Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 8-20-24 5 Plan Commission Minutes 8-20-24 including it in the ordinance. We can do both at the same time. Grabow: One last comment on the commercial, I apricate the architectural design I think what is proposed is interesting and what you are suggesting, and the scale is about the same size by reference as the building where Wild Eggs and Noble Romans is at Main and Meridian. There are two buildings there but just that one building is about just under 15,000 sq. ft. and scale wise that does feel scaled down and compatible with neighborhood serving retail. So that the size of this I don’t think is the issue, its just is it necessary with everything that will go up across the street on the other side of 146th. Minnaar: Question for counsel as well, back to the build to rent rentals type of thing. So, it is not appropriate, I just want to be clear, rental restrictions in a PUD is that what you are saying? Grechukhin: No, that is not what I am saying. You can certainly put certain restrictions in a PUD, a PUD is a legislative act, and it has quite a wide latitude to what you can put there as long as it is a reasonable restriction or reasonable commitment then it is fair game. So, I think certain restrictions on rent could maybe be reasonable if you so deem. Minnaar: Well with density if this were to be approved the way it is and we have sixty townhomes, and then suddenly 20% of those become rentals that takes the ownership portion out of and kind of defeats the purpose of the housing taskforce. So, I would encourage personally putting… Dobosiewicz: Sorry I didn’t mean to interrupt. One of the advantages of it as a commitment is it is a separate recordable instrument that will show up on title when an individual buys their house. Between you and me I live in a PUD, and I have never read my entire zoning ordinance that is applicable to my real estate, verses a separate recordable instrument I am going to pick that up on title and its not going to be like I didn’t know. Campagna: I would also strongly encourage reconsidering where the location of the mailboxes are. It seems like the west side of the site is likely the high entry and exit point of the property, and with commercial access potential I think it would be smart to move to a different location. Zoccola: In one of the redline drafts it hard four acres of open space now it has three acres was the loss of an acre just from going to two ponds from one pond? Dobosiewicz: Yes, it was predominately reconfiguration of the ponds. Motion by Hill, seconded by Buckler to send the petition to the Combined Residential and Commercial Committee with final voting authority remaining with the full Plan Commission. APPROVED 8-0 2. Docket No. PZ-2024-00099 DP/ADLS: Spring Mill Shops. The applicant seeks Development Plan and ADLS approval for three new multi-tenant commercial buildings totaling 14,870 square feet. The site is located at the NW corner of 116th Street and Spring Mill Road, within Jackson’s Grant Village. The buildings have specific addresses of 11675, 11745, and 11785 Village Corner Court. It is zoned PUD, under Jackson’s Grant Village (Z-653-20). Filed by Sean McKinnies of Republic Development. Petitioner: Shawn Curran - Curran Architecture : • Curran provided an overview of the three building 14,870 sq. ft. retail commercial center. The northern and southern building are both proposed to be 4,920 sq. ft. and the middle building shall be 5,030 sq. ft. The buildings are designed to a smaller neighborhood commercial scale. There are a total of 15 tenant spaces or 5 per building. • Elevations were provided that indicated a mixture of flat and gabled roof structures for the three buildings. • The parking lot is already partially installed as part of the residential development portion of JG Village. Public Comments: None. Department Report: Alexia Lopez: • The petitioner is developing in line with the concept plan by having three buildings brought up to Spring Mill Road. • The total proposed square footage is 14,870 sq. ft. which is less than the 20,000 sq. ft. maximum permitted. • 65 parking spaces are to be provided, more than the 45 spaces required. Bicycle parking provided adjacent to each building on the site, with a total of 24 spaces. • Sidewalks will be installed around almost the entirety of all the buildings, and a pedestrian connection will be 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.