Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes COM 02-02-212. Docket No. PZ-2020-00198 DP/ADLS: The Avenue at Bennett Farm. 3. Docket No. PZ-2020-00206 ZW: 20' Maximum Building height, 2216" and 2214" requested. 4. Docket No. PZ-2020-00207 ZW: 30' minimum Greenbelt width required, 28' requested. 5. Docket No. PZ-2020-00208 ZW: Number of Parking spaces — 88 required, 77 requested. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval and associated Development Standards Waiver and Variance approvals for 2 new retail buildings. The site is located at 11100-11150 N. Michigan Rd. (Block A, Bennett Technology Park subdivision). It is zoned B3/Business and US 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by Steve Hardin and Mark Leach of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, on behalf of Joe Farr of JDF Development LLC. Petitioners: Steve Hardin (Faegre Drinker Biddle), Mark Leech (Faegre Drinker Biddle), Michael Long (Curran Architecture), Ashton Fritz (Fritz Engineering Services LLC), & Joe Farr (JDF Development LLC): Steve Hardin: • We were at the January 191 Plan Commission (Commission) most recently and we had a few pieces of homework to work on with Staff. I will review the three main highlights. • First, bike racks have been added to the single tenant building at the north end. • Staff also requested that bike racks at north end of building be shifted to the middle section. This has been done. • Second, the lighting plan needed to be updated to comply with the lighting requirements. That was submitted and is completed. • Lastly, there were some requested updates for sign package and sign locations to be identified. This has been done as well. • One issue we wanted to discuss was continued dialogue for a request from Staff for an additional connection from this property to the southern property, which is another multi -tenant retail tenant. The way people would access the two properties is paths along Michigan Rd. and Redd Rd. There are connections from both properties directly from those pedestrian paths. Staff requested an additional connection from the two buildings, on a straighter route. Joe Farr does not own the property to the south so we can't control what happens there. It is not a matter of cost to provide some striping and sidewalk. It is more of a practical, `Does it make sense?' He is willing to do what Staff is asking, but just wanted to share with the Committee and seek your decision to add the striping, then we will. Joe Farr: On the crosswalk, Ashton Fritz and I spent quite a bit of time discussing it with Staff. We believe that striping and adding a crosswalk across our parcel is something we are willing to spend the money and do, but taking people across a drive-thru lane and then across another drive line and then across a drive lane at the southern parcel may not be the best approach to direct people to the site. I know people are thinking `Well if you are going to do it anyway and if there is no sidewalk they will just walk through the grass.' I understand why Staff is bringing it up. We are willing to do the work and spend the money on our parcel and put in a sidewalk. I believe the adjacent property owner would be amenable to some striping across the driveway. They don't want to rip up their sidewalk at Sherman Williams and add a handicap ramp there. They would have cross striping up to a sidewalk without a handicap ramp. I am willing to add the striping on their parcel with their approval and do the work on our parcel if the City wants this done. We don't necessarily believe it is the best approach from a design standpoint. • We have addressed all the outstanding issues except some ProjectDox comments that are still being finalized. • We request approval tonight. Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • Steve reviewed all the outstanding comments that needed to be addressed; the location of the bicycle racks was adjusted, two new racks were added to the north building, and the lighting plan is now in compliance. • There were a couple of outstanding items in the Department Report. One is the sign package. That is my mistake. It was included in the elevations all along. It was just in small writing and accidently overlook this. The sign package is fine. • The drive-thru sign placement is another thing we were looking for. This was provided today. There is plenty of room to have the drive-thru signage around both the buildings and in landscaping. We are okay with this. The last outstanding item, which has been discussed by the petitioner tonight, is the pedestrian connection Commercial Committee Minutes 02-02-21 through the middle of the site along the drive aisle. I asked for this during my review. It is something that Staff would request from whoever developed this next site to the existing site to the south. It was also mentioned at Commission that it was needed. I know there is adequate space to do it and the petitioner is willing to do it, but I do think it is beneficial and should be included. One of the items that I thought to help make this better is adding the pedestrian refuge in the drive-thru lane. One of the variances the petitioner is getting is for a 23-ft. wide drive aisle instead of 25-ft. This was done to gain back space for the green belt and sidewalk space around the building. I asked the petitioner to reduce the southern drive aisle, which allows for more space between the drive-thru lane and the drive aisles. We could ideally put a pedestrian refuge or a break in this curbing for people to stand. It does provide a space to help for safety precaution, so people can look for oncoming vehicles. There are ways to do it safely and that it should be included in the project. This is our only outstanding comment. • I would like to go over the waiver requests. The first waiver (PZ-2020-00208) is for the number of parking spaces. 88 are required and have been calculated with restaurants in mind. The reduction is for I I spaces for 12.5%. Two of the restaurants will have drive-thrus. That is part of the reason we are supportive of the waiver request. • The second waiver request (PZ-2020-00198) is for building height facing west toward residential. The overlay requires a maximum of 20-ft. and the petitioner has requested 2-ft.-6" and 2-ft.-4" over the 20-ft. height maximum in order to hide the mechanicals on the roof and give architectural emphasis on the columns. Staff is in support of this waiver request. • The final waiver request (PZ-2020-00207) is for a 2-ft. reduction in the Greenbelt along Michigan Rd. We have worked hard with the petitioner to add space back to this area because originally it was 10-ft. into the green belt. This was not acceptable with Staff. We have reworked a bunch of items on site and the petitioner ended up having to ask for more variances, but we were able to get back most of the Greenbelt. The 2-ft. reduction is a small amount compared to what it was. And with the site being as tight as it is, Staff is supportive. • Once the pedestrian connection between the two buildings and two sites are addressed, Staff is in full support of the project and the requested waivers. The Committee has authority to approve it tonight. • Staff recommends approval, subject to finalizing TAC review comments on ProjectDox. Committee Comments: Alan Potasnik: • I am aware of one individual, a Mr. Brian Shapiro, who contacted me and perhaps other Committee members, relative to 2-ft. of landscape buffer he requested Committee try and find and add back in. Staff and I discussed this. For the record, since I was contacted, I would like the Committee to hear from Staff, and if the petitioner could address the ability to add this back in. Steve Hardin: The team is thankful for the time and energy that Rachel Keesling has put into the project. It really was a collaboration. The building is not oversized at all, from a square footage perspective. It is probably smaller on a per square foot per acre than most normal retail buildings are. It is not because the building is any bigger, it is just an unusual taper to for the shape of the site. We had some constraints from the basic standards, when working with Staff they came up with the ideas to reduce drive lane and parking spaces around the site. We were able to find 8-ft., we would have found 10-ft. if we could, but we were unable to. The depth from Michigan Rd. to Redd Rd. was a constraint, which is why the variances and waivers exist, in order to minimize how much we intrude into the Greenbelt. Joe Farr: The site is very tricky. Our original design was 10-ft. into the Greenbelt. We worked extensively with Staff to make changes to the site plan and building. The site is not overdeveloped. The site has 6,300 sq. ft. per buildable acre, which is far less then adjacent properties that are around 7,500 sq. ft. per buildable property. The coverage is far under 80% which is the required amount at 72%. We don't have too much building or parking. The landscape plan has not been compromised. We meet all the standards for landscaping and screening of trees. I understand Brian's comments and concerns and I appreciate his caring for the community so much. I do believe this design works very well for this parcel and allows for plenty of landscaping, screening, and buffering. Rachel Keesling: I would add that at least 5- ft. for a sidewalk width is needed around the front of the building. We would really like to have at least 5-ft. for landscaping around the building and 5-ft. for landscaping where the site is fairly tight. To further answer the question, `Could we find two more feet?' Yes, we could, but it would take away from the sidewalk to the planting areas. We tried to balance everything across the site, and we felt with the new variances this project came together as the optimal outcome. Commercial Committee Minutes 02-02-21 • Were there any other members of the public that provided comments or feedback? Nathan Chavez: There were no other letters from the public. Kevin Rider: • Can you pull up an aerial of the site? The building to the south, that is the Sherman Williams store? Rachel Keesling: There is a nail salon, Moe's, and something else. There are four tenants I believe. Kevin Rider: I understand our traffic connectivity, but I am worried about dragging people across a bunch of drive-thrus. I don't have heart burn either way. If the petitioner is willing, then so be it. I am not sure a lot of people will walk between the two properties. Alan Potasnik: • At Commission Brad Grabow mentioned to look at the pedestrian crossing, and I am assuming this is what you addressed as a part of your report? Rachel Keesling: Yes. This is the connection that Brad Grabow asked for and I spoke about. Alan Potasnik: I am assuming you would like to have that put into any motion that is made? Rachel Keesling: I would. I do think it would be beneficial. Kevin motions to approve Dockets PZ-2020-00198 & 206-208 subject to finalizing ProjectDox comments and adding pedestrian connectivity to south neighboring parcel, Joshua seconds, motion passes 4-0. 6. Docket No. PZ-2020-00210 DP Amend/ADLS Amend: Pennwood Office Park. 7. 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. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for three, one-story office buildings to be constructed on 3.76 acres. The site is located at approximately 11505 N. Pennsylvania Street. It is zoned B-5Business and is located within the West Homeplace Commercial Corridor, High Intensity Overlay Zone. Filed by Kevin Buchheit of Krieg DeVault on behalf of the owner, SCB Home Office, LLC. Petitioners: Kevin Buchheit (Krieg DeVault), Steve Bodner (SCB Home Office, LLC), & DJ O'TooIe (Thomason & Associates): Kevin Buchheit: • I will be quick and review all the outstanding comments from Staff and how they have been addressed. • On the north side there is a Side Yard Setback originally shown as 5-ft. That has been increased to a required 10-ft. • On the west building there are three separate doors facing west. Pedestrian connections have been made to all three of them. • Engineering approval is a discussion that will continue after any action tonight. We accept that. • We have proposed soffit lighting at the entrances for security and illumination purposes. That is a nice way to provide illumination without a large illumination footprint. • The updated landscape plan provided to the Urban Forester, reflects discussions with him. It has been approved at least in writing. Once the revised drawings are uploaded the Urban Forester should be prepared to stamp them approved. • There was a question about a safe passage for pedestrians in the large parking lots. We have taken out two parking spaces and added the striping across the south aisle to a point that is about the middle and east building. This reduces our total parking space count to 115 spaces. 110 spaces are required so we still meet that requirement. • The emergency access onto Washington Blvd., the Carmel Fire Department (CFD) has recommended that it be asphalt. So, we will make that asphalt. We discussed initially using a treatment that is more environmentally friendly, but the CFD is worried about not sinking if they go through there. We will make sure it supports their large equipment. • The barrier at that access it yet to be determined, but that determination will be made with CFD and it will include a Knox box. • We looked into shifting the access point of Washington Blvd. a little to the south. That was part of the discussion at the January 19t` Commission meeting. If we tried to do that then we would lose one fairly significant tree on Washington Blvd. We are hoping that the access point will not be used and that there isn't any other fires or emergencies which require its use. I think any headlight intrusion that might occur by Commercial Committee Minutes 02-02-21