Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 06-18-13 - 1 - CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT June 18, 2013 H. Public Hearings 1. Docket No. 13040014 PV: Carmel Science & Tech Park, Block 16, Plat Vacation. The applicant seeks approval to vacate the plat for Block 16 (Shepherd Insurance Group Park, Lot 1) so that it reverts back to a 1.89-acre parcel of land. The site is located at 1200 Carmel Dr. It is zoned OM/O – Old Meridian District, Office Zone. Filed by Matt Griffin of Buckingham Companies. The Petitioner is requesting to vacate a portion of a plat in order to purchase and develop it as part of the lot to the north. This plat vacation, along with a rezone, will allow for the developer to present their project in the cleanest matter before the Plan Commission addressing the Old Meridian District, site connectivity, building design and minimal variances. The portion of the site to be vacated is zoned Old Meridian Office. The upcoming proposal will be for it to be rezoned to Old Meridian Village, to match the site to the north, which is a part of the Providence at Old Meridian development. The C3 Plan calls for Office Development at the south end of the Old Meridian District. It should be two – five stories, mostly fronting on Old Meridian Street. The Village zone of this property calls for a mixed use development with upper floor residential units. This has been successfully accomplished by the Providence at Old Meridian development to the north. The Village zone also calls for a walkable community with a diversity of retail, entertainment and office uses. Drive through facilities should be prohibited, parking should be on site/shared, all buildings need to face the public street and have at least one main entrance should be on the street side of the building, the building needs to sit up on the front property line, buildings must be a minimum of two stories, general proportion of the building should be vertical. With this plat vacation request, the majority of these requirements will be fulfilled with the new proposed development that will be before the Plan Commission in the upcoming months. Still need from the Petitioner: 1. Completed application 2. Legal description of the land to be vacated. 3. Names and addresses of all land owners that abut the property to be vacated 4. Circumstances of the case/why it needs to be vacated Please view the Petitioner’s Information Packet for more details. Department Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Plan Commission suspend its rules of procedure and vote to approve this item tonight. - 2 - CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT June 18, 2013 2. Docket No. 13050002 PV: Meridian Suburban Plat, Lots 17-28 and 47-57, Plat Vacation. The applicant seeks approval to vacate the lots, easements, and road rights of way for lots 17-28 and 47- 57. The site is located south of 111th Street and west of US 31. It is part of the Illinois Street extension project. The site is zoned S-2/Residence and lies within the US 31 Overlay Zone. Filed by Timothy Ochs of Ice Miller, LLP for Valley Development Co. The Petitioner seeks approval to vacate 21 lots of the Meridian Suburban subdivision for the north-south extension of Illinois Street. Illinois Street is partially constructed from 103rd Street to 106th Street and picks up again just south of 116th Street and continues north all the way to 136th Street. The vacation of these plats is necessary for the City to continue building and finishing the Illinois Street corridor as is called out in the Thoroughfare Plan for a Secondary Parkway. The goal of this project was to have it completed before US 31 was shut down for construction to provide an additional north-south alternative route for citizens and visitors of Carmel. Please view the Petitioner’s Information Packet for more details. Department Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Plan Commission suspend its rules of procedure and vote to approve this item tonight. - 3 - CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT June 18, 2013 3. Docket No. 13040001 Z: Primrose Preschool of West Carmel. 4. Docket No. 13040002 DP/ADLS: Primrose Preschool of West Carmel. 5. WITHDRAWN: Docket No. 13040003 ZW: Ordinance Ch. 27.08 – 53 parking spaces required, 40 proposed. 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. - 4 - Petitioner, please address the following outstanding review comments: DP/ADLS: 1. The Dept. would like to see the building shifted in a way that removes the playgrounds from the front yard. Please explore options to change the site plan. US 421 Overlay requirements Ch. 23C: 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. The color rendering still shows the shutters on the double windows. Please remove these for accuracy among all drawings. Lighting: per Ch 23C.12 5. 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. Alternative Transportation: 6. Please verify that the 5’ sidewalk along 98th Street will be built at the time of construction. 7. Please remove the sidewalk at the north end of the row of parking closest to the building entrance (just west of the dumpster where 8 29-JUN-C are proposed to be planted) so that a larger landscaping bed can be accommodated. Do not have the sidewalk turn to go west, just have it end at the parking drive isle. Signage: 8. Please label the sign setback from new Walnut Creek Drive for sign. 9. Sheet A7.1: for the flag pole detail, the Primrose flag must be 24 sq. ft. or less, and less than the size of the American flag. See Ch. 25.07.01-05 h) Please confirm the size of the Primrose flag. 10. Sheet X-1: what is the size of the logo on the shade shelter elevation? 3 sq. ft. or less is required for it to be considered exempt. Please view the Petitioner’s Information Packet for more details. Department Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Plan Commission sends this item to the Wednesday, June 26th Special Studies Committee meeting, for further review and discussion. - 5 - CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT June 18, 2013 6. 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 - 6 - 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 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. 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 - 7 - 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 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 - 8 - 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. 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 - 9 - 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. 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. - 10 - 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. 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. - 11 - 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. 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. - 12 - 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. 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 Plan Commission sends this item to the Wednesday, June 26th Special Studies Committee meeting, for further review and discussion. - 13 - CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT June 18, 2013 7. TABLED TO JULY 16 - Docket No. 13020021 DP/ADLS: Auto Max. The applicant seeks approval for a change of use and a revision of the site plan with parking areas in front and the rear of the building. The site is located at 9728 N. Michigan Rd. and is zoned I-1/Industrial, within the US 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by Elizabeth Bentz Williams of Clark, Quinn, Moses, Scott & Grahn, LLP, on behalf of Auto Max. This item is tabled to the July 16, 2013 Plan Commission meeting. - 14 - CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT June 18, 2013 I. Old Business 1. Docket No. 13020018 DP: Highpointe on Meridian Development Plan. 2. Docket No. 13020019 ADLS: Highpointe on Meridian Apartments. 3. Docket No. 13020020 ADLS: Spectrum Retirement Community. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a multi-family apartments development and a senior living community. (The office building is not part of this.) The plat will be 3 lots/blocks on 26.4 acres. The site is located at the southwest corner of 136th St. & Illinois St. and is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development (Ordinance Z-559-12). Filed by Paul Reis of Krieg DeVault, LLP. Highpointe on Meridian The Highpointe on Meridian project consists of 26.4 acres overall, and is located on the north side of Illinois Street and to the south and west of the roundabout at Oak Ridge Road and 136th Street. Three projects will happen within this development: an apartment community by JC Hart, a senior living community by Spectrum Retirement Community, and an office building to be developed at a later date. The building pad of the future office building is shown in the development plan portion of the submittal only to show the area where it can be built on the site. This is based on restrictions including setback lines and a tree preservation area. Other restrictions for the rest of the site include an underground gas pipeline along Illinois Street, a relocated regulated legal drain, many mature trees, and a wetland area. During the rezone process for this PUD, the idea of a traffic study was discussed. However, it was concluded that a traffic study is not required, based on Illinois Street being designed to handle the amount of traffic generated from the site. JC Hart Apartment Community The JC Hart Apartment Community will be comprised of 12.8 acres in the center of the Highpointe on Meridian development. It will have 235 multi-family units that vary in size, shape, number of floors, building materials and colors, etc. It is designed in conformance with the PUD standards. The development will be 61.62% impervious surfaces and 38.38% pervious surfaces. Overall, the apartments are oriented towards Illinois Street, and are pulled as far away as possible from the single family residential neighborhoods to the north. A tree buffer will be preserved along the edge of the subdivision and the apartment community. Trash pick- up will be according to the PUD (8-5 M-F and 10-3 on Saturday) and is located at the southeastern most portion of the apartment site. Parking will be accommodated by both surface parking and garage parking within the buildings. Spectrum Retirement Facility The Spectrum Retirement Facility will be located on 8.2 acres of land at the east end of the Highpointe on Meridian development, located south and west of the roundabout at Oak Ridge Road and 136th Street. It is a retirement community, not a nursing home. It will focus on socialization and the physical activity of its residents, as well as care for those who need memory assistance. The building will be three stories high and will not exceed 38’, which is less than the 45’ allowed by the PUD language. The southeast portion of the site is an existing wetland area and will be preserved. Native prairie grasses, shrubs and trees will be planted around the new detention area to the east of the building. Access to the site will be off of Illinois street. Two six car garages are provided, as well as uncovered parking spaces. Perimeter landscaping will be planted to provide a buffer to nearby residents and traffic along 136th St. Building foundation landscaping will be provided to beautify the site and make it enjoyable for residents as well as passersby. The Spectrum site will have 49.7% impervious surfaces and 50.3% pervious surfaces. - 15 - April 16th PC meeting recap: The Petitioner presented the project, and a few neighbors spoke in opposition showing potential issues with the proposal. The main issues were the following: 1. Landscape screening from headlights and providing a full, thick buffer of landscaping between the neighbors and this project. Will the gaps of the perimeter be filled in with evergreens? Please identify what species of tree is there now. 2. Drainage – currently the site has standing water after heavy rains. The concern is that drainage will be ok now with the office building not there, but when the office building goes in, the additional pavement will create the drainage problem. The Plan Commission would like to see the amount of pavement mitigated. 3. Safety of the proposed Spectrum entrance. It is bad location, on a hill and a curve. The change of grade causes further obstruction of view. The Dept. asks the Petitioner to please review this location. 4. Location of the westernmost cut/drive in the office block. Even though this entrance is not under review right now, it was brought up as a concern of the neighbors and the Engineer Dept. as part of the overall development plan. Please look into providing a sight line and auxiliary lanes analysis. 5. Architecture – The design of the apartments has changed from original proposal to now. Plan Commission is concerned about what is shown in concept, turns into something else when it comes through for approval. The project design does not appear to meet the Contemporary or Neo-Italianate style specified in the PUD. Some details include: window boxes, brackets under eaves, low sloping roof lines, and long windows. 6. Bicycle racks and paths – The Plan Commission would like to see bike rack locations where they will be used, which is near the front doors and at ground level. An internal bike path through the site would also be nice, possibly changing a sidewalk on one side to become a path. Please also provide a direct path connection from Illinois St. to Spectrum’s front door. May 7th Committee meeting recap: There was much discussion at this meeting regarding the landscaping and buffer between the proposed project and the adjacent single family residential homes. The Petitioner stated that they will add up to 20% more evergreen trees in the gaps where the existing trees/brush are not significant. But the Petitioner also reiterated that the PUD does not require replanting of trees or underbrush. So they will work with the neighbors to see which parts of the underbrush they would like removed. They will draft a Memo of Understanding with the neighbors about adding more trees to the buffer and will submit this to the Dept. for the file and for the Committee to review. The Committee was very concerned with seeing renderings of the views a person would see as they drive along the interior of the site, or along US 31 or Illinois Street. The Petitioner offered to put together views based on the drawings already created to help give a feel of what one would experience. The committee would have preferred 3D renderings, but agreed to see these drawings first. The Petitioner felt confident the Committee would be able to get a feel for what the project would be like, and also recommending visiting some of their other sites, which have a similar density and feel. Regarding the architecture of the building, it was requested that a larger bracket detail be provided, to give more emphasis to the Italianate design. There was extensive discussion on how the proposed buildings met or did not meet the Italianate style architecture. However, there were a few buildings that the Department was not satisfied with the design. These were the Clubhouse, Coach and Duplex buildings. The Dept. felt that there was too much siding on these buildings, and that they lacked significant architectural details. The Petitioner agreed to rework these building designs in an effort to provide a greater quality product, as well as further show and meet the Italianate design. The Petitioner was also going to look into providing a color palate for the buildings. - 16 - The Spectrum site was not discussed, other than the Department asking that they be present at the next meeting and be prepared to show how their building meets the Neo-Italianate or Contemporary Italianate architecture requirements, as well as answer any additional questions that may arise. June 4th Committee meeting recap: The Petitioner provided many items the Department had asked for including: a color palate for the JC Hart apartments; information on screening the utilities through taller trees on the sides, but they will not install anything within three feet of the front of the meters to provide a clear workspace for the power company; documentation on what kind of parking spaces were on the site and where they are located; and more information and updates to the ADA plan so it now meets the requirements. The Duplex, Coach and Clubhouse buildings were also revised to provide more architectural details, and better represent the Italianate architecture style required by the PUD. The only item the Petitioner was not able to provide was the pedestrian access on both sides of the drive up to the Clubhouse. They stated the west side will have to wait until the office portion is developed, and the Committee agreed it should not be put in now, only to be torn out later. Spectrum had representatives at the meeting and is currently working with the Engineer Dept. to add acel and decel lanes, as well as a left turn lane for traffic going north to help with any increase in traffic this development may cause. They also moved the ground sign further away from the street and reoriented it to be parallel with Illinois Street. Lastly, Spectrum’s portion of the site was approved with two conditions: 1) that the City Engineer approves the entrance to Spectrum and 2) Spectrum would add more brick to the west elevation of the building, to enhance the architecture. Please view the Petitioner’s information packet for more details. Department Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Plan Commission approve this item tonight. - 17 - CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT June 18, 2013 4. Docket No. 13040011 DP/ADLS: Harvest Bible Chapel at Legacy. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a church and administration building, with parking areas, landscaping, lighting, and signage. The site is located near 14450 N. River Rd. and is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development (Ordinance Z-501-07). Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger, P.C. on behalf of Harvest Bible Chapel - Carmel. The Petitioner is proposing a new church to be built in the Legacy PUD. The site is 17 acres, and the use is permitted in the Neighborhood Residential Use Block of the PUD as a Special Use. They will appear before the BZA on June 24, 2013 for this approval. The project will be built in phases, with Phase 1 at the north end of the site, including a worship hall (about 20,000 sq. ft.) and other accessory uses, i.e. classrooms and office space (about 7,500 sq. ft.), as well as outdoor amenities. (Please note that the classrooms will only be used during worship services for child care. They will not be operated as a day care service during the week.) For the entire plan, the site is about 65% impervious surface and 35% pervious. This is a unique site because there are no specific standards for churches in the PUD language, similar to how there are no architectural standards in the regular City of Carmel zoning ordinance for churches that would like to locate in an R-1 or S-2 zone, for example. The Dept. does refer to Ch. 21 Special Uses and Exceptions to review the proposed building in order to make sure it meets the general height, square footage, setbacks, etc. and then may offer suggestions for the architecture. The BZA is also able to make suggestions to improve the building and make sure its design complements the surrounding uses. So, this is the approach the Department is taking with this project. Overall, the Department believes that the proposed building design complements the prairie/open space area that surrounds this piece of land. The Petitioner has centered this design around the existing silo on the site and wants to make improvements to it and include it as a significant architectural feature on the site. The building and site design also take into consideration keeping pedestrian walkways separate from parking and drive aisles, for safety and aesthetics. This is why the overall design calls for all buildings in the center of the site, with parking at the north and south ends. The Department is impressed with the architecture of the proposed buildings. It is varied, provides visual interest, and seems warm and inviting. The future phases will all be connected through an indoor lobby area that will have a lot of windows, and be very connected to the outside space/courtyard area in-between the buildings. All mechanical units will be installed on the roof, which will be screened in a metal material that matches the standing seam metal used for the roof. The proposed site, building and path lighting will have downcast 90 degree cut off fixtures for the parking lot and the footcandles meet the 0.5 requirement at the property line edges. The Urban Forester is now satisfied with the proposed landscaping plan and has no further issues. The proposed ground signage and wall murals meet the requirements of the PUD. The signage is designed to complement the building and will provide visual interest to the building facades. The proposed site plan does accommodate for the construction of a 10’ wide asphalt path along River Rd. as well as to include 9 bicycle parking spaces, therefore meeting the Alternative Transportation requirements. Recap of May 21 PC Meeting The Petitioner gave their presentation and discussed the proposal for this piece of land. The Department - 18 - mentioned items of concern that were listed in the Dept. Report, and the Plan Commission members inquired further into these matters. The Petitioner stated that pedestrian connections are not required by PUD to connect to the path in the open space to the west. This was a concern of the Dept., however, other improvements will be made to accommodate connectivity. There was a question about the brick on the building. The Petitioner clarified that it is actually applied to the building with mortar similar to regular brick. Another question was how trash will be disposed of. The Church will have roll-away carts similar to residential trash pick-up that will be stored in the interior of the building to be collected on a specific date and time for the facility. One Plan Commission member asked if there would be transformers along River Road and would they be screened appropriately. He asked for more details on the ground mounted mechanical units. There was discussion about the path along River Road, and how much would be installed now. The Petitioner responded only the portion of the site that is in Phase 1 will have the path constructed. The rest of the path will be constructed along with the other phases of the project. Another PC member asked for more bike parking in front of the administrative office building. Lastly, there was discussion about the amount of parking for this site. The Department was concerned with the amount of impervious surface that will be on the site. However, the Plan Commission stated that they need to be sure they have enough parking spaces and that we should not ask them to reduce the number of spaces. The Department will not ask the Petitioner to reduce the number of spaces, but would like to ask the Petitioner to consider using pervious pavers in some portions of the parking areas to help mitigate the amount of impervious surface within the project. Recap of June 4th Special Studies meeting: The Petitioner did commit to the 50 foot half ROW for this phase and throughout the project. They would like for the ROW to be consistent throughout the project. The project does meet the PUD requirement for pavement section. Street lights along River Road are not required by the Engineer Dept. The seven spaces towards the entrance are intended to be close spaces for the administration building. The Petitioner also stated that there should not be any issues with queuing out of the parking lot. If there is a line, they do not feel it will be a detriment to the development. If the church finds they need more than roll away trash cans, they have located a place on the northwest edge of the site that will work as a temporary solution. They would utilize wood fencing as a temporary screening measure around the dumpster. If after they move on to other phases and find that a dumpster is a permanent need, they will build the proper screening around it in its new location more at the south end of the site. They have added pervious pavers as a BMP on the west side of the parking lot, to help filter the water before it goes into the wetland area. Lastly, for the bike parking concerns, they have split their ten spaces up into two locations, to better serve their patrons. Please refer to the May 21st submittal for more information, as well as the June 7th packet. Department Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Plan Commission approve this item tonight.