HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PCC 10-01-24
4
Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 10-1-24
• Keesling noted while it was an improvement from the original design that she felt there was still more work
to be done to bring the design into line with what was provided in the character images of the PUD for the
commercial space. It was her opinion that more needed to be done to make each tenant space look distinct
from each other to give them a “built over time” look.
Committee Comments:
Buckler was under the impression that the new design looked “weird” as if a portion of the roof had blown off.
The petitioner responded that it was changed in that fashion to try and address the massing issued raised at prior
meetings, and that the overall design of the structure was done in such a way as to take into consideration the
signage needs of the future tenants. In response to the comment about signage needs Keesling responded that the
primary concern was not the needs of the tenants for signage but that it was to make sure the buildings were done
in the right manner. Minnaar inquired why the roof design was changed to begin with as she had missed the last
meeting, and the petitioner reiterated it was to address the concerns over massing.
Westermeier inquired about if the beige and grey neutral colors on the renderings provided were going to be the
actual colors. Curran indicated that was the plan and brought out sample materials to show the committee.
Westermeier then asked staff if the colors were what they were concerned about. Keesling stated it was not the
colors that were so much of concern it was more so the roof massing.
Kirsh stated that he found some older architecture along Broad Ripple Ave. that he thought was more in line with
what the Plan Commission originally wanted to go towards with the design. He questioned if the design should go
back to the beginning to make sure the design came out in a “timeless” nature.
CONTINUED TO NOV. 7TH COMMITTEE
3. Docket No. PZ-2024-00122 CA: Meridian Trails Commitment Amendment.
4. Docket No. PZ-2024-00123 V: Meridian Trails Height Variance.
5. Docket No. PZ-2024-00130 V: Meridian Trails Parking Variance.
The applicant seeks approval for commitment amendments and two variances to allow a new 55+ age restricted
housing development. The site is located at 201 W 106th St. and is zoned B-1/ Business. Filed by Jim Shinaver
and Jon Dobosiewicz of Nelson & Frankenberger on behalf of Steve Pittman and Justus Companies.
Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewicz:
• Dobosiewicz began by providing a brief description of the property location and the site plan. The location
would be surrounded by Illinois Street to the east, 106th Street to the north, and a small residential
neighborhood to the west. The site would consist of a large four-story courtyard building consisting of
mainly residential units, but a small portion would be dedicated to commercial. The rest of the site would
consist of surface parking and four coverage garage bays with multiple garage units per bay. The garages
would be located outside of the required tree preservation area. There would be two points of access, one
off 106th Street and one off Illinois Street. Proposed building architecture with materials labeled was
provided but indicated by the petitioner that such would be discussed later if the project was approved when
it had to come back to the Plan Commission for DP ADLS.
• Intensity of the use was addressed via a comparison of peak AM/PM trips for the old use of an office verses
the new apartment use. Peak trips for the office use were 143/142 verses the much lower peak trips of the
apartments that are projected to be 33/42.
• A parking study conducted by Justus was presented citing multiple sources they believed lent credibility to
their parking calculations. The study also provided numbers for parking at their other locations already in
existence or under construction. All of which feel between the 1.0 and 1.3 space per unit range.
• Height of the building would not change significantly to the eye as the height increase for portions of the
building would only be due to a downward change in the grade of the building.
• The distance away of nearby existing residences was provided. The nearest being a house to the west 185’
from the proposed building façade. The other remaining nearby homes ranger from approximately 220’ to
400’+ away from the proposed building.
• Buffering plans were provided that showcased images of the existing tree line on the property that would be
5
Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 10-1-24
maintained as well as images of a proposed 8-foot wall that has already been partially erected on the
property line that would be extended to cover the entire southern property line and about 3/4ths of the
western property line. Additional plantings such as arborvitaes would also be added to increase the
landscape buffer from what already is naturally occurring.
• Outdoor lighting would consist of two different elements. The first being parking lot lighting a maximum of
15-foot pole height with full cut off LED lights, and second would be full cut off LED balcony lighting.
• Two additional commitments were added to the original commitments. The first being language clarifying
that all design will be finalized during the DP ADLS and that what had been provided regarding site and
building design during this process had just been theoretical until approved later. The second added
language that the units will be built to comply with HOPA (Housing for Older Persons Act) regulations.
Department Report: Alexia Lopez:
• Staff was supportive of the change of use from office space to a 55+ community with a small commercial
component. Overall staff was pleased with the site design that allowed adequate buffering via tree
preservation and by moving the building closer to Illinois Street.
• Staff provided a favorable recommendation to return the petition to the Plan Commission for final approval.
Committee Comments:
Minnaar inquired about three different topics. First, regarding how conversations had gone with neighbors in the
abutting Rosado Hill neighborhood. Secondly, she desired confirmation on lighting requirements being fully
satisfied, and thirdly she stated she understood the thought process on the parking but still thought in a wealthier
community like Carmel, auto ownership numbers could be higher at this location over the others. Walt Justus
confirmed that they had productive conversations with the nearby residents and were in the process of finalizing
details about the wall construction. Regarding lighting Dobosiewicz confirmed that there were enhanced
standards within the commitments and what he went over in the presentation was an example of those enhanced
standards being enacted. Regarding the parking concerns Angela Miller, EVP and COO of the Justus Companies,
provided a justification for what had been requested. She stated that per their demographic studies 40-50% of
women over the age of 75 no longer drive so that reduces the number of spaces they need significantly, and that
they already have other facilities in higher end communities with similar parking ratios as what’s requested
without having issues.
Zoccola stated her support for the change of use from office space to 55+ housing, feeling as though more than
enough existing office space was already built or approved. She then requested confirmation that the 10%
maximum stucco and EIFS commitment was still applicable. Dobosiewicz confirmed it was still in place. She
went on to then to inquire over what the status of the wall was and about protection of the trees where the wall
was going to be placed. Dobosiewicz stated that the wall design and placement in relation to the property line
was still being discussed and that in order to protect the trees the wall would stairstep around them so they would
not have to be removed for construction. Zoccola’s final question was regarding apartment size as she believed
she saw somewhere that they would be relatively small. Miller told her that they would be adequality sized with
an average being 1100 sq. ft. The smaller one bedrooms being 800-900 sq. ft. with the larger two bedrooms up to
1500 sq. ft. Zoccola was satisfied with this clarification.
Westermeier requested additional information on what amenities would be available to the residents of the
community. Justus informed her that a key component of their communities is social programming and that they
would have various onsite activities and off-site trips planned for residents. Westermeier was then still wanting
more information particularly on outdoor activities and amenities. Dobosiewicz stated that there would be trail
connections on the property as well as a large courtyard with a pool and hardscaped area. Westermeier then
moved on to her final concern over what was in her opinion the inadequacy of the guest parking. Justus reassured
her that they had sufficiently planned for their needs.
Buckler asked about trail connections to Illinois and 106th Street, and stated she wanted to see them on the plan if
they were proposed. Dobosiewicz confirmed that they were proposed and would be shown on the plan when it
came through the DP ADLS process. She then went onto reiterate similar concerns over parking as Westermeier
did stating that Carmel could very well be an aberration for the number of cars per person compared to
communities like the one in Danville. Dobosiewicz stated that while he was not arguing her point and that her
6
Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 10-1-24
concerns were valid that over the past decade staff had found that 1.5-1.6 parking spaces per unit for non-age
restricted apartments, that many times have two or three bedrooms with multiple residents driving per unit, was
adequate so they felt the request for 1.3 for the age restricted complex was justified. She finalized her comments
by providing suggestions such as incorporating into the development outdoor workout equipment areas and large
swings like those found in Midtown Plaza. She also stated she was overall supportive of the change in use to age
restricted residences over the original office building proposal.
Zoccola addressed the petitioner regarding the proposed wall to provide cautionary advice to make sure that the
wall was not constructed in such a way as to block off the entirety of the tree line from the proposed development.
She wanted the residents to be able to enjoy the preserved green space.
Kirsh stated he wanted a hybrid approach to the tree preservation area preserving what is good but also clearing
out what is dead, invasive, or scrub and infilling those areas with better replacement vegetation and maybe
exploring the possibility of a wall only in certain areas. He also suggested the petitioner look into shared parking
agreements with surrounding businesses and explore the possibility of using TIF funding to provide enhanced
water quality improvement measures.
Motion by Buckler, seconded by Zoccola, to send the petition back to the full Plan Commission with a
favorable recommendation.
APPROVED 5-0 (Absent: Campagna & Hill)
6. Docket No. PZ-2024-00156 ADLS Amend: 401 Penn Exterior Building Modifications.
The applicant seeks design approval for exterior modifications including architectural material changes, addition
of an entry pergola, and updates to lighting and signage. The site is located at 401 Pennsylvania Pky. It is zoned
MC /Meridian Corridor and is not located within an overlay zone. Filed by Cade Brummer of NSPJ Architects.
Petitioner: John Vandenbark- JLL Indianapolis (Leasing Agent):
• Vandenbark identified himself as the leasing agent for the building in question, he was not with the
architecture firm NSPJ. He informed the committee that both the tenants of the building as well as the owner
desire to make updates to the property exterior to modernize it. The proposed modernization updates consist
of a reskin of the building with a metal composite material on the second and third floors as well as a new
glass entryway and pergola fronting that new entryway.
Department Report: Rachel Keesling:
• Keesling stated that the petitioner desires to cover up much of the existing brick with metal paneling to make
it look more like the two buildings flanking it that are constructed out of precast concrete panels. Yet due to
the nature of the brick being notable iron spotted style staff thinks it irresponsible to cover it or paint it when
it should instead be showcased.
• Keesling did indicate ways in which the building could be improved upon while maintaining its character
such as replacement of the dated and cracking limestone windowsills or removal of the east and west
triangular prism glass vestibules.
• Staff recommended denial of the petition in its current form.
Committee Comments:
Minnaar concurred with staff that covering the brick would not be in the best interest of upholding the
architectural integrity of the building. She thought that adding the metal would increase monotony of the area by
making it very similar to the buildings flanking it and that the paneling gave it the look of a “barndominium”.
Westermeier suggested instead of denying the project that they instead continue the project to the next committee
to give the petitioner time to work with staff to create an acceptable exterior updates plan.
Buckler agreed with comments about the cladding increasing monotony and liked Keesling’s idea to remove the
vestibules because they could be “blinding” when driving by the building certain times when the sun hits them.
CONTINUED TO NOV. 7TH COMMITTEE