HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 02-01-22�y Of Cqq
City of Carmel
�ryOIPNP_'
` J Carmel Plan Commission
COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE
Tuesday, February 1, 2022 Meeting Minutes
Location: Carmel City Hall Caucus Rooms, 2" Floor, 1 Civic Square, Carmel, IN 46032
Members Present: Alan Potasnik (Chair), Nick Kestner, Kevin Rider, Jeff Hill
Members Absent: none
Staff Present: Rachel Keesling (Planning Administrator), & Aliza Shalit (Recording Secretary)
Legal Counsel: Sergey Grechukhin
Time of Meeting: 6:00 PM
The Commercial Committee met to review the fallowing items:
1. Docket No. PZ-2021-00205 DP/ADLS: 11335 N. Michigan Rd. Apartments.
The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a new development with 4 future out lots and an
apartment complex (244 units). The site is located at 11335 N. Michigan Road. It is zoned B-
3Business & Residential and is located within the US 421 Overlay zone. Filed by Ryan Wells of REI
Real Estate Services, LLC.
Petitioner: Rick Lawrence, attorney with Nelson & Frankenberger on behalf of the petitioner REI Real Estate
Services.
• This matter was heard by the Plan Commission in December 21, 2021. Background: site was most recently
occupied by Altura's Landscape & Nursery business. In 1988, Altura's sought to rezone the property from S-1
to B-3 to operate its landscaping and nursery business. As part of that process, commitments were entered into
that provided for specific uses under the B-3 zoning classification related to Altura's business operations and
further provided that other B-3 uses were permitted upon approval by the Plan Commission. As previously
stated, Altura's is no longer on the site and the owner seeks to develop it for real estate use. They also own the
property immediately to the East of the site. To allow for this redevelopment, REI has filed applications for
approval of the Development Plan and an ADLS from the Plan Commission.
• REI is the developer of the site, Fehsenfeld Land Holdings will continue to own the site after development.
REI has engaged CRG to construct the apartments and Barrett and Stockley to manage the apartment
community. Both companies have many years of successful development and management of these types of
communities.
• This evening we will review updates to the plans REI have prepared since the Plan Commission meeting in
December and to hear feedback from the Committee Members and Staff regarding further revisions they
would like to see as we move forward. As Alan indicated, the real state as identified on the aerial photograph
included under Tab 2 of your brochure, is generally located on the East side of Michigan Road between 1061
and 1161 Streets. It includes 22 acres. Surrounding uses include the Aaron -Ruben -Nelson Mortuary and the
Woodhaven subdivision to the North, Real Estate owned by Fehsenfeld family to the East, Weston Pointe
Shoppes and the Townes at Weston Pointe to the South with a commercial development and the Townhome
development. The real estate is zoned B-3 Business and Residential and it is also within the US-421/Michigan
Road Overlay.
0 • Proposed multi -family usage is allowed under the existing B-3 zoning classification, however as previously
stated, due to the commitments the otherwise allowed use must be approved by the Plan Commission.
Furthermore, any potential commercial uses on the outlots also require Plan Commission approval and REI is
prepared to discuss the commitments concerning those uses. The presentation will now be turned over to Ryan
Wells who will detail the revisions to the plans since the December meeting.
Petitioner: Ryan Wells, Development Director with REI
• We have received a lot of feedback from the Plan Commission and various interested parties and neighbors in
the area. Since the last time we presented this, we have made numerous changes to the plans.
• Starting with SE corner, where the property butts up against the Weston Pointe Development: feedback
included a preference not to be directly adjacent to parking, that they didn't like the way the drive pointed in
the back to some of the units, and some concern was also expressed regarding the height of the three-story
building (#9), as well as the buffer we are proposing in between our development and the townhomes. We
have redesigned that section of the site to take building 7 and turn it at a 90-degree angle. The building was
against the eastern edge of the property, now it is along the southern portion of the property. That helps the
drive that comes down towards that area so that now any headlights will hit building 7. There was also concern
about noise and light, the building will now block that the way it is laid out. Building 9 was shifted to the
West. By locating Building 7 over 52.5 feet off the southern property line and by shifting the location of
Building 9, we have eliminated one of our previous zoning Variance requests regarding the setback for that
area. The dog park was moved to the Eastern edge of the property, north of Building 7. We have also added
some additional covered parking that replaced the lost parking. We had 390, now we are at 400.
• The commercial development to the south: we had received some feedback regarding the proposed connection
of that access road in their development, questions about how those would be shared, concerns about the
traffic coming through that retail center and how the cost would be shared for that drive. In addition, there
were some concerns about the landscaping along the property line and what we were planning on doing. We
are not connecting the stub road to the adjacent development. Now that will be stubbed at the property line,
because of the zoning in the overlay district provides for connectivity in a road like that, but I believe that
because of the timing when that shopping center was developed, no access road was included there, there is no
L need to tap into that again. In the future we can connect to developments if it is agreed to, but between all the
parties and with those terms the cost would be shared. It wasn't necessary for our development, because our
primary access is going to be the ROW coming -in directly off Michigan Rd.
• As far as the landscaping, we are open to removing and replacing any undesirable foliage with new
landscaping, whatever the Forestry Department will agree to. We are not sure that they would be open to
removing any of the foliage there.
• North on the frontage portion: the feedback received from the Funeral Home was that they were concerned
with the stub road butting -up against their property, as well as the trail and having a barrier between our
properties. We have agreed to construct a fence along the property all the way to the eastern end of their
property, and essentially as far west as need, but we are probably looking at 30-50 from the access road. That
will give their customers the privacy they want and address their concern about people on the walking trail
coming over there, while also visually blocking area there. They also requested landscaping as an additional
barrier between the properties, we have, as you can see on the landscaping plan, proposed a significant amount
of landscaping from the access road East of there. Going West on those retail lots we are not sure what we can
plant there. We know we can't plant large mature trees in the swale, but we are seeing what we can fit in
between the swale and the property line. They also commented on the architecture of the buildings and
expressed interest in the building being clad in brick and having enlarged dormers. Our buildings now have a
90% red brick envelope to conform with the overlay and the area, we have redesigned the buildings, and added
enlarged dormers.
• The Woodhaven subdivision to the East and North side: we had feedback ranging from setbacks, building
density, quality of architecture, building materials, and the trail being proposed around the property. We took
Building 4, previously a 3-story building, and reduced that to a 2-story building. In addition, we have shifted
everything to the South so that both are located over 52.5ft off the property line, thereby eliminating one of the
Variance requests we had previously requested. In addition to the buffer, we had been trying to maintain as
much of the exiting foliage and the whole row of trees in the area to the North and the East side, as well as the
Commercial Committee Meeting Minutes 02-01-22
section to the South by Weston Pointe. We initially looked at and believed that we could protect at least 15-20
feet on all those elevations. We are working with the Planning Department to try to make it closer to 25 feet of
undisturbed existing foliage. We are going to supplement existing foliage with landscaping inside that 20-25-
foot area to visually block and create a barrier. We are also willing to construct a fence, much like what we
have come into agreement with the Funeral Home, along the property line for those homeowners that would be
interested in that. We would have to discuss where exactly that would be located, because of the Forestry
Department's desire and our desire to protect and leave undisturbed this 15-25 feet, the fence would have to be
located on the property line that would be accessed from the neighboring properties to the North. We are open
to discussing all that.
• Regarding our architecture, the buildings are being designed in Federal Style. Previously we had 62% brick,
we have increased that to 90% and switched the color of the brick to red. When we took building 4 on the
north side down to 2 stories, we also reduced the overall unit count from 244 to 236, which takes our overall
density down to about 14.5 units per acre from the originally proposed 15. Making it one of the lowest density
apartment projects to be developed in Carmel and in the corridor in the last decade or so.
• We received a department report from the planning department and are working to address those comments
and outstanding issues. Regarding the buffering issues, we will try to maintain the existing wooded field where
we can in the Northeast and South sides, hopefully as much as 25 feet of undisturbed area, and find new
landscaping in those areas to fill that in.
• Traffic was a concern, especially going to the adjacent development, which has now been eliminated. We
hired a traffic engineer to conduct a study which was submitted to INDOT and subject to this development
going forward, they have approved a light.
Department Report: Rachel Keesling
• We believe they have made a lot of progress in attempting to address all the concems that have been brought
up by the neighbors and the Plan Commission members. They added brick to the buildings, primarily brick
with cement siding at the top floor mostly and in some central locations over the entryway features. While that
is good and we are very appreciative, the buildings are still very plain and don't truly match the Federal Style
architecture, they are still the same suburban floorplans of apartment buildings. One of the examples is the
windows they changed, they added in the 6 over 6 windowpanes, but they kept the two windows together. Thai
is the typical large window for the unit, which in Federalist Style the windows are designed as longer, narrow,
and single units. I have included a few pictures of this in the Department Report as a reference. Some
additional work that can be done is to have ornamentation in the brick work, perhaps soldier courses, awnings
or more delineation between the floors to break up the massive buildings. Just adding brick didn't make it all
that much better. We have more work to do on that.
• Building Height: Is there in fact mechanical equipment on the roof that is causing it to be this height? The
rules of the 421 Overlay state that you can have an additional 8 feet in height to accommodate mechanical and
other inner roof structures. I want to make sure that they in fact have HVAC units up there. This was written
more for commercial buildings with flat roofs, not towards pitched roofs. Saying that they have 38-feet total is
not the right way to say what the maximum height can be.
• Landscaping: We need to save as many trees around the boundary of the property as possible and if we are
designing for this unique site that has this large pond in the center of it, we would not be disturbing very much
of it. If we were building more around the existing natural features, maybe that would be more enticing and
worthy of the many variances that are needed to have the different setbacks.
• Changes: He covered all the changes they made, decreasing of the building height adjacent to the North,
moving of Building 7 at the Southeast corner of the property. It is good to know that INDOT would approve a
light if this were to be developed, because traffic is a valid concern brought up in the Department Report as
future connections to future roads around the neighborhood. If this type of development or any development
were to continue East, more people would be using this road so the light would be good to have on Michigan
Road as far as controlling traffic in this area. The other thing we would need to look at is the property to the
South, the Weston Pointe Shoppes, and try to retrofit that to get an access road through there. The Michigan
Commercial Committee Meeting Minutes 02-01-22
Road Overlay has the requirement of a rear access road and that should be between the out lots and the back
building of the Weston Pointe Shopping Development, if it were developed today that's where it would be. If
we approved this whole development and they didn't get the light, then we would have to look at something to
get people to a [safe] left.
• It is important to remember that the Plan Commission has the ability to approve this use and the future uses of
the out lots, as per the commitments. If the Plan Commission doesn't approve this development plan as the
proposal to modify those commitments, then this type of use would not be allowed. But someone else can
come later and try again if they had a different plan. The way these commitments are written you have the
power to approve a use that is allowed in the B-3 zone, which allows for multi -family as a residential use in
the US 421 Overlay. This is a good use when done properly in transitioning to more intense uses such as
commercial and a major highway.
• There are too many items to go over, especially regarding architecture of buildings and layout changes that
might possibly eliminate more variance requests. Going to March 1" would be appropriate.
Committee Comments:
• Jeff Hill: The stub streets are not being proposed to be connected at this time. Is a second emergency stub
access required temporarily if this was approved today. Rachel Keesling: I would have to look at that. There
are two stubs planned. They would be meeting the requirement, because they are platting a stub to the East and
planning a stub to the South and constructing that all the way to the property line. They would meet the letter
of the law as far as providing other outlets. I will double check on that.
• Jeff: Is the stub to the East through the stub that has the two bay garages or somewhere else? Wells: No, the
main drag that goes to the development stops just short of it, so the proposed stub is dotted on the current plan.
However, it would not be constructed right now, it would be a document on title that would allow that to
become a right-of-way at a later time. Jeff: This would be a City job then? Wells: It would not be originally;
the right-of-way would come from 421 into the access roads there. From the point you get in the apartment
J complex going East it would all be private. However, it could be dedicated at a later time if this parcel over
here becomes developed and used for connectivity. Jeff: Whose commitment would be to construct that
missing 100 ft piece of road? Wells: It would be the developer over here that would be responsible for that, I
am not sure. They would most likely access this from 1161 if developed and it would be the responsibility of
the developing party of the commercial site. Jeff: Almost up to the property line feels like a bit of a stretch.
Wells: We are happy to construct it to the property line, we had it in the plan at one point, but we were told we
could leave a green space temporarily, but we can do either one.
• Kevin Rider: The one reason I am reluctant to leave it that way is that South of here we had this issue where a
developer was not made to take it to the property line and then they refused the connection. So it will be in
writing that you will build it to the property line. Wells: We are happy to build it. Kevin: I want it in writing
that you will do it now or you would do it or allow for it if there was further development. I don't see the
neighbors selling the land to a developer, but you never know. In speaking with Engineering, I wasn't
expecting another light, is it too close to the other light? Wells: It would be synchronized with the Weston
Pointe light. Kevin: So, you would not stop and then go and then stop again.
• Jeff: Is the light is warranted? Can we get our hands on the study? Was the study done before or after the
Southern stub street was connected? Now it is not connected, so how many vehicles are entering or leaving at
that intersection? If the State is saying it is warranted, they can make it work and synchronize it with the other
light, the proximity to the Weston Pointe light is very similar to the light at Retail Pkwy, it can probably be
pulled off from the synchronization standpoint. I would like to know if it is working, I am not sure if it is to the
South. If a light is warranted, are you saying you are committing to putting that in? Wells: Yes, we are. Jeff:
If this is approved, if the State says yes, you are saying financially the petitioner is putting it in. Wells agreed.
Jeff: Can you speak in general terms to what size is Lot 1 and Lot 2 and their potential uses? Wells: Lot 1 is
about 3.5 acres; it could be a retail center. You could have a couple of single use properties, similar to what
was going on across the street. They have a Java House Drive Thru and a retail strip center. Could be a
freestanding bank on the corner. Lot 2 is smaller, not large enough for retail center, so single user like a bank
4
Commercial Committee Meeting Minutes 02-01-22
or financial institution, or a coffee drive thru. It would be determined by the market and what is available. Out
lot retail uses. Jeff. I heard discussion earlier about a ballpark 25-ft of attempt to leave the perimeter
undisturbed, is that commitment in writing? Wells: Yes, we would make a commitment. We have been talking
to the Plan Commission and the Forestry Department about the wooded field area and what is existing there. I
have plans to have a tree survey completed to determine exactly what's there. As far as we know on the North
side there are some larger evergreens, on the East and Southern side we need to assess what is there and
whether it's worth protecting. Our landscape expert was there and determined there is not much full growth
along the Eastern portion, a lot is invasive tree species. We need to figure out what forestry would want us to
protect and absolutely put it in writing. Jeff: We are tasked with what is the right fit, multi -family feels right to
me, but it feels like too much, we often approve variances or exceptions because of various reasons, but there
are 25% variances, feels like a lot.
• Kevin: staff is asking another month to work with the petitioner, I want to see where that ends up, but I met
with some people before the meeting. I was wrong on the light, I apologize. One piece of advice that I have
given to people who come for or against a project, with my 14 years of experience, is that if you are here to
kill the project because you don't like it, we understand, fight to kill it, but don't be single focused, at the same
time make sure you fight to make it the best it can be in case it gets approved.
• Nick Kestner: Brought up concerns with traffic. That left turn is a suicide lane. You take it and hope someone
doesn't hit you. With that there is a possibility to put in a Michigan left turn, so everybody goes right, no one
goes left, you go down the road a little bit, make a U turn and come back. But making a left turn is just suicide.
Wells: that is why we proposed a traffic light. Nick: So, this would be approved with the contingency of a
traffic light approved by the State. Wells: Yes. It would be approved subject to this development. The site
must be developed in order to build the light. Nick: Brought up concerns about the architecture. Looks like
army barracks, no setbacks, or breaks. If you want to see some nice new upscale apartments go to
Bloomington. Another thing is considerations for the big retention pond, how it could be used, you could have
a fishing pier, something so it's not just a drainage ditch. The trail going around could be a fitness trail. I still
would like to ask for a pedestrian plan, to look at the paths, the sidewalks, what the woods are, and if the
mechanical ends up being on the ground how are you going to fence and landscape the units, so they are not
visible. I am concerned about those commitments that are on the property with no movement to address them,
I am having a hard time just throwing them out the window.
• Alan: I agree with Nick, it looks like army barracks. A lot of work needs to be done. Rachel brings up several
things that could be done to make it more of the type of design that is required in this zoning district, but I
don't see them the in renderings that you submitted. Adding soldier course, lines in the windows, putting
shutters up, ornamental stone detail over the windows, things to make these buildings look better than this. I
would expect to see that at next meeting. Does this building have gutters and downspouts? I don't see it in the
drawings. Wells: Yes. Alan: See that it looks finished. Also, in your depiction on building 4, you have a front
elevation, are those garages in the front? Wells: Yes, the design is that the garage is in the front of the
building. The planning department felt they wanted the garages on the other side, so while technically they are
in the front, they are not fronting on the main drag. Rachel: That worked out except for building type 4, the
one that is right next to the pool that has the garages coming out onto the street. Alan: are you ok with that?
Rachel: Not 100%. Alan: When they come back to you to go over these things that were brought up tonight,
could you work with them on that? Rachel: We could work on that. That was one of the things we worked on
originally. We had talked about turning it around, have access from the back, move the pool to the middle so
that it would make sense and it would not encroach into the pond area, which I can understand, where the
building was laid out and not want to bring driveways all the way into where the pond is. Alan: After you
work with them, if this were to remain as is, are you ok with this? The color of these garage doors sticks out
like a sore thumb, it accentuates the look of this on this barrack type building. Rachel: There are other things
they can do, other garage door designs, or other colors. Even if they played with dimension on the building,
j� like the 8-ft offset requirement, projected balconies or more relief on the building, it would seem less like a
IL J giant building with a front full of garages. Alan: If you would work with them. Rachel agreed. Did you bring a
lighting schematic with you? What type of lights were you planning on using here? Wells: It was in the
original submittal for the December Plan Commission, under tab 7. Alan: Did anything change? Wells: No.
Commercial Committee Meeting Minutes 02-01-22
Alan: When you come back, I'd like to see what that is going to look like since we have made such a big deal
on the style of the architecture. You brought up the tree survey, I am assuming you will have it done by the
next meeting. Wells: Yes. Alan: We would like to see what you and Forestry come up with, because many
times what we hear on these representations about what the plan is for landscaping, doesn't always end up that
way. I would like the Committee to have a very good idea of what this will look like. Wells: Sounds good.
Alan: I want to go back to where the property line is, where ARN Mortuary is and your property continuing
over to Woodhaven. You said that you are going to build a fence between your property and ARN's? What
type of fence are you talking about? Wells: The owner proposed a 6-ft vinyl fence, similar to what is already
on her property, between them and some of the other homes. Alan: Make sure it doesn't detract from their
building and it looks good, but it also serves a purpose on your property. How does the 25 ft buffer you
mentioned affect the building of this fence. Wells: Not on that section of the site. We have a small retention
pond that will be relocated there, because of the swale that is required from the drainage pond down to the
storm sewage system. Alan: When you go from the ARN property where the fence would end, and then we
are going to go further East along the Woodhaven property line, that is where you are talking about the
landscape buffer? Wells: Yes, starting East of the pond, to the Eastern edge of the property. Alan: Will it be
the same type of fence that you are using on the other installation? Wells: Yes. We haven't discussed
specifically with the neighbors, but we are offering the same. Alan: I want to make sure that it's not going to
be a disruptive type of fence. And the landscaping buffer, Rachel, the 25-ft, is that satisfactory with the
Department? Rachel: Yes. It is above what is required, and after measuring and looking at it, that is good
amount to protect the existing trees that are there.
• Nick: You mentioned another little pond, but it does not show up in any of the drawings. Wells: It is in what is
going to be Lot 1. We are doing all the retention on the main pond, which is going to be expanded slightly on
the East side to accommodate all the drainage and retention for the whole site. Jeff. Including Lot 1 and 2?
Wells: That's correct. Rachel: We can have them make another rendering that shows that more clearly.
Kevin: You are expanding the current pond not moving it. Wells: That is correct. We are digging it deeper
and expanding it slightly on the East side to accommodate the additional volume based on the user
requirements. Nick: How deep. Rick Lawrence: A minimum of 8-ft. Alan: And what maximum? Aaron
Hurt: On the engineering of that, we must have the pond a minimum of 8-fit, and we could really go down on
the side slopes as we come down, it could be 15 or 16 feet deep. It depends on the contractor. We don't want
to go too deep because we are going too steep. But we can get back with you on the anticipated depth. Alan:
Next month.
9al/
A Motion made by A11an Potasnik and seconded by Kevin Ryder for Docket No. PZ-2021-00205 DP/ADLS:
11335 N. Michigan Rd. Apartments to be continued to next month.
Approved 4-0
Meeting adjourned at 6:50 PM.
Aliza halit / I Recording Secretary Alan Potas'n' Committee Chairman
Commercial Committee Meeting Minutes 02-01-22