Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 12-18-12Members Present: John Adams, Brad Grabow, Joshua Kirsh, Steve Lawson, Alan Potasnik, Kevin "Woody" Rider, Steve Stromquist, Sue Westenneier, Ephraim Wilfong Members Absent: Jay Donnan, Nick Kestner DOCS Staff Present: Director Michael Hollibaugh, City Planner Angie Conn; Legal Counsel John Molitor Also Present: Ramona Hancock, Plan Commission Secretary Minutes of the November 20, 2012 meeting were approved as submitted John Molitor, Legal Counsel Report: Aramore PUD Ordinance Amendment — Petitioner has submitted a text amendment to the PUD Ordinance that was made by City Council. The text change is coming back to the Plan Commission for further review in terms of whether or not the Commission wants to ratify the changes made by City Council or would disagree and propose different language. City Council also imposed a condition with the passage of the PUD Ordinance; the condition is not subject to Commission review, however the language change is subject to Commission review. Aramore PUD Ordinance Amendment (Plan Commission Docket No. 12070017 OA and Council Ordinance Z- 569 -12). The Commission needs to vote to affirm or deny the changes made /approved by Council. Steve Pittman addressed the Commission regarding the text change to the Aramore PUD Ordinance Amendment made by City Council. Overall the Council was pleased with the Ordinance Amendment, but they did make a minor change in that anything greater than 10% would be returned to Council. The change in language is agreeable. Motion: Brad Grabow moved to affirm the text changes made by City Council to Aramore PUD Z -569- 12 Ordinance, seconded by Joshua Kirsh, approved 9 -0. G. Reports, Announcements & Department Concerns, Angie Conn: Item No. 2 under Public Hearings, Meijer Outlot B, has been tabled to January 15, 2013 December 18, 2012 Cannel Plan Commission Meeting H. Public Hearings 1. Docket No. 12100017 Z: Hadley Grove PUD Rezone (with Primary Plat). The applicant seeks approval to rezone 30 acres to PUD /Planned Unit Development, for 38 homes, and also seeks primary plat approval. The site is located at 2424 W. 1315` St. (the NWC of Towne Rd. & 131" St.) and is zoned S -1/ Residence. Filed by Bryan Stumpf of 11th Street Development, LLC for M/I Homes of Indiana LP. Present for Petitioner: Bryan Stumpf, 11th Street Development. Overview: • Hadley Grove located on northwest corner of Main Street & Towne Road • Surrounding area & uses were highlighted • Area to the south is commercial – Village of WestClay • Lakes at Towne Rod III to the north has a street stub connection • The site contains many mature trees & an existing pond • Proposed land plan respects existing features on the site & maintains approx 35% existing open space • Existing open space has been incorporated into common area for the community • Proposed use is strictly a residential subdivision of single family, detached homes —no commercial • Almost every lot in the plan either opens into or abuts common area • Proposed homes in Hadley Grove are targeted to an "empty nester" community with a price point between $275,000 and $400,000 Public Remonstrance/Favorable: • Marilyn Anderson, 3884 Shelbome Court, President of CWIC 2, spoke in support of the petition. The abutting subdivisions were developed under ROSO and the density of the proposed development is slightly less than the abutting neighbors; the layout/design is very neighbor friendly; the Primary Plat is being presented along with the PUD, so there is assurance that what is being proposed is what will actually be built; the PUD is supported by the neighbors & the intent of this PUD is clearly an innovative & enhanced design that is not possible under existing zoning. Kudos to Bryan Stumpf & M/I Homes for proposing a development that is sensitive to the neighbors & includes features that are important to the area residents No Further Remonstrance/Public Hearing Closed 2 Brad Grabow, Chairperson, Subdivision Committee: As this Docket goes forward to Committee, it will be reviewed & treated under guidelines for PUD's that the Committee was studying. The Committee spent several months reviewing PUD's until the Council proposed a moratorium & made the Committee work moot for the time being, although the Committee continues to welcome input from the Council regarding PUD's. Woody Rider commented that City Council had suggested that the Plan Commission & City Council get together for a working relationship between the two, and that will be coming soon. It is exciting that this area is to be developed as residential, something thought never to happen! Questions /Comments, Commission Members: • Why developing under a PUD and not the current S -1 zoning? • Response: Rather than cover the entire property with residential lots & lose the trees, encroach the wetlands, etc, PUD allows more sensitivity to protect the features of the site & how the property integrates with its neighbors & minimizing its impact • This may be a perfect example of why PUD's are a good idea • Petitioner is to be commended for preserving quality space, not just scrub space – please preserve the natural state of the property as much as possible • Please consider minimum lot frontage & setting two standards, one for the "pie- shape" lots (maybe 50 feet) & one for traditional, "parallel elevation" lots. Also consider the location of the HVAC equipment which may consume the 5 -foot side -yard setback • Please look at design standards and detached garages – explore in more detail • Chimneys please extend to the ground to appear more substantial • Roof pitch & overhang needs to be explored with a view of raising the 50% requirement • Fences – questions regarding chainllink —need to set a standard for fence style throughout the subdivision • Petitioner to bring a comparison chart to Committee that lays out development standards under S -1 as opposed to the development standards of the proposed PUD Docket No. 12100017 Z, Hadley Grove PUD Rezone (with Primary Plat) was forwarded to the Subdivision Committee for further review on Wednesday, January 2, 2013 at 6:.00 PM. December 18, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting 1660 W. 136" St. and is zoned S -1 /Residence. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger PC, for Jeff & Julia Gren, owners. Present for Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewicz, Land Use Professional, Nelson & Frankenberger; Jeff & Julia Gren, property owners; Jim Shields, Project Engineer; Jim Shinaver, Nelson & Frankenberger. Overview: • Two -acre site located on north side of 136`" Street, one - quarter mile west of Ditch Road • Property surrounded by residential development & individual residential lots on all sides • Two -lot proposal will have a single driveway access to 136`" Street as recommended by Dept of Engineering • Landscaping Plan has been approved by Urban Forester • All aspects of primary plat meet with the requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance • Primary Plat approval is being requested at this time • Petitioner is also requesting suspension of the Rules of Procedure and final vote this evening • Engineer continues review & request for construction plans with no issue from the petitioner No Public Remonstrance /Public Hearing Closed Dept Report, Angie Conn: • Two -Lot Subdivision complies with requirements of Subdivision Control Ordinance • Request petitioner consider to committing to architectural design guidelines • Recommend Commission suspend its Rules of Procedure and consider approval of the plat this evening Motion: Brad Grabow to suspend the Rules of Procedure and vote this evening, seconded by Woody Rider, approved 9 -0 Motion: Woody Rider to approve Docket No. 12100014 PP, Park Grenshire Minor Subdivision — Primary Plat, seconded by Joshua Kirsh, approved 9 -0. 4. Docket No. 12100019 DP: The Bridges PUD — Commercial Amenity Use Block, Phase 1. 5. Docket No. 12100020 ADLS: CVS Pharmacy. 6. Docket No. 12100021 ADLS: Commercial Building. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for 2 free - standing commercial buildings that front on 116th St. The site is located at 11405 Springmill Rd. and is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger LP, for G.B. Developers II, LLC. Note: Items 4, 5, and 6 were heard together Present for Petitioner: Charlie Frankenberger, Nelson & Frankenberger; Buzz Whissiger, GB Developers II; Steve Pittman, land owner•, Jon Dobosiewicz, Nelson & Frankenberger Overview: 0 • Three Use Blocks within The Bridges PUD -- current request relates to the Commercial Amenity Use Block in the northern portion of the site on the west side of Illinois Street • Approval is being requested to allow a CVS Building and adjacent commercial bldg • CVS Bldg will be located on the west side; commercial bldg on the east side • Site Plan provides for integrated, pedestrian connectivity • Entrance will be distinctively appointed with a bridge and attractive water feature • Site will be fully landscaped & in complete compliance with The Bridges PUD Ordinance • Renderings were shown of the CVS bldg & the commercial bldg • Petitioner has met with representatives from Spring Mill & Williams Mill neighborhoods; an email from the neighborhood expressed strong support for this matter & suspension of the Rules of Procedure • The petitioner's request complies in all respects with The Bridges PUD Ordinance & standards Public Remonstrance /Favorable: None Additions to the Rules of Procedure: "CTC" —" Communicate to Council" If an item is sent to Council with a negative recommendation, send the Plan Commission President or his designee to Council, specifically for a PUD or Rezone, and at a public hearing state why the findings were presented in a negative manner. "ATC" — "Ask The Council" Once Council has approved a PUD or Rezone, the responsibility falls upon the Dept of Community Services and the Plan Commission. Depending upon the terms & conditions of those approvals, there may be an instance where the Plan Commission needs to formally ask the Council, "Is this really what you intended ?" If that avenue is not available, perhaps the Commission could use the "blue card process" to request time to address the Council. The overall intent of "CTC" and "ATC" is to enhance the communication, to leverage the expertise and growth potential of the Dept of Community Services plus, of course, take advantage of the hours, the review, and the dedication of the Commission members as volunteers. Did the Council really intend for a CVS to be on the corner of Spring Mill Road and 116th Street? This could have been an instance where Ask the Council would have been useful. R December 18, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting Jay Dorman objected to the location of the CVS and would rather have seen the CVS shift to the east/Illinois Street, and move the retail building to the south — keep the retail intense uses toward Illinois Street. If that were not possible, plan B would be: "Do you really want a dumpster and trash enclosure across the street from a pristine, brand -new, Mormon Church complex ?" Do those two even go together? Please consider this at Committee review. And, had the "ATC" rule been in place, you may have polled the Council in a formal manner, or sent it to Committee and still take advantage of that, had you had an "ATC" opportunity available as part of the Rules of Procedure. Rebuttal, Charlie Frankenberger: The Bridges went through a very thorough, review process with multiple meetings with the Dept of Community Services, Plan Commission members, Special Studies Committee, the Council — every aspect of The Bridges was examined in great detail. There is no question that a CVS use is permitted on the corner, and during the approval process of the PUD Ordinance, that was not obscured; it was completely transparent. At this stage, it is not reasonable to suggest that it is a surprise or something unexpected. When approval was sought, unique architecture was emphasized — we talked the talk, and with this building, we are walking the walk, this is a beautiful building. The manner in which the building is situated in relation to the commercial building, the location of the dumpsters, every aspect of this proposal is allowed by the PUD Ordinance without the need for variances or waivers. The dumpster enclosures are architecturally integrated into the west elevation & will be heavily buffered. The refuse collection is an unavoidable part of every development, but the dumpsters were examined very carefully and located accordingly; they were reviewed by representatives of the adjacent neighborhoods, Springmill Place and Williams Mill, and their response was overwhelming support, not only for this request, but specifically for the integration of the dumpster enclosures into the west elevation. Everything requested this evening is in full compliance with the applicable requirements and necessitates neither a variance nor a waiver. Dept Report, Angie Conn: • Staff has compared this proposal to the PUD Ordinance text • There are approximately 15 comments for discussion at the Committee level • Dept requests that this item be sent to January 2, 2013 Special Studies Committee • Petitioner asked consideration for delegating final vote to the Committee, based on the strong support of the adjacent neighbors Commission Members' Comments /Questions: • Retail WAS expected at this location of the development • It is uncertain what switching the CVS with other retail in the development would accomplish • The proposal for a CVS is NOT a surprise • It will be interesting to take a closer look at Committee review • Agreement with comments made by Jay Dorman • Please explain traffic pattern in detail & how ingress /egress would affect traffic flow at this location • Access onto 1161h Street is right in/right out only; access into the balance of the development will be obtained thru drives that extend to the south & intersection with the existing intersection at Illinois Street • An access point will align with the Mormon Temple on Springmill. There is also a right in/right G December 18, 2012 Cannel Plan Commission Meeting out entrance off Illinois Street to the south of the site —a right exit would be to the north, around the roundabout, then head south. Neither the CVS nor the Commercial Bldg will be issued a certificate of occupancy until the drives & access points on Illinois Street are constructed as seen on the site plan. The petitioner will bring an exhibit to committee to further illustrate. • Currently, Illinois Street is being constructed halfway between 11 Ith & 100h Streets; the other portion will be bid from that halfway point in the Spring • Liking or not liking the CVS is irrelevant – if it fits the PUD, we are not here to decide whether this location can be a CVS, we are here for architectural review • Illinois will eventually go south to 103`d Street which will be improved & stubbed to Springmill with a roundabout on Springmill where it will connect • Rotate the bldg 90 degrees counter - clockwise – this is a premium intersection and viewing the back of the bldg is bothersome • This PUD raised the bar for perimeter buffering not seen before in Carmel – part of the job of the Plan Commission now is to ensure that the buffering standard is upheld with each development that is proposed within the PUD; this proposal does that – the perimeter buffering is wonderful • Request that the Committee not only look at perimeter buffering but the ability to provide a visual buffering of parking area located on the interior so that cars could be screened but signage on the side of the bldg can be visible • The proposed plan is commendable for the entrance scheme that allows more landscape buffer to wrap around the property on three sides • Could more be done to minimize the impact of service uses proposed for the west elevation of the building? If the west & east elevation could be flipped to make the dumpsters & drive -thru more to the south side, interior to The Bridges, it would be preferable • Is a third drive -thru lane really necessary? There could be less asphalt & more greenspace • Bike Rack location? • Lighting: Fixtures specified for parking lot use are a little disappointing- -there is a missed opportunity to carry out the proposed "Prairie" theme in the PUD • Request that the Committee be judicious regarding number & location of signage throughout the CVS portion of this development Docket Nos. 12100019 DP, The Bridges PUD – Commercial Amenity Use Block, Phase, 12100020 ADLS, CVS Pharmacy, and 12100021 ADLS, Commercial Building, were forwarded to the Special Studies Committee for further review on Wednesday, January 2, 2013 at 6:00 PM. 7. TABLED TO JAN. 15 - Docket No. 12080004 Z: Springmill Court PUD Rezone. The applicant seeks approval to rezone approximately 15 acres to PUD/Planned Unit Development for multiple - family dwellings, from S- 2/Residence. The site is located at 400 W. 96th Street, at the northwest corner of 96th St. & Springmill Rd. Filed by Timothy Ochs of Ice Miller, LLP, on behalf of Sexton Development, LLC. 8. TABLED TO JAN. 1 - Docket No. 12090019 DP /ADLS: Sterler Productions (Park Northwestern, Lot 8A1). The applicant seeks approval for a 10,000 sq. ft. building with parking area. The site is located at 4796 Northwestern Dr. and is zoned I -1 /Industrial. Filed by Bud Snyder of Hewes Concrete Polishing, LLC, for Sterler Holdings, LLC. 7 December 18, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting Old Business 1. Docket No. 12030014 DP: 9800 N. Michigan Rd. 2. Docket No. 12030016 ADLS: Dunkin Donuts, C -Store & Gas Canopy. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for two multi -tenant buildings & fuel canopy on 3.56 acres. The site is located at 9800 N. Michigan Rd. and is zoned I -1 /Industrial, within the US 421 /Michigan Rd. Overlay Zone. Filed by Brad Walker of H & H Restaurant Mngmt. NOTE: Brad Grabow was recused himself and was not present during discussion and voting on these two items. For Dunkin Donuts, C -Store & Gas Canopy. Present for Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewicz, Land Use Professional with Nelson & Frankenber; Brad Walker on behalf of Restaurant Management; Eric Gleisner, Project Engineer with Civil Site Group; Brad Smith, Project Architect; Jim Shinaver, Nelson & Frankenberger Overview: • Proposal is for construction of two multi -tenant bldgs, including a fuel station & canopy • Two approvals requested & required: Development Plan & Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping & Signage from the Plan Commission, and Development Standard Variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals • Variances were granted by the BZA on November 26, 2012; DP /ADLS was reviewed by Special Studies Committee on December 04 following public hearing on November 20, 2012 • Special Studies Committee voted unanimously 5 -0 to return this item to Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation • Site Plan has been changed as result of Plan Commission & Committee review: bldg positioning to meet required setbacks, revision of bike racks & sidewalk positioning, bldg materials and design of the bldgs • Petitioner has met with Clay West Information Council & CWIC2 is in support of this request • Changes made at the request of CWIC2 include architectural elements on the east side of the bldg shown additional architectural elements were added, including additional windows • The plans fully comply with all applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance • Petitioner is requesting DP /ADLS approval at this time Special Studies Committee Report, Steve Stromquist: • BZA approved a variance for location of car stacking for drive -thru lanes; total number of signs for Dunkin' Donuts; not meeting the 8 -foot bldg facade off -set projections, four feet requested • Petitioner has complied with the following: • Move bike rack closer to the front of the site • Make the detention pond a more natural look with shore plantings & more natural shape • Shift pedestrian access from Michigan Road to the front of the buildings • Metal Gates rather than wooden gates for dumpsters & meters • Gas canopy color represented in the booklet, but not actual photo (no signage or logo on the canopy) • Speed bumps have been removed • Petitioner reviewed the requested variances associated with the signage; initially three, now reduced to one. Dept Report, Angie Conn: • Dept is requesting approval of this petition with two conditions: • Removal of speed humps • Gas canopy will be green color discussed at Committee, non - illuminated, and free of signage or logo Motion: Woody Rider, to approve Docket Nos. 12030014 DP, 9800 North Michigan Road, and 12030016 ADLS, Dunkin' Donuts, C -Store & Gas Canopy, conditioned upon removal of speed bumps, color of gas canopy to be green, none - illuminated, and free of signage or logo; seconded by John Adams, approved 9 -0 3. Docket No. 12050013 Z: 146th & Gray Rezone. The applicant seeks approval to rezone 4.59 acres from S -1 /Residence to B- 1/Business (with commitments) for a proposed fuel /gas station, with a surrounding 7 -acre tree preservation/buffer area to remain zoned S -1. The site is located at 4927 E. 146th St., at the southeast corner of 146th St. and Gray Rd. Filed by Joseph Scimia of Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP for L & Q Realty, LLC. Present for Petitioner: Joe Scimia, Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP, 600 East 96th Street, Carmel. Overview: • Request approval to rezone 4.59 acres to allow for a fuel station & Ricker's convenience store • Site is located at southeast corner of 146th Street & Gray Road • Public Hearing was held in August, 2012 • Proposed plan is consistent with Comprehensive Plan recommendations • Architectural design standards and materials were incorporated into the plan • Significant buffer provided between proposed development & neighborhood residential uses • Traffic was discussed; traffic study was done by A & F Traffic Engineers • Striking an appropriate balance between the legitimate interests of the developer & the' surrounding neighborhood& community was also discussed • Special Studies Committee reviewed this proposal for several months • Development plan has been revised based on recommendations & committee review • Traffic Study was done with respect to the impact of proposed development on the area & found to be neutral on its face • Study done by Mundell & Assoc., experts in these types of facilities, because of concerns raised regarding the effect on Carmel's wellhead protection area • Input from Dept of Engineering • Number of pumps reduced to 8 from 10; also reduction in size & location of canopy • Enhanced buffer area added to the south & east of proposed development • Buffering is in form of evergreens, 15 feet staggered, together with ornamental trees & ground plantings to provide year -round buffering of the project to residents south & east of the site • Unusual to have this level of detail at rezone stage 0 December 18, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting • Entire planting row located along south and east of the development • Site is 11.5 acres, originally zoned to B -1 classification; 7.2 acres have been removed from the request & will remain zoned S -1 & subject to a conservation easement maintained in its natural state • Petitioner has agreed to limit the number of uses allowed (25 uses removed from list of allowable uses) • Photos were taken to show the view from points A of the proposed development from the Snyder residence & the level of existing growth from point B • Site at corner is low & at certain times of the year, neighbors felt the development would be highly visible • Diagram of cross- section shown of the intersection & existing development on the north west portion of 146`h Street • The site would have to be raised approx 7 feet in order to build • Site line is over and above this proposed development & during greater part of year, screened by heavy vegetation • In addition, a complete landscape buffer is being built along the south & east ends to provide further buffering • The back of the building is architectural brick with design in it and enhances aesthetics, although it is unlikely it will be seen from Sue Lane due to the additional landscape & buffering • The Committee voted 3 -1 for a favorable recommendation to the full Commission • The Dept Report recommends favorable consideration Committee Report, Alan Potasnik: • Changes were made to the plan by the Petitioner • Questions arose regarding: • Tanker trucks • Turning radius • Width of driveway cuts along 146`h Street • Traffic issues, noise, fumes, etc • Most concerns of Committee members & residents were addressed. • Alan Potasnik was the vote in opposition Dept Report, Angie Conn: • Item was reviewed by Committee for several months • Committee adequately analyzed each aspect of the petition whether it be traffic, wellhead protection area for underground water, fumes, light • Committee also took into consideration the site history, i.e. three unsuccessful rezones ranging from office to multi- family • Dept recommends Commission send a favorable recommendation to the City Council Commission Members' Comments /Questions: • Commendations for both residents & petitioner to work thru the rezone & provide "unheard of' buffer & landscape barrier • Seven acres of buffering & the plans for the building itself, and that 146`h Street is already the Iff J December 18, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting cross - county highway leads one to believe that a gas station & convenience store along 146th Street where none exists from 151" Street & US 31 until Road 37 is an appropriate use for some location along 146th Street • A gas station is compatible use for 146th Street & would provide a service for businesses as well as residents • It makes sense to see this rezone to allow this type of use • Buffering is appropriate, the building is attractive, the facility represents the design standards of Carmel well and will be harmonious with the residential uses nearby • Cannot be in favor for a number of reasons • Agreement with favorable consideration and in support • Tough decision — unsure • Initially opposed, but the buffering/tree preservation is a very forward move on the part of the petitioner • Main concern is traffic entering & exiting • Ask petitioner to review again what might be done for the single residence - -thd first property south of the site that borders Gray Road • Site will be developed at some time; this proposal is a good benefit for the area • Tonight is not the final decision; this item will be referred to City Council which starts the process again • The greenspace is great, the design is good, but a gas station is not the right occupancy for this property Motion: Woody Rider to forward Docket No. 12050013 Z, 146th & Gray Rezone, to City Council with a positive recommendation; seconded by John Adams. The vote was 5 in favor 4 opposed (Potasnik, Stromquist, Westermeier, Kirsh) No Action Vote Motion: Woody Rider to forward Docket No. 12050013 Z, 146th & Gray Rezone, to City Council with No Recommendation, seconded by John Adams. The vote was 8 in favor, one opposed (Potasnik) Docket No. 12050013 Z, 146th & Gray Rezone, will move forward to City Council with a No Recommendation vote. I. New Business -- None 11 1 1