to the March 2nd Residential Committee with the full Plan Commission having final voting authority. Approved 9 -0. Old Business: 1. Docket No. PZ-2020-00119 OA: Sign Standards Amendments. The applicant seeks to amend the Unified Development Ordinance in order to amend Section 5.39 Sign Standards, Sections 7.11 & 7.12 Entryway Feature Standards, Section 5.66 Food Stand Use Standards, Section 1.29 Filing Fees, and Definitions for signage. Filed by the Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. Petitioner: Nathan Chavez, Department of Community Services: • We have gone through 3 Commercial Committee meetings and five major changes occurred • We removed the 15’ setback standard for building mounted signage – wall, blade, or projected signage • We introduced canopy sign standards. We have seen more canopy signs with our new mixed-use developments in Midtown. Sign graphics within the canopy signage can’t exceed the length of the primary signage. • Additional sign and square footage has been added if an establishment has two drive thru lanes • Construction fence sign shall not exceed the height of the actual construction fencing • Illumination levels shall not exceed 0.1 foot-candles at the property line for entryway feature signage • Staff recommends this is forwarded to the City Council with a favorable recommendation Commercial Committee Recap: Alan Potasnik, Chair: • Nathan did a tremendous job in his explanations, research and presentation • We did discuss the PC’s recommendations and questions at our Committee meetings Committee Comments: Brad: Construction fencing signage is allowed 20% of the total mesh area. What does mesh area mean? Nathan Chavez: The mesh area is referenced to the area used for a wind screen and not the actual fencing. A Motion by Rider and seconded by Kirsh to forward PZ-2020-00119 OA to the City Council with a Favorable Recommendation. Approved 9-0. 2. Docket No. PZ-2020-00155 Albany Village PUD. The applicant seeks PUD rezone approval to allow a new subdivision consisting of single-family detached and single-family attached residential. The site is located at 14407 Shelborne Rd. on approximately 36.7 acres. It is currently zoned S-1/Residential. Filed by Jim Shinaver and Jon Dobosiewicz of Nelson & Frankenberger on behalf of the Logan Group, LLC. Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewicz: • With me tonight are Steve Pittman of Pittman Partners, Paul Rioux of Platinum Properties, and Jim Shinaver of Nelson & Frankenberger • Presented site plan, as part of the review process, we have made significant changes project modifications and enhancements. • Landscape and buffer enhancements were added along the perimeter of this site 6 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 2-16-21 • We added pedestrian amenities including benches, bike parking, multi-purpose field area, path connectivity, and pocket park • We will have pedestrian connectivity throughout our development, and a crosswalk on Shelborne Road to the new Carmel City Park. All paths will be 10’ in width. • Presented front and rear Elevations of the two-family dwellings. Architecture enhancements were added including 4-sided masonry, pitched roof line, and gables. • Maintenance plans were added to the OA that includes mulch beds and snow removal • A min. 50% of all single-family dwellings would include side-loading garage and a min. of 5 lots along the shared eastern property line with Tallyns Ridge will have side-loading garages • Enhanced landscape buffer treatment will be added to lots along Tallyns Ridge that includes 4 trees in the rear lots, in additional to the TPA along the eastern perimeter • Presented exhibits of 146th Street perimeter landscaping, appropriate buffering is required along this area • A negative recommendation was voted by the Residential Committee since the connection was not made at 146th Street frontage road. Carmel Engineering did not recommend this connection. • We would request that the PC forward this to the CC with a favorable recommendation Department Report: Alexia Lopez: • In general, Staff is in support of this PUD proposal at the corner of 146th Street and Shelborne Road • The developer is proposing a well landscaped buffer along 146th Street and Shelborne Road to help block the rears of the homes and has agreed to additional landscaping in the rears of homes along the eastern boundary along Tallyns Ridge. • They are providing public paths throughout the development and crosswalk on Shelborne Road that connects to the new Carmel City Park • Staff did ask for the cul-de-sac to connect to the 146th frontage road and 6’ deep front porches for the homes that have front porches. If the street connection and 6’ porches can be done, Staff would recommend a favorable consideration • If the changes cannot be made, then Staff cannot support this PUD and recommends a negative recommendation to the City Council Residential Committee Recap: Sue Westermeier, Chair: • We had three long committee meetings and a lot of improvements were made • Overall, we felt we’ve made this into a very nice development • I think it’s important to have the connection to the 146th frontage road. The only entrance is off of Shelborne. • 6’ deep porches is an Ordinance requirement for 20% of the homes • We voted 3-1 for a negative recommendation back to the full Plan Commission • We would ask the other Plan Commission members to weigh-in on these issues Committee Comments: Christine: All the other adjacent neighborhoods have a direct connection to 146th frontage road, not the main 146th highway. Carrie: I was the lone vote of the Committee in favor of this. To me, the connection at the 146th frontage road is more a detriment than an improvement. The connection would break up their landscape buffer and noise buffer. The Petitioner did everything we asked of them. I think this became out to be a beautiful project. I don’t think people will utilize their front porches like they would their back porches. Kevin: We need to listen to our City Engineers, and they recommended this connection is not necessary for this development. They would support this either way, but the connection is not needed. Alan: I agree with Carrie and Kevin. I’m having trouble seeing this connection through this landscape buffering. Also, the developer can seek a variance through the BZA for the front porches. Josh: I was in favor of a connection to the 146th frontage road. At some point in time, there will be a median on Shelborne Road which will prevent left-hand turns into this development. I have also spoken to residents along 146th Street and they aren’t happy with the increased levels of sound from the new 146th Street. An opening/connection would not make the sound situation better. Brad: Presented an aerial view of the subject site, the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) or Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan contains no requirement that would make the 146th Street connection mandatory. When the older subdivisions to the east were developed, they did connect to old 146th because that was the only street that existed. Now we have the new 146th Street. I think the we need to defer to the Carmel Fire Department (CFD). I don’t see this as a public safety standpoint of this connection to old 146th Street. The two nearest CFD stations would be coming from the 7 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 2-16-21 south and travel north on Shelborne Road or Springmill Road, and then use 141st Street to enter Tallyns Ridge or Shelborne Road entrance to access Albany Village. Jeff: The landscape buffer along 146th Street will help maintain the highest value of this neighborhood. I don’t think this access point is necessary. Christine: I do want to thank the Petitioner to for adding the additional landscape buffers to the rears of the Tallyns Ridge homes. Does anyone have an opinion of the same color two-family dwelling homes? Jon Dobosiewicz: I believe we agreed to have the same color. Jeff: Can the Petitioner explain the pushback on the front porch depth? Paul Rioux: We had a lot of discussion at our Committee meetings. We have covered entry ways and not front porches. Porches are an architectural style that doesn’t go with our plans. Our builder Drees doesn’t have a single house plan with 6’ deep front porches. They have two plans with 5’2” deep porches. A Motion by Rider and seconded by Holle to forward PZ-2020-00155 PUD to the City Council with a Favorable Recommendation. Approved 6-3, Kestner, Westermeier, Zoccola. Meeting Adjourned at 8:08 p.m. _______________________________________ ________________________________________ Joe Shestak Plan Commission Secretary Brad Grabow President