Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 06-18-24 City of Carmel 1 Plan Commission Minutes 6-18-24 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 2024, MEETING MINUTES Location: Council Chambers Room, 2nd Floor, Carmel City Hall Members Present: Brad Grabow (President), Adam Campagna, Dubbie Buckler, Chaka Coleman, Jeff Hill, Christine Zoccola (Vice), Josh Kirsh, Shannon Minnaar, Sue Westermeier Staff Present: Rachel Keesling, Adrienne Keeling, Alexia Lopez, Mike Hollibaugh, Christina Jesse, and Bric Butler. Legal Counsel: Sergey Grechukhin Time of Meeting: 6:00 PM Declaration of Quorum: President Grabow: 9 members present, a quorum is present. Approval of the previous Meeting Minutes: A motion made by Kirsh and seconded by Campagna to approve the May 21st, 2024 PC meeting minutes. APPROVED 9-0 Reports, Announcements & Department Concerns 1. Outcome of Projects at Plan Commission Committee a. Docket No. PZ-2023-00076 PP/SP: Cherry Creek Farms Minor Subdivision. APPROVED 2. US 31 & Home Place Sub Area Plans Update • Adrienne Keeling, Planning Administrator, introduced Daniella Beltran and Joe Nickol from Yard & Company, the contracted company that assisted in updating the Carmel Comprehensive Plan in 2022 and that is now assisting with the sub-area plans update within the Comprehensive Plan. • Beltran provided an outline of the community engagement process and timeline for both Home Place and US 31 Corridor sub-area plans. • Commissioner Zoccola inquired about the boundary determinations for both the Home Place and US 31 sub plans, and while she did not express an opinion on the boundaries themselves, she asked that they consider public feedback when ultimately deciding the boundaries. • President Grabow suggested they reach out to Indiana Department of Transportation regarding possible changes to US 31 going as far north as 116th Street so they could incorporate the possible impacts of such work into the US 31 sub-area plan if needed. • Commissioner Buckler asked that, when considering the update to the US 31 portion of the Sub Area Plan Update, to keep in mind the need for high density affordable housing, noting that the stretch of Pennsylvania St. between 103rd St. and 116th St. provides ample space to develop mixed use projects that include high density housing. • Commissioner Kirsh stated he believed the US 31 corridor is overparked and would like to see their findings on the subject. Public Hearings Motion by Minnaar and seconded by Kirsh to move item three of the public hearing agenda, PZ-2024-00064 PP to the top of the agenda. APPROVED 9-0 President Grabow explained the Rules of Procedure for a public hearing in front of the Plan Commission. 1. Docket No. PZ-2024-00064 PP: Andrews Subdivision Primary Plat. The applicant seeks primary plat approval for a 30-lot subdivision with open space/common areas. The site is located at 4411 E 146th Street and is zoned Andrews PUD (Z-687-24). Filed by Mike Timko with Kimley Horn on behalf of the owner, MPC Andrews LLC. 2 Plan Commission Minutes 6-18-24 Petitioner: Mike Timko: • Timko provided an overview of the site plan of the Andrews PUD development. He highlighted changes that were made based on staff review comments: o Streetlights now provided, particularly at intersections to ensure well-lit safe pedestrian crossings. o Additional details were provided regarding the neighborhood amenity areas including the addition of the dog park and community garden on the northern edge of the development near the 146th St. entrance. o Provided tree preservation area signage locations, added to ensure landscape crews do not disturb them. o Provided a rendering of neighborhood identification signage for the entrance off 146th St. Public Comments: None. Petitioner Rebuttal: None. Department Report: Alexia Lopez: • Lopez recapped what the petitioner provided regarding signage, lighting, and amenities. She noted there were some outstanding review comments that needed to be addressed such as the size of the entrance sign, a construction signage plan, and the need to address any forestry or engineering comments. • No sustainable site or building design plans are provided at this time. • Storm sewer line between common areas 1A and 1B needs more information provided. Clarification on if the dog park is draining into the community garden is needed and verification if that is ok. • Recommended the petition be sent to committee with final voting authority to allow the petitioner additional time to address outstanding comments. Committee Comments: Buckler inquired if the name was simply remaining “Andrews Subdivision”. The petitioner clarified that right now that was a placeholder name and that a final name was in the works. Kirsh stated he was aware that large tree preservation area signs in other neighborhoods had been removed by homeowners due to their intrusive nature. He suggested smaller and closer to the ground signs that would hopefully be less intrusive and thus not be pulled up. Lopez said she needed to investigate the UDO to see if there were size guidelines but if not, they could look into that. Minnaar requested clarification on drainage questions raised by owners of a neighboring property. The petitioner summarized and identified the two main issues raised. The first being a concern about runoff from the adjacent property owner, a landscaping company, and concerns that fertilizer would be in the stormwater runoff. The petitioner stated that while they cannot control the actions off their property that any potentially contaminated water would now be running through their own stormwater treatment process before entering the next property’s system. Overall, that would likely improve the water quality over what is entering it now. The second concern is about the neighborhood pond level [in their opinion] is constantly very low. The petitioner stated that only a very small portion of the subject property today drains into that pond so the impact on it should be negligible and not contribute to further decreasing the water level of said pond. Hill raised a similar concern as staff regarding the drainage of the dog park into the community garden and wanted further analysis of the impact of that decision. He also was concerned about the location of the pedestrian crossing to the south off 146th Street, unsure if that was the best place for it. He inquired about the perimeter path on 146th Street. Could the petitioner work with staff to see if there were any repairs needed to the section along their property? If so, he would like them to repair it as part of the process. A motion by Hill to send the petition to the Combined Residential & Commercial Committee with final approval authority granted to the Committee. APPROVED 9-0 2. Docket No. PZ-2024-00044 DP/ADLS: Courtyard by Marriott Hotel. The applicant seeks Development Plan and ADLS approval for a new full-service hotel with 102 rooms. The site is located at 13285 Illinois St. and is zoned MC/Meridian Corridor. Filed by Jim Jacob, owner. 3 Plan Commission Minutes 6-18-24 Petitioner: Sam Patel: • Patel provided a brief history and overview of the project. Per Patel, in 2019 there was an Avid Hotel approved for construction at the site but then the Covid-19 pandemic halted the project. Ultimately that project was abandoned and the now proposed Mariott Courtyard shall take its place. The hotel is proposed to be 4 stories tall, have 102 rooms, and consist of 4,000 sq. ft. of meeting space. The rest of the site details remain mostly unchanged from the 2019 approval. Public Comments: None. Petitioner Rebuttal: None. Department Report: Rachel Keesling: Keesling noted several details about the proposed hotel: • It would be visible from Meridian Street but accessed from Illinois Street. • It would be located as far to the east as possible alongside the existing pond. • Parking will blend into the existing parking for the CMC building. • As proposed, the building structure would require a variance from minimum lot coverage requirements. Buildings in the area along the Meridian Corridor require 75% coverage while the proposed hotel will only cover 62.4% (including the existing CMC building). A variance for this was granted to the previous development proposal in 2019 but the approval has since expired. Staff would be supportive of the request as the intent of the ordinance is being met by the current lot configuration. • The floor plan had been updated to show an interior bike parking room, and a rooftop plan showing mechanical screening was also provided. At the time of the meeting, Staff was still waiting for updated renderings of the façade since material changes had been requested during review. • Landscaping, photometric plan, and signage meet Unified Development Ordinance standards as currently proposed. Keesling asked the Commission to send the petition to committee with final voting authority provided to them. Committee Comments: Commissioner Buckler asked for clarification on why it was back before Plan Commission for approval. Keesling reiterated it was due to expiration of the original approval since it had been more than three years and that the project was slightly different since it was now under the Courtyard Marriott flag instead of the Avid flag. Zoccola: This site is kind of tucked back there it is hard to see from Illinois Street. Are you going to have any signage on Illinois? I am just trying to see how people are going to find this, because it is hard to see from Illinois. Patel: We have not decided whether we will be putting a sign on Illinois. We can have three signs on the building, one facing east, one west, and one south so that the traffic will be able to see the building. Down the road, if we see the need for a sign over there like an entrance sign we will definitely come back and seek approval for that. Commissioner Westermeier asked for clarification that the petitioner did indeed state that there would not be a sign on Illinois Street to which he confirmed at the current time that was correct. Westermeier: So when someone is driving down Illinois how will they know…because you are moving it as far east…I remember this very well from the last discussion. Patel: The site we have does not reach all the way to Illinois Street so I am not sure we will be able to put a sign over there. We will have to talk to the neighbors or the property owner to see if they would allow us to put a sign up there. If they are agreeable, we will. Westermeier: I remember this from last time and that was confusing then, because people driving north or south on Illinois think there is a cut in the median on Illinois. Coming at night and it’s dark, it’s the same reservation I had back then. Can you look into if you can get a sign or does the department care if there is a sign? I am looking at it as a safety issue. Keesling: They do have access easements from the two parcels flanking Illinois Street, but they would have to work with those owners to ask permission to put a sign there and then they would need a variance for that as well to have a sign off- premise. 4 Plan Commission Minutes 6-18-24 Westermeier: I am just one person, but I think that is really important. Before any next meeting we will have building renderings? We don’t really have anything to look at. The petitioner stated that they will provide renderings at the committee meeting and could bring renderings of the building that was initially approved to compare and contrast it to the new proposal at the request of Commissioner Westermeier. Commissioner Kirsh concurred with Westermeier about the importance of a sign off Illinois. Hill: The request for the variance is some of it a function of the pond for all three sites is on this lot? Is that a portion of the issue fair to say? Keeling: Jeff [Commissioner Hill], part of it is this development was put in place before that requirement was put into the UDO. So, we are trying to be flexible on the intent behind it and filling up the frontage space with as much building as possible. Grabow: The shape of the lot with the elevation of the exit ramp on southbound 31, I am struggling with if anyone could fulfill the intent or if that intent is even necessary of that design requirement. I don’t know if the BZA can address it and it may be kind of toothless in that case if that is their determination, but I am not sure it wouldn’t make sense for the department to administratively determine that a variance isn’t even necessary in this case because there is no US 31 to speak of here just a ramp. (Secretary’s note: Staff does not have the authority to administratively waive this UDO requirement.) The signage questions I completely agree with my colleagues that directional signage from Illinois Street is important so folks don’t inadvertently turn into the church to your south or the medical clinic a little further north, so we don’t have people going back and forth trying to zero in on where your hotel is. The other piece and I hope your elevations and additional renderings will help the committee understand, has to do with signage on all four frontages given the orientation of the building whether signage on the west side of the building would be visible given the distance its set back from Illinois and the extensive landscaping along Illinois. The same thing on the east elevation - given the way both Main Street and the ramp are elevated poses some signage challenges as well. So, I want to be sure to the extent you are investing in signage that it has visibility that is desirable and conversely doesn’t have visibility that isn’t desirable. To the last point because of the elevated nature of the ramp and Main Street when we talk about mechanical screening on your roof, I want to be sure that the screening is high enough that none of the roof top mechanicals will be visible from the ramp or Main Street. Commissioner Kirsh suggested a possible blade sign on the southeast corner of the building to cut out the need for two separate wall signs on the east and south facades of the building. Motion by Westermeier and seconded by Campagna to send the petition to the July 2nd Combined Residential & Commercial Committee with final voting authority. APPROVED 9-0 3. Docket No. PZ-2024-00062 DP/ADLS: Everwise Credit Union. The applicant seeks Development Plan and ADLS approval to build a new 3,400 ft2 credit union on 1.15 acres. The site is located at 10920 N. Michigan Rd. and is zoned B-3/Business District. It is also within the US 421 Overlay District. Filed by Miranda Seals, Architect, on behalf of Everwise Credit Union. Petitioner: Miranda Seals: • Seals provided a summary of the project. She noted that the location previously was approved to be the site of an Oberweis burger restaurant and that the existing curb cuts on the property would be used for access to the site. She went on to display a diagram and provide details to the Commission about traffic flow on the property as it was currently designed. The building design is Italianate, one of the approved styles in the 421 Overlay District. Public Comments: None. Petitioner Rebuttal: None. Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • Keesling recapped the information provided by the petitioner that the building would be of the Italianate style, designed in a fashion that modified the prototype building in a way that allowed for increased aesthetic appeal but was still functional. She noted that less than 10% of the building would be of EIFS material as required per code. • The building will have frontages on three different roadways, one of which would have drive-through lanes for