Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 02-15-11V`P4A of CA THE AOR TOMO W /NDIANp City of Carmel CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2011 City Hall Council Chambers 2nd Floor, 1 Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 6:00 PM Members Present: Leo Dierckman, Jay Dorman, Brad Grabow, Heather Irizarry, Nick Kestner, Steve Lawson, Kevin "Woody" Rider, Sue Westermeier, Ephraim Wilfong Members Absent: Judy Hagan, Steve Stromquist DOCS Staff Present: Director Michael Hollibaugh, City Planners Angie Conn and Adrienne Keeling; Legal Counsel John Molitor Also Present: Ramona Hancock, Plan Commission Secretary The Minutes of the January 19, 2011 meeting were approved as submitted. Legal Counsel Report, John Molitor: The Plan Commission won its motion for summary judgment in the litigation against Ryan Lewis regarding the Johnson acres garage. We are now awaiting a hearing on damages which is scheduled to occur in the Hamilton County Circuit Court, Noblesville on March first report forthcoming at next Plan Commission meeting. Department Announcements, Angie Conn: Public Hearing Items 1, 2, and 3 have been TABLED to March 15, 2011. AutoZone remains at Committee and will not be heard this evening. The Resolution approving the Amendment to the 126 Street Corridor will be heard this evening. A letter was received from the HOA president of Williams Mill requesting a tabling of The Bridges PUD. Note: The Plan Commission acknowledged the communication and made No Motion to Table The Bridges this evening; therefore, it will be heard according to the Agenda. 1. Plan Commission Resolution PC- 02 -15 -11 Approving 2011 Amendment to 126 Street Corridor Economic Development Area (with I I6 Street Centre.) Present for Petitioner: Mike Shaver, Wabash Scientific; Bruce Donaldson, Barnes Thornburg. Overview: Resolution of Conformity Purpose of Plan Commission review is to assure that the Plan Commission has an opportunity to review the Redevelopment Commission's work and to ensure that the Redevelopment S :/PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011 /PC- 2011 -feb 15 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 571 -2417 Commission has not recommended something that is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the Carmel Community Redevelopment Commission has a policy that they will not entertain a project until the Plan Commission has had an opportunity to review and be satisfied with all the details of the project The Redevelopment Commission would be eliminating conflicts between the Plan Commission and Redevelopment Commission and would only be acting on projects proposed that already conform to the Plan Commission's will There are currently 290/295 multi family complexes located at 116 Street between Guilford and College —one parcel is yet to be developed —four parcels are undeveloped on the site and those parcels will not be subject to Tax Increment Financing; however, the apartments will Legal Counsel John Molitor: Under State Statute, these Resolutions must come before the Plan Commission in order for the Plan Commission to evaluate whether or not the proposal comports with the Comprehensive Plan. It is the Plan Commission's job to determine whether or not the proposal complies with the standards in the Zoning Ordinance because it does not require specific Plan Commission approval. It is the Plan Commission's job to decide whether or not the Comprehensive Plan is being observed. This is a ministerial task, not a public hearing item. Motion: Leo Dierckman "To approve Plan Commission Resolution PC- 02- 15 -11, 2011 Amendment to the 126 Street Corridor Economic Development Area (with 1 16 Street Centre. Motion seconded by Woody Rider, approved 9 -0 H. Public Hearings TABLED TO MARCH 15: Docket No. 10110014 DP /ADLS: PetSuites The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a 19,767 sq. ft. building and 2 outlots on 3.5 acres. The site is located at 9800 N. Michigan Rd. and is zoned I -1 /Industrial, within the US 421/Michigan Rd. Overlay Zone. Filed by Eric Gleissner of Civil Site Group, Inc. 2 -3. TABLED TO MARCH 15: Docket No. 10110012 DP /ADLS: Legacy PUD -Turkey Hill Minit Market. and ear-wash. The— ap also seeks the following zei a r Docket No. 10110013 ZW: Seetion n x.02, Legney P ee Z 501 07, maximum 15 i front y buildi se Eb ae k The site is loeatea a4 77 E 1-46- St is zone PUD/Pl ,,,,oaf DevelepnefA. Filed by Char-lie of Nelson kenberger 4. Docket No. 10120008 Z: The Bridges PUD The applicant seeks approval to rezone 63.7 acres from S -2 /Residence to PUD /Planned Unit Development. The site is located at 11405 Spring Mill Rd., at the southeast corner of 116"' St. and Spring Mill Rd. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger, on behalf of G. B. Developers II, LLC. Motion: Woody Rider "To suspend the Rules of Procedure to double the amount of time allotted for public comments —both for and against —on The Bridges PUD, and if need be, suspend again this evening;" seconded by Heather Irizarry, approved 9 -0 Present for Petitioner: Charlie Frankenberger, attorney, Nelson and Frankenberger; Tom Crowley, owner of Gershman, Brown, developers; Steve Pittman, one of the owners of the real estate; Zeff Weiss, the owner's legal representative; Jon Dobosiewicz, Nelson and Frankenberger; other members of the development team. S :/PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011 /PC- 2011 -feb 15 2 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 571 -2417 Overview: Site is located in southwest quadrant of US highway 31 and 116''' Street, north of 111 Street, and east of Springmill Road Petitioner is requesting a change in zoning to allow a mixed -use community known as The Bridges Petitioner is requesting rezone to a PUD /Planned Unit Development Regarding aesthetics, The Bridges will be unprecedented in its architecture and site design Architectural theme consistent throughout The Bridges is the timeless, sustaining, and traditional Prairie Style architecture Site will be highly articulated with landscaping, meandering water features, pedestrian connectivity, and a variety of bridges The Bridges will: provide a synergistic mix of uses, including local convenient retail service uses nourish fortify existing office uses in the Meridian corridor be a high performing, economic engine with community wide, economic benefits have a substantial economic impact in terms of assessed valuation, real estate, local income taxes positively answer the uncertainty that has surrounded this parcel for decades, with a quality, highly desirable development by a developer with a proven track record The petitioner asks to be referred to Special Studies Committee Jon Dobosiewicz, Land Use Professional with Nelson Frankenberger, Presentation: Existing zoning is S -2 /Residential with a portion being within the US 31 Overlay Zone Entire parcel must conform to the Overlay Standards Any proposed development of the real estate will first require a rezone that will include a review and recommendation by the Plan Commission to the City Council The Bridges PUD establishes a set of development design standards; the text of the ordinance establishes development standards relating to set backs, building heights, landscaping, lighting, and signage Exhibits submitted as part of the PUD provide an example of the required development, building architecture, and signage requirements Use of a PUD Ordinance is necessary to address the transitional development standards and mixed -use quality of The Bridges No conventional classification in the Zoning Ordinance is available which deals with the integration of office, residential, retail, and service uses The PUD allows the City and public to review the proposal on a comprehensive basis and as an integrated entity Proposed PUD broken down into three use blocks: corporate office use block, office and residential use, and commercial amenity use block Corporate office use block is located east of Illinois Street, north of I I I th Street Corporate office use block permits development intensity greater than the area west of Illinois Street Standards in the corporate office use block will provide shelter -ready real estate for office development critical to the continued success of the Meridian Corporate Corridor Office residential use block is located on the west side of Illinois Street, and generally the south half of the real estate Access to office residential use block is proposed from Illinois Street and from Springmill Road Building set -backs and landscaping are more generous along 111 Street and Springmill Road; in addition to the existing roadways and landscape buffers, they provide a significant physical transition between the proposed development and neighborhoods to the south and west Mix of lower -scale office bldgs residential development also assist in providing an appropriate transition S:/PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011/PC- 2011 -feb15 3 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 571 -2417 Commercial amenity use block is located between Springmill Road on the west and Illinois Street on the east, south of 116 Street Commercial block establishes a retail and service node that will support attract high quality employment uses along the US 31 Corridor enhance quality convenience of goods services to nearby residents Mixed use node provides informal meeting places, other than work or home Among permitted uses are grocery store, fuel station, restaurants, and other service office uses all within walking/biking distance Interior to the site is a public gathering space Illustrations attached to the PUD are not just pretty pictures— Buffering transition requirements in the PUD are sensitive to the surrounding, residential neighborhoods Landscaping areas and building setbacks along the perimeter street exceed the depths required by the zoning ordinance The plan addresses connectivity via sidewalks and paths throughout the area As reflected by the illustrations, a harmonious, campus feel with a consistent, architectural theme also contributes to the quality and appearance of the development the commitment to appropriate transitioning thru building and site design Integration of storm -water management systems to the perimeter of the site has been prioritized as an aesthetic amenity rather than relegated to a required after thought Regarding the 1997 Comprehensive Plan as it relates to the subject property: Subject real estate was identified as US 31 corridor, low- intensity residential medium intensity residential C -3 Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City in 2009 The C -3 Comprehensive Plan states that it removed out -dated information from previous plans, including the 1997 Comprehensive Plan and incorporated current policies and objectives The C -3 Comprehensive Plan was a significant change for this site; no longer identifies it as residential but rather identifies it as an employment note east of Illinois Street and an area for special study west of Illinois Street The C -3 Plan further studied this area and defines it as a critical corridor under the US 31 corridor plan The C -3 Plan notes "preservation" of residential for all property west of Springmill Road; the plan notes transition sensitive residential for the Springmill Place neighborhood to the south The C -3 Plan calls for 6 to 10 -story office employment for all ground east of Illinois Street, including a portion of the subject property The area of special study noted on the C -3 Plan is a transition area; within this area, the Plan projects the integration of an amenity node The US 31 Strategic Development Plan study was prepared in August, 2009, outlining direction for growth and development in the US 31 corridor, including the subject real estate and identifies the real estate as commercial center and transition area The plan further notes that intended commercial development not advance west of Springmill Road and that the undeveloped parcels west of Illinois Street provide the transition The plan specifies 3 methods for providing transitioning: 1) buffering in the form of streets and pathways 2) transitions in the form of building scale 3) transitions in the form of use the message proposed is to preserve residential value and not limit the opportunity for commercial development Petitioner will continue to meet with the public; petitioner extends an open invitation to anyone who would like to meet Petitioner looks forward to further review at Special Studies Committee Remonstrance, General Public Comments/Favorable: Jack Badger, 3039 Rolling Springs Drive, member of the Comprehensive Plan Review Committee —land is too valuable to remain farm land, and not ideal for single family. Mr. Badger in favor of proposal and S:/PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011/PC- 2011 -feb15 4 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 571 -2417 considers it a very high quality development that will serve surrounding area and businesses. Proposed development will be a wonderful asset for City of Carmel. Matt Haas, 2791 Winnie Knoll Lane, in support of The Bridges, likes the mix of commercial and residential uses that will draw businesses and families; Carmel will benefit from the extension of Illinois Street Eric Keltner, resident of west Carmel, is in support of the development, considers it progressive and in keeping with the traditions of Carmel. As a resident and a businessman, currently in process of moving out of west Carmel because of the lack of resources and amenities in the area. Ground is highly visible and development should be in a way to maximize its use. Keep the resources in Carmel. Charles Lazarra, 12935 Brighton Court, resident of the west side of Carmel for 35 years; also runs a business in the Meridian corridor. In support of The Bridges. Property values on the west side of Meridian will increase with the advent of businesses into the area. There are limited services available on the west side to support the residences, and accessibility will be even more difficult when construction on Meridian starts probably a 5 -year project. What we need in our City right now is good, economic development and The Bridges fits the bill. The Bridges development will create jobs, it will create assessed valuation for real estate taxes, and for City taxes —these are the types of things we need to sustain our growth in Carmel. Craig Gigax, 13293 Mohican Court, Carmel, also a business owner on Old Meridian in Carmel; has considered moving to the west side of Carmel, but there are almost no amenities on the west side of US 31. Mr. Gigax and wife are bicyclists and have dogs to walk, but there are no bike trails there and no place to safely walk the animals. From a real estate investment standpoint, The Bridges would be a development that would attract us to the west side of Carmel. As a business owner in Carmel, new, up -scale development attracts people to the area which would draw them closer to my business. All up -scale development will have a positive impact on the business owners in Carmel. Mr. Gigax supports The Bridges development and asks the Plan Commission to do the same. Randy Sorrell, 12401 Brookshire Parkway, Carmel resident and business owner, representing the Carmel Chamber of Commerce as a Board Member. Following are reasons the Chamber unanimously voted to support The Bridges, as recommended by their Business Issues Committee: 1) Competition. The Meridian Corridor represents the second largest employee site in Indiana second only behind downtown Indianapolis. It is essential that the Meridian business corridor remain competitive in the marketplace and a place to do business in the State. Businesses desiring to locate here want walk ability, places to shop, and places to dine. The Bridges can lead and initiate that essential corridor evolution. 2) The Chamber has supported the completion of Illinois Street to help provide alternatives for north/south travel instead of just US 31, and The Bridges development moves that vision forward as well. 3) The economic impact numbers projected from this development are also reason to support. It will take continued, smart decisions to ensure the future of Carmel's business strength, success, and vitality in years to come. The Carmel Chamber would appreciate the support of the Plan Commission as well. Kelly Shepherd Cuconne, 13021 McGuffy Run, Prairie View, feels that The Bridges is a quality development and will be a great asset to the City of Carmel. The increased tax revenue the project will bring to the City is a "plus" as well as potential revenue for the schools. Business, retail, shopping, dining, all would enhance the area. Mr. Pittman and Mr. Crowley are local developers with the community and the residents' best interest at heart. Ms. Cuconne asked the Plan Commission to consider the development favorably. Jim Brocke wife, residents of Carmel, 5940 Chapman's Trail, Prairie View. Mr. Brocke's is a financial planner with an office in the Meridian Corridor, and also a member of the Business Issues Committee of the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Brocke strongly supports The Bridges development for certain and specific reasons. 1) The development is good for the entire community, especially for the business and residential areas west of Meridian. 2) The development is also good for the tax base. 3) The Bridges is an economic tool that allows Carmel to start building out Illinois Street before the State of Indiana starts the construction of US 31 limited access. 4) It is a great plan. Mr. Brocke felt that some of the opposition to the plan might be due to lack of information or intentional, mis- directed information. The Plan S:/PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011/PC- 2011 -feb15 5 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 571 -2417 Commission approval of projects has only brought added value to targeted areas. The Clay Terrace is a great example. Mr. Brocke asked that the Plan Commission approve The Bridges as a means of enhancing both the business and residential quality of the area. Robert Weihe, on behalf of father, Alan Weihe, 11055 Winding Brook Lane. Impressed with the attention to detail that has gone into this project Steve Pittman is a quality developer and has done some phenomenal, impressive projects in Carmel and Indianapolis metropolitan area; it is expected that The Bridges will be likewise. Mr. Weihe asked the Commission to favorably consider. Sally Shapiro, 4610 Woodhaven Drive, Zionsville, former Parks Board member and former Plan Commission member. It is interesting that the group of people in opposition here today that wanted to build a big box in the name of the City, the Monon Center, thought it was OK to be close to the neighbors—no shopping bags involved. Why would these residents oppose The Bridges, when they built so much closer to the residences than the petitioner is proposing? It is interesting when it is "close to home." Fadi Abdallah, 13586 Ashbury Drive, also a business owner on the west side of Carmel. Mr. Abdellah has reviewed the plans of The Bridges with Mr. Pittman and is excited about the proposal —great architectural style, respect to the landscape, respect for the neighborhoods, proper transitioning between residential and commercial. Also, the inclusion of walks and trails into the proposal is good. There are not a lot of places you can walk to the store, and a lot of young people choose to do that. The Bridges will greatly benefit the west side of Carmel where there are virtually no amenities —the closest place to go is Clay Terrace. The Bridges will create a great medium place for the west side of Carmel for shopping, restaurants, etc. Mr. Abdellah also agreed with previous statements regarding the tax benefits for the community and providing jobs. Mr. Abdellah asked the Commission to approve The Bridges. Paul Rioux, 6659 White River Place, Fishers, president of Platinum Properties. Mr. Rioux spoke on behalf of the principals involved in The Bridges —Steve Pittman, a life -long resident of Carmel, Tom Crowley, a long term resident of Carmel, the partners of Gershman- Brown, and the entire Pittman family. Pretty pictures and fancy language are wonderful, but only as good as the people that will carry it out —the principals involved in this project have proven time and again that they will do what they say. Being a developer is not an easy occupation—we put ourselves in the public eye, we make public statements, promises, assurances —and they have to be followed through. The principals in The Bridges are the gentlemen that will do that. Meetings with neighbors, meetings with attorneys, meetings with staff will continue until a good resolution is achieved. Mr. Rioux was in favor of The Bridges and spoke to the character of the individuals involved. Ms. Lee, 1195 North Claridge Way, agreed with the previous speakers. Ms. Lee is excited about The Bridges and the fact that there will be more conveniences to the area. Ms. Lee asked the Plan Commission to approve the development. Bob McKinney, Carmel business owner, 12400 North Meridian, brokerage firm for residential and commercial sales. Since The Bridges has been made public, his brokerage firm has closed over 30 transactions for buyers in Carmel 14 of those were west of Meridian. The people on the west side of Meridian want convenience. Mr. McKnney's mother would like to move to Carmel and will choose between The Reserve at Springmill and Williams Mill. It is a development such as The Bridges that will bring her back into Carmel. Mr. McKinney asked that the Plan Commission give a favorable recommendation of The Bridges to the City Council. Pete Powers, 14020 Quarter Horse Court, west Carmel, also a business owner with an office off the Meridian Corridor. Mr. Powers and family chose Carmel because of the school system, parks, bike friendly street, employment, and strong infrastructure. There are not many restaurants on the west side of Carmel; no grocery or gas station nearby. As a business owner in Carmel, would prefer to spend dollars in the Carmel community with local businesses. High quality, mixed use developments such as The Bridges should be welcome with open arms by the community. Opposition to this project would be a step backwards for the community. The continued re- investment in the community by the private sector re- affirms the decision to locate in the Carmel community. Mr. Powers asked that the Commission approve The Bridges. S :/PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011 /PC- 2011 -feb 15 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 571 -2417 Scott Bowers, 4408 Much Markle Drive, far west -side of Carmel, moved to Carmel from Fishers because of the quality of life and many conveniences it affords its residents. The Bridges will only enhance those types of conveniences as well as the quality of life and amenities. The character of the Pittman family is as well known as the work product developments they have done are second to none Tom Kegley, 10431 Spring Highland Drive, President of Reserve at Springmill HOA. Initial reaction was in opposition, but after meeting with Steve Pittman and Tom Crowley and learning the facts, is now in favor of The Bridges proposal. The development will be a good use of the land and a good resource for the City. Initial concern was traffic, but with the opening /extending of Illinois Street, the traffic will be dealt with and not a burden on Springmill Road. Mr. Kegley is also certain that the HOA Board of the Reserve at Springmill, and the Reserve at Springmill II are either in support of the proposed development as well as most of the residents, or neutral. Mina Quarry, 954 Farmview Drive, west side of Carmel, and owner of the Carmel Dairy Queen. Mr. Quarry is hoping to expand his business in Carmel and also expand into Westfield. The Bridges is seen as a business opportunity and a fantastic gathering place for seniors as well as young adults. Mr. Quarry expressed his support of The Bridges and asked the Commission to vote favorably on the development. Steven M. Kirsch, 3865 West 107"' Street, Springmill Place was initially opposed to the development, but after seeing the presentation, his view has changed dramatically; this may be a good thing for the area. It is naive to believe that the land in question will remain farmland— something will be developed there. If something is developed there, it should be something of the quality presented this evening. Mr. Kirsch is in support of the proposal. Jason Baker, 12997 North Abraham Run, Prairieview. Mr. Baker was in favor of the proposed development which is very much like an area in Charlotte, North Carolina called "The Metropolitan." Mr. Baker encouraged members of the public and Commission to look at The Metropolitan on -line and see the impact it has had on the community in south Charlotte. Eric Cox, 107 West l I th Street, south of the proposed development. Mr. Cox said it is clear that there is a lot of interest in area where he lives as far as future development. Mr. Valinet owns the area behind his subdivision and at one time wanted to purchase all the homes and construct medical buildings; there was no consensus and no project went forward. It is clear that the area is targeted for development. Mr. Cox was certain that Steve Pittman would do a quality development in The Bridges. The residents should look at a quality development that will set the standard for the area between 106"' and 116"' Street. Michael Granger, 10916 Tottenham Drive, south side of 111"' Street, across from the proposed development; also the HOA president. Mr. Granger has talked with Steve Pittman and Tom Crowley, and has talked with persons who are against this proposal. There may be some rough edges that the neighbors would like to shave off and discuss; however, Steve and Tom are extreme gentlemen who seem to be interested in producing a quality product for Carmel. Steve and Tom are both residents of Carmel and their proposal is for a fine, quality project and Mr. Granger is in support. Jon Dobosiewicz noted that there are approximately 90 letters of support for this project; the letters will be distributed to the Commission members prior to the end of the meeting. Organized Remonstrance/Unfavorable: Phil Martini, 12883 Brighton Circle, Springmill Streams Subdivision, Carmel. Mr. Martini was surprised at comments from some of the people in support regarding biking or walking to this location. 116"' Street is not amendable to bicycles--occasionally a few can be seen; Springmill is equally "un- bike" friendly and there are not many people walking in this area either. The difficulty with the subject property is that it has a foot in two worlds. It has a foot close to Meridian and definitely would be developed in some sort of high use, but it also has a foot on Springmill Road. Illinois Street is obviously like a "back road" to Meridian; Springmill Road is residential from 146"' Street to 86"' Street; the only developments along there are close to I -465. When the traffic circles were constructed, the thought was that a smaller traffic circle was better so that it would not delay traffic along Springmill Road. A development in this S :/PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011 /PC- 2011 -feb 15 7 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 571 -2417 particular corner would impact the area. There is a traffic light at US 31, a traffic circle at Illinois Street, and another traffic circle at Springmill Road. These traffic circles are close together and cause a lot of traffic problems during the day. In addition, when Ditch Road was closed for a time, 116"' Street eastbound in the morning, was backed up all the way to the "Lucas" estate, almost a mile away. Likewise, northbound and southbound Springmill Road was backed up two- thirds of the way to Dorset. If a lot more traffic were put into this intersection, is the road going to be able to handle it? The traffic plan looked as if Illinois Street was to handle the business traffic, and the extension of Illinois logically would do that. Unfortunately, because of where this property is located and how it is hemmed in, it would use Springmill Road and the traffic circle at I I6 and Springmill Road. This will cause a lot of problems in the area. Mr. Granger was hopeful that the Commission would somehow force the developer to put it into their plan rather than trying to use the entire site to its maximum benefit. Joe Hyle, 10951 Springtmill Lane, president of Springmill Place HOA, south of 111' Street, and also a part of CCRZ (Carmel Citizens for Responsible Zoning.) Springmill Place is joined with two other Homeowners Associations—Williams Mill and Springwood Estates. Collectively, all of the neighborhoods oppose this project due to the close proximity and also because the development would have the greatest impact on these neighborhoods. The HOA has received numerous statements of concern and opposition from the residents in the neighborhoods all along Springmill Road, from 103r Street to 146' Street and some residents that are not even on Springmill Road but off of 116' Street and 106' It is agreed that this property will not be a farmfield forever, and also agree that the current proposal for a PUD goes against everything that embodies Springmill Road. Along Springmill Road, there is not one commercial development west of Illinois Street, and there is no need to change that. A group of speakers has been organized that will touch on topics such as the Comprehensive Plan, occupancy rates, home values, the proposed plan itself, traffic, and a few other aspects. Ron Houck, Springmill Place, a resident since 1985. Springmill Place was platted in 1980's, prior to the adoption of the US 31 Overlay Zone. The US 31 Overlay Zone was adopted in 1985 and provided for an area of 600 feet on either side of US 31 with what was then described as a double loaded, collector road meandering through the middle of the 600 feet. A drawing was displayed showing the east side of US 31 Meridian Street and the original 600 feet. On the west side of US 31, the 600 feet has been "pushed out" in many areas. In the particular area where this development is proposed, it is probably 1300 or 1400 feet —what was originally residential property in back of Springmill Place Subdivision and much more of the proposed development was, as it is zoned today, S -2 /Residential —much more of it was in the residential area. The C -3 Comprehensive Plan divides the Township into four, distinct planning districts, one being west Carmel where the proposed PUD is located. From the Comprehensive Plan description: "West Carmel remains unique as an area with many rural characteristics, even after the development of many suburban, residential subdivisions. Historically, west Carmel was dominantly horse farms, estate farms, agricultural land, and open space. The district is still distinguished from the east Carmel district by significantly lower density residential, and substantial estate homes which act to maintain open space character. This area has a strong sense of place established from its origin as a region of estate homes and horse farms. Pride of place and rural living have characterized the values of many of the district's residents." It is this strong pride of place that leads the residents to oppose this PUD. The west Carmel district currently has two commercial areas: Michigan Road Corridor, and the Village of WestClay. Also, the Town of Zionsville, the 86 Street corridor, and new commercial development along 146"' Street near US 31 are also recognized for providing commercial amenities to west Carmel residents. Not mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan are the following: retail areas at 96 Street, 116' Street, 126"' Street, 136"' Street, and 146"' Street along US 31. Residents do not perceive a lack of retail to serve their area and more importantly, desire that their area be preserved as a quality, residential area that exists today. The residents have strongly fought the desires of the development community to invade west Carmel with commercial and retail projects. With every revision of the Comp Plan, west Carmel residents have remained involved to ensure preservation of the area and way of life. S :/PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011 /PC- 2011 -feb 15 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 571 -2417 Part 3 of the Comp Plan, known as the Land Classification Plan, details the attributes of an employment nodea minimum of 4 stories with a maximum of 10 stories —but not adjacent to Illinois Street. In these areas, the development structure orientation on site is to be centralized, with significant setback from highway corridors, and single- family residential homes. This PUD does not comply with this section of the Comp Plan by proposing 10 to 12 -story buildings along the east side of Illinois Street. Part 5 of the Comp Plan, known as Critical Corridors and Sub areas, states there is a strategy to extend Illinois Street, stating that "An up- graded Illinois Street will be necessary to provide north/south access to the employment corridor on the west side of US 31." Illinois Street also establishes the transition from intense office corridor to low density residential areas to the west. This PUD proposes three office buildings of 60 feet on the west side of Illinois Street. 60 -feet buildings are as intense as those currently in the corridor and even more intense than some existing corridor buildings. This PUD has been designed more to maximize the land value to the land owner rather than to plan for what is compatible with the Comp Plan or even reasonable and compatible to the residential nature of the area and adjacent neighborhoods. This PUD provides only 50 feet of setback from residential subdivisions with a 20 -foot perimeter buffer. The buffer along I I I' Street along Springmill Road is a mere 20 feet —not significant. This PUD is insensitive to the adjoining, residential subdivisions on I I P h Street and Springmill Road. This PUD exhibits lack of thought to permitted uses; it also lacks sensitivity that is shown in other areas of our community by allowing massive office uses near residential subdivisions. The PUD plans for an 80,000 square foot grocery— larger than the Kroger on Range Line Road, or the Marsh Supermarket in Merchants Square. The Meijer store containing 225,000 square feet is located nearby, and it does have a gas island. The petitioner's application states: "High quality commercial amenity nodes are needed and attract high quality employment uses along the US 31 corridor." For the current suburban office vacancy rate of 25% this does not represent a current need or even one that will be needed in the near future. The petitioner's supporting arguments lack merit to show a need or compliance with the Comp Plan or even good planning for this parcel. This development will not offer any unique amenities that are not already present and easily available in close proximity. The project may more appropriately be described as "commercial sprawl." As recently as 2009, the US 31 strategic plan task force suggested incorporating store front space such as restaurants, drycleaners, and coffee shops in the US 31 corridor office developments to provide amenities to the employees. With office space vacancy rates of 25% or more, if there is a true lack of amenities, is this not the ideal time to make those adjustments? The study also noted that real problem with the current development in the US 31 corridor is the product of the buildings being spaced too far apart with a sea of asphalt as parking that does not promote or even allow inter -site trips to provide amenities for common use. The strategy proposed by the Task Force was to promote "re- development" of the corridor's large parking areas to open up new development space. This would promote pedestrian traffic to adjacent buildings and services within these buildings. The Task Force states: "The pedestrian oriented environment is an amenity that connects office workers to destinations such as restaurants, eateries, and services and helps reduce mid -day auto trips and travel times." Although purporting to serve offices within the corridor, it will not be pedestrian friendly—people will only arrive by automobile. The residents of the area are not opposed to development of this parcel; however the currently proposed PUD is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Joe Heidt, 10926 Springmill Lane, commercial real estate broker, moved to Carmel recently from San Francisco. Mr. Heidt displayed a computer presentation giving Office Retail Vacancy Reports for the Meridian Commercial Corridor. Mr. Heidt felt there was a potential flaw in the proposal that is based on potential value of land derived from rezoning the property as opposed to need for the area. Note: A paper copy of Joe Heidt's presentation will be made a part of the public file. Dr. Martin Meisenheimer, 471 Burlington Lane, vice president of Williams Mill HOA; would like to S :/PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011 /PC- 2011 -feb 15 9 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 571 -2417 maintain the residential integrity of Springmill and I I I' Street west of Illinois Street. A ban on commercial development west of Illinois Street would ensure that this continues, and this is consistent with the US 31 corridor plan. A commercial development of the size and density proposed would overwhelm the residential setting, and residents would be forced to look at large, commercial buildings with added lights, noise, and automobile pollution far beyond what we currently experience. Traffic is a major concern and the extension of Illinois Street will feed into Springmill and increase the traffic problem. There is no Development Plan for the PUD, and buffering at 20 feet is woefully inadequate. The residents would propose a 100 -yard buffer with shrubs and plantings to screen the neighborhoods from the development. Towers and tall lights should be prohibited; 3 -story apartment buildings do not transition well to the surrounding residential areas. Please reject this proposal. Ron Houck, Springmill Place, regarding Traffic Report: 50 pages in the main body of the traffic report furnished by the petitioner, and 493 pages in the appendix, much larger than the traffic report (137 pages) performed for Clarian PUD, conducted by the same company. Mr. Houck's perspective noted several flaws in the traffic study. First flaw only projects traffic generated by 300 apartments; the language in the PUD allows for 350 apartments which underestimates generated traffic by 17 The second flaw is the construction of Illinois Street without any time table or commitment. The third flaw is the rate of background traffic growth. Peak hour traffic at the roundabout on I I6' and Springmill Road is currently at gridlock during rush hour —this is acknowledged in the traffic study. The study indicates that this situation will continue for all scenarios of development of this PUD but suggest it can be mitigated by adding two lane approaches in all direction and roundabout control—available right -of -way for these improvements is not addressed, since it involves all four corners. The traffic counts in this study show that the volume of east bound and west bound traffic creates a rate of cars arriving at the roundabout sufficient to control the flow of traffic within the roundabout and excludes north bound and south bound traffic. One assumption of the study is that Illinois Street will be constructed to I I l Street. From the traffic report: "While 111' Street currently operates at acceptable levels, this would cause traffic to operate at unacceptable levels. The westbound approach at this intersection will operate below acceptable levels of service during the AM peak hours and PM peak hours with the existing geometries and control conditions." The proposed cure for this in the traffic study is the completion of Illinois Street to the south to 106 Street. In the interim, traffic will divert through the Springmill Place neighborhood —certainly not proper thoroughfare planning. If the construction of Illinois Street is the panacea for traffic generated, then this should be where all the traffic from the development is directed. It is obvious that curb cuts on Springmill Road must not be allowed. "As a planning body, you need to stop approving developments made upon assumptions without written commitments for the construction of these improvements." Ron Houck had several more supporting comments /points regarding the traffic report, traffic projections and requested that the Plan Commission reject The Bridges development. Zack Brown, 4015 Springwood Drive, 106 and Springmill, president of Springwood Estates Neighborhood Association. All neighbors and anyone contacting Zack Brown are adamantly opposed to the proposal and feel that it is massive in size and if approved, will dramatically affect all neighbors and homeowners in the Springmill Road through 86 Street area. Mr. Brown is originally from Los Angeles, the traffic capitol of the world, and has lived in Carmel for 18 years. The traffic congestion that this development will cause far outweighs any benefits. There are plenty facilities available to meet all of the family's necessities. Mr. Brown was barely aware of east and west neighborhoods, only one community. Mr. Brown and neighboring residents are asking that the Commission reject this proposal. Gary Snitts, 11088 Springmill Lane —the north edge of Springmill Place—directly across the street from the proposed development. Mr. Snitts said he had addressed the Commission 22 years ago when the Pittman property was proposed for development at that time, and was opposed by reason of traffic, and S:/PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011/PC- 2011 -feb15 10 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 571 -2417 possible adverse effect on home values; the Commission did not approve the development at that time, for the same reasons the Commission should not approve the development this time. Not sure this proposal is the right use for orderly growth. The transitions in this case and the buffers that are less do not promote orderly growth. General Public Comments/Unfavorable: Allison Brown, 600 West 106' Street —feels that the proposal is redundant taking a commercial area and trying to turn it to commercial usage. The area has always been residential, rural. In our area, we demanded a one -on -one zoning —one house on one acre; we didn't get that —the best we could get was S- 2 /Residential. In this area, you can put in sidewalks and people can walk; it has not been done, but that does not mean it can't be done. There are a lot of amenities up and down the Meridian corridor as well as Michigan Road, There are enough gas stations in the immediate area and a grocer store just went under at 136 Street, so why would we need a grocery store at 116 Property values rose in the last year during a housing bubble, not because Clarian was built —they are on their way down now and will not be helped by a so- called gradual transition of a grocery store and a gas station on the corner of 116"' Street and Springmill. Traffic on Springmill will be even heavier, especially when the plan to turn route 31 into a limited access highway is put into effect. Illinois will not absorb that; traffic will come to Springmill as others have said. A neighbor and friend questions: When will Springmill be built out to a 4 -lane highway? Will you take 200 feet of his property -and of course 200 feet on the other side making a 20 -foot buffer? Ridiculous! Kevin Schmitt, 12360 Creekwood Lane, just north of the proposed development. It does not take a lot to see that this is all about money commercial real estate is much more valuable than residential. Most of the people in favor of this development are business people and do not live in the area. Mr. Schmitt said his neighborhood had been "bullied" when Clarian developed and they were forced to build a wall, but it still stinks —there are bright lights at night, an eyesore, and lots of traffic at all hours. The conveniences being talked about are ridiculous. There is already Marsh, Kroger, Meijer, gas stations—we have everything we need so close and this is not a viable reason to develop. Traffic is already a disaster and no solution will help if this is constructed; home values are also a concern and this will be a big eyesore. This development is not a good thing for Carmel. Jill Meisenheimer, 471 Burlington Lane, Williams Mill, polled the neighbors via email and telephone; the persons that responded, about 30 people out of 40 residences, 100% were in favor of trying to maintain the area on Springmill as residential zoning. If the property were to be rezoned, the residents would like the opportunity to work with the Plan Commission to ensure that it ends up being a positive for the neighbors. Most folks were rather adamant about keeping the area residential. Phil Conklin, 31 West 111"' Street, also owner of a home at 11 West 111"' Street. Comprehensive Plan is based on need to serve the community; various components of the community must fit into the plan. This particular PUD does not support a need for the serving of the community. The need may be a little superfluous. Also, there has been communication with the State Highway Dept regarding the intersection at US 31 and 111"' Street. Initially there was to be a bridge over this area, and the bridge would start at where Illinois Street is to extend and end at Pennsylvania Street. The bridge has been withdrawn from this idea, and it is now in the process to have an over /under. However, in a letter from the State, they say they will not even consider this intersection until the year 2017. In this particular development, Illinois Street become a frontage road and there would be approximately six big curb cuts. It will be hard to control the traffic, and it will be dumped in various areas at locations where people can get out the best and the quickest. The traffic plan must have a smooth transition so that it does not affect the other neighborhoods. Mr. Conklin invited Commission members to drive through this area and see the expanse of what 63 acres looks like and visualize people and buildings in this particular location —full. This area should be developed as something other than residential, but it should be done in concert with the master plan, and the master plan does not show the need for this much commercial or family living. Dr. Jim Dillon, 507 Cornwall Court, Carmel. There are two major faults that exist in the traffic plan for S :/PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011 /PC- 2011 -feb 15 11 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 571 -2417 the 31 corridor that will create a nightmare. The first fault is at 131S Street which is to be the major intersection onto US 31 when it is improved. The Carmel Drive intersection will be an over /under —this is a terrible mistake. All of the commercial traffic that comes out Carmel Drive trucks, buses -the only bus route to Indpls —will now be forced to go to 131S Street which is a t- rod wide road that goes into the Arts Design District where there is no place to park and no place to go. The only commercial property outside of 146 Street on the corridor that does well is the commercial node on Carmel Drive on the east side —the west side of the shopping strip has struggled from day one. The only two commercial establishments in the corridor that have prospered are the Sunrise Caf6 and the Subway sandwich shop. There is a feeling that we have to have local serving commercial for the people in the corridor —that is a faulted concept. The reason it is faulted is that we don't have enough people working in those buildings to sustain a business after 4 or 5 pm, and certainly nothing on the weekends. What we need to do is re- develop the corridor. If you look at this plan, they are pretty pictures, but it is the same thing we are doing the same thing we have always done. We need to move the higher density into a shorter area; that means high -rise parking and that is not free. It would create a density that would help support businesses a little better than we have. We have heard a lot about Illinois Street but it goes nowhere —not even through this property at the present time. At some point, 111 Street will be "stubbed off' and it will not go under US 31it may sometime, but not in our lifetime. South of 111 Street, the availability of the land is marginal at best. Once it gets down to 106 Street, it will run through the development and come back out onto Springmill Road. Springmill Road is terrible as it is now; you would need to make Illinois Street and 116 Street 4- lanes. We have other property at risk here. All four corners of 116 Street will be developed, one way or another. The road network does not handle what we have. Springmill Road should not be commercialized. Public Hearing Closed 5- minute Recess Rebuttal, Charlie Frankenberger: Several persons have appeared in support of this development; we have received and distributed over 90 letters of support. Over the last several months, we have talked to hundreds of people City- wide who have expressed their support for The Bridges and this underscores the community -wide benefit of this proposal. This proposal is securely consistent with the new C -3 Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2009. Regarding Springmill Road, there were comments that Springmill Road is strictly a residential corridor—we believe this is factually incorrect. One need only drive down Springmill Road from 96 Street and see commercial development on 96 Street, large office buildings in the corridor just beyond our vacant parcel, and Clarian. The Clarian PUD was mentioned in the remonstrance. It is noteworthy that the Clarian PUD allows commercial development west of Illinois Street and three -story buildings within 15 feet of Springmill Road. There was a lot of discussion regarding traffic—it is important to keep the big picture in mind. We believe the Illinois Street extension is the by -pass needed to solve the traffic problem and that The Bridges is the economic engine for that extension, the benefits of which will far exceed The Bridges development. Through mass emails, a lot of misinformation has been disseminated by remonstrance. We have had many emails, one of which was printed verbatim in The Current, and others which were authored by some of tonight's opponents. We would prefer not to reciprocate. Regarding economics, the Plan Commission has historically and conservatively focused its scope of review on planning and has left the economics of supply and demand to our free market economy. We believe that the retail and service uses proposed are in high demand in this area and it is also a matter of fact that we do not intend to build until we have a user in hand—we do not intend retail or office speculation space. Carmel is one City, not a City divided. The Bridges will provide a City -wide benefit. The Bridges will be community asset in terms of its architecture, its site design, and its uses. The Bridges will have a City -wide, substantial, economic benefit. The residents of west Carmel deserve at least a small measure of the convenience of local retail and service uses long enjoyed by the residents of the east side. The existing office uses in the Meridian corridor need supporting retail and service uses and this is underscored in the Comprehensive Plan the common good should not be sacrificed for a more limited agenda. We believe that the time is now to develop S:/PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011/PC- 2011 -feb15 12 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 571 -2417 this parcel. The Bridges will positively eliminate the uncertainty that has surrounded this parcel for decades and will replace that uncertainty by the stability of a very desirable community asset to be developed by a local developer by a proven track record, locally and nationally. We look forward to review at Special Studies Committee. Department Report, Angie Conn: Dept has met weekly with the petitioner to address issues such as traffic flow, land use, bicycle pedestrian accessibility, site plan layout, etc Engineering and Forestry have been involved in the meetings The Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan is used as a guide as well as several studies of the US 31 corridor and the Illinois Street corridor these documents should be considered when reviewing this petition Dept recommends this item be forwarded to the Special Studies Committee for review on March first Director, Michael Hollibaugh addressed the Commission regarding aspects of the C -3 Plan The subject site is a special study area as well as the one to the north —this is one of four The City has completed and adopted a special study for the 96"' Westfield area The City attempted a special study area for the large central area between Keystone and US 31 and the Smart Code area The City has initiated some aspects of a US 31 strategic corridor update that included the subject site Jon Dobosiewicz displayed a map that came from that study—nothing official about that document other than it was a piece of a puzzle the Dept was piecing together to present to the Commission at a point in time in the future It is not unusual for the City to conduct special studies It is also not unusual for the private sector to be out in front of the City on special studies, and the Old Meridian District is one The private sector got in front of the studies and proposed plans that were consistent and ultimately approved, even though they did not completely meet what the City was trying to do The Old Meridian corridor has not suffered by any means by development that has occurred along there During the 96"' Westfield study, there was a project we attempted to run parallel with the Plan Commission study ultimately the City tabled its project because it was difficult to do both and have the attention of the Commission and deal with those issues This proposal is similar we could have pursued the special study in this area, but at this point, we think this project needs to be reviewed on its own merit There are a number of aspects to the C -3 Plan that support this proposal, and there are a number that conflict with the project Discussion will continue during the Committee process The Dept is doing a serious review of the transportation network to ensure improvement in the area once a project is approved The Dept will continue its review and meeting weekly with the petitioner's team to refine some of the weaknesses in the project City Engineer's office is reviewing the transportation analysis as well as the site plan Commission Member Comments: Traffic is an issue who did the study? (A F Engineering) Request more details on connectivity, trails, etc. How would people get to this destination? Concern regarding set -backs utilizing so much of the site for development —large project Concern regarding appropriateness of location for the proposed development; traffic is an issue Question tonight is zoning, not the Development Plan which comes later Landscape plan winter more visual exposure /summer less visual exposure Parking need to be more creative with requirements on parking spaces so that we do not create a "sea of S:/PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011/PC- 2011 -feb15 13 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 571 -2417 asphalt" but rather greater green space Mixed use nature of project is a good opportunity, but no example in Carmel of a true, mixed use campus with office, residential, retail, restaurants, all within easy walking distance Plan Commission does not in any way, shape, or form, consider tax benefits associated with any development; Plan Commission focuses on quality development, quality of the project, and the overall impact the development will have on the direct community as well as the global community Plan Commission does not consider financial feasibility Disappointed that east and west Carmel division high lighted never viewed that way only as one City Walking people will walk across Illinois Street if properly designed can be done Suggest breaking the development into different components for discussion at Committee— traffic maybe first discussion item, limit to one hour perhaps second meeting could focus on site plan component third meeting perhaps discuss the proposed PUD Ordinance, page by page final review to tie up all loose ends and return to Plan Commission maybe July Legacy is probably the first true mixed use have not seen in action yet Special studies conducted by the City generally a waste of the public's time and money, and tends to work in favor of the developers Uses presented provide for good transition Project aesthetically pleasing Could take up to 20 years for property to build out Traffic is an issue and can be worked out at Committee Inquiries should be made of INDOT as to 111"' Street overpass /underpass Explore connectivity with surrounding neighborhoods Process will work well if remonstrance would submit questions to the Dept prior to Committee meetings Questions ahead of time will alleviate redundancy Extremely important that developer and neighbors /remonstrators meet and discuss issues prior to Committee meetings Traffic Engineer (Steve Fehribach) should be prepared to attend Committee discussion on traffic issues Docket No. 10120008 Z, The Bridges PUD was sent to Special Studies Committee for further review and discussion on Tuesday, March first at 6:00 PM. 5. Docket No. 11010010 DP Amend: Penn Circle (former Meridian Pointe site) The applicant seeks development plan amendment approval for a 193 -unit multi family project. The site is located at 12346 Old Meridian St. It is zoned OM /O Old Meridian District, Office. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger, on behalf of G.B. Developers II, LLC. Present for Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewiz, Land Use Professional, Nelson and Frankenberger; Tom Crowley, G.B. Developers, contract purchaser of the real estate; David Leazenby, Millhouse Development, a development partner on this project; Charlie Frankenberger, attorney, Nelson and Frankenberger. Overview: Development Plan approved for site in early 2010 ADLS Amendment reviewed by Subdivision Committee on 2/08/11 Subdivision Committee approved ADLS Amendment Need for DP Amendment arises out of Zoning Ordinance Standard requiring all changes in site development to be reviewed and approved by the Plan Commission Plan Commission has jurisdiction and determination of compliance with applicable development standards Outstanding landscaping items have been addressed Development Plan now complies with all applicable provisions of the City Zoning Ordinance S:/PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011/PC- 2011 -feb15 14 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 571 -2417 Outstanding item is final review and approval of drainage and technical engineering approvals required prior to submittal of construction plans The petitioner will continue working with the surveyor and engineer's office prior to submitting for building approval all applicable standards addressed North of the site is Carmel Drive and a parcel that accommodates Meijer drainage —the same location intended to accommodate drainage for subject site Old Meridian Street is adjacent to the site and to the east Pennsylvania Street is adjacent to the site and to the west The site terminates at the roundabout Plan provides for pedestrian connectivity Sidewalks will be provided internal to the site and connected to surrounding walks and paths A ten -foot, asphalt path will replace the five -foot sidewalk along Carmel Drive As proposed, the plan provides for 193 apartment residences and associated parking A primary change in the amended plan is that there will be multiple buildings on the site rather than one building The plan identifies 5 primary buildings providing multiple points of pedestrian access, and more pedestrian scale site design The site also includes an area for future development at the intersection of Old Meridian Pennsylvania that will return to the Plan Commission at a future date for DP /ADLS approval Overall plan calls for drainage to be provided on the adjacent parcel between the site Carmel Drive The proposal is to improve the adjacent parcel with a pond and water feature, masonry retaining wall, and wetland plantings in addition to the new asphalt path Final approval from the Hamilton County Surveyor Carmel Engineering is required New layout provides more effective screen of the interior, surface parking areas Pursuant to committee request, the petitioner has added an additional one -foot of sidewalks interior to the site to avoid conflicts with automobiles parked in vicinity of the pool area The landscape plan conforms to changes requested by the Urban Forester an updated plan will be submitted for the Urban Forester's signature The new plan is a substantial improvement by providing more building area pulled up to the perimeter streets, screening surface parking areas to the interior of the site, it enhances new corridors along the perimeter and interior of the site, showcasing an upscale architecture and landscape appearance from all vantage points The petitioner requests suspension of the Commission's Rules of Procedure and a favorable vote this evening Public Remonstrance: None Public Hearing Closed Department Report, Angie Conn: Dept has met with petitioner several times regarding design aspect —also architecture, lighting, landscaping, signage all approved at sub committee meeting Dept recommends suspension of the Rules of Procedure Dept recommends a favorable vote this evening Subdivision Report, Brad Grabow: Subject petition is to approve the amendment to the Development Plan Subdivision Committee reviewed amendment to ADLS last Tues Committee has not formally vetted the Development Plan Amendment, but in effect did so at review of the ADLS last week Committee would be comfortable with suspending the rules Biggest change: previously approved plan left the drainage area on the south side of Carmel Drive intact S:/PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011/PC- 2011 -feb15 15 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 571 -2417 site currently trees, but scruffy and not very attractive a dry catch basin that is wooded with an abandoned home in the middle Current petition would turn the area into not only an amenity but a visual buffer from Carmel Drive traffic to the project Concern: From Carmel Drive looking almost due south toward the project, there is a visual gap into the parking area this perspective addresses that Committee asked for larger landscaping at the base of the two parking garages Committee also asked that previous all- masonry garage structure have some visual break -up— petitioner is now proposing a mixture of cement fiber board on upper half and brick on the lower half to help break up the appearance of the parking garages As a Committee, we would be comfortable with suspending the Rules of Procedure Motion: Brad Grabow "To suspend the Rules of Procedure in order to vote on Docket No. 11010010 DP Amend, Penn Circle (former Meridian Pointe site, seconded by Woody Rider, approved 9 -0 Commission Questions /Comments: Adequate planting buffer? (There is mounding between two parking garages; shrubs up -sized to 48 -60 inches) Questions from Alternative Transportation Coordinator resolved? (Yes) What is to prevent cars from going into the water? (brick retaining wall barricade in the form of timber guard rail provided—barricade required by City— right -of -way outside of Carmel Drive) Additional landscaping being added along Carmel Drive Motion: Brad Grabow "To approve Docket No. 11010010 DP Amend, Penn Circle (former Meridian Pointe site) seconded by Woody Rider, approved 9 -0. Old Business Docket No. 10110001 OA: R -4 District Setback Amendment The applicant seeks to amend the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 10: R -4 Residence District and Chapter 23A: State Highway 431 Keystone Avenue Corridor Overlay Zone in order to amend the front setback requirements. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. Present for Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling, Dept of Community Services. Overview: Revised Proposal for R -4 District Setback Amendment Keystone Avenue Corridor Overlay Zone Amendment Two very different characteristics of R -4 exist single and two- family developments, the other is multi- family development Tried to amend and separate the two characters Single and Two family developments have kept larger setbacks and many characteristics that were existing in R -4 Setbacks are diminished in multi family development as well as for developments that are adjacent to single family and two- family dwellings Keystone Overlay most major change is the titleno longer known as State Rd 431 but rather a city street. Proposed change in title to Keystone Parkway Overlay Zone 23A 04 to be deleted reference to parking in a greenbelt area Request favorable recommendation to the Carmel City Council S :/PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011 /PC- 2011 -feb 15 16 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 571 -2417 Subdivision Committee Report, Brad Grabow: Sensitivity to adjoining buildings R -4 is primarily residential but does have some other uses R -4 district primarily between Keystone Parkway and US 31 but not exclusively R -4 is largely in areas that are ripe for re- development /modernization in terms of new development standards R -4 now provides residential developers the ability to build up to as close as five (5) feet from the right -of- way, although not required, it does provide that ability Sensitivity to adjoining buildings so that side yards must be 30 feet so there is not an abrupt change in setback from an older property that chooses not to redevelop that is next door to a property that does choose to redevelop /rebuild under these standards Committee believes it has addressed all the potential negatives Will help more urban design —build to the street type development within the R -4 District Motion: Woody Rider "To approve Docket No. 10110001 OA, R -4 District Setback Amendment," seconded by Leo Dierckman, approved 9 -0. 2. (Remains at Committee Level.) Docket No. 10100006 DP /ADLS: AutoZone Park Northwestern, Lot 1. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a new 7,370 sq. ft. store on 1.59 acres. The site is located at 10560 N. Michigan Rd. and is zoned I -1 /Industrial within the Michigan Rd/US 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by Jeff Kauerz for AutoZone Stores, Inc. J. New Business None K. Adjournment at 9:55 PM Jay Dorman, President Ramona Hancock, Secretary S :/PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011 /PC- 2011 -feb 15 17 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 571 -2417