Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes SpecStdy 12-07-99 u CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDY COMMITTEE DECEMBER 07,1999 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Special Study Committee was called to order at approximately 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall on December 07,1999. Members present were: Madeline Fitzgerald; Kevin Kirby; Bob Modisett; James T. O'Neal; Pat Rice; Chairman Rick Sharp; and Paul Spranger. : Terry Jones and Laurence Lillig were present representing the Department of Community Services. Item 1. Docket No. 81-99 ADLS, Meadowlark Office Park Petitioner seeks approval to construct three office buildings on 3.46 acres known as Meadowlark Office Park. The site is located at 698 Pro-Med Lane. The site is zoned B-6/Business. Filed by Steve Dauby ofDauby O'Conner, LLC. Rick Sharp stated that the major issue at Plan Commission was the landscaping on this particular project. u Jennifer Dorso appeared before the Committee representing the petitioner. The application is for three additional buildings on the site. The application amends the existing landscaping plan for the two buildings constructed thus far and provides for development of the three additional buildings. The reason for the amendment is to provide additional parking. The first two buildings were completed in December, 1997, and no landscaping was installed at that time. The spring of 1998 was too wet and muddy, so landscaping was started in the summer of 1998. At that particular time, species named on the original landscape plan were not available and some substitutions were made. The petitioner made some additions and deletions to the existing landscape plan and installed more materials than was originally designed. In the process, the landscaping for the first two buildings was not completed due to the fact that additional parking would be needed when the proposed buildings were completed. Hence, there is an area with no landscaping at present. The petitioner is requesting approval for the current landscaping condition, and approval to move forward on the proposed development at this time. u Rick Sharp referred to a review of the landscaping in place from Melissa Spiker, Urban Forestry Coordinator for the City. s: \PlanCommission\SpecialStudyCommittee\ 1999dec 1 Rick Sharp had been under the impression that the approved landscaping plan was not able to be enforced by the City. Terry Jones stated that the approved plan is as enforceable as any zoning ordinance~ this has been confirmed by counsel. This particular project received a certificate of occupancy last summer--if there are zoning violations, the Department would pursue them. u Bob Modisett voiced problems with the current landscaping and wanted to encourage the petitioner to install more mature landscaping. The Parks Board has shared a very common piece of ground with Meadowlark Park and has experienced a lot of trash on site during construction~ sidewalks have been damaged~ etc. Bob Modisett wanted to make sure that any damage done to the park by construction equipment would be taken care of by the petitioner and the area kept clear of construction debris. If the petitioner has any questions, he may contact Randy Auler, Director of the Parks Dept. The petitioner commented that he had done more landscaping than required on the surrounding area; however, there has been no landscaping done to the rear of the building. Also, the petitioner moved the white pines and Australian Pines because they thought it was in everyone's best interest to move the dumpster to the back. The trees and buffer were no longer needed to the front. The petitioner is asking for direction on landscaping to the rear. Kevin Kirby stated that landbanking is done without hesitation. Nothing presented this evening releases Mr. O'Conner from the original requirements. What is at the site now is - 0 not acceptable and the Commission expects the original plan to be followed. Madeline Fitzgerald asked to see an original plan for the parking lot and what landscaping is not installed at this time. Ms. Fitzgerald wanted to see a final landscape plan with the alternative parking lot in existence. Rick Sharp commented that there was a lighting issue as well as landscaping. The buildings are mammoth in relation to the landscaping. The parking lot will come in to play at a future date and buffering will be needed. It would be best to work toward that end now rather than having to tear out and pave down the road. Kevin Kirby stated that with a better landscaping plan, landbanking the parking lot, and addressing the light issues, the only open item would be enforcing what the Plan Commission approves. Jim O'Neal commented that the landscaping really needs to be brought into line, even to the point of going overboard, to blend with the landscaping in the park area. Rick Sharp reminded Mr. Dauby of the impression he left with the Commission members at the time the original two buildings were approved. Mr. Dauby had a very sensitive plan to introduce a lovely development into the area, and he was going to be D complimentary to the natural scheme. Mr. Sharp commented that Mr. Dauby was going to have to find a way that worked for him, economically, to recapture the vision of his s:\PlanCommission\SpecialStudyCommittee\1999dec 2 u landscaping plan. The front of the buildings are not nearly the concern that the rear is. obviously, the buildings will look good from the front because otherwise it would affect Mr. Dauby's ability to lease the space. The major concern is the impact that the development has on the park and on the neighbors to the rear. Mr. Sharp recommended that the petitioner return to the native species and plantings originally proposed, including a landscape plan around the proposed buildings as well, with a view towards blending in with the scenery of the park. -; In regard to light spillage, Terry Jones reported that he had been on the site. Factors include: safety provided by the lighting~ security provided by the lighting~ possible light spillage or glare onto adjoining properties or streets; attractiveness of the lighting standards and their compatibility with the overall treatment of the property; and the height and placement of the lighting standards considering the use. The only factor at the time of approval was the light spillage in regard to adjoining properties or streets. Due to modifications of the U.S. 31 Overlay, the only issue with respect to lighting is the wall packs or wall lights. According to the reading, in the brightest area on the south side of the property, it was point 06 foot candle and gets darker heading west along the path. . The addition of a parking lot and light standards for parking, it would change the brightness. The buildings are tall, and the adjoining homes are set high, and the lights in the offices would present lighting probably no more than a residence. L Rick Sharp asked for those persons who spoke at the public hearing to speak this time evening: John Kerr stated that the buffering and concerns he had, have now been addressed~ Denny Licht spoke of concerns with the lighting in interior offices, now addressed, incomplete landscape plans, and no landscaping to the rear of the buildings; Fred Dickens was concerned about a lack of commitment from the petitioner as to what he will provide in the way of a buffer between the residences and the office buildings. Mr. Dickens commented that the buildings are over-sized, massive structures and it will take some very mature landscaping to provide the necessary barrier. Michael Hollibaugh commented that there must be a balance struck between the residences and offices in the landscaping provided. Kevin Kirby was in favor of a new landscape plan that would encompass both projects. The landscape requirements for the first phase no longer apply and Mr. Kirby would like to see the plan integrated between the two projects. The landscaping to the rear of the buildings needs to be more park-like or integrated with the park~ the landscape to the north and south needs to be more of a buffer. The parking lot landscaping looks good as drawn. u Kevin Kirby moved for approval, conditioned upon the petitioner increasing the landscaping to the rear so that it becomes more park-like and integrated with the park, and creating a landscape buffer to the north and south. APPROVED 7-0. 5: \PlanComrnission \SpecialStudyCommittee\1999dec 3 The petitioner will return to committee (first Tuesday in January) with an integrated landscape plan that will blend with the park area while buffering the homesites; landbanking of the parking area is to be shown as well as buffering of the landbanked area. Item 2. Docket No. 87.99 Z, Jasneek Health Care Petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation of a rezone from R- llResidential to B-S/Business in order to develop a medical office building. The site is located at the northwest comer of East 96th Street and the Monon. The site is zoned R-IIResidential. Filed by Harvinder Dahni of Jasneek Health Care. Harvinder Dahni appeared before the Committee and presented renderings of the . lighting plan, landscaping and signage. The building will be landscape buffered so as not to show from the Monon trail, or from 96th Street. It is the petitioner's intention to make the property nice and classy, and keep the neighbors happy. The petitioner commented that he was open to the species of landscape material to be used, but did say he wanted to be reasonable. There was discussion about the land to the east of the eastern-most driveway as being vacant land. There is no building on it at present. There was also a question as to when this parcel was divided from the Five Seasons property. Laurence Lillig gave the history of the parcel--when it originally came through the BZA for a Special Use facility, it consisted of four parcels. After approval by the BZA, Five Seasons went to the County Auditor and the DKT parcel was separated as a separate tax parcel. The remaining three parcels were combined to create the Five Seasons parcel. This should have gone through the subdivision process and will still need to go through subdivision process before a building permit is issued. For point of clarification, Kevin Kirby commented that any property owner has the right to petition for a rezone at any time. Five Seasons could co'me in now and petition for a rezone. This is a separate parcel with a specific legal description that we are being asked to rezone. Terry Jones agreed with Pat Ricets position that the subject parcel was a part of the ground that was initially considered for a Special Use by the Five Seasons. Rick Sharp stated that the character of use for the Health Care is a change from the original use and the Committee should be debating whether or not that use is appropriate. If it is not, we could save everyone a lot of time. s:\PlanCommission\SpecialStudyCommittee\1999dec 4 D o D u There was further discussion as to the tone of the business. Kevin Kirby commented that there is a sold tone set for sports and recreational uses with the Trail just opposite Five Seasons and the Golf Course to the north. The Jasneek is being used for some rehab at present--the question is, does that make sense to be in the same complex? Mr. Dahni responded that he was not sure of the exact use--he hasn't signed any leases as yet, but it will be used mainly for Doctors, medical rehab purposes, occupational/speech therapy. '. Kevin Kirby suggested a commitment from the petitioner that the use be 100% sports medicine related. Dentist, no; orthopedic, no. Terry Jones confirmed that the Jasneek Health Care facility was a violation of the Five Seasons' Special Use Application. There was further discussion that involved a Planned Unit Development (PUD) rather than a rezone of the property. The petitioner was not represented by Counsel and not fully cognizant of the PUD concept. o George Haerle of the Nora Northside Community Council was in attendance and stated that Mr. Dahni had appeared at the NNCC Board meeting on December 2nd; the Board voted to oppose the proposed use because it is an intrusion of commercial into a primarily residential area. The Special Use was granted because it was felt that a private, recreational, country club would be compatible with residential. An office building is not a part of the compatibility and the NNCC is opposed to the concept of putting commercial into a primary residential area. Barb Ring, president of the Sherwood Forest Civic Association, adjacent to the south of the Five Seasons, stated that the Civic Association had met and were also opposed to the rezone application. The Sherwood Forest Civic Association would also be opposed to a PUD zone. The Civic Association agreed with comments made by Mr. Haerle and the Nora Northside Community Council's position. Rick Sharp was very specfic with ihe petitioner, that regardless of the outcome of the Committee, the petitioner has a right to pursue his case to the full Plan Commission, and regardless of what happens at the full Plan Commission, the petitioner has a right to pursue his petition at the City Council level. Laurence Lillig clarified for the Committee that nothing can be built on this site until the subdivision has been done. u Pat Rice moved for a negative recommendation on the rezone petition to be forwarded to the full Plan Commission; this motion was approved five in favor, Bob Modisett and Paul Spranger opposed. s: \PlanCornmission \SpecialStudyCommittee\ I 999dec 5 Item 3. Docket No. 102-99 ADLS Amend, Windsor Court Petitioner seeks approval to change the sign face approved as Docket No. 43-98 ADLS Amend within the Meridian Technology Center development. The site is located at 11610 Technology Drive. The site is zoned B-6/Business. Filed by Stephen Durnin of National Assisted Living. u Carol Critchlow, program coordinator for Windsor Court appeared before the Committee in place of Stephen Durnin. The petitioner is requesting a change in the signage on the front of the building. Currently, the sign recites "Windsor Court" and the words "Assisted Living" would be added beneath. A significant percentage of Windsor Court's prospects are drive-by and the signage gives no indication as to what the business of the facility is. The words "Assisted Living" would be white, smaller lettering than the words "Windsor Court," and equally spaced between "Windsor Court" and the bottom of the facia so that it does not look like an add-on or after-thought. Paul Spranger moved for the approval of the sign as proposed with appropriate spacing and white lettering (designated as Exhibit A), and that the signage is subject to the Department's discretion. APPROVED 7-0. The petitioner will still need to go through the application process for the signage. Item 4. Docket No. 103-99 ADLS Amend, Goddard School Petitioner seeks approval to install additional lighting on a project approved as Docket No. 68-98 ADLS. The site is located at 160 Medical Drive. The site is zoned B-8/Business. Filed by Gary Wirtz of Rodino LP o Gary Wirtz appeared before the Committee requesting additional lighting on the Goddard School. Originally, the site was approved without outside lighting, however, because of the shorter hours of daylight, it would be dark when children are dropped off and picked up. The petitioner is requesting two heads in the island that will not spill or wash into any adjoining property. To the north is the tennis facility, to the east is the Goddard School and farther east is an office building, to the south is the roadway and adjacent apartments, to the west is vacant ground, the former site if KinderCare. The lighting fixtures will be shoebox type, down lighting, and not a substantial candle power. The lights will be a safety factor only. Terry Jones stated that there may be some spillage into the street area, but it may not be a D bad thing. The ordinance does not require that the lights be point one but the Plan Commission does have approval. s:\PlanCommission\SpecialStudyCommittee\1999dec 6 u Kevin Kirby moved for the approval of the additional lighting with a timer to coincide with the hours of darkness, as long as it meets the candle power requirement of the Ordinance. APPROVED 7-0. The Department will have full approval at its discretion. Item 5. Buckingham Properties, PUD (ADD-ON) '0 Tim Ochs, attorney with Ice. Miller, Brad Chambers, and Lynnette Williams of Buckingham were in attendance at the Special Study Committee. The Site Plan has been refined and a few changes made. The most significant change is that the number of garages has been increased. Also, "Carriage Houses" have been added. Some of the buildings are strictly six space garages; some are six space garages with two living units above. The majority of the greenspace has been moved and made into a "pocket park" rather than dotted throughout the development. Some minor changes, the trash compactor has been angled for easier access; also in the tree preservation area, a small creek will be added. Mr. Ochs stated that the plan meets all ratios in terms of open space and parking. The trail has not been affected by the changes. u Terry Jones reported that the trail will be maintained behind the Carriage Houses; the setback will be 10 feet. The balconies will not encroach in the 10 feet--they are within the footprint of the building. Kevin Kirby moved for the approval of the minor changes. The Committee voted 7-0 for approval. There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9: 10 PM. Rick Sharp, Chairman u s: \PlanConunission\SpecialStudyConunittee\ 1999dec 7