HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 08-20-24
6
Plan Commission Minutes 8-20-24
constructed between building B and C to connect to the path along Spring Mill Road. Staff also desired to see
connection extended to the sidewalk adjacent to the townhomes.
• Landscaping shall be provided around all buildings and in parking lot islands.
• Lot coverage percentage is still unknown, up to 80% coverage is allowed. Staff requested to have that information
be provided.
• An updated site plan and complete engineering plans are still required from the petitioner so that a full review can
occur.
• Staff was concerned that the proposed building elevations are significantly modified and downgraded from what
had been seen at earlier stages in the approval process of the PUD.
• Sign package still under review by DOCS staff, variances may be required for additional building identification
signage to allow for signage on both sides of the building.
• Staff recommended sending the petition to committee for further refinement and discussion.
Committee Comments:
Minnaar: What does the department feel about having them [signs] on both sides? Is that something you guys are for or
against?
Lopez: I think if they are designed right, we can see them on both sides for those tenants on Spring Mill but we are going to
have to look at the size and where they would go. I know something we might see more of a wall sign on the Spring Mill side
but on the inside have more pedestrian style signage for those who are parking there, so you know which tenant space you are
going to. I think we need to still work through those details.
Grabow: The architecture that is proposed is attractive, but I agree with the department report that it falls short of the
character imagery that we were presented earlier. To put that imagery into words, or to put my expectations into words, we
were shown existing neighborhood orientated retail at 56th and Illinois, 49th and Pen, there was another center I am not sure
where it was located. It had a very Nantucket feel. Obviously, Nantucket architecture at JGV isn’t right but it was that scale. I
think building architecture that makes each storefront look like an independent building along a block brings the scale down
and lives up to the imagery we were given earlier. I think four-sided architecture or at least two sided was mentioned earlier. I
am disappointed that these buildings seem to turn their back to Spring Mill Road. Again, it was earlier pointed out that with
the small setback from Spring Mill Road that this retail would be if not orientated to Spring Mill, at least serving passing
pedestrian traffic along Spring Mill. It is only about 15 feet off the multiuse path anyway so to the extent any of the outdoor
dining can be brough to that side, to the extent that the building can have entrances on both sides, to the extent that these
buildings can be brought alive to the Spring Mill Road side would be good. This center is not exclusively for the benefit of the
Jackson’s Grant homeowners but for the benefit of anyone who might be traveling by foot or bike along Spring Mill Road.
The department talked about gables, and I think they look attractive, but they appear to be floating at random locations on the
building so maybe that ties into my other comment about making these buildings look more like a collection of buildings
instead of one building, multiple facades.
Motion by Campagna, seconded by Kirsh, to send to Combined Residential and Commercial Committee with final
voting authority reserved to the full Plan Commission.
APPROVED 8-0
3. Docket No. PZ-2024-00117 Z: Carmel Marketplace C2 Rezone.
The applicant seeks to rezone the parcels located at 452, 502, and 508 E Carmel Drive from the B8/Business to the
C2/Mixed-use District. The 7.9-acre site is generally located at the north side of E Carmel Drive, adjacent to the
stoplight intersection at AAA Way. Filed by the Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan
Commission.
Petitioner: Mike Hollibaugh – Director of Community Services:
• The proposed project while not apart of the original Grammercy PUD is a crucial part of the development as it shall
allow for the extension of Kinzer Ave. down to Carmel Drive.
• C2 rezones are unique in that only the city may apply for that rezoning designation indicating that Redevelopment
Department, the city itself, and the owners see eye to eye that a given site has potential for redevelopment.
• The developer has met with residents of the adjoining neighborhood to discuss buffering concerns and work with
those residents on the development of a buffer yard.
7
Plan Commission Minutes 8-20-24
Public Comments: None.
Staff recommended for the Plan Commission to suspend the Rules of Procedure and to send the item to the Carmel City
Council with a favorable recommendation.
Committee Comments:
Minnaar highlighted that the great work done in refining this project was a joint effort between nearby residents, the
developer, and city councilors, particularly members of the land use subcommittee. She noted that there would be a designated
55+ apartments portion of the development that aligned with needs highlighted by the Carmel Mayor’s Housing Task Force.
Motion by Buckler, seconded by Campagna, to suspend the Rules of Procedure and to provide a favorable
recommendation to the city council.
APPROVED 8-0
Meeting adjourned at 7:26 PM.
_____________________________________ ________________________________________
Bric Butler PC Secretary Brad Grabow President