Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-15-22 TAC MinutesPage 1 of 4 City of Carmel Technical Advisory Committee June 15, 2022 CARMEL TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 Place: Virtual meeting. Time: 9:00 a.m. (Approximate start times for each item are listed below) 9:00 a.m. Docket No. PZ-2022-00080 ADLS Amend: Tom Wood Jaguar Land Rover Volvo – Service Addition The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a 16,569-sf building addition. The site is located at 4620 E 96th St. and is zoned B-3/Business. It is not located within any overlay zone. Filed by Roger Ward with Roger Ward Engineering on behalf of Tom Wood. Roger Ward with Roger Ward Engineering presented the project. This project will include a nearly 17,000-sf addition to the existing dealership housing sixteen additional service bays and a carwash. Dave McCoy – City of Carmel Addressing - No comments. Ryan Hartman – TriCo Regional Sewer Utility - No comments as the properties are not located within TriCo Regional Sewer Utility service territory. Daren Mindham – City of Carmel Urban Forestry - No comments. David Littlejohn – City of Carmel Alternative Transportation - No comments. Sam Clark – Hamilton County Surveyor’s Office - Mr. Clark confirmed that his office would not require any permitting as the site outlets directly to Marion County. Ryan Murt – City of Carmel Streets - No comments. Aliza Shalit – City of Carmel Signage - Ms. Shalit stated she would issue her comments on the proposed signage on ProjectDox. Page 2 of 4 City of Carmel Technical Advisory Committee June 15, 2022 Rachel Keesling – City of Carmel Planning & Zoning - Ms. Keesling inquired about the discrepancy on lot coverage between plan sheets. Mr. Wagner stated that the impervious lot coverage throughout the site was 65%. Mr. Wagner stated that the circle drive was to be paved with pervious materials and inquired if this would count toward lot coverage. Ms. Keesling confirmed that pervious pavers are counted as a pavement material and do count toward lot coverage. Mr. Wagner stated he would recalculate the lot coverage with the pervious pavers included and estimated the new lot coverage percentage to be closer to 70%. Ms. Keesling inquired about the photometric plan only incorporated lights mounted on the building and not the parking lot lighting fixtures. Mr. Wagner confirmed that he had noticed the discrepancy as well. Kevin Buchheit with Krieg DeVault LLP inquired if the previous plans would suffice for the parking lot lighting. Ms. Keesling confirmed that the best practice would incorporate both proposed and existing lighting onto one updated photometric plan. Ms. Keesling inquired about the proposed building material listed on the architectural plans as EFIS material to match the existing building’s pre-cast concrete material. Ms. Keesling stated the department’s preference to avoid using EFIS to grade. Mr. Ward stated that the material choice was likely selected in order to facilitate the addition in the most economically feasible way and suggested Ms. Keesling confer with Mike Balay of Balay Architects, Inc. Alexia Lopez – City of Carmel Planning & Zoning - Ms. Lopez deferred comments to Ms. Keesling. 9:15 a.m. Docket No. PZ-2022-00090 DP/ADLS: Lakefront Ct. Lot 2 Medical Office Building The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a multi-tenant medical office building on a 0.95-acre vacant parcel. The site is located at the southwest corner of West Carmel Drive and Lakefront Court. It is zoned M-3/Manufacturing Park District. Filed by David Rausch with David Rausch Studio LLC, on behalf of the owners. Toni Grimes with David Rausch Studio LLC presented the project. This project will include a new 8,100-sf medical office building with two tenant spaces. Dave McCoy – City of Carmel Addressing - Mr. McCoy reminded the applicants to notify Nick Mishler in the Building Safety Division of the Department of Community Services when suite numbers are determined for the two tenant spaces. Ryan Hartman – TriCo Regional Sewer Utility - Mr. Hartman stated comments were submitted on May 25th to Ashton Fritz of Fritz Engineering Services, LLC. Mr. Hartman inquired about medical disposal for the potential surgical center tenant. Ms. Grimes stated that the tenant would have a biohazard waste removal service. Mr. Fritz stated that biohazard waste removal was discussed with the tenant and that the service was required for proper medical practice. Daren Mindham – City of Carmel Urban Forestry - Comments submitted on ProjectDox regarding perimeter bufferyard landscaping requirements. Mr. Fritz inquired about Mr. Mindham’s comment to plant outside of the regulated drainage easement that runs through the site. Mr. Fritz inquired on options of relief in the case that the present easements on the site prevent the applicants from meeting the perimeter bufferyard landscaping requirements. Mr. Mindham stated that the city requires regulated drainage easements to be free of landscaping and stated a variance could be an option to look into. Page 3 of 4 City of Carmel Technical Advisory Committee June 15, 2022 David Littlejohn – City of Carmel Alternative Transportation - Comments submitted on ProjectDox regarding sidewalk connections to the path on Carmel Drive and Lakefront Court as well as realigning the ADA crosswalk at the entrance drive. Ms. Grimes stated the applicants would like to connect to the sidewalk along Lakefront Court but could not develop an accessible walkway due to significant grade change. Mr. Fritz stated that a proposed walkway would require six risers to make up the elevation difference and investigated the possibility of sloping the sidewalk down from the front door and was still unsuccessful. Mr. Littlejohn requested the applicants note these issues on ProjectDox for the records and recommended the applicants explore additional alternative solutions. Ms. Lopez inquired if there was any room to connect to the north of the property. Mr. Fritz stated that there was significant grade change along the eastern side of the site due to drainage. Mr. Fritz said a connection to the north could be meandered enough to provide length to make the connection accessible off of Carmel Drive. Mr. Littlejohn seemed optimistic about making a sidewalk connection to the north on the east side of the site and requested a second connection off of the west side of the building. Ms. Grimes stated a concern regarding the proposed connection to the west navigating the public into the private employee area and semi-private patient pickup area. Mr. Fritz stated that the area would be utilized only as an employee entrance and patient exit post-discharge. Mr. Littlejohn recommended the applicants consider a sidewalk connection to the path along Carmel Drive be located near the middle of the site as another possible option for direct path access. Sam Clark – Hamilton County Surveyor’s Office - Mr. Clark stated he would aim to finalize review comments later that day. Mr. Clark stated the encroachment of a sidewalk would require a single-tract non-enforcement to his office to allow for the consent to encroach and reiterated the need to keep landscaping out of the regulated drainage easement. Mr. Fritz stated that the portion of walkway Mr. Clark was referring to was not located within the regulated drainage easement but rather a city drainage and utility easement to the south of the regulated drainage easement but would be possibly extending a walkway to connect to the path along Carmel Drive. Ryan Murt – City of Carmel Streets - No comments. Aliza Shalit – City of Carmel Signage - Comments submitted on ProjectDox requesting additional information for the south-facing mural and may require a variance. Ms. Shalit inquired about the location for a possible monument sign noted on the site or landscape plan but was missing from the elevations. Mr. Fritz said a monument sign was considered but removed later on and the keynote was not removed from the plans. Ms. Shalit stated the only outstanding item to address would be regarding the mural. Ms. Grimes explained that the mural shown on the architectural elevations was art glass shown through a full-height store-front window to allow light to shine in while providing privacy. Ms. Grimes stated that the window was designed as an art piece and not as a sign. Ms. Shalit stated that the zoning ordinance considers artwork within a certain distance from a window as a sign. Ms. Lopez confirmed that the installation would require approval and requested additional information to better explain the proposed situation of the artwork being positioned in front of the store-front window. Page 4 of 4 City of Carmel Technical Advisory Committee June 15, 2022 Ms. Grimes stated that the window itself would be projecting from the building and that the artwork would be finalized at a later date and could consist of colored glass or textured-translucent glass and that the intent is to locate the art within the window. Ms. Shalit requested the applicants note this in ProjectDox and that Ms. Shalit would look further into necessary approval processes. Ms. Grimes stated that the applicants were beginning to contact a potential artist and would provide more details at a later time. Mr. Fritz inquired about the number of street frontages for the subject lot. Ms. Shalit confirmed that the south is not considered as a frontage due to Lakefront Court turning and not being a separate street for signage purposes. Ms. Lopes stated that setback requirements would consider the south, east, and north as front yards. Ms. Grimes inquired about the definition of a spandrel. Ms. Shalit stated that a spandrel is typically the wall space where the signage is installed and is often defined by architectural elements of the design like window edges and textured material changes. Ms. Shalit reiterated the importance of defining the spandrel panel to adhere to maximum sign sizing requirements. Ms. Shalit stated that the maximum sign area would be 85% of the width and 70% of the height of the spandrel area. Ms. Grimes inquired about the sign permitting procedure considering the timeline of the project. Ms. Shalit stated that the sign permits would be applied for at the end but that she was stating these comments early to prevent unreasonable expectations for future signage. Rachel Keesling – City of Carmel Planning & Zoning - Ms. Keesling deferred comments to Ms. Lopez. Alexia Lopez – City of Carmel Planning & Zoning - Comments submitted on ProjectDox regarding architectural materials and lighting fixtures. Ms. Grimes stated that there are plans for an exterior decorative pendant and inquired if the photometric plan needed to be updated to include the decorative exterior lighting fixtures mounted on the building entrances. Ms. Lopez stated that the photometric plan was intended to focus more on parking lot lighting fixtures. Ms. Grimes stated that the applicants would supply details regarding the proposed exterior lighting fixtures. Ms. Grimes inquired about a question made by Ms. Shalit regarding the floor plan and signage. Ms. Shalit stated that Ms. Grimes answered her question regarding the number of tenants determining the number of signs allowable. Ms. Lopez inquired if the applicants had considered a design with more tenants and additional stories in height. Ms. Grimes stated that the owners were not interested in developing more than a one-story building. Ms. Grimes addressed one of Ms. Lopez’s comments regarding roofing specifics.