Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 01-18-22 /6C oFCgq\\ et r Jt %A it arme o i %Imo, CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2022 1 MEETING MINUTES Location: Council Chambers Room, 2nd Floor, Carmel City Hall Members Present: Brad Grabow(President),Jeff Hill,Carrie Holle,Nick Kestner,Joshua Kirsh,Alan Potasnik,Kevin Rider, Sue Westermeier,Christine Zoccola Staff Present: Mike Hollibaugh, Rachel Keesling(virtual participant),Alexia Lopez,Joe Shestak Legal Counsel: Sergey Grechukhin 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 Rider and seconded by Zoccola to approve the Dec.21,2021 PC meeting minutes.Approved 9-0. Communications,Bills,Expenditures,&Legal Counsel Report 1. Election of President: A Motion made by Alan, seconded by Josh to nominate Brad Grabow.Approved 9-0. 2. Election of Vice-President: A Motion made by Josh, seconded by Kevin to nominate Alan Potasnik.Approved 9-0. 3. Election of Member to the Board of Zoning Appeals: A Motion made by Josh, seconded by Sue to nominate Brad Grabow. Approved 9-0. 4. Election of Member to Hamilton County Plan Commission: A Motion made by Josh, seconded by Carrie to nominate Jeff Hill.Approved 9-0. 5. Election of Member-at-Large:A Motion made by Sue, seconded by Kevin to nominate Josh Kirsh.Approved 9-0. Reports,Announcements& Department Concerns: Alexia Lopez: 1. Outcome of Projects at Committees: a. Commercial: Docket No. PZ-2021-00160 CA: W. Main St. Block C2, Commitment Amend.—Sent back to full PC with Positive Recommendation 3-1. b. Residential: i. Docket No. PZ-2021-00195 DP/ADLS: Matriarch Birth Center—Approved 4-0. ii. Docket No. PZ-2021-00204 PUD: Flora on Springmill PUD Rezone—Continued to February 1 mtg. 2. Update to the 2022 Plan Commission calendar, change to the October Committee meeting date 3. Agenda item #4 Reserve at Springmill,public notice did make the State's requirement. • A Motion made by Josh and seconded by Kevin to suspend the Rules of Procedure in order to hear Agenda Item #4 at tonight's meeting. Approved 9-0. Public Hearings: Brad: Explained the Rules of Procedure for a Public Hearing in front of the Cannel Plan Commission. 1. Docket No.PZ-2020-00081 DP/ADLS: The Steadman Apartment Community at The Bridges. 2. Docket No. PZ-2021-00247 V: Bridges PUD Z-550-11 Sec. 13.9.D: Right-in/Right-out access only onto 111' St.,Full Access onto 111t' St.Requested The applicant seeks site plan and design approval and one variance for a new apartment community consisting of 260 units in 5 buildings. The site is located at the northeast corner of Springmill Road and 111th Street, on about 12.5 acres. It is zoned The Bridges PUD, Ordinance Z-550-11. Filed by Jim Shinaver and Jon Dobosiewicz of Nelson& Frankenberger on behalf of Cityscape Residential, LLC. Petitioner: Rick Lawrence,Nelson& Frankenberger: • Present with me tonight are Jim Thomas and Jennifer Sewell with Cityscape Residential 1 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 1-18-22 • Presented location site map, • The proposed use of multi-family rentals are a permitted use allowed in the PUD Ordinance Z-550-11,with a maximum of 300 dwellings allowed. We are proposing 261 units. • Our plans meet all the development standards per the PUD,except for the full access off of 111th Street • After input from the City Engineering,we requested a variance for full access from 111t' Street. We are proposing a mini roundabout at the entrance off of 111th Street. • We will continue our discussion at the Feb. 1st Residential Committee Jim Thomas,Cityscape Residential: • We have 30 years of experience developing and building high-quality luxury apartments throughout the Midwest, including downtown Cannel and Indianapolis • We hire our own general contracting and property management so we can control the quality and performance • The Steadman is a long-term investment for us • The zoning for this property was approved in 2011 during The Bridges PUD Rezone • We have had three productive group meetings with surrounding homeowners. We have made changes based on their input. Despite of our meetings,some of the neighbors still disagree with some of the approved PUD requirements, 5-story building heights,allowed density,and our proposed 111th Street access. • Presented a site plan, we are proposing 5 residential buildings, 1 leasing building,and some maintenance and garage buildings. • The buildings along Spring Mill Road and 111t''will be 3-stories in height,and the interior buildings will be 5- stories in height. • Presented elevations, renderings, landscape plan, we will be using the Prairie style architecture on our buildings • The PUD calls for a very significant landscaped berm along the west and south property lines. We will use the recommendations of species from the Cannel Urban Forester. • We will use down-lighting on the exterior of our buildings. Parking will be interior,with the buildings facing Springmill Road,shielding the parking. • The variance request calls for a change in the traffic pattern from the 2011 PUD approval. This area has seen some changes to Illinois Street and Springmill Road. There will be a north/south road that connects 111th to the east/west road that is behind the Market District grocery store. • We will reconfigure and relocate the existing detention pond, so it includes the existing retail and our new site • Presented a Pedestrian Connectivity Plan, we will construct a new 10-ft wide multi-use path along 111th Street • We believe this development will be a high-quality addition to Cannel's housing alternatives Public Comments: Ron Houck,President Spring Mill Place HOA: 5-story buildings are not appropriate in height next to single-family neighborhoods to the west and south.They are not providing enough parking spaces for this development. The revised landscape berm does not meet the requirements of the original commitments spelled out in the original Bridges PUD Ordinance. The access road at 111t St. is unnecessary.The original traffic study submitted by A&F Engineering stated that the road improvements on the surrounding streets were done and did not show an entrance at 111th Street. Don Worsham,Spring Mill Place:Passed out handouts. With the berm,eastbound traffic would have a 27-ft clearance for anyone exiting on 111th Street. This entrance should be moved farther east for public safety. Allison Brown,600 W.106h Street: 261 apartments are way too many. This will create more traffic in this area.The 5- story height is too much for the surrounding neighborhoods. Jill Meisenheimer,Williams Mill: The developer has met with us three times and has been reasonable.They did move the pool location per our requests. 5-story apartments will tower over the single-family two-story homes in the adjacent subdivisions.This is not downtown,or the Meridian Corridor. With this proposal,we will have 3 roundabouts in one block on 111th Street.Too much unnecessary exterior lighting. We are asking that the parking lot pole lights are lowered to 15-ft from 25-ft. We would like to see renderings of the views to and from the apartments to the nearby neighborhoods. Dan Byron, Williams Mill: I am here showing support for residents of the nearby subdivisions.We have had 3 meetings with the developer. They moved the pool for us,per our request. We have honest disagreements with the developer.I agree to what has been said by the adjacent residents.We have public safety concerns. Judy Hagan, Spring Mill Place: I have concerns for the proposed street connection. The Bridges PUD calls for a right in, 2 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 1-18-22 right out. Traffic projections provided by the Petitioner do not include numbers for the future development of the eastern parcel. The landscaping along 111th Street does not account for the extra-large power line poles.It will be difficult to plant trees under the power lines.I would like to request a traffic count on 111th Street and Spring Mill Lane. I Rebuttal to Public Comments:Jim Thomas: • We had these same discussions with the neighbors during our three meetings • Reducing the 5-story buildings is not a workable scenario for us. We are abiding by the approved PUD. • We can work out the details on the landscaped berm with the Urban Forester and comply with the PUD • The centralized street is shown on the master plan,and we will consult with the City Engineer on the roundabout Department Report: Alexia Lopez: • 300 units are permitted per the PUD • An amenity area will be provided,with an outdoor pool • Prairie-style architecture is being shown in their plans • The berm was required in the PUD,and the landscaping along the berm is being reviewed by the Urban Forester • The landscape plan showed the future access drive off of 111th Street. The PUD allows for a right in,right out. The Petitioner is requesting a variance for full access at 111th Street. • The layout has been adjusted and they will resubmit their revised plans to the TAC members • Staff recommends this is sent to the Feb. 1st Residential Committee for further review. Committee Comments: Christine: Can you bring a colored street-view exhibit of the landscaped berm?Can you add more trees and greenspace within the parking area?Can you bring in examples of the building materials you will be using? Alan: Can you provide a site-line exhibit from the adjacent subdivisions on Spring Mill Road? Rick Lawrence: We can bring an exhibit to Committee.Alan: Can a school bus and fire truck navigate through the proposed mini roundabout? Rick Lawrence: The roundabout size and location was a request by City Engineering. We will review that with IEngineering.Alan: What's the distance between the mini roundabout and the roundabout Illinois and 111th Street?Rick Lawrence: Presents aerial view of area, approximately 150-ft.Alan: Does the signage plan meet the requirements of the PUD?Alexia Lopez: We are still reviewing the sign package. Kevin: We know our Engineering Dept.wouldn't ask for something(mini roundabout)that didn't meet the Cannel standards,but we need the Cannel Engineer present at the Committee meeting to answer these questions and concerns. If we have a right in and right out,do we want to add more traffic to Spring Mill Road? Brad: I'm struggling to see the hardship of their variance request. I travel this road daily and I don't see a need for a roundabout and an all access, instead of a just right in and right out.Can we see a cross-section from building 3 to the homes at Spring Mill Place?Will traffic increase enough to justify the road enhancements to111th Street?Alexia Lopez: I will follow up with the Engineering Dept.,to see what the future plans are for 111th Street. The PUD has in it's plans that the multi-use path will be constructed along 111t'' Street. Sue: What are the plans in the PUD for the southeastern parcel of this site?I don't think an entrance is needed at 111th Street.Kevin: I believe it was planned for office use.Alexia Lopez: The PUD does state that a right in,right out is allowed in the PUD. Sue: The mini roundabout at Dorset and Spring Mill is horrible. Do we have a mini roundabout anywhere else in the City? Kevin: Hawthorne and Carey Road. Jeff: I share the same concerns related to the mini roundabout,and I would prefer the right in,right out at 111th Street. What are the topflight amenities included?Jim Thomas:All buildings will include elevators. Amenities include social spaces,co-working spaces,pet washing areas, swimming pool,workout facility,and an herb growing wall. Carrie: I don't like the idea of a 5-story building adjacent to Spring Mill Place.How many parking spaces per unit?Jim Thomas: Our parking count is entirely consistent with all our other apartments. The parking ratio is 1.5-1.7 per unit. Brad: What's the parking count per bedroom?Jim Thomas: About 1 per bedroom. INick: What will Springmill Road look like with the berm,power lines,and the apartment buildings?I would like to see more garages.A mini roundabout is like a 4-way stop without stop signs.I think this roundabout here would be dangerous. I would like to see more amenities. Can you add a fitness trail around the detention pond?What does the indoor bicycle storage look like? Josh: I would rather see a 10-ft multi-use path instead of a sidewalk along the new internal road.Can you bring us a color 3 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 1-18-22 rendering of the landscaping?The massing of the apartment buildings is not appealing to me. It doesn't connect with adjacent neighborhoods.I have great confidence in our Engineering Dept. If 111 th Street does include a median boulevard, it might make sense to not have a right in,right out,and have a roundabout instead. Brad: Can Staff do a comparison of the building at the Seasons that fronts Westfield Blvd.?Alexia: One of Staff s comments was if they can break up the façade of the building along Spring Mill Road. A Motion made by Kirsh and seconded by Zoccola to send PZ-2020-00081 DP/ADLS and PZ-2021-00247 V to the February 1st Residential Committee,with final approval by the full Plan Commission. Approved 9-0. 3. Docket No.PZ-2021-00217 DP/ADLS: 4810 Northwestern Drive—Building Addition. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a new auto repair building(9,600 sq.ft.)on 3.5 acres. The site is located at 4810 Northwestern Drive. It is zoned I-1/Industrial and is not located within any overlay zone. Filed by Charlie Mattox of Crossroad Engineers on behalf of the owner. Petitioner: Charlie Mattox: • Presented site plan • The building addition will be placed to the southwest of the existing building • Improvements will be added to our parking lot,and we will meet the requirements of the UDO • Presented building elevations, one bay will be added for deliveries • Presented landscape plan, we are meeting all landscaping requirements per the UDO • We ask to send this the Feb. 1st Commercial Committee for further discussion and review Public Comments: None Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • All setback and lot coverage requirements have been met • They will ask for a waiver for no parking lot curbs at next month's meeting.The Engineering and Planning Departments are supportive of this waiver • Building design will be a combination of primarily split face concrete masonry units and metal panel • Urban Forester approved the landscape plan • One outstanding item needed is their photometric plan.No parking lot light poles are being proposed. • Staff recommends the Plan Commission approves this item tonight subject to finalizing all the TAC comments Committee Comments: Josh: I look at this little section of path as a path to nowhere.I would rather see a contribution to the Non-Reverting Throughfare Fund. Charlie Mattox: I'll talk to the owner about this. Brad: Where would the cars park that are not being worked on?Can we get a commitment to keep all cars parked off of Mayflower Drive,and have them park south of the dumpster location? Charlie Mattox: We would need to discuss this with the property owner. Jeff: Does this site meet all detention requirements?Charlie Mattox: The site has an existing detention system and meets all the requirements. We are proposing 56% lot coverage,where 90% is allowed in the I-1 zoning. A Motion made by Kirsh and seconded by Rider to suspend the Rules of Procedure in order to vote on this item. Approved 9-0. A Motion made by Kirsh and seconded by Rider to approve PZ-2021-00217 DP/ADLS contingent upon: • Petitioner will contribute funds into the Non-Reverting Thoroughfare Fund in lieu of constructing a multi- use path along Mayflower Park Drive, • Petitioner commits to no parking south of the dumpster location,and • Petitioner will address all outstanding ProjectDox/TAC comments. Approved 9-0. 4 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 1-18-22