Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes SpecStdy 02-05-02CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDY COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 5, 2002 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Special Study Committee met February 5, 2002 at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. Committee Members present were: Jerry Chomanczuk; Leo Dierckman, Chairperson; Dianna Knoll; Pat Rice; Paul Spranger; and Wayne Wilson. Marilyn Anderson, ex- officio, was also in attendance. The Department of Community Services was represented by Michael Hollibaugh, Director; Laurence Lillig; and Jim Blanchard, Building Inspector. Leo Dierckman was elected Chairperson for the coming year by Unanimous Consent. Announcements: Items 2 and 3 will be heard in Committee at 7:00 PM on Thursday, February 7, 2002, in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. Item 9, Lanter Eye Care Laser Surgery Signage, has requested a Tabling. 1. Docket No. 125 -01 Z; 136 Street Rohrer Road PUD/ Hunters Creek Office Park Petitioner seeks favorable recommendation of a rezone from the B -3 (Business) and R -1 (Residence) districts to a PUD /planned unit development district on 5± acres. The site is located at the southwest corner of Marana Drive and Rohrer Road. Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson and Frankenberger for Hunters Creek Office Park, LLC. Charlie Frankenberger was present representing the applicant. The changes in the setback are from 30 feet to 40 feet and are reflected in the PUD Ordinance. The PUD as it is now written represents the PUD as presented by the petitioner. Exhibits to the Ordinance were distributed to Committee members. Note: This property is currently within the US 31 Overlay Zone. The petition to rezone to a PUD /Planned Unit Development district would remove this Overlay. Public Remonstrance was invited and limited to 2 '/2 minutes per person. Remonstrance: Dave Lambdin, president of Hunters Creek South HOA, said the HOA met again this past Sunday in a general meeting and they still do not feel the proposed development is suitable for the area because of safety and reasons of emptying out into a residential street. The single, largest S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\SpecialStudyCommittee\2002feb concern is the safety factor and pedestrians in the Hunters Creek South neighborhood. Alfred McClure, attorney representing Hunters Creek South HOA, said he had met with the Department Staff and Charlie Frankenberger to go over PUD Ordinance. The HOA is still opposed to the Ordinance, although it now reflects what the developer proposes to do. An office building complex is being offered in the form of a PUD in exchange for the "Wow" factor. The project has a lot of negatives of safety, density, variances, and setbacks, and there is nothing in exchange for it. What you are getting is an ordinary, garden variety, office building project. If a developer wants variances, he must give something back. Mr. McClure asked that the Committee turn down this proposal. Charlie Frankenberger responded to Mr. McClure's remonstrance. There is more to this project than simply proposing a PUD Ordinance. The office park complies with the dictates of the Overlay Zone and does what the Comprehensive Plan says to do. In fact, it does more than the Overlay Zone and is substantially less intense and provides more protection than the Overlay Zone. As indicated in the Department Report, the buildings are smaller and shorter, they are one- story, understated, residential appearing buildings. As also indicated in the Department Report, the buildings are designed to be more compatible with the adjacent residential uses. The landscaping exceeds what is permitted under the Overlay Zone. The intensity is substantially less than permitted under the Overlay Zone. The real estate is in a zoning quandary; it is zoned for uses that are largely prohibited. Traffic is diminimus traffic studies are valuable to the City, they are relied upon by the City and Council and Plan Commission —this particular traffic study is particularly reliable because it does not have assumptions about the future, about demographics, and about future development. The findings of the traffic study are incontrovertible; the traffic is nominal. At the last meeting, the question was asked if it were not clear that the proposal would devalue the real estate. Mr. Frankenberger said the contrary was clear. A reasonable buyer would pay more for a residence with this heavily landscaped office park intact than they would pay with the uncertainty of vacant ground, filled with the probability of less desirable things to come. From a planning perspective, from the land use perspective, from the Overlay Zone, from the Comprehensive Plan, and from transition and stepdown, this proposal is an excellent project. Paul Spranger asked about the landscaping material and the time line of growth. In response to questions from Pat Rice regarding his zoning comments, Charlie Frankenberger explained that part of the land is zoned B -3; the other part of the land is zoned R -1 and the Overlay Zone prohibits residential use. A potential buyer would be more swayed in devaluing the residential real estate by those distinct possibilities than if he had seen a heavily landscaped, low profile office park. Laurence Lillig read from the Ordinance that addresses what must accompany a Planned Unit Development proposal, that is, Section 31.6.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, Proposals to adopt or amend Planned Unit Development District Ordinances. This section states that the petitioner shall prepare the proposal so that it is consistent with the definition of a PUD Ordinance. PUD Ordinance is defined as a Zoning Ordinance that 1) designates a parcel of real property as a Planned Unit Development District; 2) specifies uses or a range of uses permitted in the Planned Unit Development District; 3) expresses in detail the terms that Development Requirements that S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes \SpecialStudyCommittee \2002feb 2 apply in the planned unit development district 4) specifies the planned documentation and supporting information that must be supplied before an improvement location permit may be issued for development of real property in the Planned Unit Development District; 5) specifies any limitation applicable to he Planned Unit Development District; and 6) meets the requirements of Indiana Code 36 -7 -4 -1500 series. Paul Spranger commented on the strengths of the PUD as he saw them. The Plan Commission has the opportunity to review and approve the PUD Ordinance line -by -line. The Plan Commission can also require every brick in the materials and plant in the landscaping so that the community knows exactly what they are going to get. In this particular case, from the standpoint of U.S. 31 and the type of things the Plan Commission is looking for with more high intensity development—it does not have a "Wow" factor. A lot would depend on what the streetscape is going to look like as residents enter and exit their subdivision. The other issue for the Committee to discuss is the net impact of the traffic. Laurence Lillig reiterated that this property is split zoning between R -1 and B -3. The property in its entirety is subject to the US 31 Overlay Zone that specifically excludes single family housing as a use. The zoning would essentially rule out development under the R -1 classification. The US 31 Overlay also excludes Special Uses in their entirety which means, you could not develop the property under B -3 because that is all Special Use designation. Special Uses and Single Family are both excluded uses under the US 31 Overlay Zone; however, the underlying zoning on this property is either Special Use or single family. This is a quandary. Laurence further explained that the present use is considered an illegal, pre existing, non- conforming use, i.e. the use as a place of worship. If it were to continue in that use, that would be accommodated. HOWEVER, the prior, non conforming use as a church has lapsed by virtue of its vacancy for approximately three years. Brian Schera, vice president, Hunters Creek South HOA thought the church had been vacant under three years. In regard to the zoning and the Ordinances, the neighborhood would like to see a Church as a continued use. There are actually three churches that have expressed considerable interest in the property to continue as a place of worship. The Korean Presbyterian Church actually submitted an offer on the property almost 4 weeks ago, and they have yet to have heard from the Brethern Church. The adjacent neighbors would like to see a Church use continued on the property. Laurence Lillig commented regarding the status of the property. Section 28.1 of the Ordinance, Legal, Non Conforming Use Specifications, reads: "A legal, non conforming use may be continued, although such use does not conform to all of the provisions of this Ordinance as hereinafter provided......" Seven sub sections are listed; however section 5 states "In the event a legal, non conforming use of any building or premises is discontinued for a period of one year, the use of said building or premises shall thereafter conform to the applicable provisions of this Ordinance." It would seem that the use has lapsed. Pat Rice asked if the Church was vacated three years ago, if they had just "walked away" from the Church. S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes \SpecialStudyCommittee \2002feb 3 Leo Dierckman responded it certainly sounds like that is what happened. This is a difficult situation with the B -3 Zoning. This particular situation is straight forward because of the shopping center being there and Marana being a residential street. This situation is a little like Brookshire Golf Course being situated in the middle of a residential subdivision; people will get lost in the neighborhood and from a traffic standpoint, this is an uncomfortable situation. The buildings and the landscaping look good, but this use is too intense for the area and not appropriate. The impact on the neighborhood should be taken into consideration, even though this is in the Overlay Zone. Wayne Wilson commented that the Lowe's property was in the 31 Overlay Zone, and the property was re -zoned and taken out of the US 31 Overlay Zone. This could be a remedy for this property—following that procedure. The normal buildings are two stories tall. Discussion at the previous Committee meeting pointed out that an alternative road leaving this site could not be accomplished because the site was I I feet below the grade of the O'Malia Center in front of it. When you add I 1 feet and then go back to the Overlay Zone, it would take a three -story building to bring it up to height required in the Overlay Zone. Mr. Frankenberger has done an excellent job of keeping the Committee members informed. Mr. Wilson said he has reviewed the correspondence in this case. Some items taken into consideration are traffic that will empty out into a residential street, two schoolbus stops at the corner of Rohrer and Marana Roads, and the traffic situation at the intersection of 136 Street and Meridian. Common sense dictates that traffic is not going to get any better in this area. Secondly, the zoning is in conflict however, this can be changed. Thirdly, letters have been presented regarding the negative impact on surrounding property values. Other uses have been talked about for this property— residential use can return by taking it out of the Overlay Zone. It is correct that B -3 uses are prohibited at this point in time; Church Use is still a good use, however, the Church did not feel there was a market for it as a Church. There are 5 or 6 churches currently meeting in schools and theatres, waiting for a church property to become available. The County has said they will not allow traffic to be directed from this complex to Rohrer Road. Discussions have been for this property to stay a church, used as a clubhouse for the adjacent subdivision, or taking it out of the Overlay and creating empty- nester housing. The residents of the area are legitimate when they say a proper use can be found and a proper purchaser can be found. Whatever the Committee does this evening, let's get it done and sent back to the full Commission. Paul Spranger commented that this Docket must eventually go before the City County. If the City Council should vote in favor of this Docket, the landscaping should be dramatic in its content and density. It is unfortunate that the petitioner could not find a way to exit onto Rohrer Road towards US 31 as opposed to exiting through the residential area—without out, it is a problem. Paul Spranger moved for approval of Docket No. 125 -01 Z, 136 Street and Rohrer Road PUD /Hunters Creek Office Park. The motion was seconded by Pat Rice and voted 0 in favor, 6 opposed. (Negative Recommendation to the full Commission) Note: Comments on the landscaping are to be forwarded to City Council. Note: Items 2 and 3 will be heard February 7, 2002 at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms 2. Docket No. 96 -01 Z; Old Town Overlay District S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes \SpecialStudyCommittee \2002feb 4 Petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation for the establishment of the Old Town Overlay District. The area affected is commonly known as Old Town. Filed by the Department of Community Services for the Old Town Task Force. 3. Docket No. 135 -01 Z, 136 -01 CPA; Home Place District Overlay Zone Comprehensive Plan Policies Petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation for the establishment of the Home Place District Overlay Zone Comprehensive Plan Policies. The area affected is generally known as Home Place. Filed by the Department of Community Services for the Home Place Task Force. 4. Docket No. 144 -01 Z; Gray Road and 96 Street (Rezone) The site is located at the northeast corner of Gray Road and 96 Street. The petitioner is requesting a rezone a 4.53 acre site from S -1 (Residential) to B -8 (Business). Filed by E. Davis Coots of Coots Henke Wheeler for Glendale Partners /Gray Road LLC. Dave Coots, attorney with Coots Henke Wheeler, 255 East Carmel Drive, appeared before the Committee representing the applicant. The property is an approximate 5 -acre tract located at the northeast corner of Gray Road and 96 Street. The Department has requested traffic study information and Steve Fehribach with A F Engineering is in the process of performing the study. Steve is meeting with Jon Dobosiewicz tomorrow. Across the street, to the west of this site, CarMax is seeking to obtain approval for an automobile facility and the County controls this intersection. There are some issues as to road width, right -of -way, where certain entrances will be permitted on Gray Road, right in/right -out on 96 Street, and curb cut on 96 Street. Mr. Coots formally requested a Tabling of this item until the Traffic information becomes available. Remonstrance: Tom Yedlick, 5053 St. Charles Place, Kingswood Subdivision, believes there are other issues related to the property and has a submitted a letter to the applicant stating those issues. Mr. Yedlick asked the petitioner to be prepared to address additional issues at the March committee meeting. Don Kraft, Kingswood Subdivision, questioned the process and how petitioner could be thus far in the process without a traffic study in hand. Docket No. 144 -01 Z; Gray Road and 96 Street (Rezone) will be heard at the March 5, 2002 Special Study Committee at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. Note: Items 5 and 6 were heard together S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes \SpecialStudyCommittee \2002feb 5 5. Docket No. 147 -01 DP /ADLS CMC Carmel Office Center Petitioner seeks Development Plan and Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping Signage approval for an office center. The petitioner proposes to construct an office park on 9.42± acres. The site is located at the northwest corner of U.S. 31 and Main Street (131 Street). The site is zoned B -5 /Business within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay Zone. Filed by E. Davis Coots of Coots Henke Wheeler for CMC Properties, Inc. 6. Docket No. 145 -01 PP; CMC Properties Subdivision (Primary Plat) The applicant seeks approval to plat a 3 -lot commercial subdivision on 11.29± acres. The site is located at the northwest corner of West 131 Street and North Meridian Street. The site is zoned B5 /Business and a portion is within the US 31 Overlay Zone. Filed by E. Davis Coots of Coots Henke Wheeler for CH Land LLC and CMC. Dave Coots, attorney with Coots Henke Wheeler, 255 East Carmel Drive, appeared before the Committee representing the applicant. Also present was Greg Land of CMC Properties, 10925 Free Heartland Highway, Cincinnati, Ohio. The primary plat is for the purpose of dividing a tract into a 3 -lot subdivision and establishing boundaries for the lots which would then dictate setbacks, right -of -way, etc. Lot No. 1 has been approved for a dental building; lot No. 2 is to the south and east of the dental building and is the easement parcel that will serve as the entryway to Lot 3 (shown as a portion of Lot 2.) The plat contains all of the dedications for road rights -of -way as requested by the City Engineer's office and agreed by DePauw University and CMC in the process of rezoning. The ADLS portion of this plat has been submitted. The response from the Department recommends that this item be forwarded on to the full Commission for approval. Greg Land addressed the Committee. The applicant has tried to take all of the Commission's concerns into consideration. Mr. Land did want to emphasize that the proposed building is not intended to be a Hotel—it is designed as an Executive Suite Office —and they are willing to commit to "No Hotel on the Site." It is intended to be an incubator space for small businesses and for people who are in larger businesses that have smaller offices, sales reps, etc. There was discussion regarding enclosing the stairwell; sealing windows so they will not open; and redesigning the ends of the buildings, since they are highly visible from U.S. 31. The petitioner was willing to redesign the stairwell and make it solid brick. The architectural feature that looks like a vent will also be redesigned, and the windows will be sealed. Paul Spranger suggested the signage be uniform, backlit, and not internally illuminated. The lettering itself should be individual, type face of such that it will be in character of the US 31 Meridian corridor. Laurence Lillig suggested a more unique name for the project, since there is already a "Carmel Office Park" and it would lessen confusion as far as identifying the location of the building. S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes \SpecialStudyCommittee \2002feb 6 The petitioner agreed to return to the March 5, 2002 Special Study Committee at 7:00 PM with a redesign of the building, specifically the ends. 7. Docket No. 148 -01 CA (Commitment Amendment) Hazel Dell Corner Petitioner seeks Commitment Amendment approval to revise the list of special uses permitted on Lots 2, 3, and 4 within the Hazel Dell Corner Subdivision. The site is located at the northwest corner of East 131 Street and Hazel Dell Parkway. The site is zoned B -3 /Business. Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for Plum Creek Partners, LLC. Paul Reis, attorney with The Reis Law Firm, 12358 Hancock Street, Carmel appeared before the Committee representing the applicant. Brian Chandler, developer with Plum Creek Partners, was also in attendance. The petitioner would like to review the permitted uses, specifically the dry cleaning establishment. If a dry cleaning establishment were to be placed within the center, it would comply with all government regulations that govern disposals, solvents, etc.; the same is true of a laundry /dry cleaning plant. The petitioner would also like to preserve the carwash use as a proposed use permitted on site. The petitioner has attempted to define showroom as a retail/full sale store utilizing display of merchandise with distribution and storage as a part of the building. The restaurant usage has been addressed as far as size, and number of restaurants. Brian Chandler of Plum Creek Partners, said the building is approximately 12,900 square feet, divided into 1400 square foot rooms, 70 feet deep. The developer is trying to preserve and gain the right for restaurant usage; 1400 square feet could be a sandwich shop, up to 4,000 square feet, perhaps a pizza restaurant. Any gas station use would be governed by Statute. This possible use was a concern, in view of the fact there is a wellhead protection site in the immediate area. The petitioner has been in negotiations with possible Restaurants to locate on Lot 4; 1400 square feet to 4000 square feet, and occupying no more than 50% of the building. The Committee requested any restaurant be limited to a minim of 2,500 square feet and a maximum of 4,000 square feet, located on Lot 4 only. Petitioner would like ability to lease to 2 restaurants on Lot 4 with total minim of 3,500 square feet and a maximum of 4,200 square feet; OR one restaurant at a minim of 2,100 square feet with a maximum of 4,900 square feet. The petitioner is seeking flexibility to do an ice cream store, Starbuck's Coffee Shop, or a pizza restaurant, something like Bazbeau's. Leo Dierckman wanted to set a standard relative to square footage of the restaurant between 2500 to 4000 square feet on Lot 4. The petitioner could return later regarding another lot. Leo suggested the petitioner submit a list of the requested uses incorporating the requests of the committee. Laurence Lillig requested document updates with acceptable language from counsel by the end of the S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes \SpecialStudyCommittee \2002feb 7 week if this item is returned to the full Commission at their next meeting. Paul Spranger moved to recommend approval to the Commission of Docket No. 148 -01 CA, Hazel Dell Corner, with conditions as stated. The motion was seconded by Wayne Wilson and APROVED 6 -0. Note: The Special Use Approval for the Osco Drug Store has expired, but there is nothing in writing that Osco intends to abandon the site. 8. Docket No. 150 -01 DP Amend ADLS Amend Stewart Stewart Office Building Petitioner seeks to amend their Development Plan and Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping Signage approval for a building addition. The site is located at 931 South Range Line Road. The site is zoned B -7. Filed by Phillip Stewart. Dave Stewart, attorney, appeared before the Committee representing the applicant, Phillip Stewart. At issue has been the parking along the east edge of the property. There are currently 48 parking spaces and the staff numbers 35; this would leave a very limited amount of space for client parking. There is an existing, 30 -foot landscaped buffer to the rear of the property. The petitioner is proposing the addition of pine trees. The petitioner has revised the parking plan and submitted a new landscape plan. Another concern was the trash pick -up hours; the trash is picked up during the day and should not interfere with the adjacent properties. Lighting shows the box light, down lighting. The fixtures will be lowered to 12 to 14 feet. Laurence Lillig said the Department had reviewed the revised plans; the Urban Forester has also reviewed the plans and he is satisfied with the plan as revised. The landscape buffer being provided along the rear of the property is exception and better than is normally seen. The proposed modifications will make this a really good project to abut a residential subdivision. Paul Spranger moved to recommend approval, subject to commitments made by petitioner. The motion was seconded by Pat Rice and APPROVED 6 -0. 9. Docket No. 165 -01 ADLS Amend; Lanter Eye Care Laser Surgery Signage ADLS Amendment Petitioner seeks Architectural Design, Lighting Signage approval for a new sign. The site is located at 10610 North Pennsylvania Street. The site is zoned B -5 /Business and is within the US 31 Meridian Street Overlay Zone. Filed by Lisa Bohn of Premier Sign Group. TABLED 10. Docket No. 155 -01 ADLS Parkwood Crossing East (College Hills PUD) S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes \SpecialStudyCommittee \2002feb 8 Petitioner seeks Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping Signage for an office complex. The site is located northwest of East 96 Street and North College Avenue. The site is zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development). Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for Duke Realty Corp. Charlie Frankenberger, attorney with Nelson Frankenberger was present representing the petitioner. Also present were Blair Carmisino of Duke Construction; Alan Tucker of Duke Realty, Curt Darter, vice president of operations for Duke Realty; and Greg Snelling of CSO Architects. The petitioner is initially constructing a 5 -story office building, 210,000 gross square footage. The construction will commence immediately upon approval with occupancy by May 01, 2003. Overall approval was granted for 420,000 square feet of gross rentable space. Alan Tucker of CSO Architects, said similar features will be used in these buildings: Rusticated Base to replicate a stone look, a brown to red heavy sand blast base, pre -cast, aluminum cornices overhanging the building about 3 feet to encapsulate the penthouse. Two buildings are sister buildings and will have a consistent look. Simple canopy at the main entry, aluminum windows, gray glass with off -white painted frame. Some of the features in the Parkwood signage will be incorporated into this project. There is also the berm and screen wall similar to the existing Parkwood. The entry wall is concave and will identify the building. Roadway improvements are being funded under the TIF; will stretch from a point 250 feet west of College to the Five Seasons entrance and will add lanes primarily to the north side of 96 Street. The lanes will create opportunity for left turn lanes, full, straight movement east /west bound, and continuous right turn lane on the north side to access College, plus miscellaneous improvements on the west side of College as well as improvements on the north and south sides of College. The improvement at 96 and Westfield is the addition of a turn lane. Pylon signage will be visible from I -465. Also visible will be wall mounted signs; however, no sign will face 96 Street —the tenant signs will face 465. The monument sign will be flood illuminated. The parking ratio is 4 per 1,000 square feet. Laurence Lillig: the Department's main concern with the signage is the monument sign along I- 465. The PUD for Parkwood Crossing East allows the Plan Commission full authority over the sign package. The sign will be 25 feet tall and the sign component, excluding the base, is calculated to be approximately 300 square feet—normally a 6 -foot tall, 32 square foot sign would be allowed for a project of this type. The Department is of the opinion that the sign is extremely over -sized and should be addressed. Pat Rice asked that the right turns at Westfield and Real Street be addressed. The south side of 96 is Marion County, but.... The petitioner is willing to address turns at the intersection of 96 Street (Real Street) and Westfield Boulevard. S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes \SpecialStudyCommittee \2002feb 9 Charlie Frankenberger said the traffic was discussed at the rezone stage and was approved based on those roadway improvements and traffic study. This evening's discussion is ADLS review only. Leo Dierckman asked the petitioner to address the possibility of light spillage from interior lighting. Blair Carmisino addressed the interior lighting in the building. Currently lights in the buildings at Parkwood are left on and light intrudes into the adjacent neighborhood. Mr. Carmisino said they have been working with the custodial staff and tenants in the building to turn out the lights as they leave. Sometimes that works, sometimes it fails. Laurence Lillig expressed concern with the row of lamps along 96 Street being at 35 feet in height; there is a problem with glare. Blair Carmisino said they would match what exists on 96 Street along Parkwood Crossing. Curt Daner, Duke Realty, said the size and scale of the sign facing I -465 fits the project and the buildings. The sign sits below the freeway and is 5 feet shorter. Mr. Daner feels the sign is appropriate in terms of size and location. The color of the sign matches the building and will clearly identify location. Remonstrator: Janet Maynard Cox, 9540 Broadway, Indianapolis. Mr. Mrs. Cox requested advance notification of any proposed signage and placement on the buildings. Wayne Wilson moved to recommend approval of Docket No. 155 -01 ADLS, Parkwood Crossing East (College Hills PUD) to the full Commission. The motion was seconded by Paul Spranger and APPROVED 6 -0. Pat Rice exited the meeting at this point and did not return. 11. Docket No. 162 -01 ADLS Amend; Dan Young Chevrolet Petitioner seeks Amendment to the Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping Signage approval granted under 46 -01 ADLS for an auto dealership. The site is located northeast of East 96 Street and Keystone Avenue. The site is zoned B-3/Business and is located partially within the SR 43I/Keystone Overlay Zone. Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for D. Young Chevrolet. Charlie Frankenberger, attorney for Dan Young Chevrolet (now known as Penske Chevrolet) appeared before the Committee. Also in attendance were Chuck Kotterman, architect; Jim Shinaver of Nelson Frankenberger; and Lennie George, general manager of Penske Chevrolet and Honda stores. The petitioner is requesting the amendment of a prior ADLS approval. The Department preferred S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes \SpecialStudyCommittee \2002feb 10 that the petitioner have review by the Commission. The Commission referred the petitioner to Committee, and it is their understanding that it is not necessary to return to the full Commission and approval can be done at the Committee level. Last year, the petitioner requested approvals to the Dan Young Chevrolet site located on the northeast corner of Keystone and 96 Street. The approved changes were to add to the building to the north, 19,500 square feet, and the building to the south was to be reduced. Since that time, the petitioner has decided to eliminate the 19,500 square foot enlargement of the north building and instead, place approximately 7,500 square feet now under a canopy on the west elevation to enclose the space. On the south building, the petitioner is proposing to enlarge it by 3,000 square feet. The reduction in the size of the south building has already occurred. The changes also brought about some insignificant changes to the lighting and landscaping. The revised landscape plan has been submitted to Scott Brewer, Urban Forester, and comments have been received and the plan revised accordingly. Scott Brewer has approved the landscape plan as currently revised and submitted. It is the petitioner's preference for the west elevation of the building to have more of an office appearance. Service and administration have been moved to the north building. The east elevation is internal to the site. The south elevation is to 96 Street. Leo Dierckman asked the petitioner to "spend more money" on the west elevation, and on 96 Street for more "interesting bump- ups." There are no architectural features to break up the building other than windows and paint. Paul Spranger commented that what is presented is an improvement, but Penske could do better, particularly in view of the fact that this is a southern "gateway" into Carmel and traffic counts are up. There are some considerations that are important. 96 Street is becoming the place to go for automobiles and it is befitting of the area to have some architectural relief and character and quality built in to it. The entrance on the south can be seen driving north and it looks like a manufacturing warehouse building with "Penske" on the far left corner. It would seem appropriate that the entrance be re- worked on that face as well, since it will be visible from northbound traffic, leaving the full drop windows. The south elevation needs some relief in the center of the building, leaving the garage doors as they are. Lennie George, general manager of Penske and Honda, agreed to place the signage in the center of the north building on the south elevation; the west elevation will remain the same with the exception of the drop windows to match the south elevation of the south building. Laurence Lillig reported that the petitioner has agreed to remove the pole signs by the end of the month. Paul Spranger moved for approval of Docket No. 162 -01 ADLS Amend, Dan Young Chevrolet, subject to architectural design and receipt of revised elevations reflecting design changes. The motion was seconded by Dianna Knoll and APPROVED 5 -0. 12. Docket No. 06 -02 ADLS Amend; Regus Parkwood Crossing, Building #3 Signage S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes \SpecialStudyCommittee \2002feb I I Petitioner seeks Architectural Design, Lighting Signage approval for a new sign. The site is located at 600 East 96th Street. The site is zoned B -6 /Business and is within the US 31 Meridian Street Overlay Zone. Filed by Sherry Marchbanks of A Sign By Design. Present for petitioner: Sherry Marchbanks of A Sign by Design, 5008 West 96 Street, Indianapolis. This tenant space was previously leased to MacMillan Publishing Co. and Regus has moved in. The MacMillan sign was 99.8 square feet; the petitioner is proposing signage of 71 square feet. The dark red line on the sign is an underline, internally illuminated with white, individual letters with black can and black trim cap. The cans are aluminum; the red is internally illuminated neon tube. Paul Spranger cautioned the petitioner as to the levels of illumination and the red underscore. The petitioner understands that the level of illumination is subject to the Department's discretion. Paul Spranger moved for approval of Docket No. 06 -01 ADLS Amend, Regus /Parkwood Crossing, Building #3 Signage, subject to conditions as stated. The motion was seconded by Dianna Knoll and APPROVED 5 -0. 13. Docket No. 07 -01 ADLS Amend; Hamilton Crossing III, ATM Kiosk Petitioner seeks Amendment to the Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping Signage approval to add an ATM Kiosk to an existing office park. The site is located at 12800 North Meridian Street within the Hamilton Crossing office park. The site is zoned B-5/Business and is located within the US Highway 31 /Meridian Street Overlay Zone. Filed by John Westergren of Pinnacle Media L.L.C. John Westergren of Pinnacle Media appeared before the Committee representing the petitioner. Also present were Alan Tucker of Duke Realty and Greg Snelling, CSO Architects. Approval is being requested for an ATM Kiosk and Federal Express, U.S.Mail drop boxes, for the Hamilton Crossing Office Park, situated between sections III and IV. The facilities are being partially built into the berm at the west end of the parking, closer to the access road and away from Meridian Street. The amenity kiosk will be constructed to match existing materials in Hamilton Crossing. The EFIS will be painted to match the pre -cast, clear, anodized signage for the ATM. There is shrubbery on the backside for screening, but the petitioner would like the option to delete the shrubs, since this could be a security issue. The Department is recommending favorable consideration of this petition. Regarding the shrubbery on the backside, this will be left at the petitioner's total discretion; perhaps a lower shrub would pose less a security risk. Paul Spranger recommended some landscaping at the corners to soften the look of the kiosk. In response to questions from the Committee, Mr. Westgren said there will be security cameras S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes \SpecialStudyCommittee \2002feb 12 with the ATM. Paul Spranger moved for approval of Docket No. 07 -02 ADLS Amend, Hamilton Crossing III, ATM Kiosk, subject to keeping the landscaping intact. The motion was seconded by Dianna Knoll and APPROVED 5 -0. 4. Docket No. 160 -01 OA; Amendments to the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance The petitioner seeks to add new provisions and make several corrective amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Filed by the Department of Community Services. Laurence Lillig presented the proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. New provisions for accessory uses have been added to the Zoning Ordinance as well as corrective amendments. Certain provisions have been removed from the S -1 District and they have been added to Chapter 25, Additional Use Regulations that has a section specifically for this type of thing. Sections 5.3.2 through 5.3.8 are not addressed here and should probably also be moved to that section. If acceptable to the committee, a draft will be prepared moving these items into 25.1. Section R reflects amendments to the B -3 District. Those changes remove the Special Use requirement from the B -3 District and establish a DP /ADLS process. Under Section R, Special Uses have been made Permitted Uses, specifically single family and two family dwellings. Perhaps these should be deleted from the B -3 District altogether. Currently, there is only one duplex project that exists in a B -3 District. At this time, the Department is requesting the language in section BF on page 18 be deleted and brought back at a later date. Page 19 deals with sales of automobiles from individual lots; Z -366 deals with this as a sign issue. This is really a land use issue and a definition of "auto sales" is to be adopted. Also, a motor vehicle should be defined. The vehicle sign should be the issue, not the use. Public Input: Paul Reis, attorney, on behalf of two clients, Kite Development, and Kosene Kosene, commented the B -3 District would most affect his clients and by making the proposed change, if it is more than 10% of improvements, the petitioner can go through BZA. There is now defined criteria into an ADLS. Mr. Reis asked the Committee /Commission consider whether the ADLS requirements need to be added to some of the other business districts that don't currently have them, and are primarily districts that are not part of an Overlay Zone. The proposed standards are not very concrete, and the Committee should determine if these standards should be added to more isolated properties, in particular the B -3 District that particularly affects Kite and Kosene. Laurence commented that under item 1., the concerns about ADLS not being required under the Special Use process is correct and this has been an issue for the BZA on many occasions. This proposal recognizes that the BZA wants the architectural review of these projects to occur and the appropriate place for that is at the Plan Commission. As far as the standards for ADLS, S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes \SpecialStudyCommittee \2002feb 13 Paul Spranger moved to recommend approval to the full Commission of Docket No. 160 -01 OA, Amendments to the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance, with changes as recommended by the Department. This motion was seconded by Dianna Knoll and APPROVED 5 -0. 15. Docket No. 154 -01 ADLS Amend; Carmel McDonald's Ground Sign Petitioner seeks Architectural Design, Lighting Signage approval to replace an existing sign. The site is located at 750 East Carmel Drive. The site is zoned B -8 /Business. Filed by Chris Golden of GSW Lighting for McDonald's. Chris Golden of GSW Lighting appeared before the Committee representing the applicant. McDonald's would like to remove the existing wooden structure and replace with a new design of sign, florescent lit, and brick enclosed. The sign structure will be located on the southwest corner of the property. Jon Dobosiewicz addressed the Committee and reported an existing violation on this property, which is removing existing landscaping. McDonald's made the decision to remodel the store as opposed to tear down and re- build. McDonald's was advised that they could make any interior change to the store they deemed appropriate. In the remodeling process, exterior landscaping changes were made —some were related to the improvements on Carmel Drive—others were not. The sign company should be absolutely clear in understanding that the Department is not in a position to issue the sign permit to reconstruct the sign before the issues of landscape compliance have been resolved. Laurence Lillig reported McDonald's has submitted a landscape plan to Scott Brewer in order to correct the existing violation on the property, i.e. removing existing landscaping. Scott Brewer has not yet had time to review the landscape plan. The Department recommends approval of the sign as designed and any approval should be conditioned upon resolution of site issues prior to issuing a sign permit. Dianna Knoll asked if the brick were the same as used in the Carmel Drive streetscape. If so, it would look consistent and best if it were the same color of brick. Paul Spranger said if the red panel is opaque, it will illuminate and glow red. The letters are white translucent. The sign is approximately 32 square feet. Mr. Golden said the sign is 300 watts of illumination. Leo Dierckman questioned the "M" being above the sign on both sides and the red glow. Wayne Wilson commented the sign is extremely "gaudy" and does not fit in with the Carmel Streetscape at all. After further discussion, Mr. Golden agreed to return to Committee on March 5 th after discussing with his client the red opaque and the level of illumination. S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes \SpecialStudyCommittee \2002feb 14 There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 PM. Leo Dierckman, Chairperson Ramona Hancock, Secretary S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes \SpecialStudyCommittee \2002feb 15