Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes SpecStdy 02-22-00 SpecialCARMEL \CLAY PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDY COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2000 Members Present: Leo Dierckman, Madeline Fitzgerald, Kevin Kirby, Bob Modisett, James T. O'Neal, Pat Rice, and Paul Spranger. Dave Cremeans attended as an ex -officio member. Present on behalf of DOCS: Steve Engelking, Terry Jones, and Laurance Lillig. SPECIAL STUDY CONIlMTTEE considered the following item: 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. This item was continued from the January 4, 2000, and the February 1, 2000, Special Study Committee meetings in order to allow the Committee more time for a thorough review of the proposed PUD Ordinance. Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for Kite Realty. Present for Petitioner: Paul G. Reis, attorney, Reis Law Firm, 12358 Hancock Street, Carmel; Paul Kite, Kite Development. The Committee continued to review the proposed PUD Ordinance, section by section. Concerns expressed at last meeting regarding the south facade of the second building. South and east sides now incorporate glass to give it more the appearance of an office building; Lowe's building is still the same. No signage package is being brought forth at this time. It is anticipated that signage will be pursuant to the Ordinance. The Lighting package has already been submitted to the Department. Terry Jones said he has had discussions with the petitioner regarding the signage. The building qualifies under two different areasa multi- tenant ground floor building, and a multi- tenant building complex. This could fall into either one of those areas. You could consider the two buildings as a working unit, or separate the two. The Department suggested that the petitioner work with the Plan Commission and determine how this should be defined. Kevin Kirby wanted to stipulate that the sign package be treated as an amendment to the PUD; Terry Jones said that may require going through the entire process again —Plan Commission and Council. Laurance Lillig went over the requirements for considering each building separately. Multi- tenant, ground floor, S:/P1anCommission/Minutes /Committee Minutes/ SpecialStudiesSpecMtg2000 /feb22 each tenant would be allowed signage on the building. The problem both buildings will have is that signs are not allowed on a building that does not have street frontage. The currently proposed Lowe's sign would require a variance because it is on the side of the building not facing a right of way. Multi- tenant /multi building complex can be considered together, but then a directory sign would apply and signage would not be allowed on the buildings. Since these buildings face US31/431, the signs are under the freeway chart of the Ordinance and more liberal. Laurance Lillig further commented that the Ordinance is already set up for ADLS and the petitioner is planning to go through the process. The simplest way to deal with the signage is for the Sign Section of the PUD Ordinance to be exempt from sign requirements —the sign could go on the south side of both the north and the south building. Secondly, it should specify which section of the Ordinance will be applied to the building; thirdly, it will comply with whatever sign ADLS is approved. It would not necessarily be an amendment to the Ordinance to change the package, it would be a simple ADLS Amendment instead. Paul Reis displayed an exhibit showing that the wall is now outside the right -of -way for the ramp system. There will be the wall, then the landscaping strip that will break up the subdivision—it is called simply an entrance drive, no longer termed a public street. The highway frontage has not been changed, but it basically cleaned it up and shows how Greyhound Pass extension will be filtered into the ramp system. The landscaping will be in two phases and factored in with the construction of the road. The petitioner will install landscaping at the time the Lowe's store is constructed. There are perimeter plantings on the east and west side of the Lowe's store. When the second building is started with the construction of the road, the petitioner will put in the second landscaping phase. The landscaping will be coordinated with the utility installation of the second building as well as the road construction. The median shown is only 5 feet and the trees will not grow in the narrow island, therefore the petitioner is proposing to install shrubbery instead. There is a 10 foot planting strip that will remain on the property —not within State right -of -way— irrigated and maintained privately. The petitioner does not plan to install perimeter fencing; however, the State probably will plan for that. The plans show a sidewalk along Greyhound Pass —there will also be a crosswalk at the light. The dock area of Lowe's will not be fully visible, although you may be able to see the front of a truck or a false wall. The brick will match the cart corrals and be consistent with building materials. Regarding Section 2, there was some concern with the interpretation and some of the uses contained within the Lowe's store itself. Permitted, primary uses were discussed as well as excluded, primary uses. The use of the term "primary uses" is for clarification purposes. The Committee had no problem with a fast food restaurant such as McDonald's inside the Lowe's building but did not want a free standing restaurant with a drive -thru window. The initial use for the north building will be a single tenant; there will be one or two additional sections that state if there is a re -use of the site where the north building is located, the re -use will be governed by sub sections B and C. The underlying zoning is B -2; however there is not a good definition as to what an accessory building really is; we have attempted to say that an accessory building must have the same architectural features. It would not be possible to put in any kind of kiosk or retail because it would be subject to the limitations of space. There S:/P1anCommission/Minutes /Committee Minutes/ SpecialStudiesSpecMtg2000 /feb22 2 are no accessory buildings anticipated at this time. Parking: What is proposed is consistent with the Overlay, although the use is being reviewed for retail. If the site plan is changed, we would have to start over. Maybe we should plan for two uses on a percentage basis one retail and one for office use. The greenbelt will be installed along the new on ramp. The landscaping is to be installed prior to a final certificate of occupancy by the Dept. Based on weather conditions, if it is not possible to install all of the landscaping by the due date, the petitioner will post a bond prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. Page 6, Section 1 I there was concern with stacking of merchandise within the garden center area. Any stacking of merchandise will not be higher than the exterior wall. Any lumber stacked? (No, not for any appreciable amount of time.) Anything stacked in the porch -ways of the entrance to the store outside, un- enclosed areas, parking lot? (No—nothing allowed outside the building) There were questions regarding the maintenance of the ponds—maintenance of the ponds is covered at the top of page 5 of the proposed PUD. The Committee will also be reviewing the Sign provisions that will be incorporated into the PUD Ordinance, i.e. standards such as colors, lighting, and sizes. Paul Reis said there will be no actual signs to look at, but rather design standards for the signage. The Petitioner will meet with the County, since there are some issues outstanding. Tab 11 of the Info Packets contains the commitments tendered. The Committee is asked to review the commitments prior to the next meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 PM Paul Spranger, Chairperson Ramona Hancock, Secretary S:/P1anCommission/Minutes /Committee Minutes/ SpecialStudiesSpecMtg2000 /feb22