HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Spec Sty 5-5-99CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
SPECIAL STUDY COMMITTEE
MAY 5, 1999
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Special Study Committee was called to order by
Rick Sharp, Chairman, at approximately 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall, One
Civic Square, Carmel, Indiana.
Committee members present were: Madeline Fitzgerald; Kevin Kirby; Bob Modisett;
Jim O2qeal; Pat Rice; Rick Sharp; and Paul Spranger. Dave Cremeans was also in
attendance as an ex-officio member.
Steve Engelking, Director, Michael Hollibaugh and Terry Jones were present
representing the Department of Community Services.
Item 1, Committee to consider Docket No. 14-99 Z, a rezone application for
Duke Realty Investments. The petitioner seeks approval to rezone 55 acres from B-
5/Business and S-2/Residence to B-6/Business. This site is located at the northwest
comer of 96th Street and U.S. 31 and extends north ofi-465. Petitioner also seeks
approval to rezone 10 acres from B-5/Business to B-g/Business. This site is located at
the northeast comer of 96th Street and US. 31. The sites are currently zoned B-5/Business
and S-2/Residenee and are located partially within the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone.
Filed by Steve Oranner of Bose McKirmey and Evans.
Phil Nicely, 8888 Keystone Crossing, Indianapolis, appeared before the Committee
representing the applicant. Steve Granner was also in attendance.
In regard to the development, there will not be a drive onto Springmill Road. The total
square footage that will exist on the property south ofi-465, once the con_figuration of the
1-465/US 31 interchange is determined, is indefinite at this time. The petitioner is
assuming that the square footage will be the same. The traffic study was based on 950,00
square feet on the southwest quadrant; 110,000 square feet of retail on the southeast
quadrant; and 375,000 square feet of office space on the northwest quadrant. At the time
of presentation to the Plan Commission, the square footage was computed as 850,000
square feet on the southwest quadrant and 105,000 square feet of retail. The current
proposal is for 750,000 square feet of office on the southwest quadrant, 105,000 retail on
the southeast quadrant, and 425,000 square feet on the northwest quadrant. The overall
proposal is down 50,000 square feet on the northwest quadrant; and down 100,000 square
feet on the southwest quadrant.
Mr. Nicely commented that no other interchange property exists in the Metropolitan
Indianapolis area. The southwest quadrant is easily accessible from the interstate; the
northwest quadrant has a single access through the south end of the Meridian and 1-465
development. The southwest quadrant is more rectangular than the area on the north side
and works much better for development.
s\coramittees~qpst\ 1999may5 1
Density: Parkwood East comains 1,050,000 square feet on 58 acres--a density of 18,100
square feet. Parkwood West, parcel A, contains 425,000 square feet Parcel B has
750,000 proposed square feet, the hotel and restaurant on parcel B in the southwest
quadrant contains 120,000 square feet for a total of 870,000. Parcel C is the retail site at
105,000 square feet on 10 acres. The total square footage of the entire development is
1,400,000 square feet or approximately 21,000 square feet per acre.
Buildings & Setbacks: The quality of the buildings as proposed will be equal to or
greater than the existing in Parkwood East. The distance from the original cent..erline on
Parkwood East fi.om 96t~ Street to the parking lot is approximately 102 feet. Wnhin that
area is constructed the sidewalk, and 5 to 6 foot undulating mound. As the development
is proposed in Parkwood West, there is approximately 102 feet from the center line of'
96~ Street within which the sidewalk is proposed to be constructed as well as a 5 to 6
foot undulating mound. In addition, the evergreen trees to be planted on the west side
will be planted initially at 8 to l0 feet as opposed to those in ?arkwood East which were
planted at 6 to 8 feet in height. The berm will be constructed with the initial site
development for the southwest quadrant and finished prior to the initial building. The
building setbacks in the proposed development will be a minimum of 220 feet from the
existing right-of-way of 96 Street and would not be applicable to the first 600 feet. The
Park'wood East commitments require that no office building be constructed within 280
feet of the 1989 existing right-of-way of 96 Street. The parking areas will be landscaped
identically to the areas in Parkwood East.
With respect to 8 to 15 story buildings, that height would put a tremendous amount of
square footage on the market atone time and the absorption rate is about 100,000 to
120,000 square feet per year; the economic factor in terms of interest, etc. is not
workable. Also, construction costs for buildings over 8 stories is proportionately more
because of structural and safety issues.
According to Mr. Nicely, the demand for high quality retail is strong from both the oflelce
sector and the general public. The Meridian business corridor has approximately 3.5
million square feet with an additional 2 million square feet proposed; this type of amenity
is not in existence. There are approximately 12,000 persons in the daytime work force
along the corridor and this number will increase. This business population requires some
type of retail and restaurant amenity.
Phil Nicely commented that fi.om a zoning standpoint, (retail to the south, interstate to the
north, Meridian Street to the west, and office development to the east) retail at this
southeast quadrant is an appropriate use. The proposed development will generate the
least amount of AM and PM traffic.
Building Height: The height of a three story building is 45 feet to the roof~ 57 feet to the
penthouse; 4 stories, 57 feet and 69 feet; 5 stories, 70 and 82; 6 stories, 83 and 95; 7
stories, 96 and 108. There is no height limitation specified in the Comprehensive Plan
for the southwest quadrant. The height limitation specified in the Comprehensive Plan
s\committees~pst\1999may5 2
relates To the northwest quadrant and the west end of the northwest quadrant to allow a
view for the McMillan Office Building.
The electric power lines are mounted and run along the north property line. IPL will not
.allow the lines to be buried, although the petitioner would rather bury the lines. This is
being looked into.
Drainage: The current drainage for the southwest quadrant is not well defined. There are
several areas of the site that do not drain well. A portion drains to 96t~ Street, the
. to the 1-465
majoritv drains . right-of-way, and a major portion of the southwest drains
across the south s~de of96~ Street. The proposal is to take all the drainage to the
retention pond at the low area of the site at the northwest comer and then control the
discharge into the 1465 drainage.
Traffic: Based on current counts by A&F Traffic Engineering, approximately 16% of the
traffic in Parkwood moves to the 96t~ Street and College Avenue intersection. Traffic
counts were also done on Springmill Koad and College Avenue. The traffic volume on
Springmill Road is about 60% of the traffic volume that exists on College Avenue. It can
be anticipated that no more than 16% of the traffic from the proposed development will
go to 96~ and Springmill--most likely it will be less than 16%. Atraffc signal is
proposed at the intersection of 96th Street and Springmill Koad. In order for Meridian
Street to operate at a level of service "D" there would need to be 5 lanes norhtbOUnd as
opposed to three.
Funding of Roadway Improvements: Funding will be through a partnership between the
developer and the City of CarmeL 62 feet of right-of-way wilt be dedicated off.the north
side of the property only. In the event 96th Street is widened to greater than four lanes,
the 30 foot berm and the berm's location can be accommodated due to the fact that it is
behind the 62 foot right-of-way.
Bus Service: There is bus service to the site; route 18 Nora serves the intersection of96~
and Meridian; route 28 St. Vincent's serves the intersection of 96th and Springmill Road.
Duke will continue to work with IndyGo Public Transportation to maintain the bus
system to the development. The existing traffic count on 96~ Street shows 9,550
vehicles travel the area between Meridian and Springmill in a 24 hour period on a typical
weekday. Trip generations for a 100,000 square foot office building equate to 1,451
generated trips over a 24 hour period on a typical weekday. Thus, the generated traffic
from a 100,000 square foot building will increase the traffic by approximately 13%. The
current level of service for 96 Street ~s E. With the proposed improvements in the
configuration of 96th Street, the future level of service, with the development, would be
Based upon current zoning within the Overlay Zone, it is possible to build 849,000 square
feet of office space on the three sites akeady zoned. The proposed amendment to the
Overlay Zone increases the ratio to over one million square feet of office space on the
three sites without rezoning. If development occurred without any roadway
s~committeeskspst\1999may5 3
improvements, the traffic would be substantially less acceptable. Gridlock within the
next 20 to 30 years at 96th and Meridian Street is highly unlikely. The retail access will
align with the Kroger access; this access point is too close to Meridian Street to install a
traffic signal.
The possibility of establishing a reward program for cars with multiple passengers has
not been looked at, but the petitioner is willing to look into such a program.
There was discussion of the merits ora PUD as opposed to the proposed Rezone. Bob
Modisett stated that this particular site is truly a "Gateway to Carmel" and as such, there
should be some infrastructure and roadway improvements at the intersection of 96~
Street and Meridian. Mr. Modisett thought that the proposal should include 4 lanes on
96~ Street all the way to Springmilt, and sidewalks on the south side of96e Street.
Kevin Kirby stated his main concern was getting traffic in and out of the proposed
development. Mr. Kirby also would like to see the Springmill Road intersection
improved and additional turn lanes installed. Kevin Kirby asked to see a time-line on
construction, dollars estimated, the developer's portion and the City's portion on the
proposed roadway improvements, if approved, when construction is to start and the
targeted completion.
Christine Klika from the State Highway Department was in attendance and gave an
update on roadway improvements and invited questions from the Committee. Several
different options were studied under the Major Investment Study for highway
improvements.. The defined problem is congestion along U.S.31. The State is now
preparing to doan "EIS," an Environmental Impact Statement. Upgrades on U.S. 31 are
the desired improvement, and the "EIS" will determine how to implement the upgrades.
At the end of the 18 to 24 month process, a formal record of decision will be rendered
from the Federal Highway Administration that will allow the State to proceed into the
design phase. Tentative plans are to upgrade US 31 to a freeway status starting at 1-465
and moving north; all major intersections will have urban, single point diamond
interchanges, hopefully starting in the year 2003. It is expected that US 31 south of 96'
Street will become a City street, but the ownership of the 96* Street intersection and the
interchange will be retained by the State.
Rick Sharp asked if the proposed development could be held up until the State completed
improvements at 96~ Street and US 31. Ms. Klika responded that in all probability, the
State engineers would have to approve of whatever construction would be occurring in
their roadway and it would have to go through their permitting process and would
eventually have to tie into their development stuff at their central district office.
Clarification: The intersection at 96~ Street and U.S. 31 belongs to the State, but the
State would allow Carmel to make the improvements, (at Carmel's expense) as long as
the State approved the design.
s\¢omminee~spst\1999may5 4
There was further discussion and request from Pat Rice for clarification regarding retail
space in the proposed development and traffic flow. Traffic is a major concern. Bill
Fehribach of A&F Traffic Engineering stated that their traffic study was based on
projected traffic generated by the proposed development and the surrounding vacant
lands, plus a growth factor, and including the existing development. In regard to level of
service, Bill Fehribach noted the difference between delay of service and actual gridlock.
Rick Sharp recommended bringing in Brad Yarger as a "fresh pair of eyes" to look at the
traffic in this particular area. It was noted that there have been previous traffic impact
studies done in this area.
Pat Rice moved to approve the hiring of a traffic engineer (someone currently under
contract with the City) to review the existing traffic impact study and report to the Plan
Commission; the cost of said review is not to exceed $3,000.00 and is to be within a 30
day time fi.me. APPROVED 7-0.
Dave Cremeans commented that the sidewalk should be emended north on Springmill
Road due to the number of people jogging on the road.
Paul Spranger commented that the Committee would have been better served to have an
updated traffic report prior to the meeting. Paul Spranger recommended engaging John
Myers of Parsons Brinckerhoffto review the traffic study, providing there is no conflict
of interest, hopefully in 20 days.
Phil Nicely stated that until there is a plan in place for roadway improvements, the
construction of the buildings cannot commence. The construction of the roadway would
be completed with the completion of the first building.
Rick Sharp asked for commitments fi.om the petitioner in regard to the following: A)
Building setbacks from the proposed right-of-way, as dedicated, rather than existing
right-of-way in order to maintain 220 feet of setback fi.om the road. B) It would seem
that contrary to the petitioner's statement, office is a logical use of the property rather
than retail. C) Bury the IP&L service lines. D) Taller buildings should have deeper
setbacks to protect the residential character of the south side of 96th Street. E)
Commitment from petitioner regarding architectural treatment ofparldng decks facing
west as well as south. F) Height limitation in regard to parking decks. G) Surface
parking should be restricted to at least 60 feet from the right-of-way. I-I) Right-of-way on
Spdngmill Road will be dedicated at the time development is started. I) Eliminate right-
in/right-out on Parcel C--any direct access to the site is to be eliminated from 96~h Street
or from U.S. 31.
Rick Sharp also requested that the petitioner: provide an expanded list of excluded uses
on this site; make another attempt to decrease the density; and perhaps incorporate
service amenities into the project itself.
s\¢ommitt~eskspst\ 1999 may5 5
· There was additional discussion regarding retail in the U.S. 31 corridor. Kevin Kirby
commented that retail was not a problem at this location and he looked at it as an
appropriate use. Mr. Kirby did not agree with the right-in/right-out into the development.
There are other considerations, such as medians, etc.
The petitioner stated that he has already explored aligning the driveway with the Kroger
Center. According to Kroger's lease, their drive cannot be re-located without making
improvements to the Kroger building.
The petitioner has already begun the "hardship" process with the State as stated in their
letter of October, 1998.
The petitioner will return to the Special Study Committee on June 1, 1999.
Item 2. Committee to consider Docket No. 23-99 Z, a rezone application for the
Skinner and Broadbent Company. The petitioner seeks approval to rezone 4 acres from
B-8/Business to B-3/Busines. This site is located northwest of the northwest comer of
Carmel Drive and Keystone Way. The site is currently zoned B-8/Busines. (Pending
rezone approval, the petitioner will also be appearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals
for Special Use approval and consideration of two Developmental Standards Variances.)
Filed by Steve Granner of Bose McKinney and Evans.
Phil Nicely appeared before the Committee representing the applicant. The property is
located west of Keystone and north of Carmel Drive behind the existing office building.
The property consists of 4 1/2 acres and is currently zoned B-8/Business which permits a
1°t of commercial uses. The access to the property is via Keystone Way and is a very
difficult intersection at Cannel Drive. Carmel Drive is being redeveloped to route traffic
differently and to eliminate some type of movement at Keystone Way. It is the
petitioner's belief that the proposed use is ideal for this property and fits the criteria of
providing something nice and good looking and does not impact or affect the road
situation.
Mr. Nicely cited several self-storage projects that have not affected the property values of
neighboring office buildings. The view of the proposed facility from the neighboring
multi-story office building will be pretty much the same--the roo~ops of neighboring
buildings. The proposed development will not house the heating and air-conditioning on
the root~op.
The loop road as proposed runs to the front of the proposed development, into the pl~a
at the old Marsh location, and comes out at the stoplight on Carmel Drive. Mr. Nicely
reported that he had talked with Mr. Barnes, owner of the old Marsh Plaza, and while he
had no problem with the proposed development, he was very definitely not in favor of the
loop road. From the petitioner's standpoint, the road is not a factor.
According to Mr. Nicely, the result of the demand analysis indicates a big demand for the
self-storage facility and the proposed site is an ideal location.
$~eoramitt~sXsp~t\1999may5 6
In response to questions from Pat Rice, Mr. Nicely stated that there are no overhead
doors to the outside of the development. It is the City's responsibility to upgrade
Keystone Way.
Kevin Kirby stated that it is the City's responsibility to upgrade Keystone Way--the
reason for the loop road is the proposed extension of median--tums at the intersection of
Carmel Drive and Keystone Way will have to be accommodated at another location.
Mr. Modisett agreed that the proposed facility is a good use of the property, and that this
type of development will generate the least amount of traffic. The lighting for the
development is done by wall packs on the buildings and down lights.
Paul Spranger added that Marsh had planted some evergreens to the rear of their store for
screening.
Mike Hollibaugh reported that the petitioner's planting plan calls for 6 or 7 foot tall
No~way Spruce, and Oak and Ash that are 2 1/2 inch.
Kevin Kirby moved for the approval of Docket No. 23-99 Z, a rezone for The Skinner
and Broadbent Company. APPROVED 7-0.
Items 3 and 4 were heard together.
hem 3. Committee to consider Docket No. 24-99 DP/ADLS, Development Plan
and Architectural Design, Landscaping, Lighting, and Signage applications for BK
Partners. The petitioner seeks approval to construct a 5,000 square foot retail complex on
1.5 acres known as the Carmel Convenience Center. The site is zoned B-2/Business and
is located within the Michigan Road (U.S. 421) Overlay zone. (Petitioner will also be
appearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals for consideration of three Developmental
Standards Variances.)
Filed by Iamie Poczekay of.American Consulting Engineers.
Item 4. Committee to consider Docket No. 25-99 PP/SP, a replat application for
BK Partners. The petitioner seeks approval to replat 2 lots into 1 lot on 1.5 acres known
as Jots 8 and 9 of the North Augusta Subdivision. The site is located at the northeast
corner of Michigan Road and 97t~ Street. The site is zoned B-2/Business and is located
within the Michigan Road (U.S. 421) Overlay Zone.
Filed by Jamie Poczekay of American Consulting Engineers.
Kevin McKasson, Samie Poczekay, and April Hensley appeared before the Committee
representing the petitioner.
Kevin McKasson gave a brief overview of the project and stated that the project is unique
and has some hardships. This property is actually two parcels being combined into one,
with a 5,000 square foot retail complex on the site. The overlay zone requires that
properties share access wherever possible. The motel was designed prior to the
s\committeesLqpst\ 1999may5 7
enactment of the Overlay requirement and the entrance is set up to uniquely serve the
motel. The parking lot will be shared, but the motel owner is not in favor of redesigning
the traffic flow to accommodate the Burger King/gas station. Access to the Burger King
will be a right-in/right-out on Michigan Road. The desired entrance would be shared
with the motel, however, that is not workable at this time. The petitioner has tried to put
the gas pumps behind the building, but in this particular project, it is not feasible.
The drive through stacking is predominately behind the building but it does exit on the
side. Efforts have been made to turn the building on the site, but stacking or exiting
occurs on the side of the building; this is contrary to the Overlay requirement.
April Hensley, architect, explained that the canopy was designed with the Federalist style
in mind. '
Kevin Kirby commented that the petitioner had worked very hard to allow the property to
accommodate the building. The proposed development does not fit the property or the
ordinance; perhaps this is not the piece of property for this development.
Bob Modisett commented that the proposed development may be one of the better
choices for this site as opposed to two developments with access onto Michigan Road.
This is probably one of the nicest looking Burger Kings.
Paul Spranger questioned orienting the building to allow 50% visibility of the fuel pumps
and 100% visibility of the Burger King.
Kevin McKasson showed an alternative plan that would probably work for the petitioner.
Perhaps the canopy could be de-emphasized and the building itself would stand out. The
turn would be right-in/right out onto Michigan Road.
Rick Sharp commented that the petitioner has demonstrated a willingness to work with
the Commission and has been agreeable to re-orienting the building on the site.
Kevin McKasson stated that the petitioner would re-design the site, taking the
Committee's comments into amount, and showing how the right-in/fight-om will be
utilized, and detail as far as fuel drops, delivery truck traffic, etc. Revised plans will be
forthcoming to the Committee and will hopefully be ready for the meeting on May 11a'.
Item 5. Docket No. 30-99 DP/ADLS, C&C Realty, continued to the May 11t~
Special Study Committee meeting.
Item 6. Docket No. 31-99 Z, a rezone application for Glenwood, LLC, continued
to the May 11ta Special Study Committee meeting.
Item 7. Committee to consider Docket No. 35-99 ADLS Amend., an amended
Architectural Design, Landscaping Lighting, and Signage application for Gienborough
Properties. Petitioner seeks approval to allow one tenant sign with a different color and
s~committees\spst\1999may5 8
style for the Meridian Park Place Complex. The site is.located at the southwest comer of
US 31 and 126* Street. The site is zoned B-2/Business and is located within the U.S. 31
Overlay Zone.
Filed by Matt Urbanski of Glenborough Properties.
The petitioner submitted photographs of the proposed EDS sign that will be internally
illuminated, acrylic face with gold vinyl. The current, established building ~tandard for
signage consiSts of individual letters, ivory face, with a green return on the sign.
Currently, there is no sign on the building facing Meridian Street. Eaton & Lauth will be
moving mid-July and the ivory and green sign will be eliminated.
Paul Spranger encouraged the petitioner to go with back_lit signage.
Rick Sharp a~eed with Paul Spranger and thought the petitioner would be better served
with signage either backlit or ground lighted, a reflective light.
Kevin Kirby moved to approve a bacldit, gold logo signage, and refer the petitioner back
to the full Plan Commission for approval. APPROVED 6 in favor, Bob Modisett
opposed.
Item 8. Committee to consider Docket No. 84-98 C.P.A., proposed amendment to
the Carmel/Clay Comprehensive Plan, specifically Chapter 6, the Thoroughfare Plan.
Filed by the Plan Commission. TABLED
There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 10:10PM.
R~tfia ~I~coek, S~retary
' ~ - ~(fck Sharp, Chairman
s\¢ommittees~pst\ 1999may5 9