Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes SpecStdy 01-04-00CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDY COMMITTEE JANUARY 4, 2000 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Special Study Committee was held Tuesday, January 4, 2000, in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall, One Civic Square, Carmel, Indiana. Members present were: Madeline Fitzgerald; Nick Kestner; Kevin Kirby; and Paul Spranger, Chairperson. Dave Cremeans was in attendance as an ex- officio member. Department Support Staff in attendance: Director Steve Engelking, Michael Hollibaugh, Terry Jones, and Laurence Lillig. Item 1: Docket No. 81 -99 ADLS, Meadowlark Office Park Petitioner seeks approval to construct three office buildings on 3.46 acres known as Meadowlark Office Park. The site is located at 698 Pro -Med Lane. The site is zoned B -6 /Business. This item was continued from the December 7, 1999 Special Study Committee meeting in order for the petitioner to prepare a revised Landscape Plan and to file a Developmental Standards Variance petition for landbanked parking. Filed by Steve Dauby of Dauby O'Conner Zaleski, LLC Nancy Pauley, associate of Steve Dauby, appeared before the Committee. Ms Pauley said the petitioner met with Melissa Spiker, City Forester, two weeks ago. From Melissa Spiker's inventory of the non existent plant material that needed to be replaced, the landscape plan was revised for two phases. Phase I landscape plan is the existing building, Phase II landscape plan is the three, new buildings, so that a better buffer will be created between the condominiums to the north and a park -like setting along the back of the building. In view of the fact that the revised landscape plan was received this morning, neither the Department nor the Committee has had a chance to review the plan. Kevin Kirby said the final lighting plan was also an open issue for discussion. Steve Engelking responded that a light reading was taken at the property line and the foot candle was found to be acceptable. The lighting issue has been resoled. The Committee encouraged the petitioner to landbank the parking, but before any final vote, the Committee would like to see what the landscaping would look like for the area in the event it would have to be converted to parking. The Committee is looking for assurance that the landscape plan will be put into place and maintained. Michael Hollibaugh said he had sat in on a meeting with Mr. Zaleski, Mr. O'Conner and Mr. Dauby. It was suggested that they post a bond with the City as assurance to cover the costs of the landscaping, and they were willing to do that. s:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ SpecialStudyCommitteeMinutes \2000j an Docket No. 81 -99 ADLS, Meadowlark Office, was TABLED until the February 01, 2000 Special Study Committee. Item 2. Docket No. 98 -99 Z, Kite Rezone Petitioner seeks approval of a rezone to PUD /planned unit development in order to construct two retail buildings on 37.076 acres. The site is located southeast of East 146 Street and US 31. The site is zoned B -2 /Business, R -1 /Residential and R -4 /Residential within the US 31 Overlay Zone and partially within the SR 431 Overlay Zone. Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for Kite Realty. Paul Reis, attorney, 12358 Hancock Street, Carmel, appeared before the Committee representing Kite Realty. Paul Kite was also in attendance. Paul Reis gave an overview of the proposed project which included the bridge being built, the reconfiguration of Greyhound Pass, and the project area adjacent to Danbury Estates. Basically, a retail development is being proposed consisting of two buildings on the site. The first building is tentatively scheduled to be a Lowe's Home Improvement Center; the second retail space tenant has not been lined up at this point in time. This particular development plan does incorporate roadway improvements proposed by INDOT for the area, specifically, an off -ramp on the north bound lanes of Keystone to match up with Greyhound Pass, and a second ramp, south bound, that curves around to the west and joins State Road 431, Keystone Avenue. Primarily, this project is located within the proposed roadway improvements identified by INDOT for the area. The petitioner is proposing a PUD Ordinance for the reason it will allow the unique character of the site to be addressed. There is substantial frontage along Keystone, and it is within the US 31 Overlay Zone. Copies of the proposed PUD have been distributed to the Committee. All development standards of the US 31 Overlay have been incorporated into the PUD with the exception that there is not the limitation of 15% for retail within the project. The design profile of the building has been presented to Lowe's senior management, and they have approved it. The store is very attractive with shielding on the garden center. The lumber operation is totally enclosed and there is no outside storage of lumber. The panels will be darkened glass, with aluminum and brick on the building in an effort to give it a "corporate" look versus a straight retail look. The other component is the landscaping. There is significant landscaping along the east side, the west side, (Keystone) and substantial landscaping within the parking area, including two ponds, so that it does not have the typical look of a large "sea of asphalt" with a lot of parking. Another significant item in this project is the Danbury Estates Subdivision. The petitioner is continuing to meet with the Danbury Estates homeowners, and the president s:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ SpecialStudyCommitteeMinutes \2000jan 2 of the Homeowners Association. Some of the residents of Danbury Estates are in attendance this evening. Items discussed with the Danbury HOA: a mound system and masonry wall, additional landscaping to buffer sound of the traffic from the neighborhood. The lighting plan has been submitted. Because the roadway improvements are pretty much where the State is going to put them, it is hoped that this project will provide some additional amenities to make it a little easier on the State. The petitioner has also talked with Mr. and Mrs. Faust and is prepared to install additional mounding. The Fausts are not so much concerned with the wall as they are the landscaping. The only challenge is that Cool Creek runs through the area. Pat Rice asked about the facade on the eastern approach that looks like a big box at the top of the building. Mr. Reis said it was an architectural feature and goes into the Lowe's sign, although a signage package has not yet been submitted. The parapet will hide the air conditioning equipment and there may be additional screening as it is developed. Pat Rice asked what the main concerns were of the residents of Danbury. Paul Reis said the residents are very concerned about the traffic, noise, and the close proximity of the road. Steve Engelking confirmed that the State plans on the off -ramp as previously described. The State is also planning a loop road and one ramp northbound on US 31, also as described. There will also be a "fly- over" ramp that will go over Keystone and intersect with the northbound off -ramp on Keystone to bring US 31 traffic across Keystone to the road intersecting with 146 and Greyhound Pass. The State is planning on the roadway improvements, whether this project is approved or not. Madeline Fitzgerald questioned access. Paul Reis said there is an out only to the right, there is an in /out, and an in only. The in and out are blocked by a median. Paul Reis consulted with Steve Fehribach who said the fly -over ramp that goes through the Shur -Gard property is not in the same phase as the other two ramps that are phase III. Paul Spranger explained that the petitioner could have gone through the Board of Zoning Appeals process and requested variances on this property, but chose to go through the Plan Commission by way of a PUD Ordinance. This property borders retail and light use. Kevin Kirby commented that all of the Committee members should look at the corridor and what the corridor is. When you get north of 136 Street, it is a different corridor. If you look at the aerials and where this is, it is basically on Keystone and not even Meridian; it does border retail on all sides. It is a piece of ground that when forced, may yield office buildings, but there is a better change of bringing offices in on the other side of Meridian or at least a mixed -use type of development. Kevin Kirby thought this use was extremely appropriate for this piece of ground. s:\P1anCommission\ Minutes \SpecialStudyCommitteeMinutes \2000] an Kevin did not think the Common Council would look favorably on an all- retail development west of US 31. Paul Spranger commented that a few things have not been addressed. One of those is outside displays and storage. Mr. Reis said this had been discussed, and the petitioner is prepared, either through the Ordinance or written commitments to eliminate outside storage concerns and that there will be no display of merchandise at the front of the store. The other issue brought up by Rick Sharpe at public hearing was the cart corrals. The petitioner has not yet had an opportunity to sit down with the architect to discuss this. Paul Kite said he had talked with Lowe's today, and they have agreed not to allow any outside display. Therefore, all of the merchandise would have to be within the building, behind walls. The petitioner is willing to do whatever is required by the City to screen this parcel. Madeline Fitzgerald asked about water softener salt, fence material, etc. Mr. Kite said all of the materials would be stored within the building, no merchandise would be outside. Madeline said she had some problem with auxiliary uses. Nothing has been formalized on the adjacent parcel; different users have been discussed, but nothing concrete yet, although a Motel has been eliminated. According to Terry Jones, outdoor sales and activity is being allowed in the outdoor garden center. Paul Reis said the garden center will be completely screened, although it does not have a roof over it. The public hearing remains open on this item, and at this time, Paul Spranger asked for input from members of the public. Wayne Wilson spoke as an individual and also the newest member of the City Council. Mr. Wilson was also representing Councilor John Koven. Mr. Wilson wanted it understood that the City Councilor who spoke against this project was only speaking for himself and not the entire Council. Mr. Wilson was personally looking forward to this project. Carole Brown, 14469 Dublin Drive, Danbury, was concerned about the close proximity of Menard's and Lowe's, and what would happen to the building if one of them "went under." The proposed wall would be a welcome addition, but it should be tied to a definite date. Ms. Brown questioned the off ramp —why the State made it so close to the residential area and not closer to US 31. Ms. Brown asked who made the major investment to install the road. Ms. Brown was sure the value of her home would be decreased because of the road and was upset that the plans for the road were not disclosed before she purchased her home. What restrictions will be placed on additional retail and would they fall under the same guidelines as Lowe's? If the State does install an off ramp, would they also put in trees, berms, fencing? A brick wall would be good. s:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ SpecialStudyCommitteeMinutes \2000jan 4 Elizabeth Sampson, 14485 Dublin Drive, Danbury, said this project is not directly visible from her home, but she was in attendance in support of her neighbors who will be in the sight -line of Lowe's. Ms. Sampson spoke of the environmental issue —trees and grass, and the direction of the wind (from the west) and how the installation of the parking lot will affect their subdivision. Mr. Kite said some neighbors will abut the berm, the road is 150 feet wide. Ms. Sampson was concerned about the increased traffic, not only customers but delivery semi trucks, and the hours of operation. Will semi trucks be allowed to sit, waiting, with motors running? Ms. Sampson was also concerned about outside storage and what was in place to police the situation. Paul Spranger announced that the public hearing will remain open on this project. Rebuttal, Paul Reis. The date for the wall construction completion will be the same time as the buildings are completed on site. There will not be a situation where the stores are up and running, and the wall and landscape treatment not in place. This will be in writing in a formal agreement entered into with the Homeowners Association. In regard to the funding of roadway improvements, the Kite Company has been in conversation with Hamilton County and the Hamilton County Highway Department. The construction of the off -ramp and on -ramp on Keystone would follow an Inter -local agreement that would have to be brought before the City of Carmel for approval. The County has said they would investigate doing some tax incremental financing to pay for the improvements and they would build the ramps, however, they would not be addressing the fly -over ramp. Upon completion of the ramp system, the southern portion will be turned over to the State's jurisdiction. The ramp system would flow into the State Highway, 431, and ultimately US 31. If that does not occur, the developer will look at an alternative that will only involve the construction of the road, but it would be within the alignment of the intersection and built to standards and specifications that would fit with the ultimate construction of the ramp in the future by INDOT. It is an excellent point about the restrictions on the second building. It is the petitioner's intention that the same types of restrictions on Lowe's will follow the second building. This will be a coordinated site and the design features will be carried from one building to the other. The hours of operation will be worked out with the retailers; the large trucks that idle could perhaps be addressed with the stores. The loading docks on both buildings are on the east side. The issue of enforcement of outside storage is in the Ordinance itself, the petitioner is willing to commit to no outside storage in recordable commitment form. Steve Engelking confirmed that this would be covered in the Ordinance and would be a code enforcement issue with fines and penalties from the date of violation until the situation is cured. Paul Reis responded to the comment regarding environmental impact. The petitioner is addressing how the wall system and the landscaping associated with it will hopefully mitigate the situation. Hopefully, with the mounding and other landscaping treatment, it will "break -up" the parking lot, in view of prevailing west winds. s:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ SpecialStudyCommitteeMinutes \2000jan 5 Terry Jones said that in addition to outside storage, outside sales needs to be addressed and "outside" needs to be defined, whether it is under a canopy or under roof, etc. Terry recommended that the wall be made a commitment to the Plan Commission and not the neighboring residents —that way, the Plan Commission has the authority to be involved in the design of the wall, the placement, the height, and it would also allow the residents a body to go to other than a Court to try to resolve in case of disagreement. The way the Ordinance is written, it talks about design standards for the buildings and it does not delineate just the Lowe's building with those design standards; they would carry over to all buildings that would be placed on the site. If there were a substantial difference in the plan for the second building, it would have to come back before the Commission again. There are some built -in guarantees with the process that the Planned Unit Development Rezone affords that some other zoning classifications do not have. Kevin Kirby commented that the buffer between this project and the residential area are key to this project. Kevin asked where the property line is and whether or not the road is wholly on the property within the PUD. Paul Kite explained the boundary for the property. The wall would be on top of the mound, east of the off -ramp of Keystone. The agreement with the neighbors is to build a four foot mound with a four foot masonry wall on top of that, with agreed upon landscaping on the neighborhood side of the wall to break up the mound. This will need to be worked out further with the State and the County, but the ideal solution is to have a 30 foot strip that the developer keeps and then begin the State, County, or City right -of -way, whatever it may be, inside. It is possible to have the mound and wall potentially within the right -of -way if it meets their standards. The key issue is whether the mound is on the State ramp side—if so, it is better to be privately owned. If it were on the City road side, it might better be City- owned, because the City would actually maintain it. Kevin Kirby said that technically, for the City to have enforcement capability, it would have to be on ground that the petitioner owns and is asking for the rezone. The ultimate owner of the landscaping and the wall needs to be looked at —the initial reaction is it needs to remain with Kite and Company so that it will be maintained and the City has enforcement capability. Paul Spranger said the Committee will work out the PUD Ordinance with the developer. Paul Kite said the reality is they will not build the second building until they have 50% or 100% of it leased. The building is large enough that it cannot be perceived as a strip center. It is anticipated that there will be one or two tenants occupying the second building. The City controls the signage, and there is no way to create a strip center if the City controls the signage. Paul Reis spoke about the possibility of the buildings "going dark" and how they would be constructed so that they do not become "white elephants" because they can't be used for anything else. We might consider minimum size of the tenant and that would limit the number of users on the site —this could be built into the Ordinance. s:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ SpecialStudyCommitteeMinutes \2000jan 6 Paul Kite said the next meeting with the neighbors will cover hours of delivery and the time the trucks are on -site, unloading. The easiest way to handle that is to say, "No trailers parked on site overnight." The County had approached the City about an Inter -Local Agreement. The City of Carmel would allow the real estate taxes generated from this development to go towards the payment of the off -ramp off Keystone and the on -ramp back to Keystone /31 in advance of the State actually doing the work. If that agreement is not worked out, at some point in the future the State will go ahead and do it anyway, and tie in with extended Greyhound Pass that goes into the development. The County believes it is advantageous to do the "TIF" and the City is waiting to see what happens with this project. The State has obviously said that if the developer wants to build the ramps, "Go for it," but the State will do it eventually. Paul Kite said the berm and wall combination is contemplated from 146 Street to the end of the Danbury Estates project. The rest of it would be an 8 foot, earthen berm. At a minimum, the berm and wall would be installed to the south end of Danbury Estates. The Special Study Committee will be going over the proposed PUD and Paul Reis will be submitting a black line draft. The PUD will be gone over line -by -line, paragraph -by- paragraph, and will eventually make a recommendation back to the full Plan Commission. This item was continued and will be heard at the next, regularly scheduled Committee in February. There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 PM. Paul Spranger, Chairperson Ramona Hancock, Secretary s:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ SpecialStudyCommitteeMinutes \2000j an