Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Sub 05-12-08of CA �VNONE y�A C i t y RTOMORROW o /NDIMAN CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MINUTES Monday, May 12, 2008 LOCATION: CAUCUS ROOMS TIME: 6:00 P.M. CARMEL CITY HALL ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, IN 46032 DOORS OPEN AT 5:30 P.M. Representing the Committee Carol Schleif, Chairwoman Dan Dutcher Steve Stromquist Representing the Department Mike Hollibaugh Angie Conn Lisa Stewart Of Counsel: John Molitor Carol Schleif, Chairwoman called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The Subdivision Committee will meet to consider the following items: Docket No. 07010008 Z: 116th Guilford Rezone The applicant seeks to rezone approximately 9.5 acres from I -1 /Industrial to R -1 /Residence. The site is located at 1441 S. Guilford Rd. Filed by the Carmel Dept. of Community Services. Mike Hollibaugh presented for the Department. Mike gave an overview of the project. Although the recent proposed sale was not successful, the property is again for sale. Initially when the property went on the market, the Mayor asked that the Department look toward a rezone that would change the area from I1- industrial to RI- residential which is what exists currently. Working with Bill Wendling and Duke Energy, we are working on what an M3 rezone could achieve for both sides with some commitments which would further limit the M3 uses with the concern on the City's part is with retail that exists adjacent and to the west that we not further dilute the retail energy that is not there yet. There is quite a bit approved, but only part of it is built and part of what is built is occupied. We have not achieved any momentum there and to further allow retail there, plus we do not want to continue to approve retail there unless we can show that it will serve the area well. That is where we are at. Mike brought a modified use table and deleted everything Pagel of 8 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 May 12, 2008 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes but was permitted in M3 to help keep the discussion simple. He also has a table that was presented to us from Bill Wendling, showing what they are interested in getting out of this. Bill Wendling stated Mike is correct that this has gone on for awhile, but it is not due to a lack of action. Brighthouse was interested in the property and signed a contract with Duke to buy it. The use that they were going to do was very acceptable to the City. It was a good use for the City's benefit and a good use for Brighthouse. However, this spring Brighthouse determined they would not move forward with the purchase and rejected the contract, the reason was not given. Bill stated that early on he, Mike, and the Mayor met and discussed the use for this property and we talked about the M3 classification and the B3 and B 1. He stated that he felt a bit disadvantaged. This meeting was to have taken place on Tuesday of last week and a representative of Duke had been scheduled to attend. However, with the date change, he is unable to attend at this time. Bill indicated he may not be able to answer all the questions the Committee may have. Another contract has been signed last week to purchase the property by Paul Kite and Joe Young. Bill has encouraged them to have conversations with the City to discuss their vision for the property. Bill will try to answer any questions that he is able. Bill reviewed an aerial of the property and the development around it. There are residential and retail areas already developed. The property behind it will be developed into residential home that was purchased from us.. Angie Conn, DOGS, stated that the Department is willing to accept M3 or B1 with commitments. Steve Stromquist if there is an assisted living facility being developed? Mike responded that the PUD was approved. The developer has sold the property to a company that runs these types of facilities. The Department has met with them on a couple of occasions. Steve also asked if there was still a transformer on the property. Bill replied that yes this is the case, and this will stay no matter what project goes in. Steve asked if a Phase 1 study has been done on the property. Bill stated that this has been done, and there have been environmental issues and brought the Committee up -to -date. There was an underground storage tank and when they removed they did the ground testing and there was no soil problem, but there was a ground water problem and they have done a retesting of it and the level is acceptable for an industrial property, but not for residential property, but it has abated significantly from the first test. They will be doing another test in June and our belief is at that point it will be acceptable for even residential purposes. Bill stated that as he understands it there is no significant pollution problem or environmental issue. It is still Duke's responsibility to take care of it. Dan Dutcher stated that all of the bordering properties are different; the new buyer is a complicating factor. With a potential new buyer on board, Dan asked what Duke's reaction to the potential M3 rezone is. Bill stated that they have given Mike Hollibaugh what uses they would like to see incorporated into the M3 use table. Bill states that in preliminary discussions our list we have compared the I I to the M3 those items that remain on the M3 side, permitted uses, i.e., one we would request is clinic or medical health center that is permitted use for I1 and we would like that for M3. He gave several other examples. Mike Hollibaugh stated that M3 is the middle ground that they were able to we want to clamp down on approving additional uses, adding uses to the M3. What the Department is trying to achieve is, when you look at, we could support the uses of clinical and medical to that area. We would like to exclude all retail uses from the M3; we want to exclude all cultural and entertainment and exclude all industrial uses from Page 2 of 8 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 May 12, 2008 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes the M3. The Department felt that recreational uses would be appropriate; a public park would be permitted. Mike indicated he had spoken to Joe Young today who indicated he did not know that the Department did not want retail to be on there and he also shared that they were talking with some potential users for the site. He does now understand that we do not want to see retail on the site although I I does allow it. Carol Schleif stated that regarding residential uses, she is against this due to the medical implications of the transformer. A lengthy discussion ensued around possible uses for the property, along with a review of the Schedule of Use appendix. John Molitor stated that there is a technical problem, that if the City were to rezone this, he stated that you cannot add uses to M3, you need to pick a building classification where you are subtracting rather than adding. Bill suggested that this be continued to that the technical problems be worked out. Carol asked what the urgency is. Mike stated that Kite now has the property under contract and they are working with Duke and need to follow their contract. Mike stated we want to restrict retail sales as much as possible from the site. John we will not be able to call this M3, it will have to be called something else. We don't know what Kite wants. Bill stated any restaurants would not have a drive -thru Mike we want to exclude all Cultural and Entertainment uses. Steve asked what classification is Brighthouse. Mike indicated it was a public service. It would be similar to what Duke does. Dan Dutcher made a motion to forward this item on to the Plan Commission the permitted uses that were discussed. Staff will make the decision on the appropriate legislative vehicle to accomplish that, by the creation of a new use or an amendment, or addition and/or deletion category. Steve Stromquist seconded the motion. Approved 3 -0 Bill would like to reserve his objection that he may not have enough time to get the technicalities worked out. 2. Docket No. 08020028 DP /ADLS: The Legacy Towns Flats The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a retail/residential development of 23 buildings with 288 residential units. The site is located southeast of the 7000 block of E. 146th St. and is zoned PUD /Planned Unit Development. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for J.C. Hart Company, Inc Charlie Frankenberger presented for the petitioner. He was accompanied by John Hart and Todd May of J.C. Hart Company, Gary Weaver and Andy Sherman of Weaver /Sherman Design, Larry Hemp, Landscape Architect, Bill Bryant, Stoeppelwerth Engineers and Nick Churchill of Pittman Partners. Charlie stated that he felt it was important to place this project into the context of the entirety of Legacy. The Legacy PUD was enacted in January 2007 and it permits an integrated mixed use development on approximately 400 acres. Charlie reviewed the approved concept plan. Under Tab 3 it shows the Legacy Page 3 of 8 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 May 12, 2008 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes Towns and Flats within the Legacy project. Charlie stated that the Legacy Towns and Flats are located in the Village Core Use Block, as mentioned at Plan Commission they will include a total of 32 buildings, which collectively will comprise 249 apartments, 39 lofts and exercise and cafe spaces. Per the terms of the Legacy PUD the use proposed is a permitted use and as such tonight we are here for DP /ADLS approval. In this regard we understand that what is presented fully satisfies all of the requirements of the Legacy PUD ordinance. There were some questions regarding the number of windows on side elevations and we submitted a supplemental brochure that showed some additional windows on side elevations. At the last Plan Commission meeting there was inquiry about the open space to the east. The Legacy PUD provides for an ample amount of open space. On a visual Charlie showed a layout of the open space. The open space was master planned as part of the PUD. There was also discussion at Plan Commission regarding the bicycle and pedestrian paths. Among the approved exhibits including in the Legacy PUD ordinance is the very carefully planned bicycle and pedestrian path plans. One of the interesting features is the bike promenade. A visual of the plan was shown. The petitioner feels the plan goes over and above what is required. The design and landscape are very creative. Charlie stated that due to time constraints at the Plan Commission, the landscape plan was not discussed in detail. However along with all other aspects is fully detailed in the submittal and the supplement. Gary Weaver discussed the project. He stated he wanted everyone to be oriented to the boundaries of the project. He reviewed these on a visual. Because the project is surrounded by green space we needed to address what happened with this street along the perimeter of the green space. We decided to make sure that it became a traditional parkway where it opened up to the green space we had buildings to one side of the space, it has adequate pedestrian circulation and bike circulation along the street. The second edge looked at was the edge that would be along the primary street coming in, so we had two buildings that became mixed use buildings. A visual was reviewed. The remainder of the buildings on the site was designed so they will have a front door to the street and the parking is in the back. Some buildings will have parking under the building and accessory parking in the back. The designers have tried to keep the parking lots smaller. Most apartment complexes you drive into very large parking lots, our image will be of the front doors. We decided to use a number of different street profiles. This will work more like a European plaza where it is not a defined shape, but it is a series of shapes that give you the ability to be in one space and interact with another. Gary reviewed a number of site plan visuals. Angie Conn, DOGS, the Department recommends that this item be sent to the May 20' Plan Commission meeting with a favorable recommendation, with the condition that the minor outstanding issues are resolved prior to the meeting. Carol Schleif asked if the parking had been taken care o£ Angie replied that the Department would like a reply letter spelling out how these have been addressed, especially the parking. At the April Plan Commission there was some concern how the mail delivery would work, whether or not there will be mail kiosks or not. The Department sees these as minor issues. Charlie Frankenberger stated that the buildings on Main Street go from north to south you can see buildings and they are named a, b, c, and d. These buildings are all designed as retail buildings with the first floor storefront, glazing, higher ceilings, plumbing is in the back. They are designed to convert on the first floor to commercial. Initially they will not be commercial, because it will not extend that far, not until there is more development on 146 street. So initially they will be apartments but they are designed for retail. Building B will be a non residential use on the first floor to begin with. Page 4 of 8 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 May 12, 2008 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes Dan Dutcher asked about the back side of some of the buildings, some seem to have brick treatment and some do not. Is that a conscious decision, and, if so, what was the theory behind that. Gary stated that the buildings are designed to have a front and back to them so the building front wraps around to the side of the building and it breaks in a logical place with the massing of the building. The backs of the 2 -3 story buildings we do have siding and the reason for that is, the structure that you have put over the doors for the garage door opening, the weight of the brick is very difficult to do in this type of a building where you have a series of openings for the garage doors. Dan verified that this was a conscious decision. Steve Stromquist asked about the mail delivery this question has not yet been answered. Todd May is in the process of setting up an appointment with Mr. Sparks, the Postmaster. The meeting has not taken place; however, it will include 3 scenarios that we will present to him and we are sure one will work. We expect to have 4 -6 kiosks in pod area, so that residents can walk to get mail. Do to the size of the project it would not be feasible to have mailboxes in each building. Steve then asked if they had committed to a trash compactor which is below grade. Gary indicated it was not totally below grade, but rather sloped down and we have a 6 ft. high brick wall around it. It will not be visible from the street. Steve asked if the residents will see it. Gary stated that they limited the number of units that would view the compactor. It will be emptied on an as needed basis. Carol Schleif reviewed the bike parking. The private garages will have space to store bikes. We will also be adjacent to a community parking structure which will have bike parking. There will also be a bike pavilion for indoor bike storage. Carol asked about permeable pavers. There will be permeable pavers on Community Drive. Steve stated that another Plan Commission member stated that it appears that the buildings seem to be a lot of the same with building sizes and architecture. You may get that comment on Tuesday. John Hart, J.C. Hart Co. stated that other apartment communities recently developed in Carmel, i.e., you have Edward Rose property just east of 31 and we did North Haven of Carmel which is north of 96"' street on Gray Road, the Old Meridian project and I think if you look at those properties you would have to say for the most part these buildings are consistent with architecture and brick. One of things we conveyed to Pittman Properties is our vision is to create a community that looks like an urban neighborhood that developed over time, and that each building looks different. It looks like it could have been built by a different owner over many years. The buildings do have a great deal of variety, we have brick, masonry, stone, a variety of different colors and elevations, the building footprint is similar but we have gone to great lengths to change the character of how the building looks on the outside, so it does look varied. When you look at the elevations, it does not look repetitive. In your packets you will see elevations that will show you architecturally what the buildings will look like. Gary stated that most of the buildings are 10 units, which allows every unit is essentially a corner unit so that you get windows on two sides of your unit, you have nice cross ventilation. Carol stated that she thought the architecture is quite varied, and she likes the smallness of most of the buildings. Carol went on to discuss landscaping and stated that she did not see any evergreen trees on the plans. Page 5 of 8 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 May 12, 2008 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes Larry Hemp, Landscape Architect explained that the evergreens are included in the shrub plantings. Carol stated that in wintertime there will be no screening from trees. Larry stated that are some evergreen plantings, but not Norway spruce or Blue Spruce. This is because we do not have a lot of space to do that, and it is a very traditional project, and most of our plantings that are required are street tree plantings along with building base landscaping which is also defined by both ornamental trees and street trees. Carol stated that she went through the landscape plans and found many areas that you could do that, and she feels that it is very important with 3 story buildings because to have evergreens because in winter you will only have bark showing to buffer the large buildings from someone walking down the street. We are trying to get people walking, so it is important. Larry stated that he felt that Carol would see that the space was rather limited if she looked closely. Carol gave an example by using a visual, and showed an area where she thought there could be evergreens, Larry countered that they would block the sight line triangles for the entryway drive. He stressed that it is fairly constrictive and challenging. He stated that it would be nice to have more opportunities to use larger scale evergreen trees. Carol stressed that she feels it is very important, when we were talking about this and having guidelines, our landscape architect recommended 30 percent evergreen trees and 30 percent deciduous and 40% ornamental and shrubs and she sees all street trees. Larry stated that there is a limiting, strict requirement that street trees must be 30 to 50 ft. apart as part of the Legacy PUD, Scott Brewer has allowed me to put trees even closer together than 30 ft. in certain cases because the requirements are so severe. In addition to the street tree requirements, we have the building base requirements on top of that, where there are additional ornamental and shade tree required. Larry agrees that it is restrictive and he has tried to use as much evergreen material as possible, i.e. around building bases. No one want to have a bleak winter landscape, we would like to incorporate as much evergreen material as we can. It is difficult to fmd locations where it is suitable for the large scale evergreen trees. Carol went on to discuss parking. She indicated on a visual a large pavement area with what she stated was a puny island and she is aware that you need so many feet for two way traffic; however, this is a lot of pavement that is why she brought up permeable pavers, that tends to be helpful. Gary stated that part of the reason for that is that trucks need to be able to come in and out for the trash compactor. Carol stated that there is a lot of pavement and a lot of roofs. Carol feels she could get evergreens in there and she can talk with Scott. It helps with privacy it helps with tall buildings. What size deciduous trees are you putting in? Larry they will be 2 1/2 to 3 shade trees -10 -12 ft. trees. Discussion focused on what type of building these will be residential or commercial. Carol stated she is in favor of mixed use, however, it has been difficult to have successful commercial projects if they are not on a major street, i.e., West Clay and what a struggle it has been there. She is concerned that this will put us in the same spot. Her question is that when she looks at the elevations on buildings 1 2 it is very commercial and when she looks at building 2, the units on the first floor, the windows she wonders if the buildings should have a residential fagade on the front that could be framed in as commercial at a later date. Gary stated that is what they have done. Carol stated that the plans look residential, but the elevations do not. Gary said this is one difference between this project and West Clay; they do have these units going residential in the beginning. Gary stated that there are a number of examples throughout the country where people have addressed the commercial this way, so we have changed the character of the sidewalk in the front, so it initially it takes on more of a courtyard residential character and as it converts to commercial, it becomes more of commercial sidewalk. Page 6 of 8 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 May 12, 2008 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes Carol stated she would like to see a more residential looking first floor. Gary indicated that this could be done. Carol then stated that the bedrooms did not have windows and how was this going to pass the building department codes. Gary stated we have done a lot of urban buildings like this that are called studio units and if you sprinkle the buildings you can do that. Charlie asked Carol if she believed that it was code for a bedroom to have a window. Carol stated that this is always and she had called today and it is for the first floor it is 5 sq. ft. and she did not ask about sprinkling, since she had not done that herself. However, the issue is egress, light, air and fire safety and to be able to get out. Usually in a studio type you are not allowed to have more than 50% of the back wall, more than a certain height, more than 50% of the wall has to be open if there is a space behind it. Carol stated that this is nationwide. She is not up on the sprinkler regulations. She asked if they would check this out. Gary stated that they have done units like this and are currently doing some downtown Indianapolis and that because of the sprinkler system. Carol stated that the building department will catch this, and in that case the building footprint will change and the number of units will change and that is her concern. Gary stated we discussed this early on as to whether do these units as flats or as town homes and it would convert to a town home if it is an issue. Carol also indicated that there are some very long ridge lines on some elevations and typically on the roof lines we would ask for dormers or skylights, skylights would be great because you have some deep interior spaces. Wrapping the first story withy the same material on four sides using the same material all the way around we typically A lengthy discussion was held regarding wall planes, roof lines and materials used. Carol feels the roof is monotonous Gary stated that the roof will be hidden and will break down the module of the building. Carol stated they need more touches. She is seeing a lot of siding on the back of the buildings, the first floor needs to have masonry or stone all the way around Charlie stated that the buildings comply with or exceed the architectural requirements of the Legacy PUD which does not require first floor brick wrap; great attention has been shown for what is visible from the public realm in terms of architecture Dan asked is there a way to dress them up slightly just to differentiate them slightly and give them some kind of treatment. Gary agreed to do something to break up the back of the building. They discussed windows in garages. Carol would like to see the windows included in the garage detail. The committee and petitioner discussed whether or not this should go forward to Plan Commission. It was determined to table this until next month June 3 and then forward on to Plan Commission. Issues to be addressed: Charlie stated that Carol would be speaking to Larry and Scott Brewer regarding the evergreens, and Larry Hemp has had numerous meetings with Scott and he has approved this plan. Elevations for buildings 3c and 4 Carol asked that they look at windows for garages. Steve Stromquist made motion to adjourn the meeting Dan seconded the motion Approved 3 -0 Page 7 of 8 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 May 12, 2008 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Carol Schleif, Chairwoman Lisa Stewart Page 8 of 8 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417