HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes SpecStdy 12-12-00
... '
D
CARMEUCLA Y PLAN COMMISSION
SPECIAL STUDY COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 12, 2000
The special session of the Special Study Committee met at 7:00 PM on December 12,
2000 in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall, One Civic Square, Carmel, Indiana.
Members present were: Leo Dierckman; Madeline Fitzgerald; Kevin Kirby; Bob
Modisett; Pat Rice; and Paul Spranger. Dave Cremeans, ex-officio, was also in
attendance.
Representing the Department of Community Services: Director Steve Engelking; Terry
Jones; and Laurence Lillig. John Molitor, Counsel, was also in attendance.
o
Single Item Agenda: Docket No. 154-00 Z, Parkwood Crossing West PUD
Rezone petition for Duke-Weeks Realty. The petitioner seeks favorable
recommendation for a rezone from the B-5/Business and S-2/Residence districts
to a PUD/planned unit development district. The site is located on the northwest
comer of West 96th Street and North Meridian Street. The site is zoned S-
2/Residence and B-5/Business within the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone.
Note: The Public Hearing on this Item has been held open at Plan Commission.
Filed by Steven B. Granner of Bose McKinney & Evans for Duke-Weeks Realty.
Steve Engelking reported that the Department met with the petitioner Friday as a follow-
up to the meeting on December 5th. The changes previously discussed have been
incorporated into the draft document before the Committee. This evening's review of the
PUD Ordinance will begin with page 4.
The petitioner went further in the description of the number of square feet and they have
eliminated the percentage of Accessory Use square feet and substituted a square foot
figure of35,000. The petitioner also included paragraphs whereby accessory uses of
cafeteria, deli, coffee shops and photocopy and duplicating services will be under so
called "uses," and that "centers" would be under a different area but defined as being
within either the building of the office building or within connecting link buildings to
those office buildings. Steve Engelking said the staff has worked through a number of
the issues and can confirm that those changes discussed last Tuesday have been made
through the end of Chapter 3.
u
In regard to the walkways or connectors, Terry Jones said technically, the entire facility
would be considered as one building because they are all attached--that is the way the
Department looks at it. It does not change anything as far as the Ordinance is concerned.
s:\PlanCommission\spst2000dec12
1
Paul Spranger referred to a fax received this afternoon from Pam Lambert, also in
attendance this evening. There are a number of general questions on this proposal that
Ms. Lambert has submitted.
John Molitor said the PUD Ordinance entirely governs except where they incorporate by
reference Carmel's Land Use. It is clear that State code has stricter regulations. Building
Codes and County Health Codes would still apply. The Zoning Ordinance does not try to
over-ride private relationships and agreements. There is no conflict with the height of the
building because it is controlled by the PUD Ordinance.
Steve Engelking commented the PUD is an Ordinance written by the petitioner the way
they want their development to occur, regardless of the underlying zoning or district.
John Molitor said he agreed to the extent that there are things that are not covered. You
may want to make reference to the General Ordinance, and incorporate that section of the
General Ordinance in the PUD.
The Department has accepted the petitioner's landscape plan. The landscaping includes
number of plants, species, caliper of trees. Laurence Lillig said once the Ordinance is
approved, Development Plan Approval, and once they come in for a specific building,
they will be filing a subsequent ADLS and that will include the landscape plan. If there
is something that you don't like about the landscape requirements contained in the
Ordinance now, ........if this is adopted, this is the Ordinance that Scott Brewer is going
to use to evaluate the landscape plan.
Terry Jones explained the right-of-way--rights-of-way and center lines move, sections
don't. If the right-of-way moves, so does the landscaping--the width of the landscape
buffer does not shrink, it remains 30 feet.
The PUD Ordinance was gone over and reviewed by the Committee, Section by Section,
paragraph by paragraph. There was open discussion~ explanations were made, definitions
clarified, questions were asked and answered for the benefit of the Committee, the
petitioner, and Pam Lambert.
Steve Engelking said the revised draft of the PUD was received today at 5:00 PM and the
Department had a minimum of time to review it. This was true of the Committee
members as well. Kevin Kirby asked if the Staff and John Molitor should respond to the
questions and get back with Pam Lambert before the full Plan Commission. Steve
Engelking said a lot of the questions require a response from the petitioner and may be
answered in this evening's session.
Section 4.1 Minimum Building and Parking Plaza Setbacks.
Kevin Kirby said the concern is you can build a building 115 feet from the roadway, but
it is physically impossible to do that. So, spending time on that may not be the best use
of time by the Committee.
s:\PlanCommission\spst2000dec12
2
D
o
D
u
Laurence Lillig said the current Thoroughfare Plan calls for 100 feet of right-of-way on
Springmill Road (50 foot one-half). With the Illinois corridor amendment being
considered by the Council at present, it may bring the right-of-way to 140 feet or a 70
foot one-half Out of the 70 foot one-half would be a 30 foot greenbelt and an additional
15 feet before any structure could be built; this would actually be 45 feet from the right-
of-way. The closest you could ever get to the right-of-way, if we go for a 70 foot one-
half in that stretch, would be 45 feet.
Terry Jones concurred with the petitioner that INDOT will probably purchase between 5
and 7 acres of the property. Does the footprint of the building (square footage) take into
account the additional square footage allowed for each acre not taken by INDOT? It
would not take long to eat up 6,600 square feet. There should be some sort of triggering
mechanism that would increase it according to the formula. Terry suggested a letter from
INDOT might suffice.
John Molitor suggested adding language to the ordinance that based on a letter from the
Commissioner of INDOT, the Department of Community Service Director may then
determine that less than that amount has been taken. At this point, the determination
would be that 7.5 acres will be taken for right-of-way purposes.
u
Section 4.4 Landscaping Requirements. Greenbelt:
As the right-of-way moves, so does the buffer. The Department has no outstanding
issues. Ron Houck said the greenbelt buffer along Springmill is a lesser standard than
previously used. It is 90 feet according to the Comp Plan. Steve Granner said 90 feet is
requested in the Comp Plan--the distance from the end of the limited access right-of-way
from the interstate to the center line of Springmill is 24.odd feet, rounded up to 25 feet,
plus the 90 foot buffer the Comp Plan calls for, equals the 115 foot dimension from the
roadway. Terry Jones said the Comp Plan gave credit for the taper off the limited access.
Kevin Kirby asked if the proposed will result in the same buffer, mound, and trees as
currently exist on Parkwood East. Steve Granner said the proposed landscaping is
actually a higher standard than Parkwood East.
Pat Rice asked if any comments had been received from the area residents. Bob FaIk said
they had talked with the residents a lot. In regard to the landscaping, generally the
comments have been positive; the mounds are higher, trees are higher, etc.
Members of the audience were asked if they had any questions regarding the landscaping;
Pam Lambert did have some questions of the petitioner as to the number and types of
trees as previously shown on a computer generated drawing.
u
Madeline Fitzgerald's concern was whether or not the Committee has given the petitioner
the tools to create adequate buffering with the types of trees. Steve Engelking responded
that the specificity and number of trees, ornamental trees, shade trees, conifer trees, and
X number of shrubs, that leaves the kinds and species open for discussion and that is the
ADLS process. The petitioner is telling us the minimum standards they will meet with
s:\PlanCommission\spst2000dec12
3
the number of calipers and the number of trees and types of trees, but they are not getting
down to the species.
D
Madeline Fitzgerald asked about signage in the greenbelt area and whether or not parking
would be allowed in the greenbelt. Steve Granner said signs are permitted within the
greenbelt, but parking is not allowed.
Section C. Landscaping Standards.
Dave Cremeans asked about paragraph C-2. There is no mention of a sidewalk on the
Springmill side. Bob Falk said Exhibit C spells out the sidewalk on Springmill along
their property. As grade allows, the petitioner will take the sidewalk as far as they can
go. The petitioner will add language spelling out the approximate footage of the
sidewalk they will build.
D. Landscaping Installation and Maintenance.
Who is responsible for landscaping and maintenance within any traffic circle constructed
or within the rights of way? As those become dedicated streets, the City is responsible,
just as the City does on Hazeldell Parkway.
Section 4.5 Parking Requirements.
Terry Jones said the City is never a big fan of parking spaces. The petitioner is
requesting additional spaces, and there is no maximum with the parking requirements.
They are allowed 5.5 parking spaces per one thousand square feet, providing the ADLS is 0
approved. Kevin Kirby said even though the Committee is uncomfortable with the
additional spaces, providing the drainage can handle it, and if it is buffered and
landscaped, they are going to physically "max out" anyway.
John Molitor recommended reducing the number of parking spaces. We would not want
to create a non-conforming use. Laurence Lillig said with the square footage proposed,
the petitioner would be required to have 2,114 parking spaces. They may have already
designed over that. Kevin Kirby did not see a problem with the parking, neither did Bob
Modisett.
Section 4.6 Lighting Requirements.
This is controlled by ADLS. Madeline Fitzgerald objected to lighting poles 30 to 32 feet
in height, given the close proximity of residential. Bob Falk's response: Parkwood East
has 30 foot high light poles and 2 foot base. Parkwood West will be as high, or slightly
higher within the Overlay Zone. Steve Granner said the street light type lights atop the
interstate light the entire area and whether they have 25 foot lights or 30 foot lights will
not be a noticeable change. Bob Falk agreed to lower the lighting to 28 feet.
The entire lighting scheme will have to come through ADLS review.
Section 4.7 Signs. U
Madeline Fitzgerald asked how paragraph number 1 would apply to buildings A, B, and
C if this is termed one building rather than three buildings. Terry Jones said no matter .
s:\PlanCommission\spst2000dec12 4
u
what is done, from a technical standpoint, it is treated as one building. Paul Spranger
asked whether or not the signs would be internally illuminated and if the illumination is
deemed excessive, the Department Director has full discretion.
Maximum Sign Area of 90 square feet is permitted. On Parkwood East, the petitioner
went for a variance for a second sign on building 6; the variance on building 5 was for a
second sign; the variance on building 7 was for the size of the logo.
Dave Cremeans questioned having signage located on the west, north, and east sides of
the building. It looks as if the signs would be shining into adjacent neighbors. Steve
Granner said the purchaser of the residential property to the west has stated no problems
with proposed location of the signage.
Kevin Kirby commented a sign on the building facing Springmill would not be that
beneficial and probably the petitioner would want the sign as far north as possible,
towards the interstate. Steve Granner agreed.
u
Terry Jones said all three buildings are attached or linked by the fitness center or
conference center. Terry asked if the petitioner viewed these as three buildings, even
though they are attached by the fitness center and conference center, so long as there is
no more than one floor? Steve Granner agreed. Terry said if the petitioner decides to
make the conference center two stories at the same location, in effect, the two buildings
would become one and it will affect signage. The petitioner was aware and said the
fitness center and conference center will be only one story.
C. Parkwood Crossing West Center Identification and Real Estate (Leasing) Signs.
The ADLS Sign Program (Sign Package) will be brought in at one time.
D. Other Provisions. No Issues
Chapter 5.0 Outlot Area - Specific Regulations
5.1 Minimum Building Setbacks
Chris Seger said the minimum building setback is 10 feet from the right-of-way,
wherever it lands. It seems logical that having parking 300 feet from the center line is not
unreasonable. If you are at the edge of the pavement, you are not within 10 feet of the
parking. Kevin Kirby said INDOT doesn't care about setbacks; their right-of-way is their
right-of-way and what you do beyond that.....
L
5.2 Minimum Gross Floor Area
Ron Houck asked if there were a reason small buildings are being allowed. If the
Meridian Corridor is a gateway into Carmel, we have established a policy that has 15,000
square foot minimums, why are we changing? Explanation: This is only an outlot. Bob
Falk said the Ordinance allows and their vision is that there will be two, high-end
restaurants in that location. Clearly, that was defined to keep the office buildings there
going north and south. The comer is different--it is not an office location. It fits a high-
end restaurant of 15,000 feet.
s:\PlanCommission\spst2000dec12
5
.
Kevin Kirby said the value of the land will drive the kind of use. The 31 Task Force
identified a few parcels within the corridor that could definitely be mixed use parcels--
this one, and the one at 116th and Meridian. The Task Force specifically let it be known
that we would like to see a PUD at 116th and Meridian that had not only office, but
destination restaurants and possibly a substantial retail portion--a large, mixed use type
center. This is not a new idea to the corridor.
D
Terry Jones explained that there are only two uses permitted in the specific outlot area
and that is a restaurant, and office, any type. The petitioner is intending for this area to
be used for two restaurants, minimum of 5,000 square feet, not to exceed 9,500 square
feet per building. If this is not acceptable, the definition needs to be changed.
Steve Engelking asked if there would be restaurants within the office buildings beyond
the cafeteria, deli type outlet? Terry Jones said according to the Ordinance, it would be
allowed, but no additional signage would be allowed.
Steve Engelking asked if such a restaurant were located on the ground floor, would
outside seating be anticipated. Chris Seger responded in the affirmative; this was
included in their initial presentation.
Section 5.4 Landscaping Requirements.
A. No issues
B. Areas to be Landscaped
1,. Planting Strip:
a. There is to be a sidewalk along 96th in the outlot area--there will be planting
areas adjacent to 96th Street right-of-way.
b. Madeline Fitzgerald asked if the landscaped area would be totally different as
far as signs and the greenbelt on the outlots and restaurants. It looks like on the outlot
you could have a big, flashy neon sign. Terry Jones said only if the petitioner was
granted a variance for that.
o
Steve Engelking referred to 5.7 on signs that refers to number, size, type, where they can
be located, design, etc.
Dave Cremeans questioned the existence of a bicycle path. Kevin Kirby referred to
paragraph 1 b which refers to a bike path. The bike path needs to show on Exhibit C prior
to approval of the Ordinance. Exhibit C also shows a curb cut and there was discussion
about who would control the curb cut--Terry Jones said the Plan Commission can
supersede the Board of Works by way of the rezone. The curb cut is a right in/right out.
Kevin Kirby suggested increasing the width of landscaping on the 96th Street side--the
US 31 side of the property is not a big concern. Laurence Lillig said that typically, bike D
paths are installed in the right-of-way rather than the planting strip. Terry Jones
responded that the 10 feet is from the edge of right of way, not the edge of pavement.
Chris Seger agreed to a minimum of 15 feet in width for a landscaped, planting area
s:\PlanCommission\spst2000dec12 6
..
u
adjacent to INDOT right-of-way and 96th Street right-of-way. The landscape areas may
contain the bike path.
2. Planting Adjacent to Buildings: No Issues
3. Planting Within Parking Lots: No Issues
4. Total Landscaping Required:
Madeline Fitzgerald asked for clarification regarding the 15% landscaping of the Real
Estate. Steve Granner explained it is 15% of the balance of the real estate after INDOT
takes the right-of-way.
C. Landscaping Standards. No Issues
D. Landscaping Installation and Maintenance. No Issues
Section 5.5 Parking Requirements
C. Dave Cremeans said one space per 2.5 patron seats, plus one space per employee is
excessive. Steve Granner responded one space per 3 seats is probably more within the
standard. Kevin Kirby suggested an upscale restaurant could make a connection with the
parking garage and perhaps one parking space per 4 patron seats. Steve Granner agreed
to one space per 4.0 patron seats.
u
Section 5.6 Lighting Requirements.
C. The height of light standards shall not exceed 28 feet, all else the same.
Section 5.7 Signs
A. Outlot Area Signs No Issues
B. Parkwood Crossing West Center Identification and Real Estate (Leasing) Signs.
Reiteration of what it was before, only now applied to the outlot.
C. Other Provisions No Issues
u
Chapter 6.0 Approval Process
Section 6.1 Approval of ADLS
B. Pam Lambert's specific question on this paragraph is "What happens if the
Plan Commission decides Not to Approve the ADLS--period?" Terry Jones responded
that the language states"... ..shall approve the ADLS without conditions or approve with
conditions." How long it takes to get to that approval is not known, there is no time limit.
C. There was discussion on Pam Lambert's question ofthe approval for a 10%
change--this needs to be more specific. Terry Jones explained that any change less than
10% can be altered without Plan Commission approval. Anything 10% and over must
come back before the Plan Commission for approval. Bob Falk responded that the square
footage cannot be changed and the intent of the overall plan cannot be changed--the
intent is to provide a vehicle for approval for landscaping, certain species, etc. Terry
Jones said Pam Lambert's question has a good point and perhaps this could be covered in
s:\PlanCommission\spst2000dec12
7
the definition section and more clearly defined. It was agreed that a new paragraph (E)
would be written to tighten this up and cover the points in this discussion.
Section 6.2 Approval of Denial of the Development Plan
Questions--No Issues
Chapter 7.0 Definitions and Violations.
Section 7.1 General Rules of Construction: Definitions
A. No Issues
B. Definitions
The definitions were gone over and agreed upon, mostly correlative changes based on
discussion and consensus.
Between the Exhibits to be attached to' the PUD and the definitions included in the
document, the Committee felt that all items had been addressed.
Bob Modisett moved to recommend approval of Docket No. 154-00 Z, Parkwood
Crossing West PUD, incorporating all changes herein specified, including those
revisions in the Definition section, seconded by Kevin Kirby. UNANIMOUS
recommendation for APPROVAL (6-0).
Disposition: This item will be forwarded to the full Plan Commission on December 19,
2000, and will appear under Old Business.
There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:50 PM.
::..----
s:\PlanCommission\spst2000decI2
8
, .. ... ~
.
D
o
D