Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 02-16-99CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 1999 UNOFFICIAL The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission was brought to order by the President at approximately 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, One Civic Square, Carmel, Indiana on February 16, 1999. Members present were: Marilyn Anderson; Kent Broach; Dave Cremeans; Leo Dierckman, Madeline Fitzgerald; Ron Houck; Norma Meigherg Jim O~Neal, Sr.; Pat Rice; Rick Sharp; Paul Spranger;, and Tom Yedlick. Director Steve Engelking; Michael Hollibaugh; Terry Jones; and Mark Monroe were present representing the Department of Community Services. John Motitor, Counsel, was also present. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as submitted. G. Reports, Announcements, and Department Concerns 1) The Executive Committee met prior to the regular meeting. One of the items discussed was potential dates for attaining session in the near future. It was suggested that new members be linked with seasoned members to provide a "buddy system" for questions and guidance. 2) Pat Rice announced a public meeting of the 96'a Street Corridor Study on February 23~ at the Nora Public Library; this is a joint effort between Marion County and Carmel/Clay Township. Public Hearing: Ih. Commission to consider Docket No. 3-99 O.A., proposed ordinance amendment to the Planned Unit Development Ordinance, Section 31 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance. Filed by the Plan Commission. Steve Engelking, Director of Department of Community Services, addressed the Commission in response to a proposal fi.om a member of the Plan Commission to amend the text of the PUD to allow for Planned Unit Development in areas only east ofU. S. 3 I. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed ordinance; no one appeared. Paul Spranger moved to send the ordinance amendment to Special Study Committee for further review, seconded by Jim O~eal. Unanimously Approved. z:Xxninutes~pc~ pc 1999 feb I The public hearing was then closed on Docket No. 3-99 O.A. 2h. Commission to consider:i~°~trN~i~J~J ~-P~.i)l~'~iid ~i-99 SP~Development Pla~ ~e~te~rfl Desig~ L~dseapin~ Lig~ing and Si~ge, ~d Seeond~ Plat applications for ~eh~d C~iger. The p~fioner see~ approvfl to a 43,000 squ~e foot o~ce building complex on 7 acres ~d ~ ~n~m~ 2 lots ~o~ ~ the ~neoek Professionfl Park. The site is located on the H~cock S~ ~u~ of C~el Drive ~ots 2 ~d 3 of Block 5, C~el Science ~d Technology P~k.) The site is zoned M-3~nufaemfing. Filed by A~D~ o~el~bb,~9~i~[e~ Adam DeHart of Keeler-Webb Associates, Carmel, appeared before the Plan Commission together with Richard Carfiger, developer, 9610 East 96a' Street, Indianapolis. The site consists of 7.3 acres located on the east side of Hancock Street, south of Carmel Drive. Approval is being requested to construct a 43,000 square foot office building complex to be known as the Hancock Professional Park. There are six structures shown on the master plan and the construction will be phased as tenants are procured and space is leased. Mr. Cardger will be re-locating his office within the proposed development. The main entrance, 36 feet, will be aligned and allow for one-way traffic in, let~ turn/right turn only exiting the development. There is also a common access easement on the southern portion of the property that is proposed for deliveries only. The lots are to be split along a common drainage easement line that runs through the center of the property; a large storm sewer cuts through a portion of the property within a 50 foot easement and makes a logical location for a lot line. The petitioner is requesting one multi-tenant building complex sign at the entrance along Hancock Street. Internally, the two islands with/n the complex will have a directional sign identifying the individual buildings and suites. The internal parking areas only will be lit. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed development; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. Mark Monroe reported that there are no outstanding TAC issues related to this item, and the Department is recommending approval. In response to questions from Ron Houek, Mark Monroe commented that a landscape plan was submitted and reviewed by the Department; the plan is adequate and meets the M-3 zoning requirements. Sidewalks are being provided by the petitioner as required by Subdivision Regulations. The ground sign is illuminated. Tom Yedlick asked for clarification of uses permitted in the M-3 District, location of the z:Lminutes\iz:\pc 1999feb 2 dumpster, and the location of the utilities. Madeline Fitzgerald questioned the color of the roof of the building. Adam DeHart responded that the landscaping plan was reviewed and the petitioner meets the landscaping requirements. The petitioner is posting a bond for the construction of sidewalks the length of the entire property, south to north. Internally, walks will be provided the length of the entire site to service all buildings immediately adjacent to the parking areas. The multi-tenant building complex sign, 5X6 feet, will be located at the entrance with materials and colors consistent with the building. The buildings will be light color brick, with beige d~fvit material on the gables. The shingles on the roof will be brown or black to suit the colors of the structure. There are two centrally located trash dumpsters, 20X20 enclosure, centrally located in the park to service the entire complex. The trash enclosure will be six feet high, identical building materials, wooden gates. All utilities are accessible and/or on site and water is provided by Clay Township Regional Waste. Drainage for the site has been reviewed and approved by the Hamilton County Surveyor's Office and Soil & Water Conservation. The ground sign will be illuminated by 26 watts, and will illuminate the 5X6 sign only. Leo Dierckman questioned the location of the trash dumpster and thought it would be more aesthetically pleasing at a different location. Rick Sharp moved for the suspension of the rules in order to formally consider this item. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Rick Sharp moved for the approval of Docket Nos. 1-99 DP/ADLS and 2-99 SP, Development Plan for Hancock Professional Park, seconded by Norma Meighen. APPROVED 12-0. 3h. Commission to consider Docket No. 4-99 DP Amend/ADLIS, amended Development Plan and Architectural Design, Landscaping, Lighting, and Signage applications for Schahet Hotels. The petitioner seeks approval to construct a 62,000 square foot hotel building on 2 acres within the Hamilton Crossing East Complex. The site is located on the east side of U.S. 31, south of 126 Street. The site is zoned B-3/Business and is located within the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone. (The petitioner will also be appearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals for Special Use approval and for consideration of 3 Developmental Standards Variances.) Filed by Steve Crranner of Bose McKinney and Evans. Phil Nicely, attorney, Bose McKinney and Evans, 8888 Keystone Crossing, Indianapolis appeared before the Commission representing Gary Sehahet of Schahet Hotels. The zganinutes\pc\pc 1999 feb 3 petitioner is seeking ADLS approval of construction of a 5 stor~, hotel located in the southern portion of the Hamilton Crossing East complex at 126~ Street and Meridian. Also in attendance were Gary Schahet, owner, Jack Schaffer, architect, Jim Tulley, engineer, and Steve Cn-armer of Bose McKinney & Evans. The property is zoned B-3g0usiness. The B-3 classification does permit hotels, however it does require a Special Use approval, and there are certain setback and height restrictions. The petitioner has filed for a variance from the requirements before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Agreements have been finalized between Duke Realty and Schahet Hotels for the construction ora hotel at this site. Access to the hotel will be provided tltrough the shopping area onto 126th Street or through the shopping area onto Pennsylvania Street. A round-about is to be constructed and the petitioner is providing right-of-way to the City. The proposed hotel is 5 stores, approximately 60 feet in height, and containing 103 rooms, 10 of which will be suites. All rooms will be on the second through fifth floors; the first floor will consist a the lobby, conference room, swimming pool, exercise rooms and a breakfast area for cold food service. There will be no restaurant at this hotel. The building sets back approximately 300 feet from U.S. 31, and 15 feet from the right- of-way of Pennsylvania Street. The B-3 zoning classification limits the height of the building to 35 feet. Basically, this is an internal project with access through the shopping area--there is no dkect access onto Pennsylvania or 126~. The landscape plan has been reviewed by the Department. There is an internal walkway that Duke Realty will be building from the hotel site to the retail site. The petitioner is requesting two signs, located on the north and south fagade of the building. The "Hampton Inn" signs will be approximately 80 square feet. The building is primarily brick, glass, and dryvit, and architecturally compatible with the shopping area located to the north and adjacent to the proposed hotel. The lighting on this site mirrors the lighting on the shopping area site, same type of lights, height, etc. and in accordance with the lighting plans furnished to the Commission members. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed project; none appeared and the public hearing was closed. Mark Monroe reported that the Department is recommending approval, pending the Board of Zoning Appeals' review of the Special Use and Variance Applications, to allow this project to proceed to the Special Study Committee on March 2~a for further review. Paul Spranger suggested that the owner of this site drive the corridor and look at signage north and south and the colors used. Mr. Spranger asked that another color besides "red" be considered. The level of illumination on the signage is also a factor to be considered. z:'minutes\pc\pc 1999feb 4 Gary Schahet commented that his company has done four other hotels in Central Indiana, including three other Hamptons. Schahet Hotels is a franchisee of Hampton, and the signage utilizes their corporate colors. The signage question will have to be referred to Hampton Inn, Promus Company. Ron Houck questioned a tree preservation plan; however, tree preservation is probably not an issue at this point. Leo Dierckman was definitely in favor of the design and location of the trash dumpster. Docket No. 4-99 DP Amend/ADLS, Schahet Hotels, was referred to the Special Study Committee for further review of the signage and the landscaping. The Committee will meet Tuesday, March 2nd at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. I. Old Business: Ih. Commission to consider Docket No. 100-98 PP/SP, a replat application for Habitat for Humanity. Petitioner seeks approval to replat 3 lots on 3/4 acre known as Little Farms, Lot 42. The site is located on the south side of 104tu Street, one-half mile east of College Avenue. The site is zoned R-l/Residence. Filed by John Krom of Habitat for Humanity. Rick Roesch, 832 Spruce Drive, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing Habitat for Humanity of Hamilton County. This project has been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and the petitioner is continuing to obtain the required permits and approvals. At this time, the only outstanding item is the final approval fi-om the Drainage Board of Hamilton County. Any approval would be subject to final approval of the Drainage Board and is required by the County Commissioners prior to obtaining a building permit. Mr. Roesch reported that the petitioner had met with the neighboring property owners and was unable to comply with their diverse wishes. Many of the neighbors' requests were in excess of the requirements for the R-l/Residence designation and also in excess of currently existing neighborhood structures and facilities. Mr. Roesch reported that the Subdivision Committee rendered a no recommendation decision, even though the petitioner is in compliance with the requirements of R-1 zoning classification. The petitioner is asking that the Commission approve its application for a replat. Tom Yedlick confirmed the Subdivision Committee's no recommendation decision (3-3). There were several issues: drainage (and the lack ora proven drainage plan); no garages planned for construction; the size of the homes in relation to those existing in the neighborhood; and the necessity of removing a number of trees. Of the issues noted, the main issue was drainage. z?aminutes\pc\pc 1999feb 5 Mark Monroe reported that the Department is recommending approval contingent upon the final drainage plan being approved by the County. Any action for approval should be contingent upon the drainage issues being resolved with the County Drainage Board and Hamilton County Commissioners. In response to questions fi'om Pat Rice, John Krom stated that the elevation of the street is 824, the houses with a crawl will be at 826, a difference of 3 feet to the floor level of the house. The petitioner will be utilizing a small amount of fill around the edge of the homes that will be cut out for the crawl space areas and the footer. Swales will need to be cut and that dirt will also be used for fill. Ron Houck stated his understanding that the petitioner was to have obtained Drainage Board approval by this date; also elevation plans were to be submitted. Mr. Roesch responded that Habitat has been back and forth in communication with the Drainage Board. Habitat also wants to make sure that this project is constructed in full compliance and that the experts complete the job properly. Mark Monroe reported that there is adequate room within the buildable area of the lot for at least a one-car garage to be constmcted. Rick Sharp asked for clarification of Habitat's position on the construction of garages. Mr. Roesch stated that it is the policy of Habitat not to build garages; the reason being the more money spent on garages, the less home can be built for people. A garage may be added at some future date with the permission of the governing body. Pat Rice read a prepared statement in regard to her position on the petition. Ms. Rice questioned the proposed use of the land and the purchase of the land without having received plat approval. Ms. Rice stated that a petition had been presented from Kimberly Norman and read the accompanying statement. The neighbors are concerned about the drainage, transformers, property values, traffic, parking, lot size, etc. According to Ms. Rice, the proposed project does not meet the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and does not promote health, safety, and welfare. Mr. Dierckman stated that he had voted against the proposal at Subdivision Committee primarily because of the drainage. However, under the current parameters, the proposed development meets all the requirements of the replat. Mr. Dierckman was in favor of approving this project subject to the drainage resolution. Ron Houck commented that what is being proposed is consistent with the area, other than perhaps materials to be used. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve the drainage; any issues with utilities should be resolved between the agency and the petitioner. Overall, whether there are two homes or three built has very little issue with traffic. Again, parking is not inconsistent with the neighborhood. The property values may have been unfairly represented to the Commission. z:~ninutes\pOpc 1999 feb Mr. Houck moved to table this petition until the next regularly scheduled Plan Commission meeting. APPROVED 9 in favor, Jim O2qeal, Paul Spranger and Leo Dierckman opposed. The petitioner was encouraged to again meet with the neighbors to address some unresolved issues. NOTE: Items 2i., 3i., and 4i. were heard together and voted on separately. 2i. Commission to consider Docket No. 102-98 DP/ADLS, a Preliminary and Final Development Plan, and Architectural Design, Landscaping, Lighting, and Signage applications for ATAPCO, Inc. The petitioner seeks approval to construct three 90,000 square foot office buildings on 23 acres. The site is located at the northeast corner of Carmel Drive and Guilford Avenue (Block 13, Carmel Science and Technology Park.) The site is zoned M-3/Manufactudng. Filed by Joe Scimia of Baker and Daniels. 3i. Commission to consider Docket No. 103-98 SP, a secondary plat application for ATAPCO, Inc. The petitioner seeks approval to plat I lot on 23 acres known as Block 13, Carmel Science and Technology Park. The site is located at the northeast comer of Carmel Drive and Guilford Avenue. The site is zoned M- 3/Manufacturing. Filed by Joe Scimia of Baker and Daniels. 4i. Commission to consider Docket No. 104-98 Z, a change of commitment application for Reliastar. The petitioner seeks approval to change a previous commitment to allow two access points on the east and west side of Guilford Avenue, north of Carmel Drive, respectively. The sites are located at the northwest and northeast comers of Carmel Drive and Guilford Avenue. The site is zoned M-3/Manufacturing. Filed by Joe Scimia of Baker and Daniels. Joe Scimia of Baker and Daniels, 320 North Meridian Street, Indianapolis, appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. The petition provides for development of Block 13 in the Carmel Science and Technology Park to form a commercial office park known as Lakeside Corporate Center. The petitioner is requesting: 1) Final secondary plat approval, including replatting several drainage easements to cover the existing detention/retention pond located in the center of the property as well as current infrastructure. 2) Development Plan approval for the entire project consisting of 23 acres. 3) A change in previous commkment to allow one, multi-lane access curb cut to provide the entrance to the phase I building. The building has been shifted farther to the north which caused the parking to be reconfigured to allow for approximately 20 fewer spaces. There are a number of scrub trees located along the detention area and not worth saving. The loss of trees is also due z:~rainutes\pc pc 1999feb 7 to grading and drainage. The petitioner is committing to plant the following trees to compensate for the loss of trees on site: 16 White Ash, 18 Red Oak, 25 Red Maple, 4 River Birch, (at least 10 feet in height) 18 Hawthorne, 12 Honey Locust, and 25 Norway Spruce. Rick Sharp, chairman of the Special Study Committee, commended Mr. Scimia for working with the committee on the curb cut. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval, contingent on the change before the Commission this evening. Mark Monroe reported that the Department received the revised plans late this afternoon and had not had adequate time for review; however, the changes before the Commission are not significant in nature and the Department is recommending approval. Ron Houck asked about light spillage and the treatment of the drainage areas. Mr. Scimia responded that the petitioner meets the requirements in respect to the overall lighting plan. The retention plan wilt be reeonfigured as a part of the development and the outside areas will be accessible by the employees. There is not real room for a walkway or trail around the path, but there are sidewalks and bikepaths proposed along Guilford. The north side of the building will have a mulched picnic area. Pat Rice votd for the approval of items 2i, 3i, and 4i. Docket No. 102-98 DP/ADLS was approved 12-0. Docket No. 103-98 SP, ATAPCO, Inc., was approved 12-0. The vote on item Docket No. 104-98 Z, Reliastar, was approved 12-0. J. New Business; lj. Commission to consider Docket No. 12-99 ADLS Amend, an amended Architectural Design, Landscaping, Lighting, and Signage application for Barnes Investments. Petitioner seeks approval to allow multi-colored tenant signage for the Marsh Plaza. The site is located at the northeast comer of Carmel Drive and AAA Way. The site is zoned B-8/Business. Filed by Bob Jolley of Signman. Bob Jolley, Signman, Inc., 2217 Massachusetts Avenue, Indianapolis, appeared before the Commission representing Barnes Investments. The petitioner is requesting a change in the sign package to allow for multi-color signs rather than the originally approved, all white. Paul Spranger requested that the signage not be "tail light red." Red is a problem color and will change the character of Carmel. Ron Houck questioned if what was presented is part cfa unified sign package for the entire center or unique to Kinko's. Mr. Jolley stated that current signage will not change at this time, however new tenants will have the choice of another color but will still be bound by the ordinance. zSminutes\~ pe1999feb 8 Leo Dierckman pointed out that this particular center has a lot of vacant space and is turning into a "redevelopment area." The quality of the center should be taken into consideration, and it is incumbent upon the Commission to keep in mind the economics involved. Dave Cremeans referred Docket No. 12-99 ADLS Amend for Barnes Investments to the Special Study Committee on March 2"a, 7:00 PM, Caucus Rooms of City Hall, Carmel. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 PM. David A. Cremeans, President Ramona Hancock, Secretary z:Lminutes\pc\ix:1999feb 9