Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 6-5-12 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION I SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE JUNE 5, 2012 DEPARTMENT REPORT 1. Docket No. 12040019 ADLS Amend: Hamilton Crossing East,Max & Erma's—Signage. 1 The applicant seeks approval for one new wall sign,re-facing an existing wall sign, replace awnings and paint some trim on the building. The site is located at 12195 N. Meridian St. and is zoned B-3/Business, within the US 31 Overlay Zone. Filed by Tracy Hornbeak of Design Team Sign Co. on behalf of the owner. The Applicant,Max& Erma's, is going through a branding change for their restaurants. The current signs are red;the proposed new sign is yellow. The yellow si > will match the current building accent colors. There are two wall signs, one facing west and one facing north. The%csr'sign will have the yellow letters and a small tag line below that says "Restaurant, Bar& Gathering Place."This will be in a black box cabinet with push through lighted leftistrs that are yellow. The sign is proposed at 57.5 sq. ft. 75 sq. ft. is allowed by the Sign.Ordinance. Also facing west,the Applicant proposes to change the awnings over the windows and door to red and black. The bottom edge will be black; the main part(face) of the awning will be red. Facing h,the proposed sign will simply reface the existing sign. Currently it has red letters;the new sign will have yellow faces. The size is 79.7 sq. ft.,83 sq. ft. is allowed by a previous variance (V-44-99). The color of the awnings over the windows and outdoor seating area are also proposed to change to red and black on the rx 'th elevation. The east elevation will have awning color changes as well. Please see the petitioner's informational booklet for further details. • Recommendation: The Dept of Community Services (DOCS) recommends that the Committee approves this item. • CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION + SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE JUNE 5, 2012 DEPARTMENT REPORT 2. Docket No. 12050008 ADLS Amend: Telamon— Signage. applicant seeks approval to place one new wall sign on the south building facade. The site is located at 1000 E. 116th St. and is zoned M-3/Manufacturing(and not located within any Overlay Zone). Filed by Mike Morely of Telamon. The Applicant is proposing to add one new wall sign to the building. It will say"Telamon". It will be 89.5 sq. ft._105 sq. ft. is allowed by the Sign Ordinance. It will be on the south elevation of their building, which is set back about 500' from 116th St. It will have blue letters and a blue,red, and green logo. It will be internally illuminated by LED lights. The sign will be mounted flush against the building. The only existinssigaage is a ground sign that is placed out at 116t St. near the entrance on Mitchel Rd. Please see the petitioner's informational booklet for further details. Recommendation: The Dept of Community Services (DOCS) recommends that the Committee approves this item. 1 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION 1 SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE JUNE 5, 2012 DEPARTMENT REPORT 3. Docket No. 12050016 ADLS Amend: Holiday Inn— Signage. r-O` The applicant seeks approval to replace wall, ground and directional signs on the current Four Points by Sheraton Hotel,for a rebranding to Holiday Inn. The site is located at 251 E.Pennsylvania Pkwy. and is zoned B-6. It is located within the US 31 Overlay Zone. Filed by Holly Fisher of Creative Sign Resources on behalf of the owner. The applicant seeks design approval for 2 new wall signs, 1 new ground sign panel, and 4 new directional sign panels. These signs are changing due to the name change for the hotel. Four Points by Sheraton is becoming the Holiday Inn. The wall signage color will be green with a green and white "H"logo. The sign will be illuminated internally by LEDs. The wall signs on the west and rat elevations will be 9L63_s.a. ft. 94 sq. ft. is allowed by a previous variance. The existing wall sign facing north will be removed and will not be replaced.. The ground sign and directional signs will simply be panel change outs in existing sign structures. These signs are green/blue background with white letters. Please see the petitioner's informational booklet for further details. Recommendation: The Dept of Community Services (DOCS)recommends that the Committee approves this item. CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION I SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE JUNE 5, 2012 DEPARTMENT REPORT 4. Docket No. 12050010 ADLS Amend: Vine and Table, Weber Farms Produce Stand. The applicant seeks approval to have a temporary, summer seasonal sales produce stand. The site is located at 313 E. Carmel Dr. and is zoned B-8/Business. Filed by Kate McKain of Weber Farms. The applicant seeks approval to have a temporary,summer seasonal sales produce stand to be located near the northeast corner of the site. This will be a temporary produce stand that will be removed at the end of the summer season. They will not be using any electricity. The signage meets what is allowed by the Sign Ordinance. The building colors will match the primary building. The building setback and height meet what is allowed in the B-8 zoning district and what is allowed for a food stand. F-'1' a6-' `+ $tvirf.. t°' Please see the petitioner's informational booklet for further details. Recommendation: The Dept of Community Services (DOCS) recommends that the Committee approves this item. Note: the petitioner also needs submit for a temporary use permit from the Building Permits Dept. Pit-'�er�Cy : 14 SiVcS 3�Gq 1,1PtLIC1 a r) s,cp.Ft. Pezinirt ei) 2 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION I SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE • JUNE 5, 2012 DEPARTMENT REPORT • 5. Docket No. 12050007 ADLS Amend: Clay Terrace, Plug-IN Ecosystem project(Solar Carport& Plug-in stations). The applicant seeks approval to place a car charging station with solar carport just south of the Whole Foods store. The site is located at 14390 Clay Terrace Blvd. and is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Barbara Schick of Clay Terrace Partners,LLC. The applicant seeks approval for an electric vehicle charging system. This system will be location just south of the Whole Foods building. Please see the petitioner's informational booklet for further details. (Signage will be submitted at a later date, and is not part of this approval.) Outstanding Staff comments: ' ✓ a Possibly need additional landscaped screening of Toshiba energy storage & micro EMS (the battery containment W �t�,t system)? Need screening or camouflaging of 480 V transformer that will be sited near the Whole Foods building. c) Will there be any noise or humming from this technology? If so, is there a sound attenuated enclosure that can be added? d) Engineering Dept. Comments: The Engineering Dept. is waiting on a site plan for this project; however,they do not anticipate any major comments or concerns. -- ? 'rmo Nit 1-k436 CioreAS Ca,lfiENTS TO -Peke t) m Et-Y C-o' Ftzo rp1 S L ?ftZ e€.S -re> ze CK *-ae Url t o lEs 7 Recommendation: The Dept of Community Services (DOGS) recommends that the Committee approves this item after all comments/ concerns are addressed. t` 61/471 gefaiPr • 3 • CARIVIEL PLAN COMMISSION I SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE JUNE 5, 2012 DEPARTMENT REPORT w� 6. Docket No. 12050011 ADLS Amend: The Corner-New Restaurant(former Bikeline space). T-,0 The applicant seeks approval to renovate the building exterior and add an outdoor dining area. The site is located at 11596 Westfield Blvd. and is B-3/Business within the Cannel Dr. —Range Line Rd- Overlay Zone. Filed by Paul Reis of Krieg DeVault, LLP on behalf of Corner Associated, LP. The petitioner seeks design approval for renovation of a tenant space, in order to bring in-a new restaurant with outdoor dining. The restaurant will be about 5,678 sq ft in area. • Signage for this item should conform to the existing sign package for this shopping center, which goes by the Sign Ordinance for size. The face color of the sign is to be white, and logos can be any color but are limited to 25% of the total sign area. The new wall sign can be internally illuminated or non-illuminated. Returns and trim caps are to be dark bronze. The new wall sign needs to be flush mounted to the fascia. Also, no sign can be installed with less than one foot of space between the beginning or end of the sign and the edge of their premises (tenant space width). Please see the petitioner's informational booklet for further details. 1eeftti% S a"�cR 040,0�S, Outstanding Staff comments that still need to be addressed by the Petitioner: , Ae a. Need to discuss whether or not EIFS is a permitted construction material (in the crverlay Zone), since stucco is. g b. Need more detail on the proposed texture of the EIFS. c. On the east elevation,the areas above the 2 windows seem very blank. Please add awnings to these windows, too, or some other type of architectural detailing. PER--2gi.10.c2 d. Please add a rectangle to the elevations, to delineate where the wall signs will go. e. If signage is also a part of this petition,please provide the signage details. -- L ® ° f. Will a new concrete patio be poured for the proposed dining area on this project? _If:so,the Engineering De artment would like to see a site plan showing the proposed improvements. ° yep N NAT Sv4-� 'r- ,`"t))N��P T7' h1�%t� CC�i g. Please provide photo examples of what the outdoor dining area fence,chairs, and tables could look lr�tce. ✓ b h. Please provide a site plan showing the existing condition and a site plan showing the proposed changes. E i. Please provide the total number of seats that will be provided in the restaurant,including the outdoor dining area. Also,please provide the number of employees in the largest shift. (Need to make sure there is enough parking for the shopping center as a whole.) - ® j. Please provide the current number of parking spaces and the total number that will be removed. .✓- ��e k. Please provide a landscape plan to show what landscaping will be affected and also what landscaping will be added to the site. ® 1. Please show/provide pedestrian connections to the sidewalk/path along 116t'' Street on a site plan. y y.**3. in. Bike parking might be required. Please see Zoning Ordinance Chapter 27 for the required number of bike racks. ®�e it Will the remainder of the multitenant building be renovated as well? If so,when? —L clo. Will there be a new dumpster? If so,please show its location on a site plan and also provide the dumpster enclosure details. Ad'! 41j>tTL ar.ef ' r-ae4;e 1? +-''" 4fF. R 4 S1 ne tt T rs "1'11'1E1 N c ' CA t'}t , KY,9 j C L2frc=1� p. Please provide electronic copies of the proposal. q. Engineering Dept. Comments: The Engineering Dept. is waiting on a site plan for this project;however,they do not anticipate any major comments or concerns. Recommendation: The Dept of Community Services (DOCS) recommends that the Committee approves this item,only after all comments and concerns are addressed. 4 Tey CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION I SPECIAL STUDI.ES COMMITTEE JUNE 5, 2012 DEPARTMENT REPORT 7. Docket No. 12050012 ADLS Amend: The Centre—Inline Shops Redevelopment(Small Shops). R2c)✓ The applicant seeks approval to renovate the building exteriors of all the small shops that are not the anchor tenant space(the grocery store). The site is located at 1342 S. Range Line Rd. and is B-3/Business within the Carmel Dr. —Range Line Rd- Overlay Zone. Filed by Paul Reis of Krieg DeVault, LLP on behalf of KRG Centre, LLC. The petitioner seeks design approval to renovate the building exterior for the small shops within this development. A few months ago,the anchor store (grocery store) received approval for a renovation of their facade. This renovation will complement that one. Please see the petitioner's informational booklet for further details. Outstanding.Staff comments that still need to be addressed by the Petitioner: ,/a. If signage is also a part of this petition,please provide the signage details. f b. Please provide the design details of any exterior wall sconces & lighting. ✓c. Please show that the parapet walls are tall enough to screen any rooftop mounted equipment. d. Please provide electronic copies of the proposal. e. Need to discuss whether or not EIFS is a permitted construction material (in the Overlay Zone), since stucco is. f. Need more detail on the proposed texture of the EIFS. fl+-`( "1"31)“'A °i 0(Y 1=c-or.-IC 6e 'tsts ze .Some. "JON. At.- . Recommendation: The Dept of Community Services (DOCS) recommends that the Committee approves this item, only after all comments and concerns are addressed. • 5 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE JUNE 5, 2012 DEPARTMENT REPORT 1-ML 8. 0i$-HP-Amend/ D 'hr C-`etrtre;P WB==Southeast-C-arner-Retail-Kuilding. The applicant seeks site plan& design approvals for a partial redevelopment of the site. The site is located at 1342-1430 S. Range Line Road. It is zoned B-3/Business,within the Carmel Dr. Range Line Rd. Overlay Zone. Filed by Paul Reis of Krieg Devault, for Kite Realty Co. General Info: . , The petitioner seeks site plan and design approval for a new retail building at the southeast corner of the site, right at the intersection of Range Line Rd. and 116`x' Street. Several BZA Variances are still pending for this overall redevelopment, and on June 25, the BZA Hearing Officer will review the following remaining variance requests, if needed: Docket No. 12020018 V ZO Chptr. 23F.09 Construction Materials (Might be withdrawn) Docket No. 12020019 V ZO Chptr. 23E10 Architectural Design Docket No. 12020020 V ZO Chptr. 23F.11 Landscaping Docket No. 12020021 V ZO Chptr. 23F.12 Lighting Docket No. 12020023 V ZO Chptr. 23E15 Parking (To be withdrawn, since zoning waiver was granted) Please view the petitioner's May 1 informational packet for more detail. (Revisions should be handed out at the June 5 Committee meeting, by the Petitioner.) Background Info: The Special Studies Committee reviewed/approved Phase I of this partial redevelopment at their March 29 meeting. Phase 1 of The Centre's redevelopment project is to rebuild the former Osco and CVS tenant space,to bring in a grocery store tenant as an anchor store. At the Mayl Committee meeting,this current_petition was split into 2 parts. Part A was for the Bank and RetaiUDrive- Thru building,which was forwarded by the Special Studies Committee back to the Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation. Part B is for the corner Retail Building,which was continued to this June 5 committee meeting for further review/discussion. On May 15, the Commission approved Part A,for the Bank and Retail/Drive-Thru building, as well as the new • development plan for The Centre which includes the demolition and reconstruction of the small retail stores in the multi tenant building. Re-cap of comments from the April 17 Plan Commission public hearing meeting, relevant to this building: A. Dempster locations should be looked at again. B. Will the second story of the corner retail building have a separate access? C. Concern with traffic flow on the site and around the site. (Also need to address delivery truck traffic flow and drive thru traffic flow,too.) D. Building design-need to address the issue of large areas of solid walls with no windows or detailing. Staffs outstanding comments for the Petitioner: 1. City Engineering Dep't. Comments: Regarding the overall Development Plan, we have met with the petitioner and/or representatives several times. We have discussed access, right-of-way, drainage, and storm water quality. The plan to date has been consistent with City standards and discussions that have taken place. The Department will support the locations of the proposed curb cuts/access points. The Department is satisfied with the storm water management system concept that has been presented. The Department will work with the petitioner on formalizing a commitment to dedicate the right-of-way potentially necessary for the future roundabout at the intersection at such time as a more definitive plan is developed. The Department has no issues with this item being approved by the Commission,but still needs to see the revised plans for this building. 2. Please submit to-scale architectural building elevations on 24"x36" or similar sized paper. 3. Need more detail about the rooftop mechanical unit screen walls, how they look, and how it fits in with the overall building architecture. 6 4. Per ZO chapter 23F.10.02—there should be distinct cornice lines at the tops of the walls. (Some of the walls just have metal coping, such as the west elevation of the retail building.) 5. Please submit to-scale floor plans or typical store layouts. 6. Please show/label the electric and gas meters on the building elevations. 7. Additional Staff comments: a) Staff thinks the proposed design is very plain. Just like we mentioned for the main grocery building, it needs more details on the brickwork throughout the building to break it up and make it more interesting. b) Please add the double brick soldier course to the west elevation,just beneath the aluminum coping. c) Staff would love to see a functional main entrance at the southeast corner of the building. d) Is there not a better way to incorporate the loading/trash area into the building? Can there be a second floor above that loading area? e) The new proposal for the glass element/bump out at the southeast corner does help with the proportions and begins to address the corner. However,wrapping the masonry veneer base seems to take away from the impact of the glass and aluminum entry. Please remove this and continue the glass/aluminum feature to the ground. f) The Dept. provided architectural building elevations to the developer many months ago, suggesting how the building could look and address the corner;this proposed building does not meet those expectations. The biggest concern is how the building addresses the corner. Recommendation: The Dept of Community Services (DOCS)recommends that the Plan Commission discusses this item and then continues it to the Wednesday, June 27 Committee meeting for further review and discussion. • CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE JUNE 5, 2012. DEPARTMENT REPORT 9. Docket No. 11120027 Z: Highpointe on Meridian PUD. The applicant seeks approval to rezone 27 acres to PUD/Planned Unit Development for commercial, office, and residential uses.The site is located at the southwest corner of 136th St. & Illinois St. It is zoned B-5/Business within the US 31 Corridor Overlay Zone. Filed by Paul Reis of Krieg Devault for Frank Regan, owner. History of the Subiect Site This site was rezoned from S-2/Residential to B-5/Business in 1991,under Plan Commission docket'no. 32-91 Z and City Council Ordinance Z-262. Part of the rezone approval included the relocation of a gas pipeline, to be closer and parallel to the road right of way of future Illinois Street. Also, most of the road right of way for the future Illinois Strzeet.was dedicated to the City, as part of this rezone proposal. Also land for the proposed pump station site was dedicated to the City, also as part of this rezone proposal. Rezone covenants were adopted as part of that 1991 rezone approval. The first covenant was that the building heights were restricted to be a maximum of 3 stories in height, not to exceed 40 feet. The second covenant was that the height of buildings fronting on or adjacent to 136`1, Street were restricted to 2 stories;not to exceed 30 feet, and the architecture of such buildings shall maintain a residential appearance. Context of Subject Site Surrounding zoning land use classifications are S-2/Residence to the north and west,and B-6/Business to the east(within the US 31 Overlay Zone). To the north is the Village of Mount Cannel Subdivision(specifically Section 6) with a density is 1.37 units/acre. To the west is Bentley Oaks Subdivision(2.6 u/ac) and Park Meadows Parks at Springmill (2.5 u/ac). Most of these homes are 2 stories tall.To the east are 2 or 3 story tall medical offices,Illinois St&US 31,with St. Vincent Hospital just past that, which is about 3-4 stories tall. Although the subject parcel lies is within the US 31 Overlay Zone, it is nearly 200 feet from the drive lanes of US 31 and is separated from those drive lanes by the US 31 road right of way and by Illinois Parkway. Comprehensive Plan Guidance According to the Land Classification Plan Map (see attached)in the Comprehensive Plan(C3 Plan), • The existing residential developments to the north and west can be classified as"Suburban Residential". • This subject site is intended for an Employment Node, where there are large office buildings providing regional employment with opportunity to integrate employment-serving mixed uses. • An Employment Node is considered a Conditional Fit, next to Suburban Residential areas, meaning it is appropriate when it is installed with sensitivity next to the residential area. See the Appropriate Adjacent Land Classifications table(attached). • A Neighborhood Support Center(that provides daily goods,services &amenities to residential areas within walking distance) is a type of commercial development considered compatible to Suburban Residential uses, according to the Appropriate Adjacent Land Classifications table (attached). The North Central Carmel Policies & Objectives section of the C3 Plan lists objectives that pertain to: • Encouraging compact urban form and mixed-use development • Promoting protection of single family neighborhoods through buffering, transitional design, infrastructure investment, and landscaping beautification. • Allowing the tallest structures to obe along US 31 • Encouraging neighborhood and community serving commercial nodes in strategic locations • Integrating employment-serving commercial uses to allow workers to walk to restaurants and other businesses. • Allow for a broader mix of uses, including additional residential and service retail. The West Carmel Policies &Objectives section of the C3 Plan lists objectives that pertain to: • Preserving the estate character of West Cannel • Protecting large-lot residential areas 8 The City-wide Policies and Objectives section of the C3 Plan: • Supports neighborhood support centers (not in excessive quantities) • Strongly promotes mixed-use developments (combining commercial and residential uses) • Encourages walkability and bikability so that every trip does not have to be in a vehicle • Promotes appropriate transitions • Favors protection of natural areas • Promotes parking lots in the rear or to the sides of properties The US 31 Corridor Plan of the C3 Plan: • Denotes the subject site as being an Employment Corridor,where building heights should not exceed 3 stories when adjacent to residential neighborhoods. • Also denotes the preservation of residential areas. • Limited opportunity for business-serving and employee-serving commercial should be allowed in existing buildings, such as restaurants and print shops. • Transition the mass and scale of structures between US 31 & Illinois St. to minimize impact to residential development to the west. • Respect transitions to adjacent neighborhoods and require appropriate buffering. The entire Comprehensive Plan document can be viewed online at: http://www.carmel.in.gov/index.aspx?page=202 . Analysis Several factors should be taken into consideration when reviewing this proposed change in use: the prior rezone approval and its covenants;the Comprehensive Plan;current conditions/character of current structures and uses in each district;the highest,best and most desirable use for which the land in each district is adapted;conserving property values throughout the City and Township;and lastly, responsible and smart development/growth. The current zoning of B-5/Business and US 31/Meridian St. Overlay Zone-permits mostly office uses,with a small percentage of some hotel, restaurant, and service/retail support uses. (These chapters can be viewed online at: http://www.carmel.in.gov/index.aspx?page-41&parent=198.) The Overlay Zone excludes all residential uses; however, a nursing/retirement/convalescent facility is permitted in the Overlay,but would only be permitted by Special Use approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals in the B-5 zone. The proposed PUD land uses are(A) residential uses, limited to multi-family dwelling units and a senior living community, (B) general and professional offices uses, and (C) limited retail and service commercial uses,supportive of the office and residential uses. The proposed rezone to a PUD classification would permit the multifamily land uses,which is currently not permitted in the Overlay Zorie. The Department is comfortable with the change in use from office to a mix of u It should be noted that not all office uses operate only 5 days a week from 9am-5pm. There is potential for any office use to have multiple shifts and could operate around the clock. It is not necessarily the "lesser evil" when it comes to intensity of land uses. Also,lights from office windows do have the potential to shine towards the neighbors at night; it is not just a wall sign that could cause light intrusion. Having a residential use on this site could be considered a good thing, so that the area is not `dead' on week nights and on the weekends. The people living there would have their `eyes on the streets',which could help deter crime. Site design should play a role when considering a Planned Unit Development(PUD). The purpose of a PUD is to provide opportunities to create more desirable environments through the application of more flexible and diversified land development standards than the existing regulations. A PUD is intended to be used to encourage the application of new techniques and new technology to community development that will result in superior living or development arrangements with lasting values. This challenging site has many constraints, such as the gas pipeline easement and a drainage.easement,which further constrain the development parameters of this narrow site. The Department likes that fact that the buildings are pulled up to the streets to create a good streetscape.Pulling the buildings up to Illinois Street also allows for the office buildings to be located furthest away from the residential areas to 9 the east. The Dept. also likes the on-street parking along the private streets. The preservation of the trees at the northeast corner of the site is also a good feature. The following are areas of concern to the Department: transition, transition of scale and massing,pedestrian and bicycle accessibility,landscaping and buffering,building architecture, and signage,among other things. The Department believed the last site plan could use some improvements, and the Petitioner has submitted a revised site plan on May 25 that does the following: — • Respects transitions to adjacent neighborhoods and require appropriate buffering. Wider and/or taller buffers separating the multi-family buildings from the single family homes. -- • Adds more densely planted buffers, with berms. ._ • Adds Additional landscaping in parking areas. • Reducing the height, scale,and massing of the multifamily buildings that are closest to the single family residential areas, such as only having 2 story tall apartment buildings there. Transition the mass.and scale of structures to minimize impact to residential development to the west and to the north. The Department would still like to see the following added: • Add light shields on the perimeter parking lot pole lights to further direct the light away from the neighbors. • Adding more green/space within the multifamily area, so residents have areas to take their dogs. • Planting appropriate trees around the pond areas, such as bald cypress, making them amenity areas, as well. If the site is designed well, then it would make the uses appropriate for this area. The Department hopes the committee and the petitioner can work out all remaining issues. Please also view the petitioner's latest info packet for more detail. Staff's outstanding comments for the petitioner: 1. Engineering Dept. comments: Below are the City Engineering Dept. comments, and most of these are repeated from previously issued comments. The Engrg. Dept. has focused these comments on the land use change associated with the rezone/PUD and reserves the right to provide additional comments when more detailed plans are submitted. Such comments may affect the conceptual land plan presented for the rezone. a. In order to fully support the proposed use, the Engrg. Dept. needs more drainage and storm water quality information to ensure that the land plan is accommodating these facilities. o A drainage summary per Section 102.02 (xi)(m)of the Storm Water Technical Standards shall be included on the plan. o Ls the full width right-of-way being detained? o The drainage concept appears to be different than previously discussed. The Department reserves the right to providdiiirtlier comments when more detailed information is submitted. o More definition of the proposed storm water quality system must be provided before the Department approves the concept plan. o City standards prohibit detention facilities on individual lots. Such facilities must be in common area. b. Various easements will be required depending on how the land is developed. Such easements impact the land plan and affect the Engrg. Department's support of the proposed use. o Are all existing easements indicated on the concept plan'? o Are new easements proposed with this development? o If this development is platted,perimeter easements per the Subdivision Control Ordinance will need to be provided. c. The Engrg. Dept does not support the portion of the proposed PUD that limits the grant of right-of-way along Illinois Street. If needed, the Department would work with the pipeline if the roadway needed to be widened. d. The Engrg. Dept will require written confirmation from the pipeline that they are agreeable to the proposed improvements within their easement prior to recommending approval of the proposed use. They expect that the proposed use relies on making improvements within the easement and is not viable without such approvals. 10 • e. The Engg. Dept has reviewed the proposed entrances from Illinois Street. o The Department requests the following be written into the PUD: "All first left turn movements off of entrance drives shall be a minimum of 150-feet from the northern pavement edge of Illinois Street." o The Department requests the following be written into the PUD: "Prior to approval of each of the v)\l.0 proposed entrances, auxiliary lane warrants per the INDOT standard shall be reviewed. If the wc. � warrants are satisfied,auxiliary lanes shall be provided." 2. The Alternative Transportation Systems Coordinator would like the petitioner to add text into the PUD that -- sidewalks are required on both sides of a private street. He would also like the petitioner to comply with the Carmel Zoning Ordinance requirements for bicycle parking, and not deviate from that standard. 3. The Planning/Zoning Dept. offers the following comments: 9 a. Perhaps this PUD should have more architectural building standards and/or conceptual renderings; see The AteY, Bridges PUD Z-550-11 and Silvara PUD Z-553-11 as examples. (This should be discussed further.) �� tt b. Page 4-section 3.1 Permitted Uses-can you swap out Senior Living Community for Continuing Care \J� — Retirement Community(CCRC), so it more closely matches the Cannel Zoning Ordinance defined uses? c. Page 8 -section G-DOCS would recommend continuous facades of more than 100-ft wid4 shall be designed with vertical offsets,not 200 ft. '7 CA ' 6-cam • d. Page 11 -section I-Perimeter Bufferyard widths should be discussed further(along with transition)_ • e. Section 6-Landscaping Requirements -The City Forester submitted requested changes to this Section on May W\li. 31. Some concerns are the number of plantings within the streetscapes, having options for the perimeter landscape standards (which should just be set standards and quantities), and not having foundation plantings Ltd'(T5 . around the amenity area building. (Almost every aspect of the landscaping standards been written in at lesser levels than what the zoning ordinance requires.) f. Page 14- section 7.A.B - CCRC parking ratios;DOCS is okay with this ratio,if you also add: Plus one space per employee of the largest shift. is o g. Page 14, section 7.B: the Dept. would like on-street parking along one or both sides of a private drive to be made a requirement in this section. _ Sn stivti h. Section 9.3 A: Could this be simplified to just state the colors of the signs shall not be restricted and logos will `i be respected in regards to color? DOCS would still like.to see the signs come through as part of the ADLS to specify what types of signs,lighting, and placement on the buildings. (DOCS is ok with color and will respect color choices, not trying to pin anyone down to a specific color. DOGS prefers that the signs be of similar construction style, so they look cohesive on the building.) -fJ )p1=t �fi. Section 9.3 B: ROCS is not ok with permitting signage on every faeade of every building. The Department would be more supportive of language referring to non-illuminated wall signs to help aid people in finding destinations on the sides of buildings that face residential. 4. Section 9.3 B: DOCS is not okay with illuminated wall signs facing any residential use, inside of or outside of 'C the development. .-4\k)N) I LI-um t10 "D 11. Section 9.3 C: Please reduce the height of Ground Signs to 8 feet tall,to stay in line with the current sign ordinance. ILt.�Cl \1. Section 9.3 D: Again,please reduce to 8' tall WILL 2a /n. General Signage comments: The signage section did not change at all. They do have the sentence about no d� signs facing residentially zoned areas, so that's good,but it doesn't account for signage within their own project. Also,the .Dept thinks that 100 sq. ft. for an entrance sign that won't have tenant panels on it is unnecessary. /0 Section 11 vs. Section 2-need further clarification about the approval process (plan commission approvals vs. director's approvals) and clarification of terms, such as preliminary development plan vs. final development � plan. ti XSC:�S ) Wlw �,4 - o. The Dept. suggests that the petitioner submits an exhibit showing building shadows,a shadow study. P /� The C,ornniission should d s.cuss whether or not it is a good idea for the petitioner to have a perimeter- zv fer___i_c_e./_wall, in lieu of perimeter bufferyard plantings. (The De t. refers the enhanced bufferyard plantings.) o q. The Dept. would like the petitioner to maintain at least one driveway cut onto 13 S er ei�. e r. Please submit a revis, d,�exibbit comparing the Zoning Standards within the Overlay 7ne"-with the rip oposed standards of this PUD ordinance. Recommendation: The Dept of Community Services (DOCS) recommends that the Plan Commission discusses this item and then continues it to the June 27 committee meeting. 11 c) r (711 -Y IY1f cfk P1 .-6 • 01-19-{-(- - og. (Y‘elzi-tv) Ij\I-) )62) 9L44 LILT .5 6T- C 1 _01 )(t.CE'D - PI'L°Kis G) 3 Ch — • _3() - t),)P11\515 Tit) tc Lr)./ (-) 3( -c=c) 1-laprtY,111- - 6Y 00-S - Ott, f\e,HrL-nra7- 3TS ET' -N043 PtV-Ef - ° c,??-si7Sq--r1/41 l'tk"‘j çci(.1.-77,3 Coal 171-TW-15 - .5060 ITT(. \-V00° - (.44,‘D/y78-).P• L) 01 „ . _ 174-L Sol .nmefu- vbg T1-1 e"9-.A=0LiJ c.-) - r--AIRFAER. Wo, c;i1,-■f ti6 (-04 H.E.PN L-1(-71-iTs Imo— Z o g Q J W = _1 CC CO n U U d O N N Q Q U W "' MV rn — U W Q d m H as Q _ O U G Q Q CO Y N a) N W CC o_ N Cl) aa7=5 I- 12 f�s,2ss v�Q;1 1 6th S . :, N iii =o S. s s f�f ..... / �E' B 1 E 1 1 c c m ca w IT c 1 09 LL I 1 ed Q LS N 1 a) 1 — " U 1 __a . LLQ _ zo 1 (7/ • @ 'gal CI) ' . `J 7 I CO co N M CI d RS f2 o W V L tnU � ( 1 LL 1 I_ ,o 9i? ca z °' L1.1 o IT g 42 2 ,- 00 ) - 1J � 1 :d ._ . . `)l 1L 2.s 0E0:".,;°, -0.: .:, '1 I ... ,,.. -.- ‘)/ \ I N 1 1 .i'sI. e 9 L c„_0:.r :12'T£ ! m (0£5L L.-) a s sarJ Diu- r ,9'91, o0 I 0 I N tv S!_ c H I y£9Z :119 _ 'H'9 6 d �� a• w " " ` Y� I i o . _ : 8 U) : :10 •V - N ato v J E 1 I dQr to 88Z l Zrg 8 ci L 1 + Q U- £rl l OJ Z p ESt O0 O r -r a w ) I 1 � I a c�nM d a - - - - �..�� - - O ww i� cponw c+�Y e ! ! f ! l 9eeeel t1ttttttttttttttttttttttttttill Donahue-Wold, Alexia K From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 3:58 PM To: Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: FW: DOE Staff Report Revisions - Highpointe on Meridian For YOU! From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 3:48 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Foley, Amanda 3; Hollibaugh, Mike P; McBride, Mike T; Paul G. Reis Subject: Staff Report Revisions - Highpointe on Meridian Good afternoon Angie, Below are the Department of Engineering comments for the meeting tonight.The Department would like to modify some of the comments. 1. Previous Comment No.1. "In order to fully support the proposed use,the Department needs more drainage and storm water quality information to ensure that the land plan is accommodating these facilities."The Department has met with the petitioner and discussed this comment.The petitioner acknowledged that the construction drawings will need to adhere to the City's standards for storm water management and treatment. 2. PreviousComment No.2. "Various easements will be required depending on how the land is developed. Such easements impact the land plan and affect the Departments support of the proposed use."The Department has met with the petitioner and discussed this comment.The petitioner acknowledged that the construction drawings will need to adhere to the City's standards for easements. 3. Previous Comment No.3. "The Department does not support the portion of the proposed PUD that limits the grant of right-of-way along Illinois Street. If needed,the Department would work with the pipeline if the roadway needed to be widened."The Department has met with the petitioner and discussed this comment.The petitioner is reviewing the pipeline easement language for any restrictions on the use of the easement as public right-of-way. 4. Previous Comment No.4. "The Department will require written confirmation from the pipeline that they are agreeable to the proposed improvements within their easement prior to recommending approval of the proposed use. I expect that the proposed use relies on making improvements within the easement and is not viable without such approvals."The Department will require such documentation prior to releasing construction drawings for the portions of the development that propose improvements within the easement. 5. Previous Comment No.5. "The Department has reviewed the proposed entrances from Illinois Street. (a)The Department requests the following be written into the PUD: "All first left turn movements off of entrance drives shall be a minimum of 150-feet from the northern pavement edge of Illinois Street." (b)The Department requests the following be written into the PUD: " Prior to approval of each of the proposed entrances, auxiliary lane warrants per the 1NDOT standard shall be reviewed. If the warrants are satisfied, auxiliary lanes shall be provided.""The Department still requests that these revisions be included in the final PUD. Additionally,the Department has considered the traffic that will be generated from this site when developed. The Department provides the following information for the committee to consider: 1 1. Illinois Street was designed to accommodate the traffic from development of this site as well as traffic across tht • ' larger City roadway network. 2. The US-31 improvements are being designed to accommodate future land use. 3. The proposed zoning of the site is expected to generate less traffic than the traffic that would be generated under the current zoning. 4. The Department relies on traffic studies to identify necessary modifications to the existing traffic controls (signal timing, striping, etc.) or roadway system (travel lanes auxiliary lanes, intersection configurations)to maintain adequate levels of service or to address safety issues expected by the Department to result from the development. It is important to note that any improvements to the Illinois Street intersections with Main Street and 136th Street to accommodate traffic from this development would not be expected to resolve the current issues at these intersections.The current issues will be resolved with the improvements to US-31. The buildout timeframe of this development will be concurrent with or be longer than the timeframe for the improvements to US-31. As such, it would be difficult to identify any short term improvements necessary due to the traffic from this development.Also,the intersections with US-31 are expected to be improved before the full buildout of this development. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks so much, Gary Gary R. Duncan,Jr., PE Assistant City Engineer City of Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 (317) 571-2441 (317) 571-2439(fax) gduncan @carmel.in.gov Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail • 2