Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes SpecStdy 04-13-99CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDY COMMITTEE APRIL 13, 1999 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Special Study Committee was called to order by Rick Sharp, Chairman, at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall, One Civic Square, Carmel, Indiana. Committee members present: Madeline Fitzgerald; Kevin Kirby; Jim O'Neal; Pat Rice; Rick Sharp; Paul Spranger; and Dave Cremeans, ex- Officio. Director Steve Engelking, Mike Hollibaugh, and Terry Jones were in attendance representing the Department of Community Services. Item 1. Committee to reconsider Docket No. 105 -98 O.A., proposed ordinance amendments to the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone, Section 23B of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance. City Council referral to the Plan Commission for a recommendation. Steve Engelking gave an up -date on the Ordinance Amendment to the US 31 Overlay Zone, Section 23B. The Commission had sent a recommendation to the City Council for their consideration, and the Council has made some amendments. The issues to be discussed this evening are those amendments that the Council recommended be made to the document that was forwarded to them. Permitted Uses and Excluded Uses in Section 23B, 5A. recites fast food restaurants in the matrix. Drive Through Window Booth Sales is to be listed as an excluded use. Retail Uses comprising more than 15% of the development plan —this is addressed further in paragraph 23B. 5B. Retail Uses. Retail uses may comprise up to 15% of the buildable, square footage of any building. Under paragraph 2., 30% of the buildable square footage of one building may be retail uses, provided that a) total square footage designated within development plan that contains said building does not exceed 15% of any building. Roadside sales stands, parking lot, or outdoor, temporary sales was added and would preclude within the Overlay Zone the ability for a tent to be installed in a parking lot for the purpose of hot dog /ribs /sandwich/food sales or farmers market type items. Leo Dierckman moved to forward Docket No. 105 -98 O.A. to the full Commission with a positive recommendation, seconded by Jim O'Neal and Approved 7 -0. S:\PlanCormnission\Minutes\SpecialStudyCommittee\1999aprl3 Item 2. Committee to consider Docket No. 3 -99 O.A., proposed ordinance amendment to the Planned Unit Development Ordinance, Section 31 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance. Filed by the Plan Commission. Kevin Kirby led the discussion on this particular item. This amendment came about through discussion with West Clay and a realization by the City Council that one of the fears of the residents in western Clay Township was that there would be more PUD's, more Villages of WestClay in the western part of the township. Kevin Kirby discussed amending what is currently before the Committee—everything west of Meridian—to the western edge of the US 31 Overlay (or perhaps Spring Mill Road.) However it is worded, we don't want to exclude PUD's from the commercial district. Kevin Kirby then made formal motion to amend the Ordinance Amendment to limit PUD's from the eastern boundary of Spring Mill Road, seconded by Paul Spranger and Approved 7 -0. Kevin Kirby moved to recommend approval to the full Commission of the amended version of the Ordinance Amendment known as Docket No. 3 -99 OA, seconded by Paul Spranger and Approved 7 -0. Item 3. Committee to consider Docket No. 12 -99 ADLS Amend., an amended Architectural Design, Landscaping, Lighting, and Signage application for Barnes Investments. Petitioner seeks approval to allow multi colored tenant signage for the Marsh Plaza. The site is located at the northeast corner of Carmel Drive and AAA Way. The site is zoned B -8 /Business. Filed by Bob Jolley of Signman. Brad Barnes of Barnes Investment Company, appeared before the Committee with color samples of signage. There was discussion by the committee as to the possibility of colors and the current color of the building. The committee requested that the petitioner limit the number of colors on the signage. Paul Spranger requested that the level of illumination be within the sign guidelines. Rick Sharp commented that the main objective was to try expanding the petitioner's color palette so that he could remain competitive. Brad Barnes stated that all of the signs would be outlined in dark bronze; the colors are muted. The color palette chosen by Brad Barnes consists of white, blue, durodonic and burgundy and this is acceptable to the Committee. Rick Sharp confirmed that Brad Barnes would use his best efforts to persuade Kinko's to look at an alternate sign such as the one in the Castleton area. S:\PlanConmiission\Minutes\SpecialStudyCommittee\1999aprl3 2 Brad Barnes stated that the center still has two older box signs, and he could not commit to a definite timetable to convert all signage. Mr. Barnes did say that by December 31 all box signs would be gone and individual can letters installed. The colors would be as available. Mr. Barnes did commit to talk with Domino's Pizza and Waterfield Mortgage with a view toward changing their signage. Paul Spranger moved to approve the color palette presented as Docket No. 12 -99 ADLS Amend, seconded by Kevin Kirby and APPROVED 7 -0. Following a short recess, the Committee continued with the business at hand. 4. Committee to consider Docket No. 143 -99 Z, a rezone application for Duke Realty Investments. The petitioner seeks approval to rezone 55 acres from B -5 /Business and S -2 /Residence to B -6 /Business. This site is located at the northwest corner of 96 Street and U.S. 31 and extends north of I -465. Petitioner also seeks approval to rezone 10 acres from B -5 /Business to B -8 /Business. This site is located at the northeast corner of 96 Street and U.S. 31. The sites are currently zoned B -5 /Business and S -2 /Residence and are located partially within the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone. Filed by Steve Granner of Bose McKinney and Evans. Philip Nicely, attorney with Bose, McKinney and Evans appeared before the Committee representing the applicant. Attending on behalf of Duke Realty: Rich Horn, Chris Sager, Pete Harrington, and Bob Falk. Steve Fehribach of A &F Traffic Engineers was also in attendance. The 55 acres being discussed is proposed for rezone to B -6 /Business, located at the northwest corner of 96 and Meridian, and the northwest corner of I -465 and Meridian; The 10 acre tract located at the northeast corner of 96 Street and Meridian is proposed for rezone to B -8 /Business. In terms of development, the property located west of 600 feet west of Meridian Street is proposed for office use. The property east of the first 600 feet of the property is proposed for development as restaurants/hotel. The property north of I -465 is proposed as all office development. The petitioner met with the neighbors in the area and received a list of requests. The petitioner has attempted to address most of those issues. Mr. Nicely stated that there would be no building built within 460 feet of 96 Street and no higher than 5 stories. No office building would be constructed within 200 feet of the existing 96 Street. All parking located between 96 Street and the first office building would be surface parking only—no elevated parking in the area between 96 Street and the first building. However, the elevated parking would be lower than the first buildings. S:\PlanCormnission\Minutes\SpecialStudyCommittee\1999aprl3 Along 96 Street west of Meridian there would be at least a 30 -foot area mounded with a 5/6 -foot berm that will mirror Parkwood East on the east side of Meridian with 7 -8foot tall evergreens planted. In addition, the same type of berm would be used along Spring Mill Road. There is no entrance to the proposed development from Spring Mill Road. A sidewalk will be installed along 96 Street similar to the sidewalk installed along 96 Street on the east side of Meridian Street. In terms of lighting, the fixtures will be similar to those on Parkwood East —the shoebox -type lighting that directs light downward. The poles will be no higher than 30 feet with special attention being given to direct light away from 96 Street. The illumination along 96 Street will not exceed point one -foot candle. The power lines along 96 Street will be buried, subject to the Power Light Company approval and agreement. Based on improvements to 96 Street suggested in the report from A F Engineering, all of the right -of -way necessary to accomplish those improvements would come off the north side of the property (96 Street). No property will be taken from the south side of 96 Street for roadway improvements to 96 Street. Retail development would be no farther west than the first 600 feet of the development (also indicated in the Comprehensive Plan as being appropriate.) The petitioner has also committed to no fast food restaurants, no automobile service stations /gas stations within that 600 -foot area. Regarding Drainage: A detention pond has been created. The drainage runs north to the detention, then into the interstate drainage system. As indicated previously, a walkway will be installed from the office buildings on the east side to accommodate pedestrian traffic to the retail development. Phil Nicely commented that the Commission is getting a quality product through a known developer as is demonstrated in the premiere development of Parkwood East. Department Comments, Mike Hollibaugh. A letter was received today from INDOT, up- dating the Department on their on -going design issues for the freeway -to- freeway interchange which affects this project. Pat Rice said that she had attended a Task Force meeting this morning. One of the comments made was that a functional interchange at this particular intersection is probably the most important one in Hamilton County. This intersection will affect not only the north/south on 31 but east /west on 96 Street. In the words of the Task Force Committee, "The proposed Duke Development located at roughly 96 and Meridian currently before the Committee will have significant impacts on the corridor and thus the outcome of our study. If we are to proceed with our study, we would appreciate your attention to the following questions related to the proposed development." S:\PlanCormnission\Minutes\SpecialStudyCommittee\1999aprl3 4 Pat Rice referred to those questions, saying that Phil Nicely had already answered the first one regarding access from Spring Mill Road. The traffic assignment and distribution as presented in the report is based on a "worst case scenario" for the intersection of 96 and Meridian. What is the impact to 96 and College and 96 and Spring Mill Road if the distribution assumptions are modified to account for a greater dispersion of site traffic? What is the total development square footage of the subject site south of I -465 once the configuration of the modified I -465 and US 31 interchange is determined? What is the existing and future traffic volume at each site drive, including the existing drives at Parkwood? What is the proposed design of 96 Street through this area, including turn lanes, medians, traffic signals, etc.? What would be required at the 96 and Meridian intersection to allow it to operate at level of service "D" during the PM peak hour under the proposed development plan? These questions are essential to even begin to be able to addressing the 96 Street corridor. The Task Force is a joint committee effort from Indianapolis MPO, Hamilton County, City of Carmel, representatives Mike Peoni, Steve Cunningham, Tom Stevens and Sharon Clark have been regular attendees at these meetings. John Myers of Parsons Brinckerhoff is the facilitator. Ruth Hayes of the Nora Northside Community Council has also been an active participant. Steve Engelking summed up the scope of the work of the Task Force as reviewing not only traffic on 96 Street but land use consideration for the area bounded on the east by Keystone, the west by Michigan Road, north to 106 Street, and south to 86 Street. Looking specifically at traffic issues and how the road should develop in the future, 96 Street specifically, the Task Force is looking at land use issues as allied to 96 Street with the boundaries expressed and then east /west from Keystone to Michigan Road. Phil Nicely responded to questions in the letter, the first question already having been answered. Steve Fehribach of A F Engineering could respond to those questions as they refer to traffic. Steve Fehribach of A F Engineering then addressed the Committee. Assuming the worst case scenario and there is a capacity problem at 96 and Meridian, wouldn't some of the traffic come out of Parkwood West and turn west and proceed to 96 and Spring Mill Road; this is a valid argument. Steve said they did an 80/20 split20% of the traffic to Spring Mill, 80% to Meridian—of course, this improves the intersection at 96 and Meridian because there is less traffic going there. Secondly, the intersection at 96 and Spring Mill will continue to work if the improvements are made at an acceptable level of serviceC in the PM peak hour, B in the AM peak hour. Steve then referred to the intersection of 96 and College. The A F study is a 10 year horizon—traffic will move in that direction but not all the way to Keystone— traffic will not proceed to Real Road, then north on Westfield, then east on 96 Street to Keystone. Because there are no plans for a connection of 96 Street, that segment is not plugged into the A F Study; that is clearly outside the 10 year horizon date of this impact. If the assignments in the study are slightly off, 1 or 2 it will not have an affect at 96 and S:\PlanCormnission\Minutes\SpecialStudyCommittee\1999aprl3 College. There will have to be signal timing changes made at 96 and College as Parkwood East continues to develop; there will be an increase in traffic at this inter- section. Overall, the intersection geometries will work as long as the signal time is maintained. It was brought out that Spring Mill is a bigger issue because traffic can proceed north and south on Spring Mill. If there is delay at 96 and Meridian, it will probably never get to 20 Incidentally, Spring Mill and 96 Street intersection will need a signal and that was built in to the traffic analysis. The A F Engineering report recommends the following to be done in phases. At 96 Street, the main entrance will need a traffic signal. 96 Street should be a 4 -lane road, tapering to two west of the main entrance. Intersection improvements at Spring Mill will include a left turn lane, and a through and right shared on all four approaches, with a traffic signal. Currently, the County has a project for that intersection that is on hold for a 20 -year build -out with a signal and some lane modifications. 96 and Meridian eastbound, there should be dual left turns northbound and two through lanes. Southbound on US 31 would have a continuous right -turn lane with sign structure so that if people want to come into the Duke Development, sign structures would direct them accordingly —the inside right turn lane would be continuous movement. On the westbound approach, dual right -turn lanes and dual left turn lanes are anticipated in the future. Future traffic is considered here, not just the Duke Development. Rick Sharp asked if there were some sort of model that says over 100,000 square feet of office space equates /computes so many trips. Steve Fehribach said he would do that. A median is recommended on 96 Street. Kevin Kirby commented the drive into Kroger on the south side of 96 Street should align with the Parkwood access on the north side of 96 Street, with a signal. Also eliminating right in/right out. Further discussion ensued, all traffic related. The Committee agreed to ask INDOT to respond in writing to the questions posed. The petitioner has started the process with the State in terms of declaring a hardship for this property and allowing INDOT to sign off on their declaration. Rick Sharp asked the petitioner to re- examine the intensity of use and /or road improvements that could be made. There is still concern with the impact of this development in a residential neighborhood. There are some very provocative issues here, and the petitioner should respond to preliminary review comments made by Steve Cunningham in a memo to Mr. Bartlett dated March 15, 1999. Members of the public were invited to comment at this time. S:\PlanCormnission\Minutes\SpecialStudyCommittee\1999aprl3 6 Jim Grogan, president of Cedar Knolls HOA, and member of 96 Street corridor Task Force, referred to comments made by John Myers. The current traffic on 96 Street between Meridian and Spring Mill will be impacted to the extent that every 100,000 square feet added to or subtracted from the development would equate to the amount of traffic currently on this street. Therefore, 800,000 square feet will produce 8 times the amount of traffic. Members from the City of Indianapolis were also in attendance and comments invited. Duke was encouraged to again examine the drainage proposed for the northwest corner of the southwest quadrant. The site designers need to take another look at how it is located relative to the interstate compared with using it as additional buffer to the southwest. How the water percolates out from this location is not totally clear at this time, but it should be re- examined and perhaps use a water feature to buffer the residential area in this location. One of the best ways to eliminate or at least reduce the traffic is to lower the intensity of use. If some of the density could be moved to the northern site, it would probably reduce some of the impact on the 96 Street intersection. Rick Sharp asked if there were a plan in place to implement the proposed improvements. Is it Duke or is it up to governmental entities to implement? If it is government, is the petitioner contributing? Note: The public hearing remains open on this Docket until such time as a final recommendation is made by the Committee to the full Commission. Members of the public may comment until that time. Ruth Hayes of the Nora Northside Community Council spoke as a member of the coalition of all of the neighborhoods affected by this proposed development. The NNCC met with Duke Realty representatives last week. There may be some false assumptions in the traffic report; to assume that motorists will not go to College to avoid 96 and Meridian is a false assumption. There is a big density in the retail center on the east side of Meridian Street, south side of 96 Street retail that was never anticipated. It all boils down to economics, and the density of the development should not negatively impact the residents already in the area. The end result may be that someone will have to reevaluate his expectations. Mr. Ackley, attorney, said the economics of this development should be reduced —that means reducing the density. Pam Lambert? Asked the rationale for the placement of the detention pond that is contrary to the actual surface drainage. Also, is the size of the detention pond predicated on 10, 20, or 25 year occurrence and is the developer planning to release the water slowly to the drain, and if so, what direction? Drainage concerns are based on a report from an American Consulting Engineering report that indicated there were 52 acres of land that actually drain south onto College Commons. The drainage flow was from an area comprised of roughly 80% parking lot, rooftop runoff. S:\PlanCormnission\Minutes\SpecialStudyCommittee\1999aprl3 Rick Sharp asked that Ms. Lambert put her detailed questions in writing to the Committee and /or Department for a response. Rick Sharp commented and summarized as follows. Under the road improvements suggested in the traffic study, the land would be dedicated—outside of that would be the 30 -foot buffer. However, Duke is not willing to commit that if someone wants another lane 15 years from now, the buffer would not be moved back and an additional lane could come out of the buffer. A Duke representative stated that 30 feet is what it takes to do a 5 -foot mound. The greenspace is in front of that and is wider closer to Spring Mill. Docket No. 14 -99 Z, Duke Realty Investments was continued to the May Committee meeting. There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 PM. Rick Sharp, Chairperson Ramona Hancock, Secretary S:\PlanCormnission\Minutes\SpecialStudyCommittee\1999aprl3