Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 12-18-07C ity of arme �NWON CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2007 Minutes The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel Plan Commission met at 6:00 PM, December 18, 2007 in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Members present: Leo Dierckman, Jay Dorman, (late arrival) Wayne Haney, Kevin Heber, Rick Ripma, Carol Schleif, Eric Seidensticker, Steve Stromquist, thereby establishing a quorum. The Minutes of the November 20, 2007 meeting were discussed. Carol Schleif wanted to expand her comments in the Old Town survey discussion. The language will be included in the Minutes. The Minutes will be voted on at the January 22, 2008 meeting. DOCS Staff Present: Mike Hollibaugh, Director, Angie Conn, Rachel Boone. John Molitor, Legal Counsel was also present. Legal Counsel Report, John Molitor: John introduced Libby Farley who was in the audience. She is the Secretary for the Plan Commission and some other Boards in the City of Dublin, Ohio. Department Report, Angie Conn: The CRC has requested that the WestClay Economic Development Plan Resolution be Tabled until next month. Two items had been Tabled: Lakeland Subdivision Items 6 -9H and Wellsprings Items 6 -8I. The petitioner in each instance will be working further with the Department of Engineering for road improvements. Agenda Items G. Reports, Announcements, Department Concerns 1G. TABLED to Jan. 22: WestClay Economic Development Plan Resolution By: Michael Shaver; Wabash Scientific, Inc. H. Public Hearings 1 -5H. Docket No. 07100032 PP: Woodhall Subdivision The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 9 lots on 11.58 acres. Also, subdivision waivers requested are: Docket No. 07100033 SW SCO 6.03.20 private street Docket No. 07100034 SW SCO 6.03.03 6.04.04 stub streets to adjacent parcels Docket No. 07100035 SW SCO 6 .03.07 cul -de -sac length exceeds 600 -ft Docket No. 07100036 SW SCO 6.03.26.4 gate location no bus pickup area S: /P1anCommission /Minutes /PC2007 /2007dec18 The site is located on 106' St. east of Towne Rd. and is zoned S -1 /Residence. Filed by Joe Calderon of Bose McKinney Evans, LLP. Paul Reis, attorney, Bose McKinney Evans appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. JBC 1 LLC. Also present: Jeff Cohen and Mark Zuckerman of JBC 1 LLC. The proposed subdivision is located on 106 Street just west of the Windemere Subdivision and just east of the intersection of Towne Road and 106 Street. This will be a very high -end nine lot single family residential subdivision on 11.5 acres of land. The proposed subdivision incorporates significant common area and open space with the preservation of over two acres of woodlands. This subdivision has been designed and will target primarily older homeowners. It will be for people who either travel and are not home or go south for the winter. It will not be the typical Carmel subdivision. A site design was shown. The site is quite narrow when the preservation area is considered. The existing trees will be preserved, thereby decreasing the width of the subdivision significantly. The Board of Zoning Appeals approved variances to reduce the front setback line and also the aggregate side yard setback. These homes and lots will be low or no maintenance and will be targeted to older homeowners. The proposed subdivision will incorporate a private street from 106 Street. It will be a gated community. It meets all the requirements for a gated community and private street with the exception of a school bus pick -up area. Since the intended purchasers will be older, it is not anticipated there will be school -age children in the subdivision. However, it has been designed that if necessary there will be an entry house and the school buses can come in and circle back out for a school bus pick -up. A site plan was shown indicating the common areas and tree preservation areas. The first subdivision waiver is for a private street. This small subdivision will not have any through traffic. This will have no impact or affect on the adjacent properties. The street will meet all the requirements for the Subdivision Ordinance for construction, maintenance and financial standards to allow for this waiver. The second waiver is for development of the subdivision without a stub street to boundary line. There is a cul -de -sac rather than stubbing it at the property line. This was done for the design of this site and also adjacent property is not in need of any access. This will make it a more intimate private subdivision with no impact on any of the adjacent properties. The third waiver is the cul -de -sac length. It is approximately 1250 feet. The allowance under the Subdivision Control Ordinance is 600 feet. The dimensions of the parcel do not provide enough space to provide more than one street. The landscape plan is being finalized and should be distributed to Scott later in the week. Hopefully they will have his review and approval before the Committee meets. Initially the entrance drive was in the middle with lakes on both sides. After review, it was agreed the entrance would be better on the east of the parcel to improve the site line along 106 Street. The street has been designed to accommodate the fire trucks and the school buses. The development of the lots with regard to drainage easements will be coordinated with the County Surveyor's Office at the time of the development of the lots near the pond because the driveways will be going across the drainage easement. This area of the township is still within the County's jurisdiction. At that time they will discuss any encroachment issues with the Surveyor's Office and the Drainage Board. These are not production homes. They will be very high -end custom homes, so the design standards will be more than adequate for the committee to review. They will also have a diagram at the committee meeting to show that the street design will accommodate full- S: /PlanCommission /Minutes /PC2007 /2007dec 18 2 size trucks and fire trucks. There is no subdivision monument sign contemplated at this time. There will be a 6 -foot stone wall along 106 Street that will be discussed with the committee. Finally, the covenants and restrictions will be prepared consistent following the review and approval of this project by the Plan Commission. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition. Remonstrance/Unfavorable: Charles Myers, 10452 High Grove, lot 39 in Windemere. He was concerned about the problems with drainage along the west side of the property, known as Common Area C. The Altum property that borders this parcel to the south stands in water every time it rains. He saw provisions for moving water into the retention pond for lots 1 through 4. But he was concerned about lots 5 through 9 adding to the wet backyard they have along Windemere. His other concern was the sidewalk that terminates at a creek. He has three young children that ride from Windemere to 106 but they don't have to traverse a creek. It might be prudent to extend the sidewalk to traverse the creek for pedestrian and non motorized traffic. The Public Hearing was closed. Rebuttal: Paul Reis stated the drainage was a TAC issue. The water will be contained on -site. He did not have an engineer with him at the meeting. He did not know how much water on this property drains onto the Altum property to the south. The drainage calculations will be reviewed by the County Surveyor and he will sign off on the project. The sidewalk at the end of the creek is Nick Kestner's property and is off -site for this subdivision. When this area comes into the City, perhaps the sidewalk could be extended so that people can get over to Towne Road. Department Comments, Angie Conn: The Staff recommended sending this item to the January 8, 2008 Subdivision Committee meeting. Eric Seidensticker was curious as to why the applicant offered to go ahead and make a space available for the school bus pick -up, but wasn't interested in committing to it at this time because they are high priced homes. However, there is no way of controlling that. Paul Reis stated it is not a legally restricted neighborhood. One of the requirements is a school bus pick -up area and that is why they asked for the waiver. If there are young children in the subdivision, an area will be made available for the bus pick -up. However, they do not anticipate young children in this area. Carol Schleif asked for a sample set of covenants to be made available before the next meeting for review. Steve Stromquist asked if the street was going to be built to City standards. He knew the length was an issue, but were the width and curbs to City standards. S: /P1anCommission /Minutes /PC2007 /2007dec 18 Mark Zukerman, 9011 N. Meridian Street, Indianapolis. The waiver is only for the cul -de -sac length. The cross section and width of the road would be built to the City's standards. Carol Schleif wondered if the drainage issues on the Windemere side would be addressed at TAC. Having been the HOA president for six years, it is a real problem. This might be a chance to look at it at TAC and solve two problems. Leo Dierckman stated the petitioner was responsible for their drainage and Windemere was responsible for theirs. Paul Reis stated the problem with the water was they did not know where the water comes from that goes onto the Altum property. The petitioner is required to address any impervious surface and drainage on their land. Mark Zukerman said he did know how the property drains. The northern four acres goes north now, to the creek through the little bottleneck. The southern eight acres go south toward Altura's across their property through an old farm tile. He did not feel they were picking up any water from Windemere because there is a two acre wooded preserved area that is thriving. It wouldn't be if the water was coming across it from the Windemere property. The eight acres that drains to the south will drain into the pond in the southern end of the subdivision. They will work with the County Surveyor to take that water back to the north underground through a pipe from the pond into the creek that runs through the rest of the County. He did not think they were picking up any water from Windemere. Everything else goes to the south. They will work through these issues at TAC. Docket No. 07100032 PP Woodhall Subdivision, 106 Street east of Towne Road was forwarded to the Subdivision Committee for further review on January 8, 2008 at 6:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. 6 -9H. TABLED to JAN 22: Docket No. 06090037 PP: Lakeland Subdivision The appheant seeks primary plat approval for- 5 lots an 10 aer-es. The appheani also seeks the following Doeket No. 0707005 �r,.z SCO 8.09 sidew on b sides of street D oeket No. 07070056 S �stul street to adjaeent- paree.3 Doeke N 07071 057 SW SCO 6.03.07 eul de sne length The is leeated 12650 Clay Read ,,,1 is zoned SI/Residenee. Filed b I. Old Business 1 -3I. Docket No. 07070040 PP: Chesterton Woods Subdivision The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 14 lots on 9 acres and also seeks the following subdivision waiver approvals: Docket No. 07070042 SW SCO Chapter 6.03.15 street curvature radius Docket No. 07070043 SW SCO Chapter 7.05.07 percent of woodland clearing The site is located at 2405 E 99"' Street, near Haverstick Rd. and is zoned S- 2 /Residence- ROSO. Filed by Matt Skelton of Baker Daniels LLP for 56"' Development, LLC. S: /PlanCommission /Minutes /PC2007 /2007dec 18 4 Matt Skelton, attorney, Baker Daniels appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Also present from 56 Street Development were Rick Huffinan and Mark Humphrey. Judd Scott their consulting arborist from Vine and Branch and Tom Williams their project engineer from Sea Group were in the audience. They had worked closely with the Subdivision Committee over the last several months and also with Scott Brewer, the Urban Forester. There were two primary items that were discussed at length at the committee level. One was the drainage for this development. He was happy to announce that 56 Street Development, LLC, Gershman Brown Associates, Steve Pittman with Pittman Partners, Carmel Engineering Department, Fred Glaser and Luci Snyder had all been working together to try to solve the bigger problem of drainage in the Chesterton Woods area. That is to be continued, but it is being worked on. The other primary item was the significant amount of trees on the property. The petitioner has worked closely with Mr. Brewer to try to design this plan to preserve as many trees as possible and still develop the property. There have been a few improvements made since the last committee meeting. They will be able to add some more tree preservation area in response to Judd Scott's suggestions. Mr. Brewer has received and reviewed the plan. Virtually every part of this property that does not have to be either paved, set aside in easement or has water stored periodically or has a house on it, is tree preservation area. They think it is probably the highest proportion of tree preservation of any project. Subdivision Report, Rick Ripma: The Committee spent a lot of time on the tree preservation. That was one of the biggest issues. At the Committee's request the petitioner did a tree analysis. They moved paths and did a lot of things to try to save as many trees as possible. They worked on the drainage which is more of a whole area problem. They are continuing to work on that. The Committee voted 5 -0 to forward this item with a positive recommendation. Jay Dorman asked about the new information the petitioner had submitted to Scott Brewer. Are the final tree preservation plans finalized or are they still working those out? The Department of Engineering stated no construction or secondary plat approval will occur without a drainage outlet. How does that encumber the petitioner from doing anything on this property? Angie Conn stated she spoke with the Urban Forester right before this meeting. He indicated that he could now approve the plan and they have worked out all their issues. Matt Skelton stated the Urban Forester's only remaining question to them was the treatment of one area (indicated on the map). They had a dialogue on how they were going to trench the area for the drain tile that will be installed. That was the extent of his concerns. They are planning to use a mini excavator to do that. As far as the Engineering Department's request that no further approvals be granted without a plan in place, the problem was not having a system ready to hook into. It is very likely they would be seeking their secondary plat approval at the same time improvements are being made to the system. The idea was there would be some kind of adopted unified plan to treat the drainage not necessarily having an outlet sitting there available. Jay Dorman said he would be more in favor if he saw the word "plan' in the notes before him. Matt Skelton did not feel it was important to address that here. If they have an issue, it is going to S: /P1anCommission /Minutes /PC2007/2007dec18 5 come up when they go through the secondary plat approval. Rick Ripma said he had left one thing out of the report that might be important. One of the things they agreed to do that is fairly unique is to have a registered consulting arborist available as they place homes on the sites. That will help save as many trees as possible by moving those trees around and placing them in the correct position. Wayne Haney commented that some of the large trees may not be in the tree preservation area once they site the homes. All the large trees that could be saved should be. Now that you say they will have an arborist, it should be taken care of. Carol Schleif made formal motion to approve Docket Nos. 07070040 PP, 07070042 SW, and 07070043 SW Chesterton Woods Subdivision with the condition no construction or secondary plat approval will not occur without drainage outlet as per the Engineering Department, seconded by Eric Seidensticker, Approved 8 -0. 4I. Docket No. 07070058 PP: The Legacy (Residential Phase 1) The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 126 lots on 83.34 acres. The site is located at the 6600 block of E. 146"' St. and is zoned PUD /Planned Unit Development. Filed by Ed Fleming of Stoeppelwerth Assoc. for Platinum Properties, LLC Steve Pitman, Pittman Partners appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. This Primary Plat is for the custom section of the PUD. Their PUD for 413 acres with commitments was approved in January. This Primary Plat meets all the conditions of the PUD. They received positive recommendation from the Subdivision Committee several months ago, with the condition not to come to the full Plan Commission until they had an approved curb cut from the Hamilton County Highway Department. Normally the Commission would not request that because the curb cut would come from Carmel. But since this curb cut is controlled by the Hamilton County Highway Department, the curb cut approval was requested. They just received that approval last month. Subdivision Report, Rick Ripma: There were several issues that were all taken care of, the square cul -de -sacs, how the houses sat as they came to the main arteries. The Committee voted 5 -0 to forward this item with a positive recommendation. Department Comments, Angie Conn: The Department recommended the item be approved. Jay Dorman said they had also discussed construction traffic at Committee; trying to mitigate it from going to the west through the developed neighborhood. The petitioner made a commitment to move the traffic to the east through a construction road. Steve Pittman did not recall what they discussed. The PUD does require they put up construction traffic signage. Nick Churchill with Pittman Partners. During the PUD Ordinance approval process, they made supplementary commitments. One of those was the posting of construction signage at all exits where they tie into existing neighborhoods. Basically that would prevent heavy truck traffic from entering S: /P1anCommission /Minutes /PC2007 /2007dec 18 6 those neighborhoods. Dry wallers and typical pickup truck type sub contractors would not be prohibited. Also there is an ordinance that prevents them from heading south on River Road. All of that traffic would be channeled north to 146 Street. Any place they have an intersection with River Road, they will be forcing that construction traffic north on River Road and not south through existing neighborhoods. Jay Dorman thought the Committee notes should be reviewed. He remembered a construction road being discussed. Steve Pittman asked about that request. Rick Ripma said they were going to bring a road up from River Road through where a subdivision will be at some point. It wasn't actually going to be a road, but gravel or something to get the construction traffic back into the section of the subdivision to keep the construction traffic off River Road. Jay Dorman stated it would be another outlet for any trucks moving dirt and large vehicles, other than a guy in a pickup truck. That would be another outlet for construction traffic to force it to the east and north on River Road to keep it away from Cherry Tree neighborhood. Nick Churchill said it was an issue of timing. They were not sure their main east /west boulevard would be fully built by the time they get into their final phase at the southern most portion of the plat. In event that was to be the case, they were to provide some sort of construction access in lieu of the infrastructure all the way to River Road. Jay Dorman stated that was correct because this particular phase will not be far enough to the south. Leo Dierckman asked if this was the further -most western piece. Steve Pittman confirmed that it was, and Phase 1 would be the northern third of the site; they won't develop at all in one section. Jay Dorman asked when they would get to construction that would come through Cherry Creek that would be when the extra outlet would be needed. Leo Dierckman asked if they already had a lot of infrastructure in place on the eastern part. It seemed like some of the main boulevard was there. Steve Pittman confirmed they have done a lot of the main infrastructure from 146 Street. But they do not have any of the roads in yet. A lot of this will be how the market plays out as to how this will be developed. Steve Stromquist did recall a discussion about signage in the PUD. Was that just about construction traffic? The biggest concern was truck traffic coming south on Hazel Dell and cutting through the neighborhoods. S: /P1anCommission /Minutes /PC2007 /2007dec 18 7 Steve Pittman stated the PUD really ties everything down and they have followed that. Mr. Dierckman said they would not want to go through the neighborhood because they would have to clean their tires before they go through. There is a wash station. They will go out 146 Street where the County has control. Rick Ripma made formal motion to approve Docket No. 07070058 PP, The Legacy (Residential Phase 1), seconded by Jay Dorman, Approved 8 -0. 5I. Docket No. 07070010 PP: Trillium The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 57 residential lots on 32.447 acres. The site is located at 2555 W 131S St. and is zoned S -2 /Residence -ROSO. Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Assoc, Inc. Pete Adams, Adams and Marshall Homes, appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Also present was Gordon Krietz of Stoeppelwerth Associates. He thought they had met or exceeded all the requirements of the Ordinance and the Staff. Subdivision Report, Rick Ripma: They had gone through 3 or 4 Subdivision Committee meetings. They had gone through everything. They had some additional drawings of roads and how they connected into the communities, particularly to the east. They had looked at the landscape plans and spent a lot of time on landscaping and where they felt additional landscaping was needed. The Committee voted 5 -0 to forward this item with a positive recommendation. Department Comments, Angie Conn: The Department recommended the Commission approve this item. She also pointed out that at the committee level there was discussion for a commitment for the minim base design of the garage doors. Leo Dierckman asked if they would make the commitment for the garage doors. Pete Adams confirmed the commitment. Rick Ripma thought a drawing of the doors was supposed to be included. Pete Adams said the drawing was submitted. At the meeting he thought they clarified the doors. People got confused over the door on the two -story house. What was said was that it was representative of what would be used. Actually they made the commitment that would be the door they would be using. Carol Schleif made formal motion to approve Docket No. 07070010 PP, Trillium, seconded by Steve Stromquist, Approved 8 -0. 6 -8I. TABLED to JAN 22: Docket No. 07080031 PP: Wellsprings of West Clay The appliean4 seeks primary plat appr-eval for- 11 lots an 14.3 aer-es. Also, subdivisio 4-ue are: Doek N o. 07080032 SW SCO 6 05 0 7 ho roes -Bing an-ar eolleetor road— Doeket No. 07080033 SW S O 6.0 07 eul-de -sac— length S:/ P1anCommission /Minutes/PC2007 /2007dec 18 8 9 -11I. Docket No. 07080036 PP: Rosado Hill The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 3 lots on 9.05 acres. Also, subdivision waivers requested are: Docket No. 07080038 SW SCO 6.05.01 all lots shall abut a public right of way Docket No. 07080039 SW SCO 6.05.07 6.03.19 homes must face a parkway /arterial road The site is located at the southeast corner of 106"' St. Spring Mill Rd. and is zoned S- 2 /Residence. Filed by Joseph Scimia of Baker Daniels, LLP. Joseph Scimia, attorney, Baker Daniels appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. After several meetings with the Subdivision Committee, they had resolved all issues. Staff Report indicates all matters with DOCS have been satisfied. Also they have the approval of the Urban Forester. He believed there was a letter as well as an email in the file from the County Surveyor and County Highway Department that all issues with them have been resolved. The only change that has occurred since they submitted the original plat was they had withdrawn the request for waiver of sidewalks. There was a question as to why there were four homes shown on the plat. After they were done with the plat and the additional right -of -way was given on 116 Street, as well as the drainage easement along 116 Street, it became clear to the property owner that he may want to re- orient the house so that it backs up to the large tree preservation area along Springmill. Lot one is showing two alternative house placements. His guess was that the one on the left would be the one pursued. The concern was that once everyone does their thing, there would no longer be the wonderful treed area in the backyard. He thought the owner was going to relocate the house to the left orientation to back up to Springmill as opposed to 106 Street. Subdivision Report, Rick Ripma: The Committee spent a lot of time on this one. It came down to the sidewalks and they agreed to put the sidewalks in. The Committee voted 5 -0 to forward this item with a positive recommendation. Department Comments, Angie Conn: All issues have been resolved and the Department recommended the Commission approve these items. Jay Dorman stated that on the notes it refers to greater details during the secondary plat for landscaping. What seems to be missing that Scott does not have? Angie Conn stated it pretty much goes along with the fact that this is a primary plat approval. There are more details in the secondary plat phase for the tree preservation. Joseph Scimia stated this was a heavily treed area and there was a lot of concern by Scott to preserve the existing trees. The details will be some of the measures they will be taking to preserve the existing trees during construction; how they will be marked and how the silt fences will be put in so that they do the most they can to insure those trees intended to be preserved will not be affected by the construction process. There has been a lot of communication between their forester and the City's forester on how this will all come together. Scott would like it all put into one presentation packet. S:/P1anCommission /Minutes /PC2007 /2007dec 18 9 Jay Dorman suggested they work with the folks with Chesterton because the two are heavily wooded sites. Perhaps there are some additional best practices that might be implemented if this ever came up again. It could help everyone. Joe Scimia said he was not sure his colleague would appreciate him foisting their efforts upon him at Chesterton, but he would certainly talk to him about it. Jay Dorman made formal motion to approve Docket Nos. 07080036 PP, 07080038 SW and 07080039 SW, Rosado Hill, seconded by Carol Schleif, Approved 8 -0. 12I. Docket No. 07070059 DP /ADLS: 531 S Guilford Rd (former Kousa Street Cottages) Guilford Patio Homes The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for 40 units (formerly 33 single family homes) on 6 acres. The site is located at 531 S Guilford Rd. and is zoned B-7/Business. Filed by Justin Moffett of Uptown Partners, LLC. Jim Shinaver, attorney, Nelson Frankenberger, appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Justin Moffett and John Hefton from Upton Partners, LLC, and Eric Carter, Civil Engineer from Weihe Engineers, were also present. An aerial photograph with the site plan superimposed was shown. This property is surrounded by an apartment complex and condominiums to the south and single family residential subdivisions to the north and east. The real estate is zoned B -7 which is a business classification that does permit multi family residential types of uses. Uptown Partners believes that multi family residential use would be more compatible with the surrounding uses as opposed to some of the other B -7 uses that would be permitted. This is intended to be an empty nester patio home community designed for maintenance -free living situation for people trying to scale down. They had appeared at the November 20 Plan Commission and the November 29 Subdivision Committee meetings. They believed they had addressed all the concerns that were posed by the Committee and Staff. They had submitted to Staff some commitments concerning garage doors which he believed had been forwarded to the Commission members. Rick Ripma asked if they had included the language for the satellite dishes. Jim Shinaver said they had not done the formal covenants, but they knew they needed to include language to address the placement of the satellite dishes. They will include the covenants when they go through the detailed Development Plan that gets Administrative approval. Rick Ripma said they did not want the dishes to face or be visible from Guilford Avenue. Also, did they take care of the driveway length? Jim Shinaver confirmed they had taken care of the length. Subdivision Report, Rick Ripma: This project has gone from single residences to doubles and triplexes. The Department recommended they go that direction. They have drawn a design for the garbage collection. They preserved the trees they could. The Committee voted 5 -0 to forward this item with a positive recommendation. S: /P1anCommission /Minutes /PC2007 /2007dec 18 10 Department Comments, Angie Conn: In the Department Report the Department recommended that this item be Tabled due to unresolved issues with the Engineering Department as well as the City Forestry Department. In speaking to representatives from these two departments, they would not be opposed to the Commission approving this item tonight as long as there is a condition attached that they resolve all outstanding issues. Jim Shinaver said they were agreeable to that condition. Jay Dorman suggested when they do the covenants for the satellite dishes they don't look at just Guilford Road. When residents walk out their doors, they do not want to face a satellite dish. Carol Schleif wanted to clarify that it was 21 feet on the driveways, not 21" as stated in the Committee minutes. Justin Moffett stated that in the brochure on the detailed engineering site plan, under Tab 9, all the driveways are labeled at 21 feet. Leo Dierckman was happy to see the duplexes and triplexes. They are a nice feature and are good for the market. They remind him of Brookshire (Village.) Jim Shinaver said that was one of the items the Staff was instrumental in their discussions on developing this parcel after the BZA hearing. Carol Schleif asked if the four commitments stated in the November 29 Committee minutes were committed to or did she need to state them in her motion. Leo Dierckman suggested the petitioner make a verbal commitment then they would not need to be in the motion. Jim Shinaver confirmed they would commit to all four of the items listed in the Department Report. Carol Schleif made formal motion to approve Docket No. 07070059 DP /ADLS, 531 S. Guilford (former Kousa Street Cottages) with the condition the petitioner must resolve all Forestry and Engineering issues before the release of construction documents, seconded by Eric Seidensticker, Approved 8 -0. 13I. Docket No. 07090015 DP /ADLS: West Carmel Dr. Retail (Meijer Outlot A) The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a multi- tenant retail building. The site is located at the northeast corner of Carmel Dr. Pennsylvania St. and is zoned OM/M Old Meridian District/Meijer Zone. Filed by Paul Reis of Bose McKinney Evans for Thomas English Retail Real Estate, LLC. Paul Reis, Bose McKinney Evans, appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Also present were Ken Cave with Thomas English Retail Real Estate and Brian Cross, the site engineer. This is a development of an existing portion of the surface parking area of the Meijer Store S: /P1anCommission /Minutes /PC2007 /2007dec 18 11 at Pennsylvania and West Carmel Drive. Following the Plan Commission meeting, they met with the Special Studies Committee and went through the concerns expressed by the Commission and some issues of the Department. The Committee did vote 3 to 1 to forward a favorable recommendation. The first item that was talked about was the west and south facades, which are glass facades. There was a request to look at the signs that would be on the glass. A representation of the building was shown with the signs on the glass facades. They also talked about how the signs were going to be attached. An architectural feature of the building is a raceway that is incorporated into the design of the building. From the revised sign plan, Exhibit A was shown indicating the raceway and the letters. All the letters will be attached and flush at the bottom of the raceway. The next issue was the site plan itself. There were some discussions about the landscaping. He indicated an existing landscape island. The old materials had a walkway along the east side of the lot and connecting into the sidewalk on Carmel Drive. They eliminated that sidewalk, which will help all the existing trees and vegetation in that area. They moved the sidewalk to the south side of the building and curved it around into the Carmel Drive sidewalk. Gary Duncan in the Engineering Department thought this was a better and safer location to get pedestrians into the site. They also updated the landscape plan. A copy was in the Commission's packets. Primarily they made sure the islands were larger size, reviewing the species with Scott Brewer and finalizing the overall landscaping plan. That plan has been submitted to Scott and he has approved it. The only issue and it is noted in the Department Report, was Scott's concern about some of the existing trees. He recommended they talk to an arborist. The arborist looked at the current trees and the viability to move the trees and the cost involved. At the end, she basically reached the conclusion that there was no guarantee the trees would thrive, the timing was critical, and they were not all that great of trees to be transplanted. If they looked at the overall cost from a landscaping perspective, it was better to actually install new trees. He thought Scott's preference would have been to transplant the trees, but that did not work out. The next item discussed at Committee had to do with signage. The Commission members may recall that they had some incidental signage on the north facade of the building. They went to the Board of Zoning Appeals, but did not resolve it there. Then they went to the Special Studies Committee. He thought everybody was in agreement that it was better not to have any signage on the north facade. A rendering of the north facade without tenant signage was shown. There was also concern about site line and parapet wall. The roof has been lowered and now the mechanical units will be completely screened. They had reviewed the concern about parking with the Committee. Under the current Ordinance, the Meijer Store requires 547 spaces; the convenience store requires 8 spaces, for a total of 555. There are currently 1234 spaces on the lot. One hundred eighty spaces will be eliminated with this project. There will be 1054 spaces available for the store and convenience store, so that will be sufficient. The retail store being proposed requires 27 spaces and they will have 90. Overall there should be more than adequate parking in the parking lot. Finally, the last item is the storm water quality. He had spoken with Gary Duncan in the Engineering Department and Brian Cross, their site engineer. There is a dry detention pond on the south side of the property. The water will continue to go into this dry detention pond. Then it goes under the street into the larger detention pond. They will meet with Gary in connection with the building permit as they move forward. If there is any kind of water quality issues to be addressed with that water, they will address those with Gary. S: /P1anCommission /Minutes /PC2007 /2007dec 18 12 Special Studies Report, Steve Stromquist: They had worked on this quite in -depth and longer than he thought they would. He had Paul Reis display the crosswalk exhibit. He wanted everyone on the Commission to know that just north of this development is a very large neighborhood being constructed. The Committee believes there will be a lot of foot traffic and bicycle traffic heading to this facility. As stated in the report, it was approved 3 to 1. One of the concerns was to put in a crosswalk from Pennsylvania to the parking area—it was a safety concern. There is going to be a lot of traffic flowing through this parking lot. It was the City that came up with the alternative location for the crosswalk on the south side of the building. Paul Reis indicated the crosswalk on the south side of the facade is only crossing one lane of traffic. From Pennsylvania there is a mound it would need to go through and then across two lanes of traffic to the building. Steve Stromquist pointed out the island barriers on the north side of the proposed building. These will slow the traffic that comes across the parking lot. They are trying to direct the traffic with the lanes. Paul Reis said there would be some new islands put in the Meijer lot to help segregate this site. Steve Stromquist said the other issue was the signage issue. They are going to restrict the signs to three colors. Black and white are not considered colors. Tenant logos shall be permitted without restrictions for color, but may not exceed twenty -five percent of the allowable sign area. These issues were discussed in depth at the Special Studies meeting. The Committee voted 3 -1 to forward this item with a positive recommendation. Kevin Heber wanted to elaborate on his suggestion to eliminate the west line of parking spaces. This is a great opportunity to eliminate some of the hardscape. It is a giant parking lot and no one ever parks in that area. People will use the spots closer to the building. If this row is eliminated, the safety concern is lessened. The people coming from the north will cut through the parking lot. No one is going to go all the way down the sidewalk and turn onto Carmel Drive to come to the crosswalk on the south side of the building. He thought it was reasonable to ask for a cut through in the mound. He thought it was a negligible safety concern. Department Comments, Angie Conn: The Department recommended the Commission approve this item, subject to the Engineering Department's approval of the final construction drawings. Rick Ripma asked if the Department believed this crosswalk is in the right place because people are going to use it there or if they did use it, it would be safer to cross there than somewhere else. Angie Conn said the Department agreed the crosswalk on the south side was in a good location. The Department also did suggest that they provide pedestrian access on the west side /Pennsylvania side. The south crosswalk location is good because it connects with Carmel Drive for any people coming off the street. There are already paths in place along Carmel Drive and Pennsylvania. She thought people would be coming from the development on the south side of the street and perhaps from Providence at Old Meridian and also Alexandria to the north. S: /P1anCommission /Minutes /PC2007 /2007dec 18 13 Carol Schleif also thought a west entrance would be great. There is a handicap ramp next to the building on the west facade. They could continue it straight over, losing two parking spaces and the west row of 15 parking spaces. The berm is already set and dips down. All they would have to do is change the pavement. She agreed with Kevin on getting rid of the hardscape. She indicated the area on the site plan. The 15 spaces could even be turned into grass. For safety concern, they would only be crossing one row of parking spaces. She felt it was an easy fix. Leo Dierckman asked if there was a trail on the eastern side of Pennsylvania. Kevin Heber said there was a sidewalk on the east side of Pennsylvania. A cut through would be a reasonable suggestion. Paul Reis stated they do not own the land to the west; that belongs to Meijer. So he could not say they will be able to do that. Secondly, as far as retail is concerned he would let Ken Cave speak as to the amount of needed parking. The negotiations with Meijer have been very precise about where the property line is. They have to approve the site plan. It is important for his client that they have adequate parking. They cannot make a commitment this evening because they will need to go to Meijer and tell them they want another easement. They already have to get an easement from Meijer to come across with the crosswalk on the south side. They have agreed to that easement. They would need to go back to Meijer for the easement on the west side. They would need to cut into the mound in order to create a pedestrian walkway. Ken Cave, 2325 Parkway Point, Suite 150. He wanted to make a couple of observations. Relative to the walk, they do have a 220,000 square foot Meijer Store behind them. Most people coming from the north are probably going to go to the Meijer Store first and through the parking lot. People on bicycles should not be on the five -foot sidewalk. Secondly, considering the parking, they believe they need most of the parking. They expect to have a casual quick -serve sit -down restaurant. If this was any other place in Carmel, it would require one parking space for each three seats. If they put one or two restaurants in there, they will need the parking. The western parking is only 80 feet from the front door. He felt the parking was necessary on the west side. Paul Reis stated they are not inclined at this point to put in the additional pedestrian crosswalk. The only thing they could agree to do, if the Plan Commission is comfortable with the project, is add the condition they use all reasonable efforts to secure the easement from Meijer. Leo Dierckman asked if they have any additional outlots to develop, that could be used as leverage. Angie Conn and Mike Hollibaugh did not think there were additional outlots. Mike Hollibaugh stated it is a big parking lot and there are still some areas that do not get a lot of use. The City is talking with them or facilitating discussion between Meijer and IndyGo to use their lot for the express bus. They are pretty close on that. The Department will do what they can to push the discussion between Meijer and the developer. The City will be looking at enhancing pedestrian connectivity with the Opus site across Pennsylvania. There will be a good concentration of workers during the daytime at Opus. They will do an audit of the area and do what they can to help get the connection. S: /P1anCommission /Minutes /PC2007 /2007dec 18 14 Leo Dierckman would like the petitioner to make the commitment for the pedestrian walkway. Jay Dorman stated that Kevin's idea was not just an easement for the walkway, but also taking out several parking spots. Kevin Heber would like them to lose some of the hardscape. He felt they could lose at least half of the western parking spaces. The parking spaces on the north are closer to the doors than the western spaces. Leo Dierckman did not know if they could eliminate the parking spaces. They might be needed when the building is up. Maybe they could get a straight pathway to the easement. Carol Schleif thought they could try to get the walkway and the access to the existing sidewalk to the west along Pennsylvania. She asked if the City was trying to get maximum green islands and trees. Mike Hollibaugh stated it could be, but he really thought it would make it easier for pedestrians to get from point A to point B without having to dodge cars. They want to communicate to the automobiles this is a place for people, too. That would often include islands and plantings and shade trees to mark it. Then there would be shade for the pedestrians over time. They know they will need to do something if that is going to be a bus loading area. There will be people walking back and forth from the store through the parking lot. Leo Dierckman asked if they were buying the land from Meijer or are they donating it. Mike Hollibaugh said it was an agreement between IndyGo and Meijer to use the parking lot. Steve Stromquist said the area for the express bus was discussed and he made the comment to leave the parking issues alone because there will be people parking in front of this facility and walking up to the bus. He thought they were going to need every parking space they could get in this area. Jay Dorman made formal motion to approve Docket No. 07090015 DP /ADLS, West Carmel Drive Retail (Meijer Outlot A) with the condition pedestrian easement be secured from Pennsylvania to the western side of the building with a walkway that is striped similar to the walkway at the southern part of the building that connects to Carmel Drive, seconded by Steve Stromquist, Approved 8 -0. J. New Business U. Docket No. 07110028 ADLS Amend: Merchants' Square Awnings The applicant seeks approval for new awnings on the front of the building. The site is located at 271 Merchants' Square Dr. It is zoned B -8. Filed by Thomas E. Amor Sr. of Amor Sign Studios. Tom Amor, Amor Sign Studios, Michigan appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. They are proposing awnings for the west building of Merchants' Square. Their objective is to match the construction and the materials on all the other awnings in Merchants' Square. They are proposing three -foot projection on all the awnings which will not project beyond the sidewalk line. S: /P1anCommission /Minutes /PC2007 /2007dec 18 15 The two end wings will be four feet high and the taller section in the center will be six feet tall. There will be no signage on the awnings and they will not be lit. Department Comments, Angie Conn: If the petitioner can verify there will be no signage on the fabric of the awning then the Department recommended the Commission approve this item. Mr. Amor confirmed there will be no signage and the blue matches identically to the other awnings. Eric Seidensticker asked if street numbers constitute signage on an awning and is that something that would be important to fire and safety. Angie Conn stated in this type of building each tenant would have a number on their door or possibly on the building. It is in the City Code. Jay Dorman made formal motion to approve Docket No. 07110028 ADLS Amend, Merchants' Square Awnings, seconded by Rick Ripma, Approved 8 -0. John Molitor introduced Libby Farley. Libby Farley from Dublin, Ohio said she had enjoyed the meeting. It was much like their meetings with many of the same concerns about tree preservation, residents and drainage. This was the first meeting she had been to other than Dublin. She was pleased to see they pretty much run the same. She invited the Commission members to visit Dublin at any time. Carol Schleif said a petition had come up in a B -7 project with residential use. It was an HPR and they were all sort of blind -sided by it. In talking with a lot of different people, she felt one way to gain control over that type of project was to require a PUD or rezone of some sort. She was curious as to whether Staff should look into if residential uses should be excluded from business zones. Instead of coming to the BZA for a variance, it would require them to do a rezone. Then there could be a comprehensive review by the Plan Commission. She did not know if John Molitor had a chance to review her email. John Molitor said the Commission could direct the Staff to prepare a proposed ordinance and submit it for public hearing. The Commission could look at it to see if it made sense. He did not know if the Staff had had an opportunity to cogitate about whether it is something they want to support. Leo Dierckman said maybe Carol could distribute it to all the members so they could cogitate and contemplate. Mike Hollibaugh thought this had been an unusual circumstance. He did not know the odds of this occurring again in a similar way. They have not had it occur before. They have tried to encourage some residential in commercial areas. So that might be a step back just trying to fix the one situation. Carol Schleif thought that with as much redevelopment as the City would be having, this might come up again. She felt this put them at a handicap to not have the kind of review they wanted. A rezone S: /P1anCommission /Minutes /PC2007 /2007dec 18 16 would be a tool they could use for review. They had almost no leverage on this one to get anything done and that was a problem for the committee. Leo Dierckman said the Staff could send it out and the Commission could take a look at it. Jay Dorman stated the last time Carol made a recommendation there was an Excel spreadsheet attachment. Where are they with that? Angie Conn stated they had been using it with the recent rezones. They have used it as a tool in the Department Reports for the petitions. If anyone had comments on how to make it better, the Staff could do that. John Molitor added he did not recall if he circulated it to everyone, but thought he had sent a note back that it could either be done by rule or by ordinance. He thought the better way was to put it in the Ordinance. At least on a trial basis they could put it in their Rules of Procedure as sort of check list or spreadsheet format. It meshes well with the State law that requires the Commission to observe that someone has vested rights once they make an application. They are entitled for three years to have that application considered under the regulations in effect at that time. They could put together an addition to the Rules of Procedure and see how that works for a few months. Leo Dierckman agreed to do that before they did an ordinance which requires a lot more. Carol Schleif said it had been suggested earlier to have it as a form the developer fills out. Jay Dorman suggested they designate a reasonable trial period of three or six months. Would there be enough action that they could get a good test of it? Angie Conn suggested four months. Leo Dierckman said four months from date of enactment. John Molitor said they would bring a formal rule next month that would only last four months. K. Adjournment There was no further business to come before the Commission and the meeting adjourned at 7:45 PM. Leo Dierckman, President Connie Tingley, Secretary pro tem S: /P1anCommission /Minutes /PC2007 /2007dec 18 17