HomeMy WebLinkAboutCombined Committee Mintues 10-01-24
3
Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 10-1-24
believed the Plan Commission would be open to a compromise of two units being the ownership maximum within
the neighborhood. Minnaar went on to ask the petitioner if they could look at including a percentage cap on the
number of overall rentals in the neighborhood citing that once a certain percentage of rentals is reached in a
neighborhood it does begin to have an impact on property values.
Zoccola inquired about updates regarding the pond diagrams. Dobosiewicz then displayed a new depiction of the
updated combined pond proposal designed to include better tree preservation as well as displaying a depiction of a
separate pond. Zoccola stated she was still concerned about shared management of a combined pond between
HOAs and preferred the way the neighborhoods were buffered from each other in the separate pond plan. Kirsh
stated that to him water quality was the most important factor under consideration and was supportive of the
combined pond as it provided the best water quality plan. Dobosiewicz reiterated the stormwater improvements
this plan will have for the area. Kirsh then inquired about what Hamilton County thought of the combined pond
and Dobosiewicz stated that like the City of Carmel they did not take an official position on which pond plan they
preferred but did agree about the benefits of the combined pond plan.
Kirsh inquired about the orientation of the homes on the outer perimeter of the neighborhood wanting to make
sure the garages were not facing outwards towards the main roads. Dobosiewicz confirmed that they would not be
and would be inward facing alley access garages.
Westermeier inquired if there had been any updates to the sidewalks and paths since the previous meeting.
Dobosiewicz provided updates that included various new connections that were not indicated on the prior concept
plan. He also showcased the proposed boardwalk out over the pond. Westemeier then asked about auto
connectivity to Towne Road, Saddle Creek, and Ambleside. Dobosiewicz informed her that there would be no
direct access to Saddle Creek, and that the only access to Ambleside would be indirectly via the frontage road. No
direct street connections were proposed for those neighborhoods.
Lopez requested that the green path on the displayed concept map be extended all the way out to Towne Road.
Dobosiewicz responded that the blue sidewalk in that area would be upgraded to be pathway, likely paved with
concrete for aesthetic purposes.
Kirsh asked the petitioner to reach out to the Parks Department regarding the boardwalk for design improvement
ideas to be more in line with what they installed in Central Park.
Minnaar asked what the reduction in townhomes was. The petitioner clarified that they went from 60 down to 58
townhomes in the proposed development.
CONTINUED TO NOV. 7TH COMMITTEE
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 displayed updated elevations of the three proposed buildings that attempted to incorporate staff and
commissioner comments from the previous meeting. The major change consisted of a redesign of the roof
from a single long gabled roof to a roof broken up into portions of gabled roof running opposite directions
separated by portions of flat rooftop.
Department Report: Rachel Keesling:
• Keesling summarized the changes in the most recent version presented by the petitioner. She mentioned as
he did that the major change was the reconfiguration of the roof design, but she also included updates about
more significant awnings being added as well as the doors on the Spring Mill Road side being expanded
from single doors to double door entrances into the tenant spaces.
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