Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 02-19-13 7 OF CA9'yF 1 (\\\ . City of Carmel CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 19, 2013 One Civic Square, Carmel, IN 46032 2°d Floor, City Hall Council Chambers 6 p.m. Members Present: John Adams, Michael Casati, Brad Grabow, Nick Kestner, Steve Lawson, Alan Potasnik, Kevin "Woody" Rider, Steve Stromquist, Susan Westermeier, Ephraim Wilfong Members Absent: Joshua Kirsh DOCS Staff Present: Director Michael Hollibaugh, Planning Administrator Rachel Boone, Planning Administrator Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Adrienne Keeling, Legal Counsel John Molitor, Lisa Motz, Plan Commission Secretary The minutes of the January 15, 2013 meeting were approved as submitted. I Legal Counsel Report: Nothing new to report this month. Reports, Announcements & Department Concerns: Two items tabled from this meeting are as follows: TABLED INDEFINITELY - Docket No. 12080004 Z: Springmill Court PUD Rezone. The applicant seeks approval to rezone approximately 15 acres to PUD/Planned Unit Development for northwest corner of 96th St. & Springmill Rd. Filed by Timothy Ochs of Ice Miller, LLP, on behalf of Sexton Development, LLC. TABLED TO MARCH 19 - Docket No. 12120015 ADLS: The Seasons of Carmel (Aramore PUD). . . . . . _ . .. . . . . . . _ . is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Pittman Partners, Inc. PC Resolution 02-19-13: Plan Commission resolution to amend the Parkwood Economic Development Plan to allow the Carmel Redevelopment Commission to use Parkwood TIF money to fund a special reserve fund for bonds. The CRC approved this amendment, and the Plan Commission's role is to confirm that the amendment conforms to the City's development plan. Present for Petitioner: Brad Bingham with Barnes and Thornburg—CRC would allow use of TIF money to fund to a supplemental reserve fund to secure certain CRC obligations. Page I of I I WWW.CARMEL.IN.GOV ONE CIVIC SQUARE,CARMEL,INDIANA 46032 (317)571-2417 February 19,2013 Meeting Agenda Carmel Plan Commission Brad Grabow moved to approve. Kevin Rider seconded. Motion approved. H. Public Hearings Docket No. 12120016 DP/ADLS: Butler Hyundai Development at 96th/Randall. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a 37,500 sq. ft. car dealership building, two outlots, and Randall Bypass road. The site is located at approximately 4200 E. 96' St., west of Randall Dr. The site is zoned B-3/Business and partially lies within the Floodplain & Floodway Districts. Filed by Timothy Ochs of Ice Miller, LLP, on behalf of 4148 96th St, LLC. Present for Petitioner: Timothy Ochs of Ice Miller Overview: • This is not a rezoning nor a gasoline station • This is a approval request for 9.73 acres on north side of 96th Street that will allow an approximately 30,000 sq ft Butler Hyundai Dealership • Located directly across the street from HH Gregg Head Quarters • This is a permitted use within the B-3 district • If approved, no building will be done on northern section of property until presented to Plan Commission • If approved, will be 13th automobile dealership on the north side of 96th Street between the White River and Keystone Ave, five more are under construction or renovation on the south side of 96d' Street. This doesn't count the other dealerships on the west side of Keystone. • Randall Drive will be re-routed to a new traffic signal that lines up with the entrance to HHGregg to make entering 96th Street safer • Randall Drive would be dedicated as public right of way and built per City of Carmel street standards • Sign package includes all signs desired by petitioner and is in compliance with all ordinances • However, the number of signs would require a variance • Landscape plans have been modified multiple times and complies with buffer yard requirements and landscaping types and materials that are required by Carmel Zoning Ordinance • Retaining wall would be built along existing Randall Drive and is necessary for grade change • Lighting spillage complies with requirements. • Representatives of the owner met with neighborhood to the north and they would like us to agree to commitments that mirror commitments that are in place with auto mall project on the east side of Randall Drive. We are committed to continuing discussions with neighbors and staff. Commitments are for this project only not the northern undeveloped portion of this site. • All future commitments will need to be presented in front of Plan Commission Board. • Commitments include limits of hours of operation, speaker sound direction, test drives not allowed in subdivision, banners and blimps etc not to exceed roof height, lights be dimmed or turned between hours of 10 pm — 6:30 am, signs and lighting would be as proposed in package and potential buffer along site could change if use changes in future. Page 2 of I I WWW.CARMEL.IN.GOV ONE CIVIC SQUARE,CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 (317)571-2417 February 19,2013 Meeting Agenda Carmel Plan Commission 1 Organized Remonstrance Unfavorable: David Frische, Jay Mercer, Chris Dykes —Williamson Run Homeowners • David Frische - We understand that the parcel is one entity and should be looking at as one • Jay Mercer— Attorney and past member on board for homeowners - is concerned about Randall Drive and neighbors that live adjacent to the north end of parcel. Not knowing what will be built at north end of parcel and how it will effect use, hours of operation and traffic patterns. All we want is for developer to sit down and talk with neighbors about commitments. Requests for this to be tabled until discussion has taken place. • Chris Dykes —Broker with Carpenter Realtor and homeowner— is concerned with classification of wooded area and guidelines for auto park development specifically the east side of Randall Drive. Minimize impact on subdivision and property values. • David Frische—what we want is establishment of commitments previously negotiated with similar businesses on east side of Randall to apply to those on west side of Randall General Public Comments Unfavorable: • Michael Knapp — taxpayers best interest that this be considered as a master plan so that future buyers know what can be there and what can't. Most in favor of roundabout due to safety concerns. Possibility of closing off south entrance. • Bob Hilsaburg— President of WRHOB — Randall Drive tends to flood after heavy rain — is this problem going to be fixed? • Eric Powell — we are not anti-development, but we are not convinced that "no test drives thru neighborhood" will not happen. • Kurt Snyder—is concerned about traffic volume and how much traffic comes thru at stops lights Petitioner Rebuttal —Timothy Ochs • It sounds like there are no objections regarding actual plans for the dealership itself • Legal description was not included in development plan —it has been zoned B-3 • No commitments on these properties—happy to sit down and work these out • No commitments will be made for pieces of property that is not part of this application • When the other lots are developed, we will go through this process again. Future use is unclear and owner has no buyer for this part north of the property. • Plan is to improve traffic safety at intersection • Plan is to improve, if not eliminate, flooding situation on Randall Drive with new location of roundabout Staff Comments — Rachel Boone • North end of property is not on this docket number and future developer will have to come in front of Plan Commission to present their plan for that land • Wooded area is zoned B-3 • Site is currently in floodway, site to be raised up to be considered in flood plain • Traffic study is underway for the new signalized intersection and what its impact on Keystone and 96th Street will be Page 3 of I 1 W W W.CARMEL.IN.GOV ONE CIVIC SQUARE,CARMEL,INDIANA 46032 (317)571-2417 February 19,2013 Meeting Agenda Carmel Plan Commission • Many general outstanding items for petitioner— what is in the Department Report is what's left to work out with department staff and Special Studies Committee • Signage will need variances • Landscaping may change in buffer yard • We do not feel that is it unreasonable for neighbors to want commitments—department also wants to know everything all at once. Developers don't always get all info right away • Staff recommends this project go before the Special Studies Committee on Wednesday March 6, 2013. Plan Commission Member Comments: Kevin Rider • Flooding will not be made worse, drainage will only be made better or Engineering.Department will not approve • Carmel has the most strict buffering ordinances— you will be better off nailing them down when the project starts on the north side of the property • It is up to the Board of Public Works and Safety to regulate the traffic on the public streets in regards to test driving through the neighborhood. John Adams • Main concern was the commitments be consistent with the east side of Randall Drive. • Gap between Petitioner and home owners needs to be resolved before coming to Committee • Kevin Rider requested a meeting between home owners, petitioner and himself before Special Studies Committee Michael Casati • Also wants meeting between Petitioner and home owners to take place before next meeting Ephraim Wilfong • Have any of the commitments between Petitioner and home owners been put into writing? Most. have been read during Petitioners Overview. Staff Planning Administrator Rachel Boone has copy. • Question to Department: can home owners report violation? Rachel Boone: Code Enforcement can be called and reported. Ephraim: Is there a fine? Rachel: Possibly, would have to look into that for you. Alan Potasnik • If it's not going to get enforced, it doesn't matter if there are commitments in place or not. • Square footage is 37,000. • Randall Road will be closed on the south end once Randall Bypass is completed? • Butler Hyundai will be a flagship dealership. • Is this a use that would go along with what a comprehensive plan suggest is appropriate to go there? Rachel Boone Responded: Yes, This is considered a community vitality node and the use is appropriate • Project will be going to Board of Zoning Appeals for variances on three signs. Brad Grabow • Northern parcel is not under this docket number. Homeowners that area adjacent to northern parcel is considered to be neighbors to Hyundai Dealership. • Retaining wall needs more detail. Anything but chain link. • Concerned about the possibility of more traffic using the Randall Bypass and/or western access Page 4 of 11 WWW.CARMEL.IN.GOV ONE CIVIC SQUARE,CARMEL,INDIANA 46032 (317)571-2417 February 19,2013 Meeting Agenda Cannel Plan Commission point to dealership to serve those two outlots. Test drive traffic is disruptive to neighbors. Susan Westermeier • Thanks to everyone from Williamson Run for coming out tonight. The Committee will take your concerns very seriously. This is not going to be looked at as one entity as you had hoped. Should work on commitments on property. Increase in traffic is a concern. Please bring aerial map to Special Studies Meeting for better understanding of area. Nick Kestner • Would also like to see aerial view of residential community. • Concern about west elevation of building that faces Outlot A. Wall needs to be redone. Front of wall to be seen from street. Building not really facing 96th Street. • Pedestrian crossings really need work. Would like multipurpose path put along Randall Bypass and 96th Street. Bike racks to be placed at building for customers dropping off vehicles and riding home. Steve Lawson • Clarification of square footage: second floor space is included per Buzz Weisiger that is not listed on footprint. Kevin Rider • Will take some public comments at Special Studies Committee but would like it to come through the leadership. To be sent to Special Studies Committee on Wednesday March 6, 2013. IDocket No. 13010013 OA: PUD Requirements Ordinance Amendment. The applicant seeks to amend Chapter 3: Definitions and Chapter 31: General Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of modifying the definitions, procedures, and development requirements for new Planned Unit Development district ordinances (PUDs). Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. Adrienne Keeling—Staff Representative: Special project# I — Subdivision Committee to explore options in other cities for solutions for PUD proposals. Concerns have grown in the past for the use of the PUD. How can they be made easier to review and manage? This marks the beginning of the formal ordinance amendment process. Initial purpose is to allow for creativity and flexibility and design where traditional zoning and classification made not have otherwise allowed it. PUD is a rezoning, a change in the zoning map. Feb 8th packet was the actual proposed zoning ordinance revisions. Sample outline was included with department reports. To be sent to Subdivision Committee on Wednesday March 6, 2013. General Public Comments Unfavorable: Jill Misenheimer— Williams Mill @ 116th and Springmill How will the Plan Commission keep track of the expiration dates of the different PUDs? At several committee meetings with PUD presentations the developer has provided Plan Commissioners with new or surprise paperwork, such as new site maps or changes in their plan, which previously have not been sent to the department or commissioners and therefore also not Page 5 of 11 WWW.CARMEL.IN.GOV ONE CIVIC SQUARE.CARMEL,INDIANA 46032 (317)571-2417 February 19,2013 Meeting Agenda Carmel Plan Commission posted on the city web site. If this occurs the developer should also provide (10) copies of the "surprise" paperwork for the public to share so that they can also follow the discussion. Considering the proposal both the Commission and the Council shall pay reasonable regard to Line 56e. the most desirable use for which the land in each district is adapted. Line 57f. the conservation of property values throughout the City and the Township, and Line 58g. responsible development and growth. These criteria are important and the views of the neighbors should be strongly considered. It is possible that the developer and the Commission and Councilors in looking at the same plan would not agree with the neighbors of the proposed PUD as to the desirable use, conservation of property values and responsible growth and development. In fact, when I have heard these issues, especially the latter, brought up by the public, it seems like they are often ignored or dismissed by the Commission and the Council. Line 67 5b. Development Requirements Infill transition guidelines should be included in the PUD criteria so that a developer, who is proposing a PUD, understands how to transition between existing residential neighborhoods and the proposed PUD. Line 89 xiii. Construction Phasing Plan describing the timing, phasing or sequencing of construction improvements in the PUD district. I think this is an important development requirement. I asked about Construction Phasing Plan during the public hearings of The Bridges and Silvara PUDs and was told that there was little that could be done about that. Especially when there is more than one development in the same area the construction plans could have a major impact on traffic in that neighborhood. And I hope that the construction of the nearby roads and revised roundabouts will be factored into the Phasing Plan. Line 115-118 Vicinity Map. A vicinity map would be helpful, especially showing pending and approved future developments, however the distance from the development should be determined by the size of the proposed development. The map showing information to mile from the development might be appropriate for a 10 acre project. A 300 acre project, such as Silvara should include a map with information up to 1 mile away. Line 131 Public Hearing. Public outreach efforts regarding the proposal should include contacting nearby homeowner associations as part of the PUD proposal notification requirement. An officer from each contiguous homeowner association bordering a PUD should be contacted about the PUD proposal. The homeowners association should be given an opportunity to select a representative as a contact person who will be included in email notices related to future meetings related to the nearby PUD proposal and development. Line 147 #7b. Commitments. More or less stringent is subjective without attached criteria. Either the entire Commitment provision (7b) should be omitted or the word "stringent" should be replaced with expanded language for clarity and detail. Page 6 of I I W W W.CARMEL.IN.GOV ONE CIVIC SQUARE,CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 (317)571-2417 February 19,2013 Meeting Agenda Carmel Plan Commission Line 160 Council Action Some of the PUDs are very complicated with massive amounts of information. Will 90 days be enough time for the Council to vote on a PUD Proposal? Line 182-183 #13a. Effective Period. "May initiate review" is too nebulous. What would cause or not cause a review and who makes this decision? If a Primary Plat or Development Plan is not approved within three years, then a Plan Commission review should be required. If nothing else, to determine if the project is still appropriate as originally planned. The Plan Commission could suspend rules and vote if it is appropriate - no hardship is created by this process, yet public interests are served. Line 198-199 #4 Modifications to development standards should not be allowed by a hearing officer. The hearing officer meetings occur during the day and do not offer the public convenient access for input. Development standards are an important part of a PUD and modifications can adversely impact adjacent developments, particularly residential areas. Any modifications to development standards should return to the Plan Commission where they can be openly vetted. If modifications are inconsequential and lack public concern, then the Plan Commission can suspend its rules and vote. Appearing at the Plan Commission would not be a hardship and would serve the public's interests. Also, how would the public be notified about such a hearing? Line 213 #4C Any change to a PUD with more than 10% change by dimension or cost by section should come to the Plan Commission. I hope you will also consider the following issues when you discuss the 2/8/2013 Carmel Plan Commission Memorandum and the PUDs-Proposed Provisions: Traffic studies should be funded by the developer, but contracted for by the city to separate bias in presenting the facts of the study. When multiple developments are proposed in the same area (such as The Mormon Temple, Silvana PUD and The Bridges PUD at 1 16th and Spring Mill Road) each proposed PUD should consider the impact of nearby proposed developments. Major thoroughfares (such as Illinois) should be built before the PUD in that area can be considered. How can a traffic study determine the efficacy of a vital road when it does not yet exist? Alison Brown - 600 W. 106'h Street • I support the comments just given by Jill Misenheimer Hearing Closed Petitioner Rebuttal, Adrienne Keeling: • Line 160—90 days cannot be changed or extended due to Indiana Code Legal Council Comments,John Molitor: • If the council makes any changes in the PUD ordinance at the council level it will come back to the Plan Commission up to an additional 45 days of review and then can back for a final 45 days of review at the council level — total 180 days. Staff Comments, Rachel Boone: No comments Page 7 of I1 W W W.CARMEL.IN.GOV ONE CIVIC SQUARE,CARMEL,INDIANA 46032 (317)571-2417 February 19,2013 Meeting Agenda Carmel Plan Commission Commission Member Comments: Alan Potasnik • Public comments to be transcribed before Special Studies meeting • PUD planning ordinance to be made better • Commitments need to evolve • Needs clarification of what's acceptable • Review time needs to be more restrictive Brad Grabow • Council representative to give feedback to commission members Susan Westermeier • Concern that PUD will become a mixed use instead of a rezone • 1/4 mile does need to be larger Steve Stromquist • Item #6 on page 2, submittals to public? how many copies for public? Depends on proposal. Developers usually have copies for public. Can be discussed amongst committee. John Adams • Email vs. paper copies? Rachel Boone: All info is on Laser fiche prior to meeting. 1. Old Business I. 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. 131" St. (the NWC of Towne Rd. & 1315L St.) and is zoned S-1/ Residence. Filed by Bryan Stumpf of 11th Street Development, LLC for ma Homes of Indiana LP. Petitioner Representative, Brian Stumpf of l I st Street Development Overview: • All changes were made since last committee meeting • ROW with along Main Street has been clarified with Engineering Department • Clarification regarding locations of the street trees and width of parkway on the internal streets of the community and added additional buffer plants • All 38 houses will have side load garages • Added a pedestrian connection from cul-de-sac to Towne Road • Fence type and location clarification has been made in Exhibit F • A/C are on the wider side yard setback or behind the building • Additional lights at front of houses • Approval on the landscape line • Entrance alignment options with Engineering complete • Committee Report Brad Grabow: • Change PUD text describing fences: Section G, Page 7 Change first word of second sentence to "one". Page 8 of 11 WWW.CARMEL.IN.GOV ONE CIVIC SQUARE.CARMEL,INDIANA 46032 (317)571-2417 February 19,2013 Meeting Agenda Carmel Plan Commission I Department Report Rachel Boone: • The department feels this is a good example of a PUD plan and they used it well to blend in with the surrounding neighborhoods and preserve features on the site. They have a unique layout that does protect trees, water and other features. They did have a few issues to work out with Engineering Department and we feel they can continue working on those after this approval. Possibly further construction plans and secondary plat phases. Department recommends sending to City Council with Favorable Recommendation. Committee Comments: Susan Westermeier: • Size of porch was uncertain. Petitioner response: o Area will be more of a stoop with enough area for door to open than a porch with room for chairs Alan Potasnik: • Parcel to the north is not owned by petitioner and is not part of this project John Adams: • When taking this to City Council 1 recommend putting the arborist rendering of plans in the packet along with index tabs for easier viewing Susan Westermeier: Motion to forward with position recommendation John Adams: second IMotion approved. 2. Docket No. 12100018 DP/ADLS: Carmel Corners Retail Center (Meijer Outlot B). The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a 7,780 sq. ft. multi-tenant commercial building that fronts on Pennsylvania St. The site is located at 1425 W. Carmel Dr. and is zoned OM/M: Old Meridian'District, Meijer Subarea. Filed by Eric Carter of Weihe Engineers, on behalf of Versa Development. Revised Elevations were passed around to committee that was omitted from packet. Petitioner Representative: Ryan Schultz of Versa Development Overview: • Signage package was revised at Special Studies Meeting • Modification of proposed monument sign still needs to go before BZA • Working with staff over next month regarding sign-location on berm • Extend walk that terminated at back of building • Agreed to fee with Engineering, waiting to issue check after approval from Committee Department Report Rachel Boone: • Pedestrian connectivity was resolved ' Signage keystones were clarified and requirements were met Committee Comments: Page 9 of I I WWW.CARMEL.IN.GOV ONE CIVIC SQUARE,CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 (317)571-2417 February 19.2013 Meeting Agenda Carmel Plan Commission Nick Kestner: Crosswalk? Bike rack? Petitioner Response: • Crosswalk was not able to be striped (to the Meijer Outlot A property) but a ramp would be provided to get pedestrians up and off of parking field • Bike rack is shown on drawing Brad Grabow: Integrate this project into Meijer? Striping for pedestrians? Petitioner Response: • We have strong relationship with Meijer and will work with them to get striping connected to their building Kevin Rider: Motion to approve with condition that payment to Engineering be made John Adams: Seconded Motion Approved 3. Docket No. 12110012 DP Amend/ADLS Amend: St. Vincent Carmel Hospital Women's Health Center. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a 96,703 sq. ft building addition (4 stories tall) and for a 512-space parking lot expansion. The applicant also seeks the following zoning waiver request: 4. WITHDRAWN: ! : :. -! tt - - • _ •- • . . • -. ! . -! . .! : • e • • • • • • • • • '• . •• .The site is located at 13500 N. Meridian St. The site is zoned B-6/Business (in the US 31 Overlay Zone) and OM/MM-Old Meridian District/Mixed Medical. Filed by Jon Sheidler of Woolpert, Inc. Michael Casati recused himself due to conflict of interest. Petitioner Representatives: Dan Kloc - Facility Architect, Robert Hicks - Attorney Overview: • All issues were settled with exception of pilot agreement to the satisfaction of committee Committee Report Kevin Rider: • Joshua Kirsh had concerns regarding rain gardens and heating walkways — not feasible to do throughout parking lot • Pleased with how the building will blend with the old building • Some taxes will be paid through retail space Department Report Rachel Boone: • (To Petitioner) Please provide an update on approval status of Main Street ROW and path • 70 foot pathway is requested from Engineering Department Petitioner Response: • Will continue to work with Engineering Department on width of pathway Department Comments Rachel Boone: • Recommendation to approve with condition that petitioner and Engineering Department finalize the right of way Commission Members Comments: Susan Westermeier: • Parking is still a concern due to large parking lots and long walks for people that may be of poor health Petitioner response: Page 1 0 of I I WWW.CARMEL.IN.GOV ONE CIVIC SQUARE,CARMEL,INDIANA 46032 (317)571-2417 February 19.2013 Meeting Agenda Carmel Plan Commission • Lot is still dedicated for employee parking lot • There are 2 shelter locations and shuttles will run at shift changes Nick Kestner: • Northwest corner of site, old parking lot, path from Pennsylvania— will the path continue on around? Possible sign to indicate path ends? Petitioner response: Jon Sheidler of Woolpert, Inc. o Path is part of existing path system —it has not been addressed in this petition Rachel Boone: • David Littlejohn is OK with plan as proposed • Bike racks? o We have providing the number of bike racks per requirements and distributed them around building and around canopy and employee entrances Brad Grabow: • Valet Parking? Petitioner response: o Existing parking service will stay in place and will be at new entry • Directional signage? Labels on building? Petitioner response: o Signage on plans will be sufficient • Physician parking be distinguished from visitor parking and employee parking? Petitioner response: o We have used identifiers and parking stripe colors for physician lots and signage and striping and painting of ground o Only access to Physician parking is through gated parking with badge Staff Question from Brad Grabow: • Trade extra trees in parking field for trees in green belt area? Staff Comments Rachel Boone: • Did work with Daren Mindham to get things out of green belt and on to the property to make it correct Petitioner comments: Trees were moved around plans several times and final proposal was approved by Daren Mindham Brad Grabow motion to approved, Alan Potasnik seconded, motion approved. J. New Business — no new business. K. Adjournment at 8:36 p.m. • aNIS, I`yam ICAA)-T Steven R. Stromquist resident Lisa Motz Plan Secr riZ y File:PC-2113-02l9 revised.doc Page I I of 11 WWW.CARMELW.GOV ONE CIVIC SQUARE,CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 (317)571-2417