Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 03-20-12Of 42 41 rZ m City of Carmel CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2012 City Hall Council Chambers, 2nd Floor One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 6:00 PM Members Present: John Adams, Jay Dorman, Brad Grabow, Nick Kestner, Steve Lawson, Kevin "Woody" Rider, Steve Stromquist, Susan Westermeier, Ephraim Wilfong Members Absent: Joshua Kirsh DOCS Staff Present: Director Michael Hollibaugh, Planning Administrator Angie Conn; Legal Counsel John Molitor Also Present: Connie Tingley, Secretary Pro -Tem The minutes of the February 21, 2012 meeting were approved as submitted. Legal Counsel Report, John Molitor: The Executive Committee met in Executive Session to discuss litigation a copy of the Court Order regarding Kensington Place HOA, The Plan Commission, and the Justus Company was distributed to the members The Plan Commission won the case and the Court dismissed the petition that was filed by the Kensington HOA. The case is essentially over unless it is appealed. Amendments to the Plan Commission Rules of Procedure were discussed at an open session of the Executive Committee meeting earlier this evening. Paragraphs have been added to make the Rules of Procedure conform to Indiana Code which now requires that the Rules of Procedure address the issue of residency requirements for various Commission members. There is an additional change regarding ADLS petitions which is recommended to be switched to Article VI, Section 6 and removed from public hearing matters, since ADLS is not a public hearing. There was also a change regarding some obsolete provisions, and those are recommended for revision. The Rules changes are recommended for adoption. Motion: Woody Rider to approve the suggested/recommended Rules changes in the Plan Commission's Rules of Procedure, seconded by Steve Stromquist, Approved 10 -0. Department Announcements, Angie Conn: Item H.2 Addendum to the Patch Ordinance Additional Sections of the Zoning Ordinance have been added for amendment; some of those Chapters were noticed for 20 days rather than the 25 days required under the Rules of Procedure. The rules must be suspended in order to hear the additional Chapters. The Committee date of Tuesday, July P is recommended for change in order to avoid any conflict with CarmelFest Activities. The Dept is recommending a possible change to Wednesday, June 27 or Thursday, June 28. H. Public Hearings Motion: Woody Rider to suspend the Rules of Procedure to allow for additional time for petitioner's presentation and public input on Docket No. Docket No. 11100022 DP /ADLS, Gramercy PUD (Mohawk Hills Redevelopment) seconded by Steve Stromquist, approved 10-0. 1. Docket No. 11100022 DP /ADLS: Gramercy PUD (Mohawk Hills Redevelopment). The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a multifamily residential infill and renovation project on 116.4 acres. The site is located at approximately 751 E. 126 Street, at the southwest corner of 126 St. and Keystone Pkwy. The site is zoned PUD /Planned Unit Development. Filed by Matthew Griffin of Buckingham Companies. Present for Petitioner: Matt Griffin, Buckingham Companies, 941 North Meridian Street, Indianapolis Several changes to the plan Jeff Speck is new member of the project team Gramercy approved as a PUD in 2006 commitments tendered Petitioner intends to comply with commitments Current request is for DP /ADLS approval Petitioner has been working to mitigate impact of proposal on existing residents working better to communicate with the residents Petitioner is continuing to refine aesthetics of the development in regard to the neighborhood to the west More detailed architecture Itemized approach to information Verified right of way dedication Additional public input hearing remains open Held Additional public open house Monday, March 19 well attended Has met with neighborhood groups Refinement to the plan: Increased the number of units to be renovated originally 420, now 508 Opportunity to create some interesting areas Residents valued these units and wanted to see renovation Also supports green initiative to find a re -use Number of new units has decreased from 886 to 768 Approx 13,000 square feet of neighborhood serving retail space added Renovation scope on the bldgs has been increased Architecture has been refined a timeless design for residential neighborhood Greenspace has been increased Block layout has been altered into a Traditional Neighborhood Design The PUD conceptual master plan envisioned a set of off -skew blocks, very walkable, very green, accessible to parks, easy to way -find The new plan has larger lots, street edges are defined, blocks fuse into private space and create defined public and private areas Blocks are walkable, street parking is encouraged Parking lots are screened behind the bldgs landscaping Greenspace is accessible to every resident Trying to create a memorable space that will have its own culture Proposal still provides for 4 Neighborhoods Total build -out of 1276 Units (50% renovated, 768 new units) 2 Construction to start in January 2013 5 entry points (126' Street, Carmel Drive, and Keystone Parkway) Gramercy Commons The new core is now aligned east/west to capture more green space Architecture is a mix of the style from the neighborhoods Gramercy Crossing Georgian style architecture 227 new units, 212 Renovated units The Mills at Gramercy has 73 new units, 117 renovated units, 460 parking spaces The Mills is Greek Revival architectural style Buildings will be 1, 2, and 3 story— clubhouse and pool The Ponds at Gramercy Neighborhood consists of 201 new units, 184 renovated units, 685 parking spaces Ponds architectural style is Federal No retail, 1, 2, and 3 story clubhouse and pond 22 acres remain undeveloped after 4 neighborhoods are developed 22 acre development will return for its own DP /ADLS, subject to its own commitment and rules of PUD 50 detached, single residences are to be placed within this area The ONLY 4 -story element is the Clock Tower Two new access points proposed on 126 Street —one aligning with Kinzer, one mid -point between the current access point and Ash Drive. Keystone Parkway right in/right out Access at Carmel Drive through The Fountains property (owned by Buckingham) (north/south connector Main east/west connector comes into the core from Keystone Street improvements: street parking, sidewalks, tree /planting beds Signage per PUD Design Development Standards All signage details not provided for in PUD will return for ADLS Review (committee only) Green Space Parks Linear Park Buffer Zones 30 foot linear park on Western Boundary 2 Acre Centralized Park 2 Acre Gramercy Park Neighborhood Parks, 30% Open Space (12% as required by PUD Commitment) 30 -foot bufferyard along Keystone Parkway Standard, Type B Buffer north and south Tree Preservation Plan; Bike Plan Improvements on adjacent streets (126' Auman) Wayfmding signs Bike Parking 285 racks provided, 255 required Timeline: Currently in Zoning Permitting Construction to start January 2013 Newly renovated units available 90 days after start Potential completion as few as 2 -3 years after start Phase I: Commons Existing Bldgs Demolition/Renovation Buffer Landscaping New Clubhouses Phase II: In -fill on new apartments into the neighborhoods In -fill of two retail bldgs into Commons Phase is market driven, location timing Petitioner requests further review at Committee level Public Comments /General, Favorable: None Organized Remonstrance/Unfavorable: Angie Molt, 740 West Auman Drive. The underlying PUD still allows for a greater impact. There were a few incidents of height higher than it should be; also concern with a small, triangular area in the undeveloped section for future development which is a higher intensity use scale, and its proximity to the Auman homes and neighborhood still very close. Even the 50, detached single units could be a huge impact on the Auman neighborhood. The amount of retained bldgs on the Keystone side can be built to a higher intensity /higher use. The treatment along Auman East Drive would be preferable as a raised berm with a fence on top. Buckingham's Providence on Old Meridian is an example of increased crime, increased density, increased traffic would like to buffer the Auman neighborhood from this similar situation. This proposal is not a smooth transition. The residents of Auman neighborhood enjoy their walking neighborhood; to continue to enjoy that, the proposed Gramercy neighborhood needs to be compatible with the Auman neighborhood; if it cannot be compatible, it needs to be buffered. The petitioner is standing very firm with the original PUD, and that is why the neighbors must be firm and insist on the increased buffer. The City has proposed connectivity in their plan and that has been approved in the planning stage. It is imperative that the Commission understand: if you connect something of that size, even though scaled back, how that will impact the Auman neighborhood. This project has been in limbo for a number of years and that has had a negative impact on the Auman neighborhood as well a lot of long standing residents that were very close to retiring were lost. The GIS maps will show the developers who have bought homes in the neighborhood -also the location. There is no reason why we cannot live side -by -side. Does Mohawk look better now than it did 5 years ago? No! Is it in better condition than it was five years ago? No! Will it be in better condition after this project? A resounding "Yes!" Will it have a positive impact on the neighborhood? It depends on how it is buffered. If there were a connection to the fitness center, and to restaurants, the neighbors in Auman would walk there and support it. This proposal is a far better scale and closer to what was initially asked for by the Auman neighborhood. General Public Comments/Unfavorable: Inez Hayes, Mohawk Hills. Is the petitioner starting with infrastructure and access points, or renovation of buildings? Kurt Lanmiller, Mohawk Hills. Very much in favor of the access point from Carmel Drive but has concerns regarding the Keystone Parkway entrance. The City just spent millions of dollars making Keystone into a limited access road, and now we are looking at under mining that and setting a precedent for other entities to do so as well There have probably been numerous traffic studies done for that, but it just strikes me as a really bad idea. Steven Marsh, 518 East 126' Street, former residents of Mohawk Hills, generally in favor of the Mohawk Hills community and in support of a more accessible community. Biggest concern is traffic on 126'' Street and in particular, the 30 mph speed zone that is driven at 35 to 40 mph. Will the three access points have a calming effect on the traffic or encourage people to drive like lunatics? Mr. Marsh hopes the proposal will not have an adverse effect on the walk ability of 126 Street. Rebuttal: Matt Griffin: Regarding height, 2 or 3 bldgs are above what is required and the petitioner will abide by the height requirement and alter those heights Regarding Phase I H, the infrastructure is basically built around those already we must do the street network, landscaping, parks, clubhouses. Those basically end up being green pads awaiting infill cover and are located in places that are inside neighborhoods. We must build improvements to get to this point. There is a lot of infrastructure and landscaping going into Phase I. After Phase I is complete, it is pretty much a complete project with potential for infill. 4 Regarding streets: The Keystone cut is a cut that was approved during the PUD process by the City and the State; we designed around the cut, we understand it is complicated, we will work with the City and our own civil engineers to determine the best way to accommodate the cut in a safe manner it will not be a light undertaking. 126` Street again, working with the City and civil engineers whatever is decided that is the safest is what we will accommodate. Legal Counsel Comments, John Molitor: This is a development plan proposal which is a public hearing item it is not a legislative issue there are no amendments to the PUD before the Plan Commission and this will not go forward to the City Council. The Plan Commission's job is to consider whether what is being proposed conforms to all of the standards requirements that are in the PUD. If this were strictly an ADLS item, it would not be a public hearing item. Pursuant to our regular procedure, when this goes to Committee, the Committee will most likely accept further public input as it reviews this proposal. Dept Comments, Angie Conn: Most of the outstanding review comments have been addressed by the petitioner. There are 3 or 4 outstanding comments, one of which is for the petitioner to list how each aspect of this proposal and how it complies with the PUD Ordinance. The Dept is working on getting a representative of the City Engineering Dept to either attend the Committee meeting or produce a memorandum that would address traffic. The Dept recommends this item be sent to the Subdivision Committee scheduled to meet on March 29 at 6:00 PM. Commission Members' Comments: Would like to do away with the access point on 126"' Street between the current one and Ash Drive Traffic study done 6 years ago before the Performing Arts Center opened before Keystone Parkway was constructed Would like to see a multi purpose path along the entire northeastern portion of the property Definitely need to connect between Keystone Parkway and Range Line Road with a multi purpose path system How will construction traffic be handled? Concern shared regarding the Keystone entrance approved before Keystone Parkway was constructed Would like to have input from the school system and how this proposed development affects them Would like more detail on the retail portion and how it compares to what was initially approved Additional concern with new access point on 126 Street because it creates a new intersection the others are existing Would like a better understanding of the parking deficiency in the Commons area where 334spaces are currently planned and 416 are required also the impact on the residents in this section There is room for improvement on some of the rear and side elevations of the free standing garages What materials are being used on some of the detail items: balcony railings, columns, dental molding, lap- siding on gables chief concern is avoiding vinyl or plastic materials would prefer poured concrete on the balconies rather than wood Are there any special accommodations required because of the presence of Moffit- Williamson drain shed that traverses the property? The Alternative Transportation Plan was unclear as to whether or not this proposal complies with the City's Alternative Transportation Plan Greenspace location and sizes should be put in context with those locations relative to the clubhouses and pools and whether it makes sense to aggregate those or if there is specific reasoning why greenspace would be separate from pool clubhouse facilities Would like to see extremely creative buffering that would maintain a natural look but create something exceptional There is some confusion as to what exactly has changed since the initial submission and approval and the most current public hearing which did not contain any retail. The original PUD had retail It appears that approximately 25% of this project is marked for future development and is not included anywhere in the PUD. We know there will be single family residential in this development, but we do not know if there will be retail or any of the permitted uses this should a addressed There is a huge concern concerning the access point on Keystone the information materials still refer to Keystone Avenue. Things have changed since this was approved. Is there approval from the Board of Public Works for a curb cut off Keystone Parkway? Attorney Tim Ochs responded that the cut has been approved, but the geometrics for the design need to be looked at it will only be built if it can be built safely —fmal approval has not yet been received from BPW because that would require detail engineering at the time of initial approval, the Board of Public Works did grant a curb cut on Keystone for right in/right out Do the 1276 total units include whatever single family residential may be developed in the future, undeveloped area? (No) If you lose the access point onto Keystone, and possibly the one close to Ash Drive on 126` Street, there would have to be some creative thinking as to how people would be moved in/out of this development Perhaps a current traffic study could be conducted by an independent traffic consultant and require the petitioner to pay for it Regarding the north/south road from this development, through The Fountains to Carmel Drive when would that be in place or what would trigger the installation of that road? Response, Matt Griffin: Would anticipate a DP /ADLS for that piece of property would be seen at Plan Commission prior to Gramercy coming out of Committee we need that connection for our residents Does the 30% open space include the future development area? Response, Matt Griffin: Only the aggregate of the area we are talking about, not the future development area Clarification, attorney Tim Ochs: Anything being discussed tonight in terms of percentages, numbers, etc. deals only with the portion of the real estate that is subject to the DP /ADLS approval which does NOT include the area at the northwest corner. In order to develop that, we will have to come back before the Plan Commission and go through this process again nothing can be built there until we do that This development has changed several times since the initial proposal and approval is there a point where we should just start all over again? This particular Keystone ramp services three major areas. Traffic comes from 126` Keystone Parkway headed south, and the ramp services Merchants Square, Carmel Drive, and 116 Street. It is a busy ramp and needs to be taken into consideration. It would be a real problem getting traffic in and out of this development safely Would like to see a lot more detail on the timing other than market conditions permitting particularly on Phase II. What is the actual construction plan? Would like to see more detail in phase I and phase 11. It would benefit the residents greatly to have a time -table of what is going to happen and when Please do a very comprehensive job on the landscaping buffering, with much detail orientation and explanation for benefit of Plan Commission members. Agree with all comments relative to Keystone access it just does not make sense If there is something the petitioner can do that is more creative without the cut onto Keystone, we would probably all be supportive. Buffering on the west side, especially in the undeveloped area it looks as if there are no cuts into the Auman Drive area is that true? (Yes, there will be no cuts onto Auman Drive) Relating to retail, please do the best you can to enumerate those plans Department Director, Michael Hollibaugh, addressed some of the larger issues. The cut onto Keystone Parkway is a huge concern to the Dept and the City in general; the Dept of Engineering has been involved in the talks from the beginning. The cut onto Keystone was approved originally with the PUD. Obviously, the dynamics of Keystone have changed, and traffic flow is 100% different Keystone is an asset the City is very proud of and we don't want to interfere with that. The Dept is looking very closely at what the connection wants to look like. T We are not going to be in a hurry to get it approved, and ultimately, if we cannot come to agreement with Buckingham as to whether or not that connection will be there, that is a fight for the City. There is a meeting on US 31 the same night as our Committee meetings, but we do think we will have representation through our Dept of Engineering. We are looking at Keystone very carefully, and we want the Plan Commission to be confident that the solution will be the right solution. The difference between the PUD that was approved versus the PUD today is only in the preliminary development plan which went along with the concepts of the Ordinance. As Buckingham is trying to implement the Ordinance, it is not really that different between an S -1 Ordinance that allows 100 different solutions for a single family, residential subdivision the devil is in the details and we are measuring the new PUD against the development standards that we approved. It isn't whether or not it complies with the concept plan, although there were height issues, and use issues that were conceptually approved that we also have to measure against, but there is a whole series of development standards that we must make sure that this complies with as well. We are really not trying to measure this current proposal against the very, very detailed and dense project that everyone thought we were going to get. The same goes for traffic as well. Engineering is looking at traffic and there will be more information to report. Right now, we are reacting to the new project and whether or not the PUD will allow that. John Molitor noted that the access issue is addressed in the PUD Ordinance under Appendix I Page 3, the first two paragraphs it is recommended that the Commission members study that for an understanding of how that works. Essentially, it is set up as an "either /or" either the access to Keystone or access to Carmel Drive must be in existence before you exceed 50% of the original acreage in the proposal. The developer had to get access to one of the two before it could complete more than 50% of its development, instead of saying they were entitled to get access to one or the other, it says they "had to" get access to one or the other. Tim Ochs says it is measured by acreage, not dollar amount, and if we exceed 50 which we do, we must have access to either Keystone or Carmel Drive. Right now, Carmel Drive access is not part of the existing plan. Public Hearing Closed. Docket No. 11100022 DP /ADLS, Gramercy PUD (Mohawk Hills Redevelopment) was referred to Subdivision Committee for further review on March 29, 2012. 5- Minutes Recess 2. Docket No. 12010005 OA: Patch Ordinance IX (addendum.) The applicant seeks to amend Subdivision Control Ordinance Chapter 3: General Provisions and Chapter 7. Open Space Standards for Major Subdivisions. The applicant also seeks to amend Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2: Compliance with the Regulations, Chapter 3: Definitions, Chapter 5: S- IlResidence District, Chapter 6: S -2 1Residence District; Chapter 7: R- IlResidence District; Chapter 8: R -2 1Residence District.; Chapter 9: R -3 1Residence District; Chapter 10: R- 41Residence District, Chapter 20-4 1 -1 /Industrial District, Chapter 20G: Old Meridian District; Chapter 21 Special Uses Special Exceptions, Chapter 23B: U.S Highway 31 Corridor Overlay Zone; Chapter 23C. US Highway 421 Michigan Road Corridor Overlay Zone, Chapter 23F: Carmel Drive Range Line Road Overlay Zone; Chapter 24: Development Plan and Architectural Design, Exterior Lighting, Landscaping Signage Regulations; Chapter 25; Additional Use Regulations, Chapter 26: Additional Height, Yard, Lot Area and Buffering Regulations; Chapter 31: General Provisions, and Appendix A.• Schedule of Uses. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. Motion: Steve Stromquist to suspend the Rules of Procedure to allow public hearing, even though some of the Chapters were not noticed in the original Public Hearing Notice 25 days in advance of the meeting, seconded by Woody Rider, approved 10 -0. 7 Present for Petitioner: Alexia Donahue -Wold, representing the Dept of Community Services. Overview: Additional Ordinance Chapters added since the Feb published notice Discussion of the Chapters ensued at the March 06 Committee meeting A memo was distributed describing the changes Chapters not noticed originally: Old Meridian District Carmel Drive/Range Line Road Overlay amended to exempt bufferyard requirements US 31 Corridor Overlay to add language to clarify spacing for foundation shrubbery not to exceed five (5) feet Chapter 24, DP /ADLS Chapter 31, General Provisions amendments will bring them into conformity with recent changes to the State Statute Chapters 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 which deal with the Residential Districts amended to no longer tie in to the amount of open space Subdivision Committee discussed the Patch Ordinance at length on March 06 Patch Ordinance remains in Committee for the March 29"' meeting Public Remonstrance/None Public Hearing Closed No Department Comments Subdivision Committee Report, Brad Grabow: A lot of the changes simply have to do with aligning variances waiver with work of BZA Creating consistency in terminology Need more clarification detail regarding the Appendix (Overlay Zone Box Overall Table) Would rather rely on text than fonts, shading, or coding to convey the message The less confusion the better John Molitor volunteered to do some "wordsmithing" on the Table of Uses before this Docket returns to Committee Docket No. 12010005 OA, Patch Ordinance IX (addendum) was referred to Subdivision Committee on Thursday, March 29, 2012 at 6:00 PM. I. Old Business 1 Docket No. 11120029 DP/PP: West Carmel Commons: The applicant seeks development plan primary plat approval for 4 commercial lots on 8.64 acres. The site is located at 10220 N. Michigan Rd. It is zoned B-2/Business I- 1/Industrial, within the US 421/ Michigan Rd. Corridor Overlay Zone. Filed by Don Potter of Thompson Thrift Development, Inc. Present for Petitioner: Don Potter, Thompson Thrift Development Overview: Petitioner appeared at Subdivision Committee on March 06 Committee recommended approval with some restrictions /conditions Proposal consists of 3 commercial lots, northwest of the intersection of Retail Parkway North Michigan Lots 1 2 would front North Michigan Road —right in/right out At the back of Lot 1 2 is Lot 3 with a drainage easement to the west Temporary drive running north/south across Lot 2 to provide access to /from Lot 1 to existing traffic signal Retail Parkway Once Retail Parkway is extended to the west full access cut onto Lot 2, petitioner will remove temporary drive as well as right in/right out on Michigan Road Dept Report, Angie Conn: Dept recommends approval with conditions imposed by Committee Subdivision Committee Report, Brad Grabow: Retail Parkway does not extend more than a few feet west of Michigan Committee concerned about proximity of the right in/right -out curb cut with signalized intersection at Retail Parkway Petitioner agreed that as soon as Retail Parkway is extended, far enough to essentially provide rear access to lots 1 and 2, the temporary access across lot 2 as well as the right- in/right -out curb cut on Michigan Road would both be removed within six (6) months of Retail Parkway being extended Clarification: The drainage is on Lot 4 future development and not a part of this proposal With the condition imposed, the Committee voted 4 -0 to recommend approval Commission Questions /Comments Definition of extension of Retail Parkway 50 feet or all along the length of Lot 2 so that access can be gained to Lot 3? Petitioner's Response: Discussed with Engineering the road will extend to the western side of the southern parcel the Coverdale property the full length of Lot 2 and up to where Lot 3 would begin the drives are about 260 feet off Michigan Road Retail Parkway would have to extend at least that far When the right- in/right -out is built, will there be a deceleration lane traveling south on Michigan Road? Petitioner states NO deceleration lane will be constructed Are we comfortable that 260 feet is sufficient or would it be better to get the dimension for the full extension of Retail Parkway? Petitioner states it is 324 feet to the back of Lot 2 provide the dimension to the Dept Brad Grabow stated that it is confusing in that the City has yet to define the exact route that Retail Parkway will follow as it extends to the west John Molitor recommended that this should be a formal commitment and that it should also be recorded Clarification: At the time Retail Parkway is extended, the petitioner is to be guaranteed access Motion: Ephraim Wilfong, To approve Docket No. 11120029 DP/PP, West Cannel Commons, with the following condition: The Retail Parkway extension must be of sufficient length to provide the full access to Lot 2; Lot 2 must receive full access to Retail Parkway upon construction of Retail Parkway; when Retail Parkway and Lot 2 full access is completed, the property owner at that time will have six (6) months to eliminate the 0 Michigan Road access and the temporary north/south access. Note: John Molitor will work with the petitioner to formalize the language of the conditions of commitment regarding West Carmel Commons, Docket 11120029 DP /PP. I. New Business None J. Adjournment at 8:00 PM J O Jay J(�' Dorman, President 10