Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes SpecStdy 12-05-00CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDY COMMITTEE DECEMBER 05, 2000 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Special Study Committee met at 7:00 PM on Tuesday, December 5, 2000 in the Council Chambers of City Hall, One Civic Square, Carmel, Indiana. Members present were: Leo Dierckman; Madeline Fitzgerald; Kevin Kirby; Bob Modisett; Pat Rice; and Paul Spranger. Steve Engelking and Terry Jones were present representing the Department of Community Services. John Molitor, Counsel, was also present. Note: Docket No. 146 -00 DP /ADLS, West Carmel Center, Block F -Home Depot -has been TABLED for this evening at the request of the petitioner. Item 1. Docket No. 132 -00 Z, Dodd Rezone Petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation for a rezone from the S -1 /Residence district to the B- 8/business district on 11.25 acres. The site is located on the southeast corner of East 146 Street and Hazel Dell Parkway. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence. Filed by Corby D. Thompson of Plum Creek Partners. Corby Thompson of Plum Creek Partners, applicant„ appeared before the Committee seeking a positive recommendation to the full Plan Commission on a Rezone request for the parcel located at the southeast corner of East 146 Street and Hazel Dell Parkway. The property is bounded by Hazel Dell Parkway and Ashton Subdivision to the west, a church and parking lot to the south, Ashmore Trace Subdivision to the east, and to the north is a current, commercial use, retail /wholesale landscape company as well as vacant farm land. According to the Comprehensive Plan of Carmel, neighborhood commercial has been contemplated along 146 Street. An example of neighborhood commercial is the center at 126 Street and Gray Road consisting of 8.5 acres and 73,000 square feet of retail space plus a bank. The Vision 20/20 Plan further contemplated neighborhood commercial at various locations in Carmel and specified that neighborhood serving retail uses should be located in residential community areas and be of such an intensity and scale so as to be compatible with surrounding residential uses. Additionally, neighborhood serving commercial establishments are to be adequately buffered from low- intensity residential areas through the existence of (among other things) a main road, in this case, Hazel Dell Parkway as well as 146 Street. The Central Indiana Regional Citizens League published a study in January of this year that was sponsored by Lilly Endowment, St. Vincent's Hospital, and the United Way. s:A minutes \Committee \spst2000decO5 Over 1400 persons participated with input in that vision. One of their final recommendations was that mixed -use development should be pursued in the Central Indiana region. Neighborhoods located within walking distance of basic services combine old town compactness to create neighborhoods and communities that have distinctive benefits, including reduced dependence on auto travel. Market driven, the neighborhood design offers a range of residents the option of living in communities that place quality homes in close proximity to convenient businesses, schools, and work places. The benefits include small town accessibility and land saving development design; maximize convenience and minimize automobile use. Mr. Thompson distributed a list of commitments that will be filed with the plan. The petitioner is committing to a maximum of 75,000 square feet of space on a parcel of land consisting of 11.35 acres. Pedestrian access and trails with landscaping have been provided as well as increased setbacks to allow for additional landscaping. The petitioner is also committing to an architectural deign of the buildings substantially as depicted in Exhibit C of the commitments, utilizing brick facade, conventional shingles, and Federalist style detailing. The petitioner also commits that no more than 50% of the development can be used for any type of retail use and the remaining 50% must be reserved for commercial and professional offices. A list of permitted uses is also attached. The petitioner has excluded the following uses: gasoline station, grocery, and fast food restaurants. This site is within 1 1/2 miles of 146 and Hazel Dell, and on the north side (Noblesville) there is approximately a thousand acres of undeveloped, residential property. Noblesville recently ran sewers to the property to the north and it is reasonable to assume that within the next 10 -15 years, this will be developed into considerable housing. The petitioner is requesting a favorable recommendation at this time. Steve Engelking commented that the commitments being offered and the list of permitted uses are in line with what would be preferred. From the standpoint of the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed neighborhood center is within the scope of the plan. Terry Jones stated that he had met with the applicant and talked about items that are a part of the commitments. The petitioner has also committed to the ADLS review procedure that involves the types of materials, colors, design of the building, etc., and this is the appropriate time for the review and comments. In response to Leo Dierckman's questions, Steve Engelking said the land use map within the Comprehensive Plan indicates that along 146 Street and between Carey Road and Hazel Dell Parkway should be a consideration of a neighborhood commercial center. Pat Rice asked the proximity to a major retail center; it was determined to be approximately 3 miles to the Village Park Mall Center at 146 and Keystone Avenue. It is approximately 1 1/2 miles to the neighborhood center at Hazel Dell Parkway and 131 Street. s:\ minutes \Committee \spst2000dec05 2 Kevin Kirby commented that the proposed development fits the basic idea of neighborhood serving retail. Mr. Kirby was not opposed to this type of use that would encourage pedestrian traffic and minimize automobile traffic. The Commission and the Council would like to see building design, landscaping, and a complete ADLS package. Pat Rice was not convinced that the proposed project is the right development for this location. Pat Rice felt that the rezone would compromise the surrounding and existing residential neighborhood. Pat was not comfortable with the plan or overall development for the neighborhood. Corby Thompson expressed a willingness to construct the project in accordance with the Plan Commission's wishes and desires. If the development deviates substantially from the drawings, that would be a legitimate complaint. Paul Spranger commented that one of the problems is defining "substantial." Paul Spranger would like the commitments to be amended and refined so as to pinpoint the plan and design. Corby Thompson stated that Plum Creek Partners is committed to the style of building shown; the square footage may fluctuate according to a specific tenant or user, according to his needs. Kevin Kirby voiced his reaction to the commitments tendered. Perhaps the plan appears a little too open- ended; however, 10,000 square feet up or down, as long as you are not gaining a floor, does not substantially affect the building. Kevin requested a site plan be submitted for review. Dave Cremeans requested renderings for the Commission to review as well as materials, landscaping, and curb cuts on the project. Dave asked that the petitioner attempt to do all he could through landscape buffering, etc. Terry Jones responded that the curb cuts onto 146 Street are under the jurisdiction of the County Highway; however it does affect site circulation. Dave Cremeans thought that a rezone is a difficult item to look at and the Commission needs to be extremely careful. Leo Dierckman commented that the same items have been talked about since August and they are no closer to a resolution. Leo was in favor of Tabling this item to the January committee meeting. Corby Thompson volunteered to TABLE item 132 -00 Z to the January 9 Committee meeting. s:A minutes \Committee \spst2000decO5 In the interim, Corby Thompson agreed to meet with the neighbors and include them in the proposed design and plan. Mr. Thompson commented that he would be glad to attend any and all neighborhood meetings the residents wanted to schedule. Item 2. Docket No. 146 -00 DP /ADLS, West Carmel Center, Block F, Home Depot, has been tabled for this evening. Item 3. Docket No. 154 -00 Z, Parkwood Crossing West PUD Rezone petition for Duke -Weeks Realty. The petitioner seeks favorable recommendation for a rezone from the B -5 /Business and S -2 /Residence districts to a PUD /planned unit development district. The site is located on the northwest corner of West 96 Street and North Meridian Street. The site is zoned S- 2 /Residence and B -5 /Business within the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone. Note: The Public Hearing o this Item has been held open at Plan Commission. Filed by Steven B. Granner of Bose McKinney Evans for Duke -Weeks Realty. The topic for discussion on this Docket is the traffic study. John Myers, Parsons, Brinckerhoff, 47 South Pennsylvania Street, Indianapolis. There was a problem agreeing on the traffic at this particular site. Instruction from the Committee was for Parsons, Brinckerhoff to determine and say what the base traffic would be. This was a two -step process in concert with the project manager studying I -465. The counts were gone through quadrant by quadrant, ramp by ramp, and compared the State counts to the counts that Parsons Brinckerhoff had distributed and found that the counts were consistent. John Myers was confident that they have good, base numbers. There was a misunderstanding on the assumption of vacant properties and common assumptions were not used on the northwest quadrant of 465 and Meridian or the southeast quadrant. Steve Fehribach of A &F Engineering presented additional traffic analysis for the petitioner. A &F determined that the data furnished to them was in line with several counts that INDOT had done and those that A &F had done since 1999 through 2000. The analysis was re -run at the two ramps and at 96 and Meridian -the most critical areas. The levels of service are very similar to that of the original report; however there were some improvements based on the numbers furnished by Parsons Brinckerhoff and also based on some signal timings adjusted to provide a better level of service. The recommendations made at the last meeting still hold. A &F was able to achieve a level of service "D" without the additional lane in front of the Shell Station because of the question of location of right -of -way; however, it is only 6 feet of pavement at this location. Currently, there is a 16 foot wide median; the road does not have to be widened towards the McDonald's to achieve the second left turn lane -this can be accomplished by removing the median. This would result in level of service "C." s:\ minutes \Committee \spst2000dec05 4 There were other items talked about and discussed in order to achieve level of service "C." Some of these were re- locating the eastbound and westbound 465 signs, thereby improving the traffic flow. In a triple left turn, there would be signs for eastbound, westbound and north US 31; this would improve traffic flow so that the cars would not be stacked. Level of service on the ramps can be improved to "D" in the AM and "C" in the PM for the eastbound off ramp, and "D" in the AM and "C" in the PM westbound off ramp. Bradley Yarger, Yarger Engineering, 1401 Alamingo Drive, Indianapolis, appeared before the Committee as traffic engineer representing the remonstrators. There were differences in the vacant land assumptions. The previous study assumed that all of the vacant land would be available -this has been adjusted downward by 50% at the direction of John Myers. A comparison was done between the "as zoned" and "as proposed," and there is a conflict of use with the Overlay Zone VS the S -2 in the area. As zoned, traffic for 197,000 square feet of office space and 98 homes yields approximately 3500 daily trips. In the proposed use, there is 162,000 square feet of office, no homes, and about 15,000 square feet of restaurants yielding about 6,800 trips daily. The main issue is the interchange. A big question is the storage beneath the bridge; the difference is about 800 feet between the two ramps and this is a big bottleneck. In the PM, there are motorists going to the loop ramps and coming off the side streets -these two movements conflict. Northbound traffic would need to shift to the right lane that goes to the loop ramp. At the same time, there will be traffic coming from the left trying to get into the same area, but the signal timing keeps them apart. In the "as zoned" case, there are 87 seconds delay in the northbound to westbound loop ramp. In the "as proposed," there are 227 seconds at the light. There has been discussion regarding an additional lane by putting a barrier between the through lanes and a loop ramp lane. If this would work, it would be a great solution and the signal timing could be adjusted for 100% green time going toward the loop ramp, and the left turn would work. How much congestion is too much? Where do you draw the line, even if this is INDOT's problem? How many lanes are considered unrealistic? Three lefts, three throughs, and three rights -9 lanes at one approach -is that unrealistic? At one approach, the Yarger traffic report had two lefts, six throughs, and one right at one location -that is too many, but that is what it takes to get a level of service "C." If there is tremendous traffic congestion, shouldn't we account for how it will divert to other roadways? Some traffic will divert to 96 Street, some traffic will divert to Springmill Road rather than to the interchange or over to College. Brad Yarger showed a computer animation based on current traffic numbers. In the petitioner's proposal, there will be diversion and the diversion will impact 96 Street -it is a logical, parallel route. With the improvement in capacity of Springmill at Ditch Road and Towne Road, the bottleneck has been cleared for more traffic to proceed on these roadways. s:\ minutes \Committee \spst2000dec05 5 Rebuttal: Steve Fehribach of A &F Engineering reiterated that their report shows a level of service "C" and "D" can be achieved as an overall approach; while some will cause a longer delay, the overall intersection approach will be acceptable at 96 and Meridian and a level of service "C" can be achieved in the PM peak hour. Steve said he has the same equipment and simulation is his office that could be shown as well, however, the bottom line is there are probably 100 to 150 inputs into that simulation. The original traffic report said that the levels of service would be acceptable in the D range. A& F has just shown that they are acceptable in the C and D range with modifications made. The additional lane under the bridge needs to be looked at, but maybe not for 10 years. It may be a "safety valve" that the interchange can be improved with the addition of such a lane. It would be possible but expensive to add the lane under the bridge. Dave Cremeans asked about a time frame for commitments for signage, widening of the road by the Shell Station and the additional lanes, (2 left, 2 right). Steve Fehribach said these issues will have to be worked out because there is permitting involved- -INDOT has to be involved, the City of Indianapolis and the City of Carmel must be involved, and possibly even Hamilton County. Paul Spranger asked how long a peak period would be -the duration, would it be 10 minutes or 15 minutes or more protracted? Steve Fehribach said that is a tough question. What we must realize is, this is an interchange with a major thoroughfare and so the peak is going to peak for a while. Will the cues achieve every cycle? So far, it is a peak hour. Dave Cremeans asked if Steve Fehribach agreed with Brad Yarger's timetable; Steve Fehribach said he had not had an opportunity to review any of the information as yet. John Myers of Parsons, Brinckerhoff asked Brad Yarger if the simulation was run on existing traffic. Mr. Yarger's response was negative. According to John Myers, the key issues have been identified. There are problems with every interchange on 465 but this is certainly not the worst. The opposite loops work well. Michigan Road would certainly benefit from improvements. Compared to other interchanges on 465, Mr. Wiedelman said this one works better than Allisonville Road, better than Keystone Avenue, and better than Michigan Road. It goes back to the improvement that INDOT made having the opposite loops. There are pros and cons with any interchange layout. Diamond interchanges make more movements as opposed to a partial clover. John Myers said he would like to see simulation of existing traffic. It is difficult to comment without having seen all of the input. It would be good to go back a few years to the 96 Street Study. The original proposal is very different from the one currently. Through a misunderstanding, Brad assumed the same development in the northwest quadrant, north of 465 and US 31, and the other quadrants as had been assumed previously. Roughly, there is 1.3 times more traffic coming from that background than coming from this development -this development generates about one- half the traffic. This interchange will be a real problem. We don't know exactly where the interchange will go; we don't know how much property will be taken by setbacks, etc. It will affect the southeast and northwest quadrants; it probably will not affect the area s:A minutes \Committee \spst2000dec05 next to College Avenue. In any case, it is a good idea to have additional lanes -an extra lane under the bridge would be a good idea and most likely will happen or something similar when INDOT rebuilds, and we do not know when that will happen. In terms of flexibility, if it were 20 years before the interchange is built, there should be a temporary solution put in place. When a current study is done, it will probably say INDOT will start at this interchange. INDOT has always been the "keeper of counts" and it is unusual that the counts are not available. Given the fact that this is a Federal study, and given the fact that INDOT has been criticized and involved in litigation on similar studies in other places, this is a unique case for them. Pat Rice asked if INDOT were not to complete the work until 2010, what improvements will the developer have to put into place to avoid gridlock? John Myers responded that all of I -465 will be reconstructed over the next 10 years. The interstate system in Marion County has been in place for 25 to 35 years and carries more traffic now than anyone ever expected. Disruption from construction projects will be all over. The intersection improvements discussed on 96 Street and Meridian Street will have more benefit for the kind of traffic being talked about, because we are not talking about existing volumes. Paul Spranger asked if John Myers agreed with what has been presented by the petitioner and that there will be level of service C most of the time and D some of the time at this interchange once the improvements have been made with the exception of the barrier lanes. This assumes this is built -out at 10 years. John Myers responded that vacant properties may develop differently; there may be some variation; however, if it is not in the C range, it will be in the D range based on what he has seen. John said he has not seen how the signals will work together under the interchange. There is peaking through this intersection between 7:30 and 8:30 AM- -the data from INDOT is on the hour. There may be some peaks slightly different between the intersection and the interchange that also helps traffic operations. Paul Spranger asked is there were other improvements that it might be important for the petitioner to do. John Myers said no, based on triple lefts and double rights at both ends of the interchange ramps; as far as the intersection, yes. If the petitioner can get done what they have shown, then nothing further can be added at this time. Dave Cremeans commented that from what was said, the level of service is going to be C, sometimes D, and once in a while, E. From Mr. Yarger's presentation, this was not shown, but rather 285 seconds delay which is level of service F. The assumptions made by Mr. Yarger are different than those made by Mr. Fehribach, but we can achieve the level of service as presented by Mr. Fehribach. Mr. Myers said that if there were only the signals at the end of the ramps for one half mile in any direction, then what is seen in Mr. Fehribach's analysis is on target. There is nothing wrong with the analysis done by A &F Engineering, although Brad Yarger has taken it to a different level with a lot of assumptions. I would just need to satisfy myself that the model is working. s:\minutes\Committee\spst2000decO5 Paul Spranger asked John Myers if he could satisfy himself on this question between now and the next scheduled Plan Commission meeting; John answered in the affirmative. Bob Modisett asked John Myers if he had looked at the traffic generated by Parkwood Crossing East and compared it to the proposed figures for Parkwood Crossing West and how they compared. John Myers said no, he had not, and it was an interesting question. The ordinary approach and what it reflected in the applicant's guide is, whatever is out there now is reflected in the existing traffic. If there is a recent count at the intersection and interchanges, they include whatever traffic is coming from that. If there were an accident on College Avenue, you may get a "dump of traffic" and that may have been what happened in 1999 when a count was taken. Pat Rice had some questions on traffic for Steve Fehribach What is the responsibility of the petitioner in terms of roadway improvements, the intersection improvements, 96 Street, the round -a -bout, all traffic problems that exist, leaving INDOT out of it. Steve Fehribach said the simulation and the analysis includes several things: existing traffic, Parkwood West traffic, background traffic, and vacant land traffic that may or may not be developed -four parts to the equation. Chris Seger with Duke Weeks, 600 East 96 Street, responded that they are currently working with the Carmel Redevelopment Commission to establish this as a TIF District to help fund the improvements that are required and with those monies, the petitioner will make these improvements happen. The improvements on the intersections are in partnership with Hamilton County, Indianapolis, and INDOT. We do have a schedule or proposed time frame, and we will do everything we can to work with these parties to make it happen, but we do not have ultimate control over these intersections. Pat Rice said that was her main concern. The improvements are what the petitioner would like and what the Plan Commission would like, but what if it doesn't happen prior to Duke -Weeks commencing construction. Chris Seger said they will build one building at a time. It is not known why the improvements would not be done if the money is there and available. Paul Spranger said these are some of the fiscal issues the City Council has to deal with to approve the rezone. Kevin Kirby said the council has already started the process of funding roadway improvements. Pat Rice asked if there were going to be any kind of commitment or requirement that certain things must be done before the project commences construction. Chris Seger said they were not prepared to say that they cannot start the project until the road is complete. Duke Weeks' idea is to make this happen simultaneously if the project is approved. It would be hard to commit to something that we don't have control over. s:A minutes \Committee \spst2000dec05 Kevin Kirby said through the "TIF," etc. the City controls when the improvements will be made. "I have not seen the final structure, but when the City says they are done, they're done." Paul Spranger said any improvements would have to be done subject to the TIF being put into place and funded. In other words, any approval would have to be subject to the Tax Incremental Financing that would be necessary. Steve Engelking said Kevin's characterization of the TIF is correct, it is coordinated with INDOT. Pat Rice asked if any approval could or should be made contingent upon all of this working together. Kevin said he did not know what would be gained from that -we are moving forward. Carmel controls Springmill and the north side of the road -the lane improvements and improvements to Springmill will be made. The entire intersection has been moved into Hamilton County, it will take some concurrence from them, but we don't foresee any problems. There is no additional work in their right -of -way. Paul Spranger noted that additional work would be in the right -of -way section next to the Shell Station at 96 and Springmill -and that is INDOT. Kevin Kirby further commented that the Carmel Redevelopment Commission, through bonding and working with the contractor, will facilitate that work being done, concurrently with site work. Pat Rice clarified further that the intersection will be improved contingent or in line with this development -it needs it anyhow. Kevin Kirby said if this didn't go through, the intersection is scheduled for improvement anyway -this just accelerates that improvement. Pat Rice then commented that they would be working on this intersection and the development at the same time, i.e. the development (if approved) the intersection at 96 and Springmill and 96 and U.S. 31. Kevin Kirby responded that "That is the nature of the world we live in-- construction all of the time." Leo Dierckman said that the roadway work will be BEFORE there is ever any tenants, etc. Leo asked Kevin if, based on his experience with INDOT, if this would be something that INDOT would take a rational approach to and agree with the improvements as proposed. Kevin responded 5 years ago, the answer would be no, but more recently, INDOT has become much better to work with, especially when it comes to U.S. 31. You have the issues of the Environmental Impact Study and you have to be careful what you do about that, but these are minor, peripheral improvements that do not change the right -of -way. It will not affect the money generated by the development towards improvements. The TIF would not exist unless this project is done. s:\ minutes \Committee \spst2000dec05 9 Pat Rice is really glad this came in as a PUD -she is not against the project itself, and a PUD will allow room to work with the other issues. It just needs to be settled how the whole traffic thing works together with this project, and Kevin has pretty much clarified that. Madeline Fitzgerald said so many things in the PUD were based on right -of -way and lines; Madeline asked if they would see where the right -of -way will end up. Part of the PUD is based on the right -of -way, part of it is based on section line. Are we operating on the assumption that it will be as drawn or are there specific INDOT places at this point? Are the lines in place or is it still conceptual? Bob Falk of Duke -Weeks responded to Madeline's questions. For the most part, it is defined, we have already defined total half right -of -way from the section line north of a little over 70 feet that will allow the improvements that we have shown and it also gives us "wiggle room." It is not locked in to the point that if it has to move a little, it can't do that. There is plenty of room to do what is proposed. The only exception to that is that with the currently shown configuration of the round -about shifted to the north, at this point, it is a design issue to figure out exactly where that line will hit -we are pretty close. As far as our development goes, we have defined that as part of the PUD. There may be some minor changes to it at the intersections because of the corner cuts, but I think we are about there. Paul Spranger said they needed to get into the PUD Ordinance itself, and unless anyone had any more traffic questions, they would move on to the next phase. Paul Spranger did say that he had asked the Director and the staff of DOCS as well as the Plan Commission attorney to meet with the petitioner and work through issues that the professional planning staff have on this project and any particular items on the PUD Ordinance. We are now on the 5 d generation with the staff working with the petitioner. A lot of the issues can be narrowed down before they come to this committee, and what is before the Committee is not a draft but something that has been well refined by the staff of DOCS. Prior to discussing the PUD Ordinance, Paul Spranger allowed Greg Silver, attorney for the remonstrators, to address the Committee. Greg Silver, attorney representing the Heartland Coalition, a remonstrance group of citizens and neighborhood organizations living and working in both Hamilton and Marion Counties. Mr. Silver said the formally recognized remonstrance parties have not been receiving copies of the Duke -Weeks filings of the PUD revisions and this is a violation of fairness and procedures. We supply them, as requested, with data utilized in our engineering studies, and believe that they must provide us with copies of up -dated filings in a timely manner. A detailed review of the PUD petition dated November 22, assumed to be the latest draft, reveals fundamental deviations from the August 23 project prospectus in regard to the PUD. Previous public statements and presentations provided assurances there would be no retail other than two restaurants on the outlot area. So called "accessory uses" would be small operations within the office buildings with no exterior signage. These operations were to serve only the employees of the office s:\ minutes \Committee \spst2000dec05 10 buildings. We now find that through vague language and cleverly concealed definitions, (legalese) there are loopholes big enough to drive a "Staples" truck in regards to this. We perceive this misrepresentation to be devastating to the purpose of the PUD Ordinance. For example, our calculations have verified by outside commercial experts that the petition would allow up to 92,565 square feet of accessory retail use in the separate buildings with no one knowing how many public signs could be installed to advocate people coming there from the outside. Carmel has time and time again promised there would be no public retail west of the 600 foot overlay line, but the opportunity for the public retail is in there. Were this petition approved in its present form, we would all be mislead, just like what happened at 126 Street, as reference to the "Staples" truck driving through the loophole. Mr. Silver further said if the petition were approved with the current retail option in place, all current traffic projections are really meaningless. Traffic projections have been predicated primarily upon office use, not 92,500 square feet of retail use. Members of the Commission should have serious concern as well, that there are provisions in the draft which violate the DP and Overlay Ordinances in terms of process. This petition clearly pre -empts the authority of the Commission that you are members of by providing the Director, not your Commission, with the discretion to give final approval to the DP and to approve changes and modifications to the DP (Development Plan.) Another fundamental flaw in the petition is the careful calculation suggests that the developer is double or triple counting the same square footage for setbacks, greenbelt, and road improvement takings. There is no provision for the often discussed landscape median on 96 Street which was to enhance the much touted, "park -like setting." Most glaring is the missing required greenbelt on Meridian. It is our position that the PUD petition for rezoning before the Committee this evening is deceptive and cleverly vague. If approved, the resultant intensity of use including unprecedented retail use which has not been before you in this issue before, would forever degrade the quality of life and safety in this area, and it violates the Indiana Enabling Act which specifically states that when a zoning ordinance is passed, "The legislative body shall act for the purpose of lessening, or avoiding congestion in the public ways and promoting the public health, safety, comfort, morals, convenience, and general welfare." The Heartland Coalition is not anti development, but this fundamentally flawed petition as it stands must be denied, and it must be cleaned up and there are holes in it. At this point, it is not suitable for approval. Chris Seger, Duke Weeks, said he had not yet seen Mr. Silver's comments and was unsure how to react at this time. Steve Granner, Bose, McKinney Evans, said he had talked with Mr. Silver this afternoon; Mr. Silver said he had not yet looked at the PUD. Steve Granner said there is nothing secret hidden in the PUD, and it has been reviewed by the Department. The square footage or 15% is in the Overlay Ordinance. The 15% includes the fitness center, the conference center, and other accessory uses. The Ordinance allows accessory uses and as defined, it includes the fitness center, conference center, not including the parking structure. The parking structure is defined as an Accessory structure, but is not included in the Accessory structure square footage. Accessory Use Section of the Ordinance is on s:\ minutes \Committee \spst2000dec05 11 page 2. The permitted primary uses on the site are an office use (any type) and a restaurant use. It is clear in the Ordinance that those are the only primary uses permitted. Within the three office buildings can be accessory uses including the conference center and fitness center that connect the three buildings; there could be a Deli, a news stand, a copying center, that type of thing, contained within the building. Chris Seger explained that destination, upscale restaurants are designed for the outlots. The number is limited to two, 7,500 square feet per structure, minimum of 5,000 square feet per structure. Paul Spranger then instructed the committee to go over the Ordinance, section by section. Kevin Kirby said it was important for everyone to understand that at the last meeting, the DOCS staff had been asked to go over the PUD Ordinance for technical issues. They seem to have done that and have worked with the petitioner. Steve Engelking confirmed that the Department had worked with the petitioner regarding the most recent revision before the Committee this evening. There may still be issues unresolved by the staff or issues brought to the petitioner's attention that may bear further discussion and these will be identified and clarified as the Ordinance is reviewed. Madeline Fitzgerald said she was a little confused regarding the "parent tract." Steve Granner said this has been removed as a definition, and this has been changed to read "real estate." The Committee then reviewed the Ordinance, page by page. Page 1., Pat Rice asked for clarification on Section 1.2. Terry Jones said the Department suggested to the petitioner that anything they would like to maintain static be included in this document because as the zoning ordinance, development standards would change by this body and City Council. There are some repetitive items in the Zoning Ordinance as well as this PUD Ordinance. Page 2., Terry Jones referred to permitted accessory uses and structures are not defined in the zoning ordinance currently, and they need to be defined in the PUD Ordinance so that there will be a clear understanding of what is meant, for instance, by a cafeteria, deli, coffee shop, etc. Fast Food, drive in/drive through restaurants are prohibited, and there could be a difference of opinion as to whether or not a certain type of deli is a fast food. This needs to be clearly defined now. Conference center also is not defined. Madeline Fitzgerald said the permitted uses read as if they were structures, and this needed to be clarified. Steve Engelking offered the following suggestion: A fitness center and a conference center are to be separate structures not included in a specific, major building, and the other items listed in permitted accessory uses are intended to be included in the primary structures of the office buildings. Paragraphs will be added to further clarify. s:\ minutes \Committee \spst2000dec05 12 Dave Cremeans thought this "footprint" was being presented for approval; Pat Rice said it was conceptual. Terry Jones said that if the fitness center and conference center are attached rather than separate buildings, technically there is one building. Chris Seger spoke for Duke Weeks. One of the things being looked at is whether or not the fitness center or conference center would be connected- -this is not known as yet, it may just be on the first floor of the building. This design may change and it is unsure which direction this will go. Chris Seger said he was agreeable to amending some of the PUD language to reflect some of the issues regarding the footprint of the building. Terry Jones asked the petitioner to determine now what they want to do and commit to it for the purpose of writing the PUD. Chris Seger responded that the automated teller, the cafeteria, all of these things will not be self contained buildings, they will be inside the buildings. The only thing uncertain at this time is whether or not there will be the connectors. The flexibility of the fitness center as a connector or self contained within the buildings is the only issue; everything else is within the buildings. John Molitor said the Committee is missing the point. If the development plan or conceptual development plan, as approved, shows those, then you can build it that way if the Ordinance goes through. If it does not show those, and you want to build them later on, you will have to come back for an Amendment to the Development Plan. If you think you might want to build them, leave them in there. It does not mandate that they have to build them later on -if they choose not to, just leave it blank. You are not obligated to build everything shown on the Development Plan, but you are not allowed to build anything that you don't show on the Development Plan. Steve Granner referred to the Development Plan currently on file. If this is changed within the ordinance required, it gives the Director some leeway to approve with slight modifications. If we go too far outside the envelope, it would have to go before the Plan Commission for an Amendment to the Development Plan. Steve Engelking expressed his understanding that the 15% and number of square feet that equate to the 15% of accessory use structure is inclusive of all permitted accessory usage listed as well as the two structures (15% of what Steve Granner is calling "rec area.") This is a correct characterization. Pat Rice questioned page 17 regarding the conceptual development plan (6.2A), or page 20. What is a definition of "conceptual Steve Granner suggested adding ..."as shown in Exhibit C." Madeline Fitzgerald asked if there is a total, gross square footage. Terry Jones explained that it is now defined as "rentable area as defined by National Boma requirements." Bob Falk explained that there is a "Boma" definition for rentable square footage that is typical in the real estate industry. Boma is Building Owners and Managers Association, a s:\ minutes \Committee \spst2000dec05 13 group that defines these standards; an agency for calculating square footage. It is gross floor area with penetrations removed (beams, pillars, elevator shafts.) Allen Tucker of CSO Architects explained the square footage numbers. Rentable square feet is defined as taking Boma gross, measured to the center line of glass, or 50% of the inside of the wall, minus the penetrations, which is elevators, stairs, holes in the floor- that space that is not rented to the tenant. The reason this distinction is made is that when a permit is paid for to the State, it is paid on construction area. In office buildings, we are working to the rentable space. A gross number is also published in the construction drawings and usually recorded on the permit- -there may be two different numbers -one is a rentable number, one is what the permit is paid on. Dave Cremeans wanted to know the gross square footage of the footprint of the building. Bob Falk said the gross floor area varies in a little range, but it is capped. Dave Cremeans calculated the gross as 15% of 546,000 square feet or 81,000 square feet. John Molitor said the petitioner has attempted to use an industry standard, but it is a standard between landlords and tenants. If they were going to lease this property to the City, this would be a fair way to describe it in the lease agreement, but that is not the case. The petitioner is asking the City to rezone it and should use the City's typical language which is gross square footage. Instead of using a percentage such as 15 list a gross square footage of the three principal buildings and the gross square footage of the Accessory structures, then, no one will be confused. Terry Jones asked Bob Falk to also resolve the basement issue. Is it going to be a regular basement, or is it sub surface parking? Paul Spranger said the issue is if any variations can affect setback, building heights, footprints, etc. Bob Falk said the goal was to develop this footprint so they could accommodate the 546,000 square feet. As far as exactly what is in it, there are three able footprints, but we like the flexibility that this building may be 5% bigger than another one if we get a "build to suit" user that wants a little more square footage. We are trying to limit the height and the setbacks. We have 5 to 10 feet to play with, and we work in 5 foot modules. So, we may lengthen this building by 5 to 10 feet, depending on the specifics. We need a little flexibility. Steve Granner commented that the height is now limited to 79 feet, a maximum of 5 stories, on all three buildings. Steve agreed to express square footage in gross square footage. The square footage is calculated on three, five story buildings. Madeline Fitzgerald said the vehicle service clause was contrary to the 31 Overlay Ordinance and this should not be a permitted use. (Page 2. paragraph 2.3A) s:\ minutes \Committee \spst2000dec05 14 Steve Granner responded that this is a car wash, one bay in the parking garage, for valet service. The vehicle service would include car wash and oil change, but no gas service. It is an internal use only, no external signage. Steve Granner said initially, the 10% area did not include the conference center and fitness center, and there was some confusion. It has been bumped up to 15% which is the Overlay Zone figure, and it is all inclusive. Steve Granner explained the copy center, anticipated to be on the first floor of the office building. This is not a retail store and is for the exclusive use of the tenants in the building. Maximum building height was discussed. For clarification, there is a maximum building height of 5 stories or 79 feet from the top parapet. There is a 100 foot maximum dimension to the top of the building. What drives that dimension is the necessary penthouse to screen the mechanical plus the overhead traction elevators and the cooling towers. The additional 21 feet will be specifically spelled out in the PUD Ordinance. Paul Spranger asked for a consensus on the progress. The Committee is on page 3 of the PUD Ordinance. Madeline Fitzgerald wanted to know about the parent tract. The maximum partial coverage shall be 55% is that including the outlot? Steve Granner responded in the affirmative. Pat Rice said the noise from the mechanical equipment is a concern as well as the lighting. Steve Granner suggested that there is a built -in, background noise level with the interstate, and very little will be heard from the mechanical equipment. John Molitor recommended that a sentence be added to 3.7C that states: "Mechanical equipment shall be placed on the roof in order to The goal by putting it on the roof is not to create any additional background noise beyond that which already existed on site because of the interstate highway. There was some discussion about including language that would allow a generator on the north side of the north building in order to eliminate possible noise. Kevin Kirby suggested holding a special meeting to deal with only the PUD Ordinance between now and the full Plan Commission meeting on December 19 We have several other petitioners on the Agenda for this evening, and if we could have a special meeting to focus only on the PUD, it would probably be in order, plus we would be three hours fresher! Suggestions? 11 12, or 14? Monday, Tuesday, Thursday? Dave Cremeans thought there was a Colts game on Monday. s:\ minutes \Committee \spst2000dec05 15 Bob Modisett was partial to the 12 t1i Steve Engelking said he couldn't guarantee the availability of either the Caucus Room or this room because he didn't have access to the calendar at the moment. Kevin Kirby said he could guarantee the room and would "throw them out." There was also a suggestion as to the conference in the Department of Community Services; however, the conference room is not large enough to accommodate the people. Paul Spranger said how about the 12? Kevin Kirby agreed, Tuesday the 12 th pending availability of the room. Steve Engelking wanted it understood that he could not give an exact room location at this time. Greg Silver asked if we would notify him. Dave Cremeans said "We are going to notify you right now, there's going to be a meeting...." Paul Spranger said what we are going to do is continue this part of the PUD Ordinance review as a part of the Special Study Committee meeting on December 12 at 7:00 PM with a room to be identified and posted. But, it will be in City Hall, in all probability on the second floor. Steve Engelking agreed that it would be in City Hall, (on the 12 and there would be a notice posted on the doors of City Hall letting people know of the location of the meeting. Paul Spranger asked the petitioner to incorporate tonight's agreed upon changes into another re -line draft, both the technical changes and the commitments that have been noted so far. We might as well get it as up -to -date as you can generate them and mail them out to us. Steve Granner said there is a new Exhibit C which labels the outlot area and the 620 foot dimension appears so that it is clear which is the office area and which is the office area. Steve Granner gave Greg Silver a copy of the PUD draft that was discussed this evening. Paul Spranger asked that Greg Silver work with John Myers if there were additional materials on traffic. If John Myers deems it appropriate to present, John Myers will bring it to the Committee's attention. The Parkwood Crossing West PUD Ordinance will be a single item agenda for Tuesday, December 12, 2000, at 7:00 PM on the second floor of City Hall, room location to be posted on the entry doors. The review will begin with paragraph 4.0. The petitioner will incorporate into a red -line draft the technical clean -up and commitments noted thus far. s:\ minutes \Committee \spst2000dec05 16 After a short recess, the Committee continued with the following business: Item 4. Docket No. 171 -00 ADLS Amend; West Carmel Center, Block A Walgreens Petitioner seeks approval of the sign package for a Walgreens pharmacy. The site is located at 10595 North Michigan Road. The site is zoned B -3 /Business and is located within the U.S. 421/Michigan Road Overlay Zone. Filed by Kevin D. McKasson of Glendale Partners for Walgreens Dave Coots, 255 Carmel Drive, Carmel, appeared before the Committee requesting approval of signage for Walgreens. Kevin McKasson was also present. The petitioner has appeared before the Board of Zoning Appeals and received Special Use Approval; however the signage application in terms of variances and size of sign was deferred until this Committee has an opportunity for review. Walgreens is asking for approval of three signs that state the name, "Walgreens," located on the west, north, and east sides of the building; they are each 33.5 square feet in size. The next signs being requested for approval are two pharmacy signs located on the west side of the building and the north side of the building; these signs are 19.2 square feet in size. The next signs are those that say "one hour photo" located on the archways; these signs are 21 square feet in size. There are two drive through signs that are directional, however they are building mounted, each 12.6 square feet in size; an exit sign, 2.1 square feet, located on the north side of the building; and finally, a monument ground sign, 13.48 square feet located on the site plan at the corner of 106 and Michigan Road. All of the signs are red, plexiglass and the return, instead of anodized bronze, would be white border. The variances are occasioned, in part, by the Special Use and B -3 Zone classification of this property. At the last meeting, it was appropriately stated that the B- 3 zone limits signage size to 10 square feet per use. If this were any other zone, the petitioner would be permitted 165 square feet of signage. The petitioner is requesting 216.5 square feet of signage. The photograph does not depict the additional dryvit added to the top line of the building; likewise, the rendering does not include the additional six inches of dryvit that was approved by the Plan Commission increasing it from 18 inches to 24 inches. Steve Engelking confirmed that within the B -3 District, ten square feet, one sign, is all that is authorized, and that was done by design when the B -3 Ordinance was crafted. Any signage in excess of that would have to appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals for approval. However, the Plan Commission has asked that the signage be resolved to some level of satisfaction as an ADLS matter before appearing before the BZA. The Department's position on signage is as follows: the signs depicting the word "Walgreens" should be limited to no greater than two signs. They could have either one on two facades that would face 106 Street and 421, or one ground sign and one facade sign that would comprise the two signs. Regarding the one, drive through pharmacy, the Department recommends no additional pharmacy signs and no one -hour photo signs. s:\ minutes \Committee \spst2000dec05 17 Terry Jones commented that upon reviewing the architectural amendments and the signage, there have been site changes that have basically modified landscaping issues from the original, approved plans. Terry said the handicap ramp from the project to the south Wendy's) to Walgreens needs to be extended. Also, the island that separates the two parking areas is not shown on Walgreens plan. The sidewalk off of the south side from the entrance on 421 needs to connect to the asphalt path on the State's plans. Likewise, an asphalt path needs to be installed around the perimeter border between their property and 106 Street that would also connect with the pathway along 421. Terry further commented that when this was initially rezoned, there may have been permits obtained from the State Highway for a right in/right -out service north of the shared entrance for Walgreens and Wendy's, and this is still on the plans on file. This should be eliminated if this is not going to be utilized. That curb cut is to be vacated or eliminated in lieu of the one actually to be used. On the south side of the building, there are compactors that are to be screened required by Ordinance -and the Department should be furnished with the details of that screening and what the gates will look like. Dave Coots responded that there is brick screening around the compactors, and the detail will be added to the drawing. Terry asked for a drawing showing the entire site, Wendy's, Walgreens, and any other areas being developed, because the plan has changed. Apparently, a great deal of the landscaping does not conform with the landscaping does not conform with the project that was approved in 1999. Terry distributed a memo from Scott Brewer, Urban Forester, which says that the landscaping does not conform to the 421 Overlay requirements. The plan that was approved also did not meet the 421 Overlay requirements, however, it was an approved plan and the petitioner had a right to develop the approved plan. If the petitioner makes changes to the approved plan, it is a "new ballgame" and the changes must be submitted. Dave Coots said he had only received the letter from Scott Brewer this morning and had not had time to review the original, approved plan, what was installed thus far, and what additional material can be installed. The issue this evening is to resolve the signage. Mr. Coots recommended a solution for landscape differences -the petitioner will meet with the Urban Forester. If the landscape plan is different from the 1999 approved plan, the petitioner will return to the full Plan Commission with an amended landscape plan. Terry Jones said the Overlay Requirements have been in effect for almost two years. The requests are not beyond the Ordinance, even though Mr. Coots may have only received the letter this morning. The Department is saying that this must meet the 421 Overlay Zone Requirements, nothing less. The petitioner has three options, meet the overlay requirements, meet the approved plans, or request a variance. Mr. Coots said it would seem that the petitioner either comply with the plan that was approved in 1999; if that cannot be done to the plant, the petitioner must comply with the 421 Overlay to the plant, or seek a variance. s:\ minutes \Committee \spst2000dec05 18 Terry reiterated that the petitioner will also need to amend a previously approved ADLS package. Dave Cremeans suggested that the Committee could move forward by: approving the sign package with one exception, (the two signs that say Walgreens, one sign that says drive thru pharmacy) and have the sign replicate the same that was brought in and not have a white return but a bronze return. Further, put the landscaping burden back on the Urban Forester and have it match the Ordinance -that is why the Ordinance exists in the first place, and I don't think we should entertain variances in the first place. Terry said it was further complicated by the fact that a certificate of occupancy cannot be issued until the landscape meets the plan or meets the Ordinance. They are 85% completed at this point and will probably soon have a grand opening. Kevin Kirby commented that it is the petitioner's responsibility to meet either what they said they would do, or what the Ordinance says to do. It is the Urban Forester's responsibility to see if it matches, but not for the Forester to work out. The petitioner should meet the Ordinance, meet the approved plan, or ask for a variance. Kevin Kirby moved for the approval of Docket No. 171 -00 ADLS Amend, West Carmel Center, Block A Walgreens, conditioned upon two Walgreens signs, one drive -thru pharmacy sign, and the bronze return rather than white being utilized on the red sign. Seconded by Madeline Fitzgerald. The vote was 6 in favor none opposed. APPROVED Item 5. Docket No. 172 -00 ADLS Amend, West Carmel Center, Block A Wendy's Petitioner seeks approval of the sign package for a Wendy's fast food restaurant and seeks approval to alter the architectural package approved for the strcture as part of Docket No. 47 -99 DP /ADLS. The site is located at 10585 North Michigan Road. The site is zoned 13-3 /13usiness and is located within the US 421/Michigan Road Overlay Zone. Filed by Kevin D. McKasson of Glendale Partners for Walgreens Wendy's). Dave Coots appeared before the Committee representing Wendy's. The petitioner has filed an amended, architectural plan, a sign approval package, and the landscaping plan. John Thaxton, Real Estate Director for Trident Foods, Wendy's franchisee) appeared before the Committee. Mr. Thaxton stated that architecturally, the petitioner has tried to comply with the Overlay Zone and existing structures in the 106 and Michigan Road area. The building is a standard Wendy's interior footprint with exterior elevation changes. The renderings are a fair representation. Terry Jones commented that the plat that was approved in 1999 for the entire site shows as having been recorded this year. The recorder's office shows a property line located in the middle of a previous, 30 foot wide easement. Terry asked Dave Coots if in fact the property has been divided. s:\ minutes \Committee \spst2000decO5 19 Dave Coots said he did not know whether the property is held in common ownership and merely tracts surveyed out for purposes of legal description for ultimately conveying. Terry Jones note that if the property has already been subdivided, it will be required to be a Subdivision and permits will be difficult to be issued. Dave Coots and John Thaxton both agreed that a transfer of ownership has not occurred. In responses to whether or not the property has been subdivided, Mr. Thaxton said the property has been surveyed for purposes of creating a..... Terry asked if it had been divided because it is showing up at the assessor's office as two separate parcels. Mr. Thaxton was not sure why the property would be showing as separate parcels. The property was surveyed for purposes of laying out a civil design. Dave Coots stated that the real estate has not been divided off- -it is all under the common ownership of Glendale Partners or Kevin McKasson's group. It could not be separately described and recorded without a transfer of ownership. Kevin McKasson addressed the Committee and stated that the parcel is all under common ownership; it may have been divided for a leasehold interest that is now held by Walgreens, but Glendale Properties owns the property, they leased the property to Walgreens, and it is all under one ownership. Terry Jones said the petitioner could own more than one parcel, separately described and recorded as such, but this could come under the Subdivision definition. Mr. McKasson reiterated that the property is all under one ownership; they are leasing a portion of the property to Walgreens. There is no reason why it should be in the Recorder's office as a separate listing, but it is all one parcel, one ownership, and has not been subdivided. John Thaxton said that Trident likes to record a least a Memorandum of Lease to describe the property on the site they are leasing. Perhaps this was split into two parcels without a specific request from the land owner. It is basically a leasehold. As far as the site plan is concerned, a 30 foot perimeter greenbelt is required with a 6 foot perimeter additional landscape barrier as shown on the plat. The site plan only shows 35 feet. The Department is recommending that the petitioner reduce the aisle between the parking lots to 24 feet and move the curbing and parking area to meet the 36 foot requirement off US 421. Dumpster detail is requested that would show screening and how it will look. From the drawings, it is not possible to tell if the entire site will be s:\ minutes \Committee \spst2000decO5 20 curbed -it must be curbed. All interior drives and the internal part of the circle must be curbed as well. The merchandiser menu board is not allowed by Ordinance, and it must be removed. The Department is requesting drawings and detail for accel/decel lanes. The lighting plan that was submitted does not accurately describe the boundaries. The boundaries shown do not meet the lighting requirements; therefore, a new lighting plan is being requested that will correctly identify the boundaries and the light dimensions. In regard to the structure, the south elevation has a gap between the top of the roof above "Wendy's." Either the roofing needs to extend further up or down, so that this is completely screened and there is no void or gap. The Ordinance does not allow the gap. Also, the building does not appear to be a one and one -half story. From an architectural standpoint, the 421 Overlay requires one and one -half stories. Terry Jones suggested that false windows be added, some "EFIS" material, something that will give the building a one and one -half /two story appearance. Also, the landscaping is deficient, according to the Urban Forester on staff. Laurence Lillig said the height of the building is sufficient for 1 1 /2 story, however, there is no architectural detail to give the appearance of 1 1 /2 story such as windows, dormers, etc. Leo Dierckman recommended that the petitioner return to the Committee the following month for more work. Docket No. 172 -00 ADLS Amend, Wet Carmel Center, Block A Wendy's, will return to the Committee in January. Item 6. Docket No. 190 -00 ADLS Amend, First Merchants Bank Petitioner seeks ADLS Amendment approval for an additional sign on the Marsh Supermarket building originally approved as Docket NO. 21 -97 DP /ADLS. The site is located northeast of the intersection of West 106 Street and Michigan Road. The site is zoned B -2 /Business and is located within the U.S. 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by Todd L. Ruetz of Campbell Kyle Proffitt for First Merchants Bank. Todd Reutz, Campbell Kyle Proffitt, appeared before the Committee requesting a simple sign on the west wall of the Marsh building at 106 Michigan Road, similar to the existing sign on the Marsh building at Merchants Plaza, 116 Street Keystone. Currently, the west wall of the Marsh building on 421 has no permanent sign on the wall. The proposed sign will recite "First Merchants Bank," and will be internally illuminated. The sign color will be white with bronze trim cap and teal emblem; the returns are also bronze. s:\ minutes \Committee \spst2000dec05 21 Laurence Lillig commented that there is currently an illegal banner displayed at this site that must be removed immediately. The proposed First Merchants Bank sign is intended to meet the 421 requirement of the freeway chart and the signage is acceptable to the Department. Dave Cremeans noted that the picture depicts the sign on a brick wall; Mr. Cremeans would rather the wall be brick. The wall is a source of irritation and the Commission would rather have had a brick wall. Mr. Ruetz could not make that commitment. Kevin Kirby moved for the approval of Docket No. 190 -00 ADLS Amend, First Merchants Bank, seconded by Leo Dierckman. APPROVED 5 in favor none opposed. There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 PM. Paul Spranger, Chairperson Ramona Hancock, Secretary s:A minutes \Committee \spst2000dec05 22