Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 06-26-131 Carmel Plan Commission SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE June 26, 2013 Department Report 1. Docket No. 13040001 Z: Primrose Preschool of West Carmel. 2. Docket No. 13040002 DP/ADLS: Primrose Preschool of West Carmel. The applicant seeks approval to rezone 3 out of 4 lots from S-1/Residence to B-3/Business. All four lots make up 2.25 acres and are a part of the North Augusta Subdivision, Lots 63-66. The applicant also seeks site plan and design approval for a new preschool, as well as a zoning waiver for a reduced number of parking spaces. The site is located at 3746 W. 98th Street. It is currently zoned S-1/Residence and B-3/Business and lies within the US 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by Steve Hardin, Esq. of Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP on behalf of Primrose Schools. The Petitioner is requesting approval for the rezone of 3 of 4 lots to B-3 business zone. They are also combining these lots four lots into one lot, for the construction of a new preschool. The new building will sit on the eastern half of the site, with parking area on the west edge of the site, near the new extension of Walnut Creek Drive. This extension will provide inter-site connectivity from 106th Street all the way to 98th Street. The site is surrounded by commercial development to the north, vacant land immediately west, a hotel to the southwest, and residential to the immediate east and south. The C3 Plan calls for this area to be a Community Vitality Node. This means to provide community-serving and neighborhood-serving commercial development with the opportunity to integrate mixed uses. A Community Vitality Node is most appropriate near a primary road; in this case the adjacent road is US 421/Michigan Road. This use is a conditional fit with the neighboring suburban residential and will meet the requirement of a maximum of a two story building. The Orientation on site calls for either centralized or build-to front line building envelope. This development is more centralized, and should fit in nicely with the surrounding existing residential uses. The building will be constructed of brick and stone at the base. The building will be roughly 173’ wide by 105’ long. The roof pitch is very steep but will have dormers and porches across the façade to visually break it up. There will be sidewalk connectivity all around the site. There will also be a large playground area around the north, east and south sides of the building. These playgrounds are fenced in and are directly connected to the classrooms that will utilize them. There will be covered porches on the south façade of the building, as well as covered structures in the playground to provide shade. The Petitioner is withdrawing their parking waiver request, because they now meet the requirement by adding another lot to this overall development plan. 61 parking spaces are proposed, where only 53 spaces are required. There will be a dumpster on site. It will have steel doors covering it with a baked enamel for the finish color. The architect has found this material to be very durable. It will have a stone base and brick surround and cap to match the building. The height of the dumpster is 6’4”. Signage for the site is modest, with a ground sign at 22 sq. ft. and 6’ tall and a circular logo wall sign that is 12 sq. ft. Both signs are well under the allowed 75 sq. ft. With all the proposed site improvements, the Petitioner is at 54% lot coverage, which is well under the 80% that is allowed. Variances were applied for and granted by the BZA on May 28, 2013 for the following items: no building base foundation plantings (to reallocate those plantings to other areas onsite), no addition buffer yard along the north property line (utilizing existing), the number of signs, and two signs facing one ROW. June 18th Plan Commission meeting recap: The Petitioner presented the proposal to the Plan Commission and there was only one member from the public who spoke of concerns about the project. She is a neighbor and her concerns were safety of the children at this school, with it being so close to US 421, and concern for traffic and ability to get to and from the site with ease, because of the traffic problems on US 421 during peak hour travels. Plan Commission members had similar questions about how the traffic on US 421 would affect this site. Another concern of a few Plan Commission 2 members was if a 5’ sidewalk was wide enough to connect to US 421 and to Commerce Drive, which both have large asphalt paths running north and south. The thought was that a larger path (instead of the sidewalk) would be necessary to connect these two paths. The Thoroughfare Plan designates 98th Street as a residential road. This only requires a 5’ sidewalk. While it is not desirable to put in infrastructure only to take it out and replace it with something else down the road, the Department feels this area is not yet developed enough to warrant a path at this time. Perhaps down the road, when more of this subdivision is bought and a master plan is developed, then would be the time to relook at pedestrian connectivity through and around the site. In regards to the traffic on US 421 affecting this site, the Department believes that with access from US 421, Walnut Creek Drive, and Commerce Drive, parents will have multiple safe options and routes to access the site. There are multiple stop lights on US 421 that provide access to Walnut Creek Drive, as well as the new round- a-bout 96th and Commerce Drive, which should provide easy access from the east. If the State deems it necessary in the future, a median will be placed within the middle of Michigan Rd., near the intersection with 98th Street. Lastly, regarding the safety of the children in relation to the proximity of the school to US 421, the site is more than 300 feet away from US 421. It is surrounded by residential properties, vacant land, and a heavy tree buffer to the north. 98th Street is not a busy thoroughfare and the children will be closely monitored from the time they are dropped off and walked in by their parents, to throughout the day as they play inside and outside in the fenced in playgrounds. The Department feels safety and security of the children is the foremost priority for the Petitioner, and they would not have chosen this site if they did not feel it would be in the best interest of their students. Petitioner, please address the following outstanding review comments: US 421 Overlay requirements Ch. 23C: 1. 23C.09 K - Please provide the percentage of EIFS used in the structure above the entrance (Refer to 23C.09 K. 2. “Stucco with smooth finish, or EIFS, shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of the overall non- window façade area.”) The Petitioner stated the area including the wall sign is 76 sq. ft. The wall area excluding windows is 997 sq. ft. That makes it 7.62% EFIS. Please clarify that all porch gables on the south elevation have been included in the EFIS percent calculations, as well as the sides of the dormer and top cupola feature if they are in fact, stucco/EFIS. 2. Please clarify what the material is on the side of the dormers. Is this stucco/EFIS or cement fiber board siding? If it is stucco/EFIS it will count towards the 10% maximum allowed for stucco/EFIS. The Petitioner stated this will be lap board siding. 3. The color rendering still shows the shutters on the double windows. Please remove these for accuracy among all drawings. The Petitioner stated this will be completed. Lighting: per Ch 23C.12 4. Photometric plan – it appears that some of the foot-candles along the north property line will be more that 0.3 foot candles. Please add a shield to help reduce the light spillage. Please view the Petitioner’s Information Packet for more details. Department Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Committee forward this item to the July 16th Plan Commission meeting with a positive recommendation, after all concerns are addressed. 3 Carmel Plan Commission SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE June 26, 2013 Department Report 3. Docket No. 13040021 Z: Atapco Redevelopment PUD Rezone. The applicant seeks approval to rezone 34.13 acres of Carmel Science & Technology Park (Blocks 8 & 13) to PUD/Planned Unit Development, for residential, office, and commercial uses. The site is located at 630 & 645 W. Carmel Dr. and is currently zoned M-3/Manufacturing. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger, P.C. The Petitioner is requesting approval rezone 34 acres of M-3 zoned property to a new PUD development. This will be a mixed use PUD with multi-family residential, office, and commercial uses. It is proposed to be developed in phases, as the market calls for development. The first phase to be developed will be the multi- family residential on the large vacant land just west of Clark Street, north of Carmel Drive and south of City Center Drive. There is an existing office building to the west that will remain as is and be included in the PUD. The land to the north and east is multi-family and single family homes, all within the M-3 zone. The land to the southeast is commercial and immediately south is one single family residence and more multi-family residences. To the west is commercial development. The Department believes this plan makes good use of the land available, provides updates to the area and continues the re-development west from the City Center. This area currently has all of these proposed uses, and to include them in one project makes good sense to continue to make the area a walkable, more dense and exciting area to live. The Department asked the Petitioner to create a spreadsheet comparing the development standards regulations of this PUD ordinance to the M-3 zoning district, along with the permitted land uses proposed vs. what uses are permitted under Appendix A of the Zoning Ordinance. The Petitioner did provide this spreadsheet and many of the same uses that are allowed in the M-3 are still allowed in the PUD that pertain to office, residential, retail, educational, and temporary uses such as a construction facility and special outdoor events. Notable uses added to the PUD that are not allowed in M-3 are day care/preschool, general service, ATMs, Art gallery and music center, antennas and motor bus or railroad passenger stations. Uses specifically prohibited are single and two family dwellings, light and heavy manufacturing, wholesaling facilities, and distribution facilities. The Department believes these changes will enhance the area and provide the kind of atmosphere the Petitioner wishes to develop. This area of the City is shown on the Comprehensive Plan as an “Area of Special Study”. So the Department asked the Petitioner to show how this proposal is also consistent with the North Central Carmel Policies and Objectives section. They believe (and the Department agrees) that the zoning ordinance supports a mix of residential and commercial development in this area. The policies emphasize building the buildings closer to the street to provide for more pedestrian character and engagement. This plan supports those ideas as well as supports the US 31 employment corridor and civic and commercial uses found within and around the Carmel City Center. Some items to note that have been asked of the Petitioner through the review process so far and have been satisfied are the following: the Petitioner was asked to provide a traffic study on the area. This has been supplied. They were also asked to consider incorporating LEED or ‘green’ building practices into the PUD requirements, such as a white membrane roof material, solar panels, pervious pavers in all or part of the parking area, bio-swales, native plants, rain gardens, etc. The “Green” checklist has been provided and many of the items are in fact, checked off. We asked for an aerial photo with the site plan overlaid on it. The Department wanted to use this to explain and show how the site will be change over time. This was provided. One new question from this submittal is can the trees on the land that is not developed immediately remain until it is 4 developed? For example the northwest corner of the site where the commercial building and garage would go. Lastly, we asked for the Petitioner to consider addressing the potential issue of building shadows, by submitting a study to show the impact of the building heights and shadows on the adjacent residential properties. They have provided a rather impressive shadow study that shows during the winter in the late afternoon/evenings is the only time the adjacent residential properties will be impacted by the building size. Overall, the Department feels this is a great start to the proposed PUD. The comments below go through the PUD language section by section and are quite detailed. As we continue through the Committee review process, these items will be taken care of and reduced for the best possible PUD language for both the City and the Petitioner. June 18th Plan Commission meeting recap: The Petitioner presented this item and all its phases to the Plan Commission. There were many interested and concerned neighbors in the audience. These were their items most concern: 1. Additional traffic generated causes safety concerns for the neighboring subdivisions. People driving on City Center Drive go very fast and it is hard to turn left out of Timber Creek subdivision. It is also hard because there is a blind curve and many different lights/traffic coming from all directions. It is an accident waiting to happen. 2. Sidewalks are not built on Carmel Drive from Guilford to the Monon Trail. How will these residents access the Monon Trail? 3. Roundabouts should be constructed instead of stop lights. 4. Will there be enough parking if additional office buildings are constructed on the western part of the site? The current office building tenants are concerned. 5. Traffic flow during rush hour in and out of the site could be an issue with the amount of residential units proposed and additional office space. 6. Lack of privacy and concern that the apartments will be looking down into the Carmel Station homes. 7. Will additional families cause a need for school redistricting? 8. Will there be cut through traffic in Carmel Station causing them to need to put up gates or speed bumps? 9. Volume of noise could be an issue. The new development should build a fence and/or have a tree row to keep the noise down. The Plan Commission members had the following additional concerns: 1. John Adams – have the project traffic engineer there or a representative of the Engineer Dept. to discuss the traffic now and how it can be improved/will be impacted if this development goes in. 2. Alan Potasnik – inconsistencies and lack of sidewalks, lack of speed enforcement, concern buildings are too tall. Hard to visualize the stair-stepping of building heights. 3. Brad Grabow – why is there no vehicle connection to the office buildings on the south side of Carmel Drive? Should add parallel parking to Clark Street, and possibly City Center Drive and Carmel Drive to help aid in traffic calming. Perhaps have City Center narrow to one lane? Perhaps do not allow left turns during rush hour. Sidewalks should be upgraded to paths. Add landscaping to the Carmel Station side so the headlights don’t shine into those homes. 4. Josh Kirsh – Please commit to using native plants and large shade trees, not ornamental ones. Do not have large expanses of concrete. Use rain gardens and don’t have one large detention pond. Please try to break it up to make it look more natural. Talk with David Littlejohn about no sidewalks in this area and along Carmel Drive. 5. Nick Kestner – Should be enough parking, but there is going to be too much traffic and intensity from this many new units. Existing trees on east side of pond – please save those to help make it more natural. 6. Steve Lawson – Please provide a line of sight study from the 3 story building into Carmel Station and from Carmel Station towards the apartments. 7. Steve Stromquist – Please provide the number of units per building. Also wants vehicular connectivity from apartments to office building for access out onto Guilford (on the south side of Carmel Drive). 5 Staff Comments: General: 1. Please prepare an estimated construction cost to comply with the Thoroughfare Plan & Alternative Transportation Plan; contact the Engineering Dept. for more details, at 571-2441. The Petitioner is working with the Engineer Dept. to finalize the extent and timing of all necessary improvements. 2. Will you also be submitting a Primary Plat for this application? Is there a developer lined up to start building immediately? Both parcels are already platted and it is anticipated that the multi-family portion will be built immediately after zoning approval. 3. Please add a tree preservation section into the PUD language to save any existing trees along the road. The Petitioner stated they will add a section for this. Individual trees along street frontages will need to be evaluated to determine if they can be incorporated into the new site design with the buildings brought up to the street and paths added. 4. Please provide a bike and pedestrian plan to maximize the direct sidewalk/path connectivity within the site. This will be provided with each phase of the development, starting with the first DP/ADLS application. 5. Things to consider: Bike lockers, locker room and showers (in the offices), and long term bike parking (for residents). The Petitioner will provide both indoor and outdoor bike parking locations. 6. Please consider addressing the potential issue of sight lines, by submitting a study to show the views from the adjacent buildings and views from the proposed buildings to the adjacent sites. This item was meant to address two issues: 1. what people would see as they drive by or through the development. We would like to try to block views of parking areas if possible as well as provide the highest quality building materials and architecture on all facades of the buildings, because many will be seen from all directions (especially on Clark Street). 2. It is also to try to address the concerns about views to/from the neighbors, and in this case the residents of Carmel Station, those along Clark Street. Please provide a sight line cross section of the two properties to show varying heights and views. PUD language: Section 1 – Applicability of Ordinance: Ok Section 2 – Definitions and Rules of Construction: 7. Section 2.2 Definitions: a. Block: “Notwithstanding the above restriction, the Office and Commercial Use Block may be enlarged to occupy up to and including the entire Residential Use Block.” This does not seem like something we want to allow if we are trying to create a mixed use development. Please provide a percent limit of expansion. This is meant for the Residential Use Block to be developed in the same manner as the Office and Commercial Use Block if the development of apartments did not happen. b. Parking space: Please move this standard to the parking section instead of having it in the definitions section. The Petitioner will move this standard. Section 3 – Accessory Buildings and Uses: Ok Section 4 – Residential Use Block: 8. Section 4.3 Please provide clarification on “being combined and/or coordinated with property within the Office & Commercial Use Block”? It is the Dept.’s understanding that the entire site is to be designed to function as a whole. It is unclear if that is the goal in the PUD language. The Petitioner stated this provision does not establish a standard other than pointing out that there may be conflicting standards that will need to be transitioned between the Use Blocks. Sections 5 – Office & Residential Use Block and Section 6 – Office & Commercial Use Block: OK 6 Section 7 – Landscaping Requirements: 1. 7.1.A. Please change “with the approval of the Plan Commission” to “required by”. Will make the change. 2. 7.1.A. Please provide more information on what type of alternate plantings will be made “where planting space is limited by restrictions of buildings, asphalt or concrete, parking lots, etc.” The Use of portable planters and/or raised planting beds would be an option to address this condition. 3. 7.1.D. Please add a sentence that states if existing vegetation that is counted towards landscaping requirements at the time of development dies due to development, then it must be replaced. The Petitioner will further clarify this. 4. 7.1.F. How much does “Minor Material Alterations” cover? Please define this if it’s going to be in uppercase. Otherwise, switch to lower case. Another option is to add a maximum for the change – for example up to 10%. Another suggestion is to delete the word “material”. 10% will be specified and “material” will be deleted. 5. 7.3.A. 5’ and 15’ seem very small for perimeter buffering. Please increase these dimensions. The 5’ buffer along Clark Street has been removed and replaced by foundation plantings. The 15’ along the R-1 parcel has been increased to 40’ with a 30’ tree preservation area included in that. 6. 7.3.B. Ground signs should not be allowed adjacent to the R-1 zone, or in the rear portion of the buffer. Is the language referring to handicapped parking signs? Please clarify. Also, Daren Mindham would prefer this item be moved to the signage section, instead of in the Landscaping section. This will be removed and placed in the signage section. 7. 7.3.C. Which portions will Type A bufferyard be required? Are they labeled? Perhaps take out the reference to the Zoning Ordinance since the regulation is included anyway. Same comment for 7.3.D. The goal of this was to let the reader know where the concept was coming form. They will delete 7.3.C and reword 7.3.D. 8. 7.4.C. Street trees should be in addition to required perimeter plantings, not in place of them. This will be deleted. 9. 7.4.E. Please delete this item. A portion of this will be deleted and will be finalized with the help of the Urban Forester. 10. 7.4.F. Please designate the adequate width at 8’ for planting strips for street trees in the PUD language. The Petitioner stated this will be added and along Clark Street the standard will be 5’ as determined with the Urban Forester. In addition an exception will be made in locations where buildings and sidewalk come up to the street. 11. 7.5.B.2. Please provide a maximum percentage of sidewalks, etc. being allowed in foundation planting areas. Also perhaps have different regulations for retail vs. office foundation plantings. 40% will be established as a maximum. 12. 7.5.C. Please change this section to require items on the interior as well, not just “building frontage on public street right of way”. Interior standards will be added. 13. 7.5.D. How many instances will there be where the buffer area and foundation planting areas overlap? Daren Mindham is not ok with this and stated that the buffer plantings should not count toward foundation plantings. This section has been deleted. 14. 7.6 This section is unclear to the Dept. Does it mean that only the parking areas within 50’ of the perimeter are required to have plantings? Daren Mindham suggested deleting this item altogether and just go with what it says below as requirements. This will be reworded to be clearer. 15. 7.6.A. Per Daren Mindham, please change to: per 9 10 parking spaces. This standard will change to 15 spaces. 16. 7.6.B.2. Please specify a height for “Low wall”. Daren Mindham asks that this requirement be listed in another section. 30” will be added as the minimum height. 17. 7.6.B.4. Daren Mindham suggested to delete this section. This section has been reworded to be clearer. 7 18. 7.8 Please add native aquatic and shoreline species, as well as trees, to the second sentence under primary landscaping materials. This will be added. 19. 7.10 Daren Mindham suggested to delete this section. This section will be deleted. Section 8 – Lighting Requirements: Ok Section 9 – Signage: 20. In the conceptual renderings, it looks like the signs would have to go over architectural features of the building in order to be seen. All signs will meet the sign ordinance requirements and compliance will be reviewed with the DP/ADLS process. 21. Please revise the building elevation to allow for adequate signage placement for first floor tenants. These elevations are conceptual and will be clarified and made to comply when the DP/ADLS comes through for approval. Section 10 – Parking Requirements: 22. 10.1.B. Add, “No parking is allowed in the areas between a building front and an Open Drive or the Street” or “Parking shall be located at the rear or side of buildings.” Parking will be restricted to one row between building fronts and the street for the Office and Commercial Use Block. Parking at the side or rear can be accommodated in the other two Use Blocks. 23. 10.1.I. The word “compatible” does not seem certain enough to ensure that the parking garage will match and compliment the principal building. Please refer back to Section 3 in this item to tie the two together. Compatible will be changed to “consistent with”. Section 11 – Pedestrian Circulation: Comments from David Littlejohn 24. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan requires the construction of a 10’ asphalt path along Guilford Rd. Please revise the plans to include and label this facility. The concept plan illustration will be amended to reflect the inclusion of a path, not a sidewalk. 25. Please connect all internal sidewalks to each other and provide sidewalks on both sides of all of the entrances to the development and its buildings. Please revise the plans to reflect these changes. The PUD text will be amended to address this. Individual connections will be evaluated at the time of DP/ADLS review. 26. Please consider providing long term covered bicycling parking for the apartment buildings. If this is already in consideration please provide details on how this will be provided. A standard will be added that provides interior bicycle parking for residential buildings. 27. Please indicate ADA compliant ramps and crosswalks at all pedestrian crossings. These will be shown on future development plans. Section 12 – Use Limitations: In general, the Dept. believes these items could easily be relocated and placed into other sections of the ordinance, therefore not needing their own section. 28. 12.1 – Permitted Retail Intensity a. Could this information be placed into Section 6 – Office & Commercial Use Block instead? Yes, but it is not exclusive to that Use Block. Perhaps, add it to each individual section in the PUD that it applies to. b. If commercial can expand into the residential area, will the use limitation still apply at 80,000 sq. ft.? The answer is yes. 29. 12.2 Could this information be placed in Section 4 – Residential Use Block and/or Section 5 – Office & Residential Use Block? The Petitioner will move this portion as requested. 30. 12.3 Could this information be placed in Section 5 – Office & Residential Use Block? Will be moved. 31. 12.4 Could this information be placed in Section 3 – Accessory Buildings and Uses? Will be moved. 8 Section 13 – Additional Requirements and Standards: 32. 13.7.A. Please consider adding more ROW to Clark St., perhaps 28’ half, because there will potentially be added volume to that street and to allow for all of the street amenities (i.e. street trees (6’ planting strips) and sidewalks). The Petitioner stated that a 30’ half right of way will be provided along with a minimum of 5’ tree lawn and on street parking. In addition the residential buildings are being redesigned to provide pedestrian access on the street side with access to the on street parking. 33. 13.7.B. Please confirm from the Engineer Dept. exactly how much right-of-way should be dedicated. Only 25’ is required, but the Petitioner will provide for 30’. 34. 13.8 Please provide updates on discussions with the City Engineer regarding site access. Will do. 35. 13.9 Please specify that all sides of any rooftop items also need to be screened. Please also refer this section back to Section 7.7. Will make the change and add the reference. Section 14 – Declaration of Covenants and Owners Association(s): Ok Section 15 – Procedural Provisions: Ok Section 16 – Controlling Developer’s Consent: Ok Section 17 – Violations and Enforcement: Ok Exhibits: 36. Please add all exhibits before the Council Signature Page perhaps as their own Section. Section 18? Exhibits will be incorporated prior to the signature page. 37. Exhibit A, B, & C: Ok 38. Exhibit D: Use Table a. Public Service Facility – please clarify where it will be used. This will be deleted. b. The Dept. is uncertain of the need for an ATM in the Residential Use block. Please remove this item. It will be deleted. 39. Exhibit E: Development Standards Matrix a. Please enlarge the building setbacks from 5’ and 0’ in order to allow for more planting room. The Petitioner stated this is counter to the concept of allowing buildings to be pulled up to the street right of way. The Department believes the residential buildings can still be pulled up, but need to allow for a small area of landscaping helping soften the appearance. This area of town is still more suburban in nature, even though we are designing it to become more urban. This site will most likely look and feel like the Townhomes at City Center, on the north side of City Center Drive. These homes have a 5’ tree lawn, 5’ sidewalk and a 20’ building setback. Perhaps the buildings in the PUD do not need to be set back 20’, but maybe another 5-10’. b. Please increase the 15’ setback to allow for adequate planting strips. This has been increased to 40’ with a 30’ tree preservation area along the R-1 zoned property. c. Please add a minimum distance between all buildings. The Petitioner proposes 20’. d. Please add a maximum front yard setback for all use blocks. The Petitioner responded that a 30’ maximum in the Residential Use Block will apply to 50% of the buildings. This is so the buildings next to the street will be pulled up, but the ones that face the lake can be as proposed. A maximum of 60’ setback for the buildings in the Office and Commercial Use Block will address the mixed use building and the 1 story retail building. The 60’ would accommodate for a single row of parking in front of the buildings as requested by Staff. The Residential Use Block will provide for a maximum 30’ building setback applicable to 50% of all buildings. This allows for buildings along the street and to the rear (non-street side) of the property as illustrated on the Concept Plan. 9 e. The Dept. believes that 80% lot coverage is too much. Please bring this down to allow for more open space. The M-3 zone has a maximum of 80% and the US 31 overlay has a maximum of 65%. Perhaps an average of 70% would be acceptable? The Petitioner stated that 70% will be used in the Residential Use Block and Office and Commercial Use Block. The Residential and Office Use Block will remain at 80%. 40. Exhibit F: Architectural Standards – the Dept. would like to see these standards be their own section within the PUD language. a. Part 2.C. What is “the timeless elements of traditional architecture in new compositions”? This seems very open to interpretation. This will be deleted. b. Part 3.A.1. Who determines “sensitive to the pedestrian scale”? Please list examples of what this means, to help the Dept. in reviewing petitions. This will be deleted. c. Part 3.A.2. What is “traditional architecture found throughout the Midwest”? Please list examples of what this means, to help the Dept. in reviewing petitions. This will be deleted. d. Part 3.A.3. Again, who determines what a “diversity of architectural styles and features” is acceptable? Please be more specific by listing examples of what this means, to help the Dept. in reviewing petitions. This will be deleted. e. Part 3.A.4. The Dept. is concerned with signage, awnings, and canopies to have “individual character”. The petitioner should establish some kind of sign package for the building as it comes through for approval, to at least determine lighting style allowed and placement on the building. Awnings and canopies should be complimentary to each other, but create a flow and cohesive design on the building. The Dept. does not want to see random color of awnings and different canopy styles/structures for each business. Please look to other integrated centers around Carmel, for example Merchants Pointe or Square, and the new Kite development along Range Line Road. This will be deleted. f. Part 3.D. Please provide a list of primary materials and a specific percent of these materials that should be used on a primary façade (which should be the majority of the building façade - at least 75%). The Petitioner stated the list has been provided. However, in lieu of providing a minimum percentage of materials on the Primary Façade, the Petitioner prefers to limit the material quality for the Primary Façade. The Department does not have this list. Please provide. 1. Please provide an exhibit that shows which façade is primary, because the Dept. believes areas seen from the street should be considered primary, or for example, the lake is also primary because it will have great visibility. Exhibit has been provided. However, the Dept. believes that the following buildings should have more than one primary façade: Building 2 – east because this is the primary entrance for the site, Building 3 – north, Building 1 – south, Building 11 – east should be primary, not the west, and Building 10 and 4 the east elevations should also be primary facades as they are most visible to traffic. 2. Please change sentence 2 to say “Buildings with continuous façades that are ninety (90) feet or greater in width, shall be designed with offsets (projecting or recessed) not less than eight (8) feet deep, and at intervals of not greater than sixty (60) feet.” The Petitioner stated the requested change is not consistent with the intended design character of the buildings such as those buildings found in the Range Line Road Overlay. The Department believes this sentence/section needs to be updated to have a quantifiable standard for measuring the offsets. g. Part 3.E. Secondary Facades: 1. Please change the secondary façade material requirement to 50% of the primary façade material wrap around to the secondary facades. The architect recommends 30%. The Dept. would like to see the primary material used more on the secondary facades. Please increase the percentage. 10 2. “Secondary facades immediately adjacent” – please change this to refer to all facades, so that the rear of the building has the same materials as the other facades. The Dept. is not ok with the rear of the building not having the same quality and look of materials as the other sides. The Petitioner will change this as requested. h. Part 3.F. Service Courts: Where are these located? Does this simply refer to the rear of the building? Please clarify. This will be deleted. i. Part 3.I.3. “Color variations in these cases are limited to elements such as awnings, signage, banners and architectural details” – who determines this is ok? Again, the Dept. is not ok with awnings and canopies designed individually by tenants, rather than cohesively with the overall building design. This will be deleted. j. Part 4.A.2. “Buildings will have architectural features and patterns that provide visual interest” – This requirement seems vague. Please be more specific. This will be deleted. k. Part 4.B.9. Please provide more clarification on why the building would have reduced parapet wall height on the secondary walls/facades. The Dept. believes this may not look appropriate. This is done to create a hierarchy of facades. l. Part 4.C.1. How does one determine “compatible” for prototype identify of established restaurants? And what is an established restaurant? Should a minimum number of locations be specified? Please define and clarify. This will be modified to be clearer. m. Part 4.C.3. Outdoor seating areas and patios – with the minimum building setback proposed so low, will there even be room for these types of uses? This type of use should be considered when figuring out the setbacks. The Petitioner stated this will be limited to within 3’ of the building façade. Patios are permitted at corners and plazas that do not impede upon pedestrian pathways. n. Part 4.E.1. Who determines if “the massing and entry features of the Building will be respectful of the human scale and provide an enhanced living experience”? Please give specific examples or photograph examples to explain. The Petitioner stated this may include canopies, awnings, porches, masonry coursing, exterior material articulation and/or window mullions. The Department is still not comfortable with the language here. Please alter the text to not have a subjective standard, add more text to clarify, as well as provide photo examples. o. Part 4.E.3. Please specify a minimum of 2 windows per level per façade. Please clarify if you will add ‘per façade’ to that section. p. Part 5.A.4. Decorative poles with fabric banners – will these have any copy on them? Where will they be located? This will be deleted. q. Part 5.A.13. What kinds of carts and kiosks are imagined? The Dept. does not see how this will be appropriate for the residential areas. Perhaps add it to the use table and prohibit it from the residential block, but allow in the commercial and office area? Carts and kiosks will be limited to the commercial area. r. Part 5.A.14. Again, why are ATMs proposed for the residential area? ATMs will be limited to commercial and office areas only. 41. Exhibit G: Conceptual Image renderings – Residential Use Block a. Page 1 lower image: Would like to see more stone/brick on the upper floors. There is too much siding on this building. The Petitioner stated that masonry is incorporated into 40% of the exterior surface of the building. This is done proportionally on all sides in varying heights of one to three stories. (A revised elevation was said to be attached, but only the 3 story building was included. Please send the 4 story building revisions.) b. Page 3 leasing office/clubhouse image: Not in favor of the extreme amount of roofing shown. This building should be designed more similarly to the other buildings surrounding it with more parapet walls and flat roofs. The Dept. has experienced other locations where we have allowed a roof to be vastly different from the primary buildings, and we are trying not to repeat this mistake. The Petitioner agreed that the roof was a bit excessive and provided updated drawings. The Dept. still believes the front and rear elevations could use some additional design work. 11 42. Exhibit H: Conceptual Image Renderings – Office and Residential Use Block - OK 43. Exhibit I: Conceptual Image Renderings – Office and Commercial Use Block a. A commercial building like this should be moved closer to the street with parking located behind the building. Please revise any applicable sections to ensure this more walkable style of development. The building will be moved closer to the street with limited parking placed in front of the building for better pedestrian access. b. The Dept. is concerned though about how this building transitions along City Center Drive with the proposed Clubhouse and Building 10. Need to see a consistent, complementary façade along this road. The Petitioner responded the diversity of building scale and uses is consistent with the intent of the architectural styles of the development. The Dept. still believes these buildings do not transition well. Please view the Petitioner’s Information Packet for more details. Department Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Committee discusses this item and then continues it to the Tuesday, August 6th Special Studies Committee meeting for further review and discussion. 12 Carmel Plan Commission SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE June 26, 2013 Department Report 1. Docket No. 13030009 OA: Commercial Landscape Ordinance. The applicant seeks to amend Chapter 7: Open Space Standards for Major Subdivisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance and to amend Chapter 3: Definitions, Chapter 14: B-3/Business District, Chapter 17: B- 6/Business District, Chapter 18: B-7/Business District, Chapter 19: B-8/ Business District, Chapter 20A: I- 1/Industrial District, Chapter 20B: M-1/Manufacturing District, Chapter 20D: M-3/Manufacturing Park District, Chapter 20E: C-1/City Center District, Chapter 20F: C-2/Old Town District, Chapter 20G: OM/Old Meridian District, Chapter 23A: Keystone Parkway Corridor Overlay Zone, Chapter 23B: US Highway 31 Corridor Overlay Zone, Chapter 23C: US Highway 421 – Michigan Road Corridor Overlay Zone, Chapter 23D: Old Town District Overlay Zone, Chapter 23E: Home Place District Overlay Zone, Chapter 23F: Carmel Drive – Range Line Road Overlay Zone, Chapter 23G: West 116th Street Overlay Zone, Chapter 23H: Monon Greenway Overlay Zone, Chapter 24: Development Plan and Architectural Design, Exterior Lighting, Landscaping & Signage Regulations, and Chapter 26: Additional Height, Yard, Lot Area and Buffering Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of updating and consolidating Commercial Landscape Requirements. Filed by the Carmel Dept. of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. The proposed Commercial Landscape Ordinance is an effort by the Department to consolidate landscaping requirements into one section, so that it is easier for people to find and understand what is required of them for landscaping a site and its buildings. This has been a goal of the Department for many years now to update and streamline the four parts of the ADLS process (Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping and Signage). Last year the Sign Ordinance was updated, and hopefully this year the Landscape Ordinance will come to fruition. The Department envisions discussing the proposed language over the course of a few meetings. In preparing this ordinance, the Department did consult with members of the Landscaping profession and members of the Chamber of Commerce. May 7th Subdivision Committee Recap: Most of the discussion was spent orienting the Committee to the proposed ordinance. The main purpose of the proposal is to consolidate landscaping standards across the Zoning Ordinance into one central location. Sue Maki was in attendance to discuss irrigation as it relates to commercial installations. The Committee asked staff to highlight the proposed ordinance to indicate which language is new to the zoning ordinance and which existing standards would change. June 4th Subdivision Committee Recap: The Committee reviewed the Commercial Landscape Ordinance through page 12, with the rest to be reviewed at the next meeting. The Committee asked staff to work on the following: • Streamline the irrigation standards, if possible, so as to not create duplication with other code or ordinance requirements. • Clarify parking lot planting requirements in the event that an existing parking lot is expanded. • Keep working on Innovative Landscape Design Applications in an effort to consider both large and small development projects alike. Revisions have been made and are provided in the June 21st Memo and Information Packet. Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Committee discusses this item and then forward it to the Tuesday, July 16th Plan Commission meeting with a positive recommendation.