Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDepartment Report 03-27-131 Carmel Plan Commission SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE March 27, 2013 Department Report 1. 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, 2 outlots, and Randall Bypass road. The site is located at approximately 4200 E. 96th 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. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a 37,500 sq. ft. car dealership building, two outlots, and Randall Bypass road (which will be located just west of Randall Drive. The parcel size is 9.73 acres. (The northern 9 acres are not part of any approvals at this time and will remain as-is, wooded.) The site currently lies within the Floodplain & Floodway Districts. The petitioner is working on approvals to get the site to just be considered Floodplain, and not Floodway. A traffic study is now completed for both the new signalized intersection and for the overall impact on the surrounding developments and roads, especially the 96th Street and Keystone Parkway interchange, and the Engineering Dept. is reviewing it. The proposed signage for the site meets the requirements for size and are all placed in appropriate locations on the building and site. However, three variances will be required from the BZA. Only two signs are permitted for this site because this site has two public street frontages. The variances required are: 1. 4 signs facing south ROW (Butler, Hyundai x 2, and Service) per Ch. 25.07.02-03(b) 2. 2 signs facing east ROW (Hyundai and ground sign) per Ch. 25.07.02-03 b) 3. Overall number of signs, variance required per Ch. 25.07.02-03 b) Please view the petitioner’s info packet for more detail. February 19 Public Hearing recap: The Petitioner presented the plan for the site and reiterated that it is not a gas station and that the northern portion of the property is not on the table for discussion tonight. They said that they are willing to work with the neighbors and will come up with commitments that work for both parties, but the commitments would only relate to this project at hand. The neighbors were concerned with the amount of traffic volume that would come through with the addition of the stop light. They also noted that Randall Drive tends to flood after heavy rain. The neighbors would like to know how will this be fixed or addressed. One neighbor was in favor of closing off the south portion of Randall Drive, to redirect all traffic through the bypass. (The Petitioner commented that Mike McBride, Director of the Engineer Dept., would like to vacate it and close it off.) The biggest concern is to not allow the dealership to do test drives through neighborhood. Lastly, the neighbors felt that this entire area should be developed as one project, through a master plan, so that there are not so many questions and more answers. The Plan Commission had similar concerns as the neighbors. One Commission member wants the commitments to be consistent with those on the east side of Randall Drive, and that the Petitioner needs to resolve any outstanding issues with neighbors before the next meeting. A comment was made about the west elevation of the dealership and that it was not that attractive. Can some design changes be made to improve that façade? A few members wanted to see an aerial photo of the site and surrounding areas, with the site plan on it so they can study the possible effects of the development. One Commission member agreed with the Dept. about wanting to see another fencing option for around the detention pond. No chain link should be used. Lastly, a question/ preference was made that it would be preferable to see the dealership all along the 96th Street frontage and not have outlots at all. 2 March 6th Recap: The Petitioner went over the changes that were made after speaking with both the Dept. and the neighborhood. There were five additional commitments added to the draft version. The Petitioner stated that the Traffic Study is not complete yet, but Steve Fehribach with A & F Engineering, was present at the meeting to take any questions and to listen to the concerns of the neighbors. Hopefully, the traffic study will be finalized by March 20, so that the City Engineering Dept. can review it and make comments to the committee. The Petitioner is willing to add a sidewalk on the west side of Randall Drive from the new bypass all the way up to the neighborhood, once the northern property is developed. They are also willing to extend the existing sidewalk on the east side of Randall Drive to meet up with the south side of the new bypass, for people to have a safe route all the way to 96th Street. The Petitioner is also okay with vacating the southern portion of Randall Drive (east of Outlot 1), once Randall Bypass is completed. This would most likely require the city to remove the entrance to Randall Drive at 96th Street, so that is no longer usable. It would then be up to the property owner to the east to remove the rest of the pavement and return it all to grass, if that is their desire. The Petitioner stated that the Outlots will most likely not have access to 96th Street, since there are other existing options: 1) Outlot 1 will be able to use the entrance/exit on the west side of the property that Butler will complete with their project, 2) Outlot 2 will have access to Randall Bypass. That entrance will most likely line up with the entrance to the Butler Hyundai dealership. The Petitioner stated there is no plan to remove any trees on the north, except if they will possibly fall over and hurt someone. Kevin Rider asked that this be a commitment to leave the wooded area un-touched until the time it is developed, unless there are dead and dying trees that need to be removed for safety reasons. The Petitioner agreed to this commitment. The Petitioner also said they would provide a copy of the tree inventory to the Dept. for our review. Kevin Rider asked the Petitioner and neighbors if it would be preferred that the existing wooden fence on Randall Drive be removed completely. Everyone agreed that it would be acceptable and preferable to remove the fence. Kevin asked the Petitioner if they would remove it during construction, for the entire length of the property being developed. The Petitioner agreed. The Petitioner also agreed to increase the northern bufferyard along the north property line of the site plan to the required minimum of 10 feet. Lastly, the Petitioner explained that they are using the retention pond for geothermal heating and cooling. So the pond will be at least 12-14’ deep, but will be safe with proper sloping, mounding, and a retention wall around the perimeter. The neighbors were most concerned about the possible test drives through the neighborhood and increased traffic from the new stoplight. One neighbor suggested using a new technology that allows the dealership to know where their employees are taking customers on test drives (GPS/Bluetooth type device). Then Hyundai could collect this information and give a report to the neighborhood periodically to show they are following their commitments. The neighbors also do not want a second access point onto Randall Drive when the northern portion of the property is completed. The Petitioner said they are considering and looking to see if an inverted U shape throughout the property is a viable option, therefore limiting the property to only two exits onto 96th street. One neighbor wanted an example of what the lights on site would look like (all lit up). The Petitioner stated this will be the first dealership in the state to use LED lighting, so there really isn’t another example nearby that they can direct them to. One neighbor would like to have more time to look over the traffic study findings when they are complete and does not want the traffic study to be rushed. The Committee reassured him that the study will not be rushed. The neighbor would also like to be able to compare a few years down the road from what the traffic study findings are now. Another neighbor asked what was going to happen to the Outlots during the construction. The Petitioner stated that they will be seeded and mowed/maintained until they are developed. Woody would like the Dept. to change the website so that it doesn’t sound illegal to contact Plan Commission members with their concerns. (After research by Staff, only the BZA- Board of Zoning Appeals- webpage talks about it being a quasi –judicial body, where members cannot be contacted directly.) The staff agreed to look into this, but also reminded the neighbors that we prefer to have them send their comments to us, so that we can 3 be sure the members get all the comments and a record is kept in the file. Susan Westermeier would like no construction traffic going through the residential neighborhood. She asked that a sign be posted that directs the workers to go to 96th Street. The Committee also asked the Dept. to find out what the allowed hours of construction were per City Code. Staff agreed to look into this as well. (Per City Code, the hours are 6am- 10pm for construction noise and other noise.) Outstanding review comments for the Petitioner: 1. Provide a copy of the Official List of Adjacent Property Owners from Hamilton County Auditor’s Office. 2. This site is similar to the East 96th Street Auto Park, in its proximity to a residential neighborhood. The Dept. would like to see similar commitments made regarding lighting intensity, hours of operation, trash pickup, etc. in order to be a good neighbor. Please see: http://cocdocs.ci.carmel.in.us/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=102341&dbid=0 (page 13 begins the commitments.) The Petitioner provided a Draft list of Commitments at the meeting on February 14th. The Dept. has the following comments regarding the draft: 1. Item number 6 should require 0.1 foot-candles at the property line for connecting to residential property. Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Committee discusses this item and then forwards it to the April 16 Plan Commission meeting with a positive recommendation with the proposed commitments/conditions: 1. Remove the pavement from Randall Drive per Mike McBride’s email dated 3/8/13. 2. Stain the concrete retaining wall along Randall Drive instead of painting it. 3. Leave the wooded area (north part of the property) un-touched until the time it is developed, unless there are dead and dying trees that need to be removed for safety reasons. 4. Provide a copy of the tree inventory for the file. 5. Remove the existing wooden fence on Randall Drive during construction for the entire length of the property being developed. 4 Carmel Plan Commission SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE March 27, 2013 Department Report 2. Docket No. 13030008 ADLS Amend: Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen (former Cord Camera/ Einstein Bros. Bagels site). The applicant seeks design approval for an exterior building remodel and signage. The site is located at 625 E. Carmel Dr. and is zoned B-8/Business. Filed by Paul Jordan of Peterson Architecture. The Applicant seeks approval for a remodel of the former Cord Camera and Einstein Brothers Bagels building. The building itself and the site layout will not change. However, there will be some new curbing added at the rear of the building to help guide the traffic through the drive through lanes and by the new menu board sign. There will be new materials added to the exterior of the building including stone, EIFS, metal awnings, gooseneck light fixtures, vinyl shutters and a faux balcony. The design is based off a Louisiana/New Orleans feel. Three new signs are proposed, however only one main identification sign is allowed by the Sign Ordinance. Variances will be required if the proposed signage is not altered. Below are review comments that are yet to be addressed by the Applicant. Please view the petitioner’s info packet for more detail. Architecture: 1. The color palate provided showed an alternate yellow color (golden mist) for the façade. This would be the Department’s preference for the main color of the building. 2. The Dept. is ok with the red accent line at the top of the building. 3. The Dept. is ok with the stone color choice. 4. Please provide a stone or masonry sill at the top of the added stacked stone at the base of the building, similar to some of the photos of existing Popeyes you have included in your submittal. The red accent line is not acceptable to the Department. 5. Please show the mechanical equipment on the roof and that it is screened from view from the street. 6. Please provide accurate building elevations that show the configuration of this exact building. Elevations: 1. West: a. What is the speaker for? b. Will the entrance on the west side be moved as is shown in the renderings? 2. East: a. The elevation shows the gutters will remain on the building. Is this true? Or should we go by the rendering which shows them removed? b. If the gutters remain, please paint them the same color as the part of the wall they are installed on so they blend into the building. c. The window that is to the right of the drive thru window under the canopy – why is this window different? Can the lower portion that goes into the stone be removed? And perhaps a window the same size (height) as the others on the front of the building be installed? d. Will a door be added to the left/east side (drive-thru) of the building where a window (referenced in c.) used to be as is referenced in the renderings? e. Again, what is the speaker for? f. Where are the downspouts being relocated to? The before and after pictures show them removed – the Department is concerned about where this water will now go. 3. South: 5 a. The Dept. is not ok with painting the rear area and not having the stone base to go all the way around the building. b. Perhaps a screen wall/fence/extension of the new proposed facade should be added in the rear to hide the electrical components, gutter, and grease & CO2 enclosure. This way the stone base can continue all the way around the building. Or provide another option that would screen the view of this area. c. Please elaborate on what this rear elevation will look like with the new curb area for the addition of the menu board. Will it be grass? Mulch? Landscaped in any way? d. Please show where the rear gutter drains to. Will it be placed into the ground for underground removal/filtration? 4. North: Looks good. Site Plan: 1. Please show the ROW line on the site plan. 2. Please also show that the ground sign is located 5’ away from the ROW. 3. Parking: Please confirm the size of the spaces. The existing parking spaces seem very small and tight. 4. Dumpster: Please provide information and photos of the existing dumpster. Do any improvements need to be made? 5. Please provide an 11x17 or 8.5x11 sized floor plan for the file. 6. Please show where a future driveway access point could be added to your site for connectivity along the south edge of the property. (For example, Taco Bell to the west of this site has a potential area striped off for future connectivity on the southeast corner of their site.) Pedestrian/bicycle Connectivity (from David Littlejohn’s comment letter dated 3/19/2013): 1. The City of Carmel Parking Ordinance requires that all commercial and retail venues include bicycle parking. Bicycle parking spaces are required at a rate of five (5) bicycle parking spaces per one hundred (100) automobile parking spaces with a minimum of four (4) spaces and must be within fifty (50) feet of the main entrance of each building. Please see the City of Carmel’s Parking Ordinance in order to determine appropriate locations, specifications and construction details for the above. 2. Provide a direct pedestrian connection from the path along Carmel Dr. to the front door. 3. Provide an ADA accessible route from the ADA parking spaces to the front entrance of the building. Lighting: 1. The Department is not in support of lighting fixtures underneath the awnings. We feel this takes away from the architecture of the building and calls attention to an area that does not need to be illuminated. 2. If lighting is needed near the doors, that is fine. Please provide a fixture that is appropriate to light the entrance as needed. 3. The Department is not in support of the extra gooseneck lights in addition to internally illuminated signs facing north. Please remove these lights from the front façade. These should only be used if the sign is non-illuminated. 4. The Department is in support of the goose neck lights around the rest of the building, illuminating the façade and awnings. We do question if the scale of the light fixtures on your rendering is accurate though. The photos of existing buildings appear to have very large goosenecks, and the ones on these drawings to not appear give the same effect. Please revise the drawing to be more accurate, if possible. 5. Gooseneck light fixture: OK 6. Shutter Uplight: a. Will all three of the balcony shutters have these uplights? It is hard to tell in the elevation drawings. b. Will they be installed anywhere else? 7. Wall pack: 6 a. The Dept. prefers to see 90 degree cut off fixtures for exposed light fixtures such as these. b. Will there be any other wall packs installed besides the two on the rear of the building? 8. Compact Fluorescent: a. Where will this be installed? b. If it is proposed underneath the awnings, the Dept. is not in support of this. 9. Will there be any other lighting on the balcony feature over the drive thru window? Landscaping: 1. Please confirm that you will be re-landscaping the site according to the original plan. 2. Or, please let us know what changes you have proposed. Signage: 1. Only one sign is allowed per street frontage. You have proposed three signs for this site. So variances will be required. a. 25.07.02-03 b) 1. : Number of signs (3 requested, 1 allowed) b. 25.07.02-03 b) 3. : Three signs facing one right-of-way: north (3 requested, 1 allowed) 2. Wall sign: a. Please provide the spandrel panel area on the building where the signage will be located. Please see the attached drawing for reference. b. 25.07.02-03 c) 4. : 70% of the height is allowed and 85% of the width is allowed. A variance might be required if the signs do not meet the size requirements. c. The preferred type of wall sign is individual channel letters. The main Popeyes copy is great. What concerns us is the “Louisiana Kitchen” below in a “cabinet” style sign. Please change this to individually internally illuminated letters. d. Cabinet logo sign: The Dept. is not in support of this additional sign. e. The Dept. would be supportive of the main wall sign and the ground sign. 3. Ground sign: a. Please alter the design of the sign to include a masonry base that matches the building architecture. b. Height: 6’ tall proposed, 6’ tall is allowed – OK c. Size: 24.11 sq. ft. proposed, up to 45 sq. ft. is allowed – OK (FYI - We draw a box around the entire copy area to calculate square footage) d. If there is a way to alter the design of the sign so the Popeyes copy is not sticking out so far from the rest of the sign, that would be preferred. e. We have also seen some signs that have the yellow/orange as the background on the sign, similar to the directional sign that is proposed. Would this be possible instead of so much red? We believe it would help the name stand out more. (Please see attached photo) f. Cabinet style signs are typically discouraged, but when they are necessary, sometimes blacking out the background so that only the letters or name shines through is acceptable. 4. Menu board: a. Height: 6.3’ tall is proposed, only 6’ is allowed. Please reduce the height of the sign, otherwise a variance will be required. See Ch. 25.07.02-06 d) b. Size: 49.04 sq. ft. is proposed, only 30 sq. ft. is allowed. Please reduce the size of the sign, otherwise a variance will be required. See Ch. 25.07.02-06 c) c. A stone or brick base to match the building architecture must be added to the sign, otherwise a variance will be required. See Ch. 25.07.02-06 f) 4. d. What are the black panels in between the three main menu panels? Is this the speaker or confirmation screen? These are taking up valuable square footage. The Dept. would recommend looking into other options so a variance is not required. e. This sign will need to be landscaped. Please provide details on materials. 7 5. Preview board: a. Renderings for this sign were not included in the packet. Please provide these drawings. b. FYI – 16 sq. ft. and 6’ tall is allowed. 6. Drive Thru canopy: a. Will the aluminum mesh grid be on both the front and back of the roof structure? b. The Dept. is generally in support of this structure. 7. Directional signs: a. With the size of the frame included, the overall square footage is 3.125. Please provide the dimensions of the copy area only, to confirm that it is in fact, 3 sq. ft. or less. 8. Clearance sign: a. The size of the Clearance wording is too large. Only 3 sq. ft. is allowed to be considered an exempt sign. Please reduce the size of this sign. Otherwise a variance will be required. See Ch. 25.07.01-05 e) b. Or, please provide the dimensions of the copy area only, to confirm that it is in fact, 3 sq. ft. or less. Engineering Dept.: Please confirm that the 50 and one half foot right of way has been dedicated for this portion of Carmel Drive, as per Amanda Foley’s 3/19/13 email. Fire Dept.: Please provide an update on the drawings that Capt. Chris Ellison has requested. Recommendation: If all items cannot be addressed by the night of the meeting, then the Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Committee discusses this item and then continues it to the May 7 Special Studies Committee meeting for further review and, ultimately, approval. 8 Carmel Plan Commission SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE March 27, 2013 Department Report 3. Docket No. 13010010 DP/ADLS: The Legacy Towns & Flats, Phase II. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for 23 buildings on 6.9 acres, containing attached dwellings and apartments. The site is located at approximately 7499 E. 146th St., west of River Rd. The site is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger, for J.C. Hart Company, Inc. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for 23 new residential buildings on 6.9 acres. They will also be going through the administrative Secondary Plat process after the DP/ADLS portion is approved by the Plan Commission. The project will have both apartments and attached dwellings or townhomes. This site is bounded by wetland preservation and open space area to the west, south and east. The area immediately northwest of the site is proposed to be a retail area that will line 146th Street. The area to the far northeast of the site, at the River Road intersection, will be retail in the future. This development is the second phase of residential homes by the Petitioner. The road that borders Phase I, Hopewell Parkway, will be extended into the Phase II area. A new road will be constructed to enter off 146th Street, and will be a one way (right turn only) into the site. Within the development, there will be mostly one way streets, with a few two way streets near the main entrance intersection. Sidewalks are provided through the development, with connection into the site from 146th Street at two locations. Pedestrian crossings are delineated with stained concrete to help bring attention to them. Street trees are provided throughout the development and views into the wetland preservation area/open space are a priority for the Petitioner. The Apartments will be located at the north end of the site, immediately adjacent to 146th Street. The townhomes will take up the remaining southern two-thirds of the site. All of the townhomes will have garages for their unit, where only some of the apartments will have garages. The architecture of the different buildings will include stone, brick, and fiber cement board that will be painted in complementary colors. There are four basic types of buildings, with varying numbers of units. All of the buildings will be two stories ranging in height from 28’ – 32’. The design of the site closely matches an early concept/master plan that shows “Future Residential (Mostly Attached).” This was not included as an exhibit in the PUD, but it was used for marketing purposes. The Dept. feels it is important to show the Petitioner is working within the original PUD regulations that were provided for the development, so we can know and understand what the end product will be along the lines of what we thought when it was first proposed. March 19 Public Hearing recap: The Petitioner provided a brief overview of the project to the Plan Commission. The Commission members were very impressed with the overall design of the site and the buildings, and appreciated that the Petitioner stayed very true to the original concept plan of the PUD. The Department highlighted some areas of concern and recommended to forward the item to the Special Studies meeting for further review. Please view the Petitioner’s information packet for more details. Below are review comments and talking points for the Committee, Petitioner, and Department. DP/ADLS: General: 1. Remember to include the Development Plan application’s Findings of Fact sheet in your final information packets. Site plan: 9 2. The Dept. would prefer to see Building 23 in line with the other buildings that front along 146th St. The Dept. does not believe that the angle significantly alters views into the site or out of the site for drivers along 146th St. or residents of the building. The Petitioner wishes to leave it as is and not align it with the other buildings. 3. Please add curbing to all parking areas and drive isles, as requested by the Engineer Dept. The Petitioner has added curbs to the north part of the site where the apartments are and on the south portion of the site to the streets. The interior alleys of the south buildings will not be curbed because it is not required by the PUD. 4. The Dept. is not in favor of the layout of buildings 5 and 6. We are concerned with the rear of the building is facing to the front of the other buildings. Would it be possible to reorient these to have side loaded garages? Or perhaps an alley in the back where garages were accessed from? The Petitioner tried many different layouts, but keeping the view of the resident in mind, they feel this is the best design. There is also no other way to have the parking/drive isle area because the fire dept. has requested it be as open as possible for best access. Streets: 5. Drive aisle width in the parking areas are only 20-ft wide, and should probably be 25-ft wide for 2-way traffic. See ZO Chapter 27.05. The Petitioner is trying to limit the amount of pavement in the development. The Fire Dept. is ok with the proposed layout and says it is enough for maneuverability. The Petitioner can change the parking space lengths to 18’ instead of 20’ and reduce the size of the islands as well to try and gain more drive isle space. After some redesign, the Petitioner was able to gain one foot throughout the travel lanes for a total of 21 feet wide. 6. Please confirm the Engineer Dept’s approval of the width of the private streets. The Petitioner has not yet received a response from the Engineer Dept. 7. Since Beallsville Drive is one way going south, the Dept. would like to see the parallel parking switched from the left side to the right side of the street. (The Engineer Dept. agrees with DOCS) Along with this, a sidewalk could then be added as well, all the way along the perimeter of the property. If the Petitioner were to do as the Department has suggested, it would make the fire truck radius tighter as they maneuver throughout the site. The Petitioner does not believe these streets will be heavily trafficked, but still thinks the left side exit will be safer for the driver. The Dept. would still be concerned with persons having to step in grass or mud, instead of onto a sidewalk. 8. The Dept. would prefer the parallel parking on Beallsville Dr. (and Barker Dr.) to be changed to the right side instead of the left side with the one way south configuration as one comes into the development from 146th street. The Petitioner believes this is ok because it is a one way street. The Dept. is curious if when the future retail is developed on the west side of Beallsville Drive, will there be matching parallel parking on the west side? Bicycle and Pedestrian connectivity: 9. Please provide the Bicycle rack design details. See ZO Chapter 27.06. 10. The Dept. would like to see more sidewalk connectivity between buildings 20 & 21 and 22 & 23, so that persons may walk all the way around the property, without breaks in the sidewalk. The Petitioner is not in favor of this and would like to keep the area as private as possible. This is because there is an outdoor patio for those corner tenants close to the pavement and they would like to discourage people from walking too close to those units. 11. Please add a sidewalk on the edge of the property, where it goes into the wetland preservation area. The Petitioner has informed the Dept. that there is an overall plan for access to the trails that will go through the wetland area. They would like to guide people to these paths, instead of creating an additional one on the immediate outside edge of their development area. 12. Please add sidewalks on the south edge of buildings 20, 21 & 22 and connect it to the front door; the east edge of building 17 and 19; the north edge of building 18; and the east edges of buildings 5 & 6. The Petitioner is not in favor of this in the areas by the apartments because they would like to keep the outdoor area as private as possible. There is a patio for those corner tenants close to the pavement and they would like to discourage people from walking too close to those units. As for buildings 5 and 6, the Petitioner is trying to increase the amount of landscaping on the east edges of the building to help screen the motor court area. The Dept. still believes that safe pedestrian connectivity is important and would like to see the sidewalk in addition to the landscaping. 13. Thank you for calling out the paths across drive isles with stained concrete. The new sidewalk area between buildings 21 and 22, and leading to building 18 – can these accessible ramps be straight instead of angled? 14. Please add sidewalks in the front of buildings 20, 21, 22, and 23 as requested by David Littlejohn, to make sure the front doors are accessible and can actually be used. 15. Please add a stained concrete crosswalk between building 19 and building 1, as requested by David Littlejohn. 10 16. There is one location between building 18 and 16 where the crosswalk leads into a parking space. Please address this issue. Possibly realign/stripe the parking spaces or paint the curb yellow to show that parking is not allowed in this area, as requested by David Littlejohn. 17. Please provide a pedestrian connection from the on-street parking spaces to the adjacent sidewalks throughout the development, as requested by David Littlejohn. 18. Please provide pedestrian connections to the community’s mailboxes, as requested by David Littlejohn. It also appears that the mailboxes between building 21 and 22 and between building 9 and 10 are accessed by the drive isles. Please reorient these mailboxes to have direct access from the sidewalk, off of the street. 19. Provide a full ADA accessible route from the ADA parking spaces to the building(s), as requested by David Littlejohn. Architecture: 20. Will there be one trash dumpster for the apartments? If so, please provide the dumpster location and the enclosure/ screening details. Also show on the site plan? The Apartments will utilize the existing trash compactor from Phase 1. Those units with garages will be able to have a tote and have the trash company pick it up directly, but the units without garages will have to use the compactor. The Department is concerned that this is not an appropriate solution for the apartments on this property. 21. Building Type 1: a. After discussions with the Petitioner, it was decided that the different planes of the building would be treated with different colors to help break up the monotony of façade elevations. This is not apparent in the new packet. Please provide more detail on the color changes. b. The Dept. is concerned about the design for mirroring in the 4 unit (type 1) building. Could there be different window shapes or sizes used to help differentiate between the two units? Or less vertical stones above the windows to help soften the look of the façade? Please explore different options to help make this portion of the building look less “busy”. c. The Dept. is also concerned with the 5 unit Type 1 building (bldg. #19) with two level porch in-between the units, instead of on ends, like other buildings. Do you foresee this as an issue for the tenants? What kind of separation will be between the two units? Will the stone be carried around the edge for an “outdoor” or rustic feel? Or will these be more like 3 season rooms? d. I have noticed the middle unit on the first floor’s laundry room is labeled “porch” instead. Perhaps this could be changed to say Laundry? 22. Building Type 2: a. The Dept. would like to see some sort of accent color to help different architectural elements stand out more. The Petitioner said they will add some tone colors to address the concern. b. Rear elevation: The Dept. is still concerned with the large span of roof facing the street. Is it possible to break it up a bit more or to add dormers similar to the one that is shown? The Petitioner has responded that additional dormers are not possible because of fire wall restrictions between units. The Dept. would still like to see additional suggestions for improving this façade. c. It does not appear that Color Scheme B looks anything like what was submitted in the booklet. Please provide an updated rendering. 23. Building Type 3: The Petitioner has stated they will use a tone on tone treatment for the trim color vs. the siding of this building type. a. Front elevation: Can the 1st floor window on the left be at the same height/level with the 1st floor window on the right of the door? b. Rear/Alley elevation: Can brick be added to the middle portion of the building around the door? This would help break up this façade and draw more attention to the entrance. c. Alley elevation: The Dept. would like to see the brick carried across the entire right portion of the building to the left side of the second story covered porch. This would help give a continuous brick side that is visible from 146th Street. d. The Dept. would like to see an updated color rendering for the siding accent color for this building? It is just hard to visualize where the changes will occur. 24. Building Type 4: a. The Dept. really liked this building design and color choice in the rendering. There was concern over the rear elevation and there being too much vertical white fiber cement board, but after discussions with the Petitioner, the Dept. understands this the most logical way to keep the design continuous. 11 b. The Petitioner did add in windows to the garage, which the Dept. felt helped break up the façade a bit more. c. There is concern that the gray color chosen on the Color Scheme D will not be as bright as the blue color in the renderings. Color schemes: 25. Overall, will you not have variety within each scheme? Looking at the site plan, especially along Beallsville Drive, there will be 6 buildings in a row that are the same colors. The same will happen along 146th Street with the apartment buildings. Is it possible to add another siding color? Or perhaps switch the trim and siding color on different buildings? a. Scheme A: Please explain the Decorous Amber color. The Dept. is concerned this would not achieve the tone on tone goal. Please show this color on the building rendering. b. Scheme B: looks good. c. Scheme C: Please explain the Stonebriar Yellow siding color. Can you also please change the building rendering to accurately reflect the color choice? d. Scheme D: Again, there is concern that the Homburg Gray will not be as bright as the blue shown on the renderings. Maybe there could also be a blue color in this Scheme as a second option? Landscaping (per Daren Mindham’s comments): 26. Please increase the diversity at Bosque Park. 10 MR are shown, maybe add some SR or a couple taller trees for more height; more uniqueness is encouraged. 27. Please replace the TT with Japanese Zelkova’s as they will provide a more upright shape for the tight areas. 28. On Sheet C303, I am not sure what the shrub and tree list are noting as most of these plants are not labeled on the sheet. Please explain and also remove the pin oak, red maple and honey locust and substitute Hackberry or other native species that do better in our soils. 29. On the landscape plan sheet 1 under landscaping notes number 6, please remove the term heading as this term means removing the top or ‘head’ of a limb and is not a desired effect. Trees in parking lots should be pruned by crown raising; to raise the crown above the traffic over time. Trimming for this purpose should not be needed for at least 3-5 years and should not be noted as if it should be done at installation. The same goes for the remarks on sheet 2, “heading up to 4-5’” is not desired as heading means: "pruning off the terminal or "head" growth of a plant, especially a tree. Heading back is a general term, whose subcategories include "topping" and "pollarding." http://landscaping.about.com/cs/lazylandscaping/g/headingback.htm Department Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Committee forwards this item to the April 16 Plan Commission meeting with a favorable recommendation, after all comments and concerns are addressed. If all items cannot be addressed at the meeting, then the DOCS recommends the Committee discusses this item and then continues it to the May 7 Special Studies Committee meeting for further review and discussion. 12 Carmel Plan Commission SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE March 27, 2013 Department Report 1. Docket 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. Please view the March 22 memo and information packet for more detail. A handful of revisions have been made to the proposed Ordinance in response to Committee discussion and correspondence from the public. Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Committee forwards this item to the April 16 Plan Commission meeting with a favorable recommendation, after all comments and concerns are addressed. If all items cannot be addressed at the meeting, then the DOCS recommends the Committee discusses this item and then continues it to the May 7 Subdivision Committee meeting for further review and discussion. 13 Carmel Plan Commission SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE March 27, 2013 Department Report 2. Docket No. 12120015 ADLS: The Seasons of Carmel (Aramore PUD). The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a 14-building multifamily residential development, comprising of townhomes and apartments. The site is located at 9801 Westfield Blvd. and is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Pittman Partners, Inc. The Applicant is seeking approval to construct a new residential neighborhood. This site has been zoned a PUD since 2006. The original proposal was for 150 townhomes and 70 courthomes (or condos). In 2009, a portion of the site at the entrance on 99th Street was separated from the Aramore project and developed as a single family home small cottage development, called Inglenook. More recently in 2012, the Applicant came to ask Plan Commission and Council to amend the Aramore PUD once more to allow for a “Manor” style or apartment building, as well as 2 story buildings in addition to 3 story buildings. The current proposal is for 3 Manor style buildings and 11 townhome buildings for a total of 256 residences. This will be comprised of 136 apartments and 88 townhomes. The area to the north, east and south is all single family residential. To the southwest is The Retreat apartment and townhome community, and immediately west is a golf course/driving range. Improvements to the site will include the addition of a left turn lane into the median for south bound traffic on Westfield Blvd., an acel and decel lane for north bound traffic into and out of the site, dedication of right-of- way for 99th Street, and right-of-way dedication for 96th Street, where a 10’ path will be constructed for pedestrian connectivity. The Petitioner is also proposing to create the Monon Trail spur on the south end of their property, connecting it all the way to Woodbriar Lane. This will help bring the residents from the east another access point closer to the Monon Trail. However, there is still one missing link across the golf property, which will be most likely be provided at some point in the future when that property is redeveloped. The Applicant also proposes to construct the missing segment of Maple Drive so it may eventually connect from 99th Street to 96th Street. However, the neighbors to the south have requested that the connection not be allowed, and to have it blocked off somehow to prevent cut through traffic. The current proposal is to have bollards that are removable for fire trucks to safely navigate the site if necessary. Lastly, another site improvement that the Petitioner will work on is to connect the required path on their property along Westfield Blvd. north to 99th Street to have greater connectivity in this area. The Dept. is very pleased that the Petitioner is making this effort for the community. Please view the Petitioner’s information packet for more details. Below are review and discussion comments for the Committee, Petitioner and Department. March 19 Plan Commission meeting recap: The Petitioner provided a complete overview of the project to the Plan Commission. There was a lot of focus on the trails/paths the petitioner was providing, and access to the Monon Trail. The Commission members were pleased the Petitioner was making an effort to connect the paths for people to enjoy. The Commission members did echo some concerns that were in the Department report regarding building design and color choices. The Department highlighted some areas of concern and recommended to forward the item to the Special Studies meeting for further review. Outstanding Planning/Zoning Dept. review comments: General: 1. Please provide copies of your correspondence with the TAC members and their correspondence with you. 14 Architectural design: 2. Are all the buildings going to be the same colors? With a name like the Seasons, the Dept. imagined different colors that complement each other, but also provide variety. Please expand the color palate. The Petitioner stated that the three different building types will have different colors. The Department still thinks it would be best to have some variety among the townhome buildings. Perhaps different shades of blue or gray would help give the site some complexity and add to the aesthetics. 3. Overall, the Dept. would prefer to see more brick and stone on the buildings and less cement fiber board. 4. The elevations facing Westfield Blvd. and facing the main streets through the development should have more brick and stone on them. These elevations should have minimal cement fiber board. The cement fiber board should be reserved for the rear of the buildings. The Petitioner agreed to revisit the west elevation of the Type B building to remove some, if not all, of the cement fiber board siding that faces Westfield Blvd. The Dept. would also like the Petitioner to revisit the main Manor building, to add more brick and stone to the west elevation. 5. Manor Building A: Please provide more relief in the façade projections and recessions of the main building facing Westfield. It is very one dimensional. Perhaps have the building into 3 or 5 significant architectural sections? The Petitioner did try to add more dimension through slightly different design, however the Dept. believes that more can be done. The main center portion of the building should have more stone or perhaps a combination of stone and brick, to help set it apart from the rest of the building. Right now, the building still seems very long and repetitive. a) Please label all materials on each elevation. b) West elevation: 1. Perhaps removing the horizontal floor divider between the second and third floors and continuing either the vertical or horizontal cement fiber board siding will help the building design flow more, and seem less “choppy”. (This comment applies to all elevations) 2. The Dept. is impressed with the brick detailing around the windows and doors on the first floor. 3. On the site plan, it is hard to tell how far the porte cochere sticks out from the building, and where the support posts will be. Please provide a rendering of this part of the building, showing what it will look like as one travels north or southbound on Westfield Blvd., or as one would drive up to the porte cochere. 4. Please provide a complete rendering of all sides of the Manor Building A on a larger size piece of paper for the Department’s review. 5. The small dormers on the roof appear to be very small and not proportionate to the building. Do these serve as actual windows/skylights into the apartments? Can they be made larger or more of them provided? Or should they be removed altogether? (This comment applies to all elevations) 6. What is the material over the entrance doors to the left and right of the main entrance? It appears to be some kind of metal. Please elaborate on this element, because it does not seem to go with the other materials used on the building. c) North and south elevations: Please provide wrap around brick for each of these elevations, as they will be highly visible from Westfield Blvd. d) East (rear) elevation: 1. Please provide a rendering of the back patio area. The way the stairs are shown on the plan vs. the rendering do not quite add up. The Dept. thinks this is a nice feature and it would be helpful to better show the Plan Commission what the space will be like. 2. Please provide more details on the materials that will be used for the main back patio area. 6. Manor Building B: 15 a) Please continue the brick on the first floor all the way around the building. This will help to get more brick facing Westfield Blvd., as well as provide a continual design element. b) Will there be any signage around the garage entrance for these buildings? c) Will there be any identifying signage for the main pedestrian entrances? The two entrances on either side of the building do not stand out as public entrances. 1. Again, what is the material over these doors? 2. Will these be overhangs that project out? How far will they project? It does not show up well on the site plan. d) Please call out all building materials on all elevations of each building. e) Front elevation: 1. It appears that the far ends of the first floor have doors. Will there be concrete pads as people exit here? Is this all part of the garage or a unit? Please explain. 2. As stated for Manor Building A, the building elevations might appear less “busy” if the third floor horizontal divider line was removed and the cement fiber board siding was kept continuous between the upper floors. (This comment applies to all elevations of this building) 3. Perhaps use more stone in the center portion of this elevation to call attention to it. f) Side elevations: 1. Please provide more brick and stone on the elevation that faces Westfield Blvd. 2. In general, the Dept. would like to see brick and stone on every elevation of the building. 3. The end units appear to have bay windows, but only the third floor unit has a roof over it. How will the other two floors roofs look? Will they be flat? Will they have some kind of slope? The Dept. is concerned about water possibly leaking into the units over time. g) Rear elevation: 1. Again, please wrap the brick around the entire first floor elevation. 2. Again, please provide more details about what looks like doors on the ends of the building. Will there be some kind of sidewalk to get to these doors or a concrete landing pad? 3. The Dept. is not in favor of using the same color shake that is on the roof dormers on the elevations of the building. The back elevation shows the same color, but one part of the front elevation shows a different color. 7. Townhome Buildings: a) The previous design had brick on the sides and rear of each building. The new designs have more stone on the back of the building. This is great, but can it be extended the entire length of the building? b) The Dept. would also like to see more stone and/or brick on the sides and front if possible, similar to the earlier designs. c) Please confirm if walk out units will have a concrete landing pad at their door, if there is no sidewalk. d) Please confirm that the second floor walk out patios will have doors to access these. It is not shown on the rendering. e) The Dept. would like to encourage possibly using other colors for the Townhome buildings, perhaps different shades of blue or gray, to make the project a little more diverse. Accessory uses/buildings: 8. Garages: a) Please provide more detail about the Garages, including a cut sheet for the new door design. b) Please specify where the garages will be or will possibly be built in the future. c) Please also provide dimensions of the garage buildings. d) Please label the materials on the garage building. 16 e) The Garage drawing given to the Dept. on 3/13/2013 says Type “B”. Are there other types that will also be used? 9. Trash Compactor: a) Please provide dimensions (including height) of the trash compactor. b) Please provide another view that shows where people actually place the trash into the compactor. c) Please provide details about the gate for access to the trash compactor from 98th Street 10. Please provide a site plan that shows the location of all the mailboxes. Engineering Dept.: 11. Please submit a copy of the Drainage Calculations. Pedestrian/Bike connectivity: 12. Please provide sidewalk access from the front if the buildings to the path around the pond, as well as to the fronts of buildings. 8-10 on the east side of Maple Drive. Exhibit D of the PUD showed these connections to the path around the pond. The Petitioner revised the plan, but each unit still does not have immediate access to the path. 13. Please change the sidewalk from next to the buildings to go out beyond the edge of the parking. 14. Please change the crushed stone path to a sidewalk. The City prefers all walking paths to be concrete or asphalt. The Petitioner addressed this comment saying that the crushed stone path goes with their overall look and feel of the site, and they do not wish to change the design to concrete or an asphalt path. The Dept.’s concern is that over time, weeds will be able to grow up through it easily, the path will not be maintained, and will eventually disappear as the stones are kicked or washed away. The Dept. is also concerned because not having a solid surface prevents people on bikes, parents with strollers, or people on rollerblades to not be able to use the path around the pond. 15. Please provide a concept plan of what the Monon spur crossing will look like crossing Westfield Blvd. Landscaping: 16. Please provide an update on the status of Daren Mindham’s review comments. Signage: 17. The ground sign cannot be located within road right of way. A variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals and Board of Public Works approval will be required. The Petitioner is aware of this and will seek variance approval. 18. The previous “Welcome Center” sign seems to have been replaced with a hanging identification sign under the porte cochere. What will the welcome center sign look like? Will the hours just be posted on the door? 19. It may also be beneficial to have another Monon rail spur sign at the entrance to the trail at Maple Drive. Fire Dept. comments: 20. All Fire Department Connections for automatic sprinkler systems shall be located at a location approved by the fire code official, Section 912 2008 Indiana Fire Code. 21. Provide an additional fire hydrant along Maple Drive across from building 9. Department Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Committee forwards this item to the April 16 Plan Commission meeting with a favorable recommendation, after all comments and concerns are addressed. If all items cannot be addressed at the meeting, then DOCS recommends the Committee discusses this item and then continues it to the May 7 Subdivision Committee meeting for further review and discussion.