Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes SpecStdy 05-09-00CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDY COMMITTEE Tuesday, May 9, 2000 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Special Study Committee met at 7:00 p.m. on May 9, 2000 in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall, One Civic Square, Carmel, Indiana. Members present were: Chairperson Paul Spranger, Leo Dierckman, Madeline Fitzgerald, Kevin Kirby, Jim O'Neal, and Pat Rice. Bob Modisett arrived at 8:40 p.m. Item 1.106 -99 SP 107 -99 DP /ADLS, Carmel Science Technology Park, Block 14, Lot 3. Petitioner seeks approval to plat one lot on 3.533+ acres and to construct seven self storage buildings with office totaling 69,300 square feet to be known as Carmel Drive Storage. The site is located at 550 West Carmel Drive. The site is zoned M -3 /manufacturing. This item has been continued from the February I March 7, 2000, Special Study Committee meetings. Filed by Keith Bonham of Tower Design Group, PC. Ron Bland, Tower Design Group, presented the case and distributed packets to the committee members. There have been several other meetings regarding this case. Tonight Mr. Bland hopes to address most of the committee's outstanding concerns. The first page of the packet illustrates the site plan discussed previously. The second sheet shows the building closest to Carmel Drive moved farther back from the road. Bump outs have been added to give the building more character. It is not as long as before. Also, the interior buildings have been reworked to illustrate three smaller buildings. A two -story building is desired at the rear. The office is near Carmel Drive. The bike /walking path is away from the building on Carmel Drive. The building is 40 feet from the right of way; it was moved 10 feet. They are addressing the right of way now. The next page shows elevations. The small gables break up the elevation on Carmel Drive. A standing seam metal roof is shown. Signage is illustrated on the office space. The red, quick -brick masonry product is 4" x 16" in size. Quick brick is completely waterproof and does not need to be painted. Mr. Bland showed examples. The petitioner is working with the City Engineer on drainage. She suggests they take drainage to the west on Carmel Drive. There is a 16" storm sewer for connection. Mr. Bland would like to know if tonight's landscape plan is acceptable. He believes the project is quiet, clean, has low volume traffic, is in compliance with M3 zoning. Carmel Drive Storage wants to be a good neighbor. Laurence Lillig reviewed the matter Friday, May 5 The new design represents an increase from seven buildings to eight. The building increases by 14,050 square feet in size. The elevations on the third sheet illustrate wall signs on the gables. The originally planned ground sign has been removed. Laurence requested a scale drawing of the proposed signage. s \plancommission \spst2000may.doc 1 Mr. Bland is working with the Department of Public Works regarding the curb cuts. It would be to the advantage of the owner if they were widened. The split face on the second story will be masonry block. The roof will be a charcoal to black in color. The 10/12 pitch of the office roof is for appearance. There is no lighting plan at this time. There will be nothing on the top of the building. Terry Jones stated the building is technically still on the building line. The heating unit will be inside the buildings. The roof is very flat but a little slope is shown on the third page. Signage will comply with Ordinance requirements. The lighting has not been decided upon. The dumpster will be enclosed. The two story building will be 22 feet high. Leo Dierckman still wants Building E moved back. Kevin Kirby cited buildings across the street that are very close to the road. An office building would have the option of being right on the building line with parking inside the parcel. Paul Spranger stated the project may not be approved without a revised secondary plat and a signage plan. The curb issue must be worked out. He also encouraged back lighting in a tasteful manner. The additional 14,000 square feet of storage gives economic offset to some of these considerations. Mr. Bland suggested the brick exterior would continue on Building D and C with masonry in the rear. The two -story building will have brick along the entire second floor. The revised landscape plan is not ready. Mr. Bland agreed to consider moving Building E back another 20 feet per Mr. Dierckman's request Paul Spranger asked Mr. Bland to prepare a revised secondary plan, a landscape plan, lighting plan, and signage package. The case was continued to the June 6, 2000 Plan Commission Committee Meeting. Item 2. Docket No. 109 -99 DP /ADLS, Wingate Inn. Petitioner seeks approval to construct a 57,500 square foot hotel on 4.066+ acres. The site is located at 1460 West Main Street (northeast corner of East 131 Street and North Meridian Street). The site is zoned S -2 /residential within the US 31 Overlay Zone. This item was tabled from the February 1, 2000, Special Study Committee meeting for ninety days to allow INDOT time to respond with respect to Economic Hardship. Filed by Philip A. Nicely of Bose McKinney Evans for Meridian Hotel Partners. Steve Granner, Bose McKinney Evans, presented the matter that was last before the Plan Commission on February 1, 2000. Mr. Granner explained that Phil Nicely was ill and unable to attend the night's meeting. Steve Granner commented that previous long discussions ended with the agreement that this is an approvable project with no outstanding concerns except for the INDOT issue. Ninety days have passed. s \plancommission \spst2000may.doc 2 INDOT was contacted on January 1, 2000 with the letter Mr. Granner distributed to the committee. The question was asked if the proposed development impacted their plans for U.S. 31. The response letter stated: INDOT cannot say with absolute certainty what the impacts will be, however, you are correct in your interpretation of the present planning study conclusions." No additional information was available from the State of Indiana. Mr. Granner believes it, therefore, complies with the Ordinance. This is not a hardship issue. We are ready to consider landscaping, signage, etc. To the best of his knowledge, there are no outstanding issues in regard to INDOT. Paul Spranger summarized the case background for the committee. At the date of the distributed letter, there were early stages of development for the interchange at 131 st Street and U.S. 31. INDOT has the drawing displayed on the Caucus Room bulletin board. Mr. Spranger takes issue with the statement that there are no outstanding concerns. The most important aspect is the fact that 131 Street is a full east west thoroughfare. However, 126 Street goes into the subdivisions and creates massive problems. An interchange at 126 would only aggravate the situation. Cut thrus to subdivisions would only get worse. With the Village of West Clay, the new private high school, and the new Carmel Clay library, 131 Street becomes an important road. Further, the Old Meridian project is going through the approval process. A lot has happened in the last three months. We are caught in a long term planning decision—it is a legacy decision. Or, does the Committee obviate that opportunity by approving development at this intersection. INDOT is digesting this. He requested the deputy commissioner investigate buying the site. The petitioner could consider another site for the motel. Mr. Spranger would like another 30 days to explore protective buying of the site. The land could easily be appraised. Steve Granner commented that his client has been waiting for 3.5 months, the matter appeared before BZA and received a variance, and the Plan Commission agenda includes this case. Steve Engelking stated the agenda is a draft that may require notice. The fact that it is on Commission agenda does not mean it will be heard. Mr. Granner continued that the ADLS is not the issue tonight. He asked the committee for approval of the ADLS development plan and the opportunity for full commission to decide the issue of whether the project should be approved. The minutes of the February meeting were requested. Kevin Kirby expressed an interest in protecting both U.S. 31 and property rights. The petitioner has done everything the committee requested. The INDOT process is slow and could entail three years of consideration. He questioned that the geometries are correct; the exit loops are tight. Paul Spranger said the metrics are accurate. In regard to impact on our community, this is a serious issue. The old MIS has been discarded. Kevin Kirby believes Carmel should buy the property if they want the interchange at the site. INDOT will not do any protective buying until they are certain they want the land. That could be two years from now. Mr. Spranger said it was better to error on the side of long range s \plancommission \spst2000may.doc 3 planning and infrastructure. The committee should at least look at it for another month or two. Steve Cecil should have an opportunity to digest this. There is a meeting with him on Friday at 1:00. Discussion followed regarding a change in location for the motel. Steve Granner would agree to a condition of waiting another 30 days if approved by this committee and the Plan Commission next Tuesday. Paul Spranger said the committee has a greater responsibility regarding traffic flow. This must be addressed. Kevin Kirby asked if the committee could approve the project tonight, send the matter to full Plan Commission, but hold the permit. Terry Jones stated the Plan Commission could put conditions on the permit. However, he said there are more factors to consider beyond protective buying. Discussion followed regarding the purchase of the Sweet property and a possible exchange. Paul Spranger thinks the ideal situation is for the petitioner to look at other sites to result in a nearby interchange for the hotel. Laurence Lillig added that the department has had predesign meetings with the developer on the Sweet property. Sweet does have something in mind for that property. Leo Dierckman moved to send the matter to the full commission with no recommendation. The motion carried with a vote of Yes -4, No -2 (Madeline Fitzgerald and Jim O'Neal), and Abstain -0. The matter will next be heard at the May 16, 2000 Plan Commission meeting. There was a ten minute break at 8:30 p.m. Bob Modisett joined the committee. Item 3.71 -00 ADLS Amend. West Carmel Center, Block A. Petitioner seeks to establish sign criteria for the retail development commonly known as West Carmel Shoppes. The Development Plan and ADLS petitions for this project were approved as Docket No. 47 -99 DP /ADLS. The site is located on the southeast corner of West 106 Street and North Michigan Road. The site is zoned B- 3/business and is located within the US 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by Kevin D. McKasson of Glendale Partners. Kevin McKasson presented the matter in October, 1999 and received ADLS approval with the condition of providing an acceptable sign package. Laurence Lillig distributed copies of the sign package using the 101 -300 foot distance from the right of way. Mr. McKasson explained that his sign package is based on the Ordinance signage chart using an average distance for the whole project. Mr. McKasson read the seven points of his Signage Criteria document. The second page lists tenants who have submitted signage. Only Mattress Gallery has signage greater than 40 square feet. Brennan's Grill is now the appropriate size. A depiction of the Westin project, directly across the street, was distributed showing their signage. s \plancommission \spst2000may.doc 4 Pat Rice questioned the Neighborhood Drycleaners' logo as she thinks it is an advertisement. Mr. McKasson stated it is their logo. Shirts are priced at $1.79. Laurence Lillig stated the tenants are ready for signage approval. Plan Commission minutes indicate that each sign must return for approval. Instead, the Department has asked Kevin McKasson to prepare a sign package. Staff suggested using the average distance because this building is perpendicular to 106 Street. Having an average sized signage is better than an inconsistent appearance with different signs. Kevin McKasson stated that some tenants are happy and some are not. The sign color examples are close to the actual colors. Jim Neal thinks there is a predominance of the color red. Pat Rice asked for more information on color and lighting. Signs are internally illuminated. The level of illumination will be consistent with the project to the north. Paul Spranger said if the Commission finds the level objectionable, then the petitioner will be asked to reduce intensity of light. Kevin Kirby agreed and said Laurence Lillig will approve every sign. Carmel enforces the brightness issue. Madeline Fitzgerald suggested a four -color pallet. Terry Jones said there is a tradition for limiting sign colors. Paul Spranger said the commission may make approval subject to staff review. Pat Rice questioned whether the $1.79 portion of the sign is illuminated. It is, Kevin McKasson thinks it is white. Steve Engelking asked for translucent panels, samples of colors which depict the colors, to be utilized for all the tenants. Terry Jones asked for this to be accomplished in the next week before Plan Commission. Mr. McKasson agreed to send to all fifteen of the Plan Commission members a color pallet. The committee suggested one shade for each color. He will also provide information on the Mattress Gallery sign. Madeline Fitzgerald moved to send a favorable recommendation to the Plan Commission with the condition that a color pallet be provided. The motion carried with a vote of Yes 7, No -0, and Abstain -0. Mr. McKasson will present the signage on May 16, 2000. Item 4. Docket No.76 -00 ADLS Amend, Marsh Plaza (The Fountains Banquet Facility). Petitioner seeks approval to remodel the facade of the old Marsh Supermarket building for a banquet facility to be known as The Fountains. The site is located at 502 East Carmel Drive. The site is zoned B- 8/business. Filed by Mark Pratt of AGD Architects for Marsh Supermarkets, Inc. Mark Pratt, representing Crystal Food Services and Marsh Supermarkets, asked for approval of a new facade on their existing store on Carmel Drive. They plan to paint the existing brick two tones of color trying to lighten it. There will be green high lights, replacement of the aluminum over the main skylight entrance, and fountains will be added. s:\plancommission\spst2000may.doc Laurence Lillig referred to his memo based on this drawing. There are three points to consider: there is no sign plan for this project, no landscape plan, and the third issue is the flag which is a sign plan matter. Typically, flags are not an issue. Corporate flags must be flown with American flags. The facade of the building is what DOCS has on file. All four sides of building will be painted. The aluminum will be green instead of bronze. The committee requests material and paint samples. The fountain will be granite. There will be a total of six fountains and landscape plans will be submitted. This case will be continued. The three issues Laurence Lillig reviewed, along with material samples, will be supplied. The lighting will not change. Paul Spranger suggested uplighting the building. The committee said it is a good reuse of the building. Leo Dierckman moved to approve the case with assumption that material examples, colors, lighting, signage, and landscaping will be coordinated with the department. Paul Spranger wants the building to be uplighted. The motion carried with a vote of Yes -7, No -0, and Abstain -0 Item 5. Docket No. 81 -00 ADLS Amend, Parkwood Crossing, Building 5 (RealMed). Petitioner seeks approval to establish a second tenant identification sign on the North facade. The Development Plan and ADLS petitions for this project were approved as Docket No. 12 -98 DP Amend /ADLS. The site is located at 501 East 96 Street. The site is zoned B- 6/business. Filed by Philip A. Nicely of Bose McKinney Evans for Duke -Weeks Realty, LP. Attorney John Smeltzer, Bose McKinney Evans, represented RealMed. Mr. Smeltzer described the location of Parkwood Crossing and cited the signage location on the building. The Merrill Lynch sign on that particular building has already been approved but not installed. The material of the sign was displayed. It will be back illuminated and is the color white. The sign size is 59.5 square feet. The Ordinance would allow 75 square feet. RealMed is the second major tenant for the building; Merrill Lynch is the other. The sign will face U.S. 465. It is tasteful and simple in design. All the materials are here for review. Laurence Lillig stated this sign has been to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the number of signs. The variance was granted. The sign size meets the freeway requirements. The petitioner only needs ADLS approval. s \plancommission \spst2000may.doc 6 Leo Dierckman moved to approval the signage. The motion carried with a vote of Yes -7, No -0, and Abstain -0. Jim O'Neal moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. It passed with unanimous voice vote. Paul Spranger, Chairperson Sue Ellen Johnson, Acting Secretary s:\plancommission\spst2000may.doc