Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDepartment Report 09-03-131 Carmel Plan Commission SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE September 3, 2013 Department Report 1. Docket No. 13070007 ADLS Amend: Meijer Outlot B – Carmel Corners. The applicant seeks site plan and design approvals to amend the recently-approved architecture for a 7,848 sq. ft. multi-tenant commercial building that fronts on Pennsylvania St., as well as seek approval to add an additional outdoor dining area to the site. The site is located at 1425 W. Carmel Dr. and is zoned OM/M: Old Meridian District, Meijer Subarea. Filed by Tom English of Thomas English Retail Real Estate, LLC. The Petitioner requests approval to change the façade design of a recently approved building within the Meijer parking lot. There is also a proposal to add more outdoor seating. The site plan and building footprint has remained the same. The only basic modifications besides architecture were shifting door locations and the addition of a 6’ patio for the north end tenant. The addition of the patio on the north also caused for some building landscaping to be removed. The building will still have room for three tenants, the same as the previous design. The previously approved building design was cohesive and provided four-sided architecture. The new building design seems to ignore the back portion of the building, which will face east towards the rest of the Meijer parking lot. The Meijer Outlot A building uses lighter colors and appears bright and inviting. The back of this building is all brown and appears dark and dull. Please see the review comments below for more suggestions to improve the building design. Outstanding Review Comments: 1. The Dept. is not in favor of the two different window shapes. 2. Please provide more detail on the difference between the utility brick and the modular brick veneers, as well as their colors and textures. 3. Perhaps more utility brick veneer (vertical) columns can be added to the rear, east elevation, of the building, to help break up the large spans of wall. This would be more in line with the existing Outlot A building. 4. Why are there no “caps” on the rear east elevation columns? Please add these for consistency around the building. 5. Overall, the two end units make the building appear top heavy. Can there be more balance between the silver EIFS and the metal awning? Also, the corners lack a base. Per Zoning Ordinance Ch. 20G.04.01 E., buildings must have a base, middle, and top. 6. Please increase the height of the brick on the north, south and east elevation, to match the west elevation. 7. Why was the Fiber Cement Panel system not included on the Materials List? We are slightly confused by the two #3’s between the Material Info and the Keyed Notes. 8. Please bring color and material samples to the meeting. 9. Please re-review ZO Ch. 20G: Old Meridian District of the Zoning Ordinance for compliance. Please view the Petitioner’s informational packet for more detail. Department Recommendation: Unless all items can get addressed and resolved at the committee meeting, the Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Committee discusses this item and then continues it to the Oct. 1 Special Studies Committee meeting for further review and discussion. 2 Carmel Plan Commission SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE September 3, 2013 Department Report 2. 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 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 3 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). 4 June 26th Committee Meeting Recap: The Petitioner went over the plan for the next few committee meetings: this first meeting is to discuss traffic and engineering issues, the August 6th committee meeting to discuss the Redline version of the PUD, and the third committee meeting on September 3rd is to go over final revisions and comments. The Traffic Engineer discussed what levels of service are, going into detail on wait time and grades. After studying the site, they determined that 7-8 AM and 4-5PM were worst traffic times. The traffic study was done in April and submitted to the city Engineer Dept. in May. It was requested that the Petitioner write up a phasing plan of which road improvements will be done when. Currently, the level of service at the intersections is B and C. One member wanted the Petitioner to pay attention to how the level of service changes if people change their driving patterns to go the “path of least resistance”. It was also requested that the Street Dept. (Parks Pifer) change the landscaping that blocks drivers’ views out of Timber Creek Condominiums. A new concept plan was presented with these features: 1. Add connection between residential and office on south side of Carmel Drive. 2. Pulled office buildings up with maximum setback in the PUD language and one row of parking. 3. On-street parking on Clark Street 4. Pedestrian entrances to apartments on Clark Street 5. Will widen Clark Street on their side of the street (west side) 6. 40’ landscape buffer with 30’ tree preservation along R-1 zoned residences. The public had the following comments: 1. Use one entrance because it works for other developments. Mike McBride said multiple road entrances/exits is best if there is the land available to do it. Alan Potasnik chimed in and said multiple entrances are also good for the fire department. 2. Overall – it is not safe coming out of the Timber Creek development, too many directions and turns to see where cars are coming from, landscaping is too much and can’t be seen around, and traffic moves too fast down City Center Drive. 3. Woody commented that the citizens will have to accept that development will happen around them. August 6th Committee meeting recap: Public comments were taken and the following were items of concern: Effect of additional children and people on school system Number of apartments – too many Need more info about the project in general Lack of communication from the developer 75 people opposed to this project The height of the apartment buildings will be an invasion of privacy to the neighbors of Carmel Station This project will decrease property values of neighboring homes Storm water detention will back up into Carmel Station homes Noise will be an issue, i.e. car alarms, car doors, people A transit/bus stop will cause rents to be lower over time and bring in a less desirable class of people The Committee members discussed subjective text and removed it so all standards are clear. There was discussion about increasing the amount of primary materials to primary facades. Primary facades were added as an exhibit, along with increasing the number of primary facades for portions of buildings that are highly visible from Carmel Drive and City Center Drive. The clubhouse roofline was lowered, and the material was changed to better fit in with the design of the rest of the residential buildings. Overall, the Petitioner responded favorably to most of the outstanding Staff comments, and made changes to make the project better. The Petitioner also proposed to add landscaping on the east side of Clark Street, to fill in gaps and to help the neighbors in Carmel Station feel as if they have a better buffer between the apartments and their back yards. This is above and beyond what would be required of the Petitioner, and is a generous offering. 5 Staff’s Remaining Comments: 1. Exhibit D: The Committee had a concern with General Agriculture being allowed as a use. The Petitioner does not intend to farm the land; however they would like the opportunity to farm the land if the development takes longer than anticipated to begin. 2. Exhibit F: Concern with Standing Seam Metal as a primary material. This was used in the previous design of the Clubhouse building, but it was removed. Perhaps this item should be further specified to say it is allowed for “non-residential buildings”. Would it be used as a primary façade material? Or is it on there as a roof material only? Please provide more clarification. Please view the Petitioner’s revised Information Packet for more details. Department Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Committee sends this item to the September 17 Plan Commission meeting with a favorable recommendation. 6 Carmel Plan Commission SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE September 3, 2013 Department Report TABLED: 3. Docket No. 13050012 DP/ADLS: Ricker's Gas Station and Convenience Store. 4. Docket No. 13060001 ZW: Legacy PUD ordinance Z-501-07, Section 9.02 -maximum 15-ft front yard building setback. 5. Docket No. 13070001 ZW: Legacy PUD Z-501-07, Section 19.2; Building Base Landscaping. The applicant seeks zoning waivers and site plan and design approval for a gas station and convenience store. The site is located at 7729 East 146 Street (at the corner of 146th and River Road). It is zoned PUD, within the Legacy PUD. Filed by Joseph Scimia of Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP on behalf of Ricker Realty & Development, LLC. These items are now tabled to the October 1 Special Studies Committee meeting. 7 Carmel Plan Commission SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE September 3, 2013 Department Report 6. Docket No. 13060023 DP/ADLS: River Road Shops at Legacy. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for 3 multitenant mixed use commercial buildings. The site is located near 7621 E. 146th St., with frontage on River Rd. and 146th St. It is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development, with a small portion in the Special Flood Hazard Area. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger P.C. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for three multitenant mixed use commercial buildings. Right now, ADLS review is only being proposed for the northern building that will sit along 146th Street, and the two other buildings will return for Plan Commission review at a future date. However, the overall Development Plan is being proposed now for buildings placements, site layout, access points, etc. The architecture of the building will be comprised of both brick and stone, and will have a unique “v” shape to fit this portion of the site. The building design fronts on both 146th Street and internally to the site where most customers will access the units. Outdoor seating areas will be provided, along with landscaping and access to trails/sidewalks around the site and connecting to the open space to the west. The site will be located west and south of the proposed Ricker’s gas station and convenience store. It will also be located north of the recently approved Harvest Bible Church. West of this subject site is an open space and floodplain area. This part of the Legacy PUD is called the Corner Use Block. The Use Table of the PUD ordinance allows most uses in this corner area. Some examples are attached residential, office, and retail and service oriented uses. This petitioner is proposing that primarily office and retail/service uses will occupy these proposed buildings. This development will help bring additional amenities for the convenience needs of the public to this area. Please view the Petitioner’s Information Packet for more details. August 20th Plan Commission meeting recap: Plan Commission members asked questions about: parking bumpers vs. landscaped linear islands, dumpsters and screening of them, dangerous traffic areas for both pedestrians and cars on the site, lack of interior sidewalks and connections between buildings, drive aisles needing adjustment, possible cart corrals design and/or location, shared parking during off peak hours with the church to the south, traffic, fuel delivery trucks blocking traffic, signs and vision clearance, an excess of concrete/pavement, and a lack of rain gardens. The perspective 3D drawing provided at the meeting was very helpful in illustrating how the building will look. It will help the Commission and Staff to visualize what is proposed. The plan seemed to be well received, and with some adjustments regarding the items mentioned above, it should be a very nice development. Outstanding Staff Review Comments: General: 1. Please include the Development Plan application’s Findings of Fact sheets in your final info packets. Site Plan: 2. The Dept. would like to see the long rows of parking bumpers removed and replaced with planting islands instead. Thank you for removing the parking bumpers. The Dept. would still like to see additional landscaped islands added to the parking area. Please consult with the City Forester for minimum sizes and dimensions of the islands. 8 3. While this site is more vehicle oriented, the Dept. would like to see efforts made to make the site as pedestrian friendly as possible, once the people (and their cars) are there. We would like the Petitioner to explore reworking the building orientations to front along the central drive through the site. Thank you for adding the additional sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian connections. The Dept. would like you to further explore making the pedestrian cut-thru through the parking lot more substantial, though. Architecture: 4. The tan tower elements with the square EFIS areas need to be broken up horizontally. Please provide a base at the minimum. Thank you for updating the building to add a base all the way around. Will a cast stone bullnose watertable course be included similar to on the brick portions of the building? It is hard to tell from the new elevations. Lighting: 5. Please label the wall sconce locations and also provide the design details and/or cut sheets for them. Thank you for adding the wall sconce locations onto the elevations and for providing cut sheets. However, the cut sheet shows SEW10356 and the elevations call out SEW10358. Is this a typo? Also, the cut sheets show three different types of tubes for the lights. Which one will be chosen? Signage: 6. The ground sign design will need to more closely match the Legacy PUD signage that was approved with the original PUD. Please see the attached PDF. Thank you for altering the design of the sign. However, it needs a little more work. The Dept. would like to see more of a tower element on the left hand side of the sign, to anchor it and more closely relate to the previously approved sign design. The Dept. would also like to see more height added to the base. Right now it seems very disproportionate to the amount of signage above. Please revise the design. 7. The proposed signage criteria does not match up with what is currently proposed for the main tenant, nor does it follow the new Sign Ordinance regulations for size for wall signs. a. Please delete #3 from the Sign Criteria and replace it with either a reference to the Sign Ordinance or list out that 70% of the Spandrel Panel height and 85% of the Spandrel Panel width is allowed. b. Please delete #4 as the length of the sign should be determined by the Spandrel Panel area, which is confined by architectural elements, not the length of the tenant space. 8. Also in the signage criteria, the Dept. would like to see one lighting style specified for this building. In #2, there are references to both internally illuminated letters and back-lit letters. Please choose one lighting style for the building. 9. Please change the West elevation drawings to not show any signage allowed on that façade. It does not face a public street, therefore no signage is allowed. 10. Please change the south elevation to not show signage allowed for the south end cap’s façade. This area does not face a public street, therefore no signage is allowed. We will however, allow for the south elevation- east end cap to have signage facing this way, because that is where the main entrance is for this tenant. It also makes more sense to have all the signage facing the interior parking access with the building as currently proposed. 11. Please note that the north elevation will only be allowed to have signage for those tenants that actually face north. The southern tenants will not be able to have signage facing 146th Street. 12. Please note that only one sign per street frontage is allowed. So if one tenant takes up the area that has both the rectangular signage area and the square signage area, only one may be utilized. Alternative Transportation: 13. Please provide better internal pedestrian paths, circulation and connectivity between the Ricker’s building, two future buildings, and the Church to the south. Thank you for adding the additional sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian connections. The Dept. would like you to further explore making the pedestrian cut-thru through the parking lot more substantial, though. 9 14. Sidewalks are needed along both sides of the two driveways/streets that enter the site. Thank you for adding the additional sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian connections, but please extend the sidewalk connection all the way across, from west to east, along that main internal drive. 15. The intersection between the two entrances (from 146th and River Rd) looks like it will be very confusing, and possibly dangerous. The two drives intersect with a pedestrian crosswalk and three or four parking spaces straight through the middle of it. It might be better to connect the two landscape islands there to create a T intersection rather than what’s proposed. This would also help with the ability to provide a safe sidewalk connection along the street. Please explore changing this intersection to improve safety and connectivity. 16. Please revise plans to have all sidewalks at 5’ wide, as per the PUD language. Currently they are shown at 4’ wide. Department Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Committee discusses this item and then continues it to the October 1 Special Studies Committee meeting, for further review and discussion. 10 Carmel Plan Commission SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE September 3, 2013 Department Report 1. Docket No. 13020021 DP/ADLS: Auto Max. 2. Docket No. 13060003 ZW: Waiver for reduced bufferyards; ZO Chapter 28.01.08. The applicant seeks approval for a revision of the site plan with parking areas in front and the rear of the building, along with a zoning waiver request for reduced bufferyards and plantings. The site is located at 9728 N. Michigan Rd. and is zoned I-1/Industrial, within the Michigan Rd. - US 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by Elizabeth Bentz Williams of Clark, Quinn, Moses, Scott & Grahn, LLP, on behalf of Auto Max. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval to establish a car dealership on this site. The site was previously used as a veterinarian office with kennels, but has been vacant in recent years. The site is zoned I-1 and is within the Michigan Road Overlay Zone, which allows for automobile sales. To the immediate north is Bartlett Tree Service, to the north, west and south are other businesses located in the I-1 and B-2 zones. To the east is the Holiday Inn Express (zoned B-6), and further east of the hotel is single family residential (zoned S- 1), but all in the Overlay Zone. The Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to be a Community Vitality Node, where the purpose of this classification “is to establish areas for community-servicing and neighborhood-servicing commercial development with opportunity to integrate mixed uses.” The surrounding areas are called out as an Employment Node and additional Community Vitality Node. The proposed use is consistent with other uses along Michigan Road, and through this request, the Petitioner is working to improve the site aesthetics, add landscaping, and onsite storm water management improvements, which will include the use of permeable asphalt pavement. The plans also include curbing and paving to create defined drive aisles and parking spaces, building enhancements include paint and other detailing, and to have a tree preservation area for the wooded and unimproved rear portion of the site. Two variances were just granted/approved at the August 26 BZA Hearing Officer meeting. These variances were required to legally establish the building as it is currently situated on the site. There was previously a building located about 75’ away from Michigan Road that was demolished to allow for the car sales area. There was also an additional part of the now current building that was about 2,500 square feet in size. This portion of the building was removed, because it was not necessary for the new business. Having this area without a building on it would allow more room to park inventory vehicles behind the sales office. The remaining building is relatively small, at only 1,248 square feet. So a variance was requested for this size, because the Michigan Road Overlay Zone requires a building to be a minimum of 2,500 square feet. This is Docket No. 13070004 V. The second variance was to legally establish the setback of this existing structure, now that the building that was previously in front of it has been removed. The building is about 220’ away from Michigan Road, where the maximum setback allowed is 120’. This is Docket No. 13070003 V. The building design is very simple, and the Petitioner is working to provide other details that would more accurately reflect the architectural styles that are required by the Michigan Road Overlay Zone. There is one sign proposed for the site. It is a ground sign that will be internally illuminated, 6’ tall, and 39 sq. ft. 45 sq. ft. is allowed by the Sign Ordinance. No dumpsters are proposed for the site. The lot coverage percent is 46%, where a maximum of 90% is allowed by the I-1 zone. Mechanical units for the building will be screened by the building itself and landscaping. Please view the Petitioner’s Information Packet for more details. July 16th Plan Commission Meeting Recap: The Petitioner gave a very brief overview of the project and spoke about working on outstanding items before the next committee meeting. Plan Commission members asked questions about the pictures that were provided, it was unclear what is there now and what was there previously. One member was disappointed with the level of architectural details provided. It was clear that more work was needed prior to the August 6th Committee meeting. 11 August 6th Committee meeting recap: An illustration of the proposed building improvements was presented by the petitioner, as well as a few proposed site changes. Discussion ensued about improving the existing architecture to better meet the intent of the Michigan Road Overlay architectural requirements. A couple of ideas suggested were to wrap the front building posts to make them appear more like columns, add a different building base material, add more detailing to the front peak. Update: The petitioner recently emailed Staff with the additional changes proposed. The changes proposed are right in line with what was discussed at the committee meeting. However, Staff thinks that a “barn star” decorative element is perhaps not an appropriate addition to the roof gable and suggests implementing a decorative gable vent that complements the Michigan Road Overlay architectural requirements, instead. Outstanding Review Comments: 1. North property line curb, grass area and gate: Please provide more details on conversations with the property owner to the north. 2. Please provide information on the shared entry with the property to the north. Is there an easement in place to show that both businesses can use the driveway cut to Michigan Road? Please provide an update on this question. Please view the Petitioner’s Information Packet for more details. Department Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Committee forwards this item to the Sept. 17 Plan Commission meeting with a favorable recommendation, after all comments and concerns are addressed. 12 Carmel Plan Commission SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE September 3, 2013 Department Report 3. Docket No. 13050005 DP/ADLS: Health & Wellness Suites of Carmel. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a skilled nursing and assisted living facility. The site is located at 12315 N. Pennsylvania St. It is zoned B-3/Business and not located in any overlay zone. Filed by Laurie Schultz of Mainstreet Property Group. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a 104-bed short stay rehabilitation and assisted living facility, including spaces such as restaurant dining, game and activity rooms, a home theater, and a café. The facility will provide post-hospital rehabilitation services and long-term care. The project site will be located on 7.98+/- acres of land located east of Pennsylvania St., north of the City Center Dr., and right at the southeast corner of the roundabout of Pennsylvania and Old Meridian Streets. The area to the north is zoned Old Meridian/Office (OM/O) and has multiple businesses, as well as a new apartment complex, Penn Circle. The area immediately south is an office building zoned B-3, and the entire B-3 block is part of this overall complex development. To the west the land is zoned B-6, and is comprised of a Senior Living community, an office building, and a hotel to the southwest. The use is allowed by the underlying zoning. The site will have internal vehicular connectivity with the parcel to the south and to the west, in keeping with the original development plan approval from 2006 when it was the Pannatoni development called 122nd & Penn. Mainstreet Property Group is still in discussions with the property owner about the vehicular access drive, as to who will build it, when it will be built, etc. The Dept. is okay with the Petitioner just showing the drive labeled as ‘future drive extension’, but would also like a commitment that it will be built in the future, when the parcel to the east is developed. Now, who will be the entity to build that drive should be worked out between the petitioner and the land owner. The exterior facade design provides a 2-story modern/contemporary look through the use of unique architectural design features and materials such as brick, fiber cement siding boards, large windows, and a water-resistant “rain shadow” panel system. Only one sign is proposed for this site - a ground sign along Pennsylvania St. Please view the Petitioner’s revised Information Packet for more details. July 16th Plan Commission Meeting Recap: The Petitioner presented the project to the Plan Commission and it was well received. Some areas of concern were the pond in the back. The Plan Commission would like the Petitioner to work on adding a walking trail to go around the pond and making the shape more natural and less square. Another request was to use rain gardens wherever possible on the site. Perspective drawings of all sides of the building were requested for the Committee meeting. There was also concern about the depth of the courtyards. They seem too narrow for activity and allowing light back into those areas. Lastly, one member wants to know more about where the water discharge goes on site or off site. August 6th Committee Meeting Recap: The Petitioner presented some changes that had been made since the last meeting, including the addition of a 6 foot asphalt walk around the pond. The architecture and signage were discussed at length, and a 3-D computer model of the building was presented to better show how the building would look. The Petitioner tried to address the Department’s concerns about the architecture, but no specific changes were decided upon. The Petitioner agreed to set up a time to meet with the Department to further discuss the architecture. (And that meeting occurred on Aug. 21 with DOCS staff, with several building design changes proposed an agreed upon.) 13 Update from August 21st meeting with Petitioner: Staff discussed with the Petitioner the following items: 1. Increase the height of the lighter color brick on the inside alcoves of the west elevation to continue the lines of the windows and other decorative brick banding. Thank you for making this change. 2. The siding portions of the building should be more rectangular, instead of square to better tie in with the horizontal lines of the rest of the building. Thank you for making this change, it makes a big difference on the look and feel of the building. 3. The addition of a tan brick band through the darker brick on the left and right of the center portion of the building, to tie the design together. This was shown to be completed on page C, but page D does not show this addition. 4. The roof line/edges were discussed and it was the Dept.’s preference to have these be the same color for consistency. This appears to be completed except for the middle of the building on the east elevation. Why was this area left out? 5. The stark white color was to be replaced with a creamier white/tan. This appears to have been done on page e – the north and south elevations. However, all other elevations do not show this change. 6. The fencing material on the roof of the back of the building was to be changed to match the siding on the building. It is hard to tell if this was done through the drawings. Please clarify. Outstanding Staff Review Comments: 1. Please provide more detail on the design and color of the segmental block retaining wall (shown as #14 on sheet C.200). Why is this needed? Please provide these updates. 2. Engineering Dept. comments: Please provide an update regarding the Engineer Dept.’s review status of the project. 3. Please provide an update on the ‘future drive extension’. Will there be a commitment that it will be built by you, the petitioner, in the future, when the parcel to the east is developed? Or, provide the status from the Engineering Dept. as to whether or not it could be dedicated as public right of way to become a public street. Please provide these updates. Department Recommendation: After all comments and concerns are addressed, the Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Committee forwards this item to the Sept. 17 Plan Commission meeting with a favorable recommendation and with a Condition about the build-out of the future drive extension. 14 Carmel Plan Commission SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE September 3, 2013 Department Report 4. Docket No. 13060017 PP: Silvara Primary Plat. The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 360 lots on 266 acres, as well as the following PUD Ordinance Amendment request and Subdivision Control Ordinance waiver requests: 5. Docket No. 13060018 SW: SCO Chapter 8.09 – sidewalks on both sides of street. 6. Docket No. 13060019 SW: SCO Chapter 6.03.24.8 – frontage place curbs. 7. Docket No. 13060020 OA: PUD Chptr 14.3, Exhibit E, and Exhibit L (Section 13) - Total number of access points. 8. Docket No. 13070010 SW: SCO Chapter 6.03.25 – alley length. The site is located at 11960 Springmill Rd., northwest of the intersection of 116th St. and Springmill Rd. It is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development and partially in the Special Flood Hazard Area. Filed by Doug Wagner of Republic Development, LLC, for Silvara Development Company, LLC. The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 360 lots on 266 acres (with a maximum of 422 units overall), as well as a PUD Ordinance Amendment request and several Subdivision Control Ordinance waiver requests. The PUD rezone was brought through in 2011. The PUD ordinance (with exhibits) can be found online at: http://cocdocs.ci.carmel.in.us/weblink/0/fol/595690/Row1.aspx Waiver sought for sidewalks on both sides of street: The Petitioner states that sidewalks are not necessary where lanes and streets, located internally within the development, are one-sided (with homes) or not loaded (with homes) and a sidewalk or trail exists on the opposite side of the street. An example would be on Sheet 3 of the plat, where the street runs along the open space and floodplain areas, and the sidewalk is only on the side of the street that has lots/homes platted on it. The Commission will have to decide if the areas where only one sidewalk on the side of the street is shown makes sense. Waiver sought for frontage place curbs: To go along with the developer’s mantra of low impact design, this waiver is being sought in order to allow for drainage to flow across a frontage place street. It will also reduce the need for tree removal, resulting in more tree preservation. The Commission will have to decide if the areas where they do not show curbs on a frontage place street makes sense. (A frontage place is a permanent public or private way situated parallel to an arterial, a parkway, or a collector street in order to provide access to private lots and to eliminate through traffic.) Ordinance Amendment sought for total number of access points: The petitioner would like to have a total of 4 access points along Springmill Rd. so that the Bridgecreek Area can have a second means of access for any potential emergency responses. Right now, the PUD and its exhibits only allow 3 access points along Spring Mill Rd. Also, as a side note, the Petitioner would like to reduce the number of access points along Clay Center Rd. from 2 access points to only 1. Please note that right now, the City Engineering Dept. is not comfortable with the number of access point along Clay Center Rd. being reduced. The Commission will have to decide if number of access points being changed makes sense for this development. (The Planning Dept. will be relying heavily on the professional opinions of City Engineering Dept., the City Fire Dept., and the City Police Dept. to weigh in on this topic, as it could affect life and safety concerns.) Waiver sought for alley length: This waiver is being sought in order to allow for alley lengths to be increased from 600 feet, up to 730-ft, so, alleys can be 130 feet longer than what the City’s ordinance permits. This should have been originally been a standard added to the PUD ordinance text by the petitioner, so that the proposed site layout could be accommodated for, but it was unintentionally overlooked. The Commission will have to decide if slightly longer alley lengths make sense for this development. The Planning Dept. does not see an issue with this waiver request. 15 Please view the Petitioner’s Information Packet for more details. Aug. 20 Public Hearing meeting recap: The Plan Commission heard the requests for waivers and changes to the Silvara plan, now that they are ready to move forward and have fully engineered the site. There were many public comments and concerns voiced, as well as concerns of the Plan Commission members. The Plan Commission asked the Staff to bring past meeting minutes from the 2011 PUD rezone to the committee meeting, so that references could be made on previous commitments by the Petitioner. They also asked the Petitioner to have Steve Fehribach present at the committee meeting, to discuss traffic and the number of access points. Lastly, they would like to know the City Engineer’s stance on the proposed number of access points for the project. Plan Commissioner comments: 1. Mike C. – this development should connect to the school site, the one entrance at Clay Center Rd. could be a right-in, right-out, add a median on Springmill Rd. so that people cannot turn left and cause traffic issues. 2. Sue W. – concerned with buffering of perimeter lots and the number of access points to the site. 3. Nick K. – traffic is bad, east/west routes getting cut off. A pedestrian plan is needed. Please also make the plans easy to read. Flooding & storm sewers, relating to waiver request are also a concern. 4. Josh K. – concerned with access points, green space, buffer yards, and perimeter buffers. 5. Steve L. – agrees with comments already said. Rain gardens, LID, and BMP’s should be used. Why are there no ponds on this plan? The concept plan has multiple. Block 3 – is that apartments? 6. Brad G. – What is the timing of the school going in? Should have a connection to the subdivision. Need exhibits and locations of waivers on the site plan, as presented at the public hearing. Concerned with access points. Could use Trex boardwalk instead of sidewalk to help with drainage. Bring in a diagram of trees to be preserved with no curbs on the frontage roads. Auto turn exhibit needed for the “cul-de- squares”. 7. Kevin R. – concerned with buffering at Springmill Streams. Access points were set in stone before with the PUD rezone process. Concerned with lot sizes adjacent to the perimeter - they need to meet what was agreed to. Public comments: 1. Betsy Mitchell – concerned with closeness of potential new houses to her house, which is in Springmill Streams. Also concerns about the number of access points, quality of life, and easement width. Is it a 30-ft wide buffer plus a 20-ft wide easement, thus making it 50-ft? 2. Jim Dillon – concerned with number of access points, Illinois Street is not complete, perimeter buffer yard and lots. Trees are on their side of the property line (at the north end of the Silvara project). They want a mound with conifers trees to screen them from the new homes. 3. Sue Dillon – the landscape buffer and credits for existing trees sheet done by the Urban Forester and the Petitioner – she does not think the trees they counted should really count because the trees are on their side of the property line. 4. Georgia Moore – her mom is Mrs. Cunningham, lives right at the NWC of 116th/Springmill. What about noise and buffering for her? 5. Bob Christ – lives in Williams Mill subdivision and is concerned with number of access points. 6. Jean Brook – concerned with access points, round-a-bout, new traffic from this development, increased density, lot sizes, and lack of privacy. 7. Allison Brown - sidewalks are needed for safety. People take the path of least resistance. Access points on Springmill Rd. are a concern. Illinois Street extension is not completed and cannot help with traffic. 16 Planning Department’s Review Comments: 1. Signage: are you proposing any subdivision entry signage at this time? (Please provide more details about the signage location, dimensions, lighting, etc. This includes both the Neighborhood Markers and the Entry Wall Sign. ) 2. PUD Section 11.5.E – please provide a copy of that commitment. 3. PUD Section 14.2.A – Road improvement commitment/contribution. Has this been done yet? 4. Sheet 7 – The phrase “Community Center” is on the plans near the Private Drive…what does that mean? (Please provide more details about the Community Area, its layout, its architecture, etc.) 5. PUD Exhibit E: Connectivity. Please show a pedestrian connection at Suffolk Ln., in Claybridge at Springmill Subdivision, through the currently-proposed Lot 252. Are there any other connections needed that have been missed? (The Dept. needs documents or meeting minutes to show that the northern property owners requested that the pedestrian connection to Suffolk Lane not be made and that the Petitioner committed to this at a public hearing. Also, the Approved PUD connectivity plan you show in your info packet is not correct, as it does not show the proposed conceptual pedestrian connection (in the Estates P1 West) to Suffolk Ln., within Claybridge at Springmill Subdivision.) 6. Sheets 8-9 of the plat: There is a 40-ft right of way shown on the plans. Is this permitted through the PUD or through the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Plan? Is it to be considered a Residential Lane street classification? (The only design requirement that they do not meet is the sidewalk on both sides, which they could accommodate if they reduce the street width to 20-ft…) (5-ft wide sidewalks are required too, unless they seek an additional waiver approval. Right now, they propose 4-ft wide walks on this residential lane type street.) 7. Sidewalks must be at least 5-ft wide. Please amend the plans, especially the Paseo Area Landscape Detail. (The Paseo Street detail in the info packets still shows a 4-ft wide sidewalk in the 50-ft right of way cross section at the top of the page, even thought it was amended to be 5-ft wide in the actual detailed sketch.) 8. Two access points needed/requested along Clay Center Rd., per the City Engineer. (The petitioner met with the City Engineering Dept. on 8/27. Now, the Engineering Dept. staff will check with City Engineer on this item.) 9. Southernmost access point along Springmill Rd.: the City Engineer would like to see some modifications. (The petitioner met with the City Engineering Dept. on 8/27. Now, the Engineering Dept. staff will check with City Engineer on this item.) 10. The City Forestry Dept. is concerned about the street trees along Springmill Rd. and Clay Center Rd., and when and how those will get installed. An idea was proposed that that there could be a condition and commitment of approval that those street trees would be installed at a later date, when those streets are widened/improved. (Petitioner, please respond to this idea.) 11. Petitioner, please provide updates on whether or not all other City Forestry Dept. issues have been resolved. (The Dept. understands that the perimeter landscaping credit evaluation has occurred, and that the City Forester has stamped it approved.) As of 8/20/13, the Forestry Dept. still had issues with the Landscape Plan. 12. Alternative Transportation Systems: A. Please include all paths and sidewalks that are not within right-of-way in an easement. B. Please indicate ADA compliant handicap ramps and crosswalks at all pedestrian crossings. C. Section 10.5 Bicycle Parking of the Silvara PUD states, “Bicycle Parking shall comply with Chapter 27.06 of the Zoning Ordinance. In the Village Neighborhood, covered parking areas (e.g. garages, bicycle lockers) shall count towards the required number of bicycle parking spaces. A minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) of the required number of bicycle parking spaces within the Village Neighborhood shall be covered.” Please show how the proposal complies with this requirement. 17 D. Main Entrance: the sidewalks are pulled back and just located along the frontage roads, but there is a 12-ft path within the right of way of the main entrance. The Dept. requests that the petitioner adds an additional sidewalk along that main entrance street. (Please work with the Alternative Transportation Systems Coordinator, David Littlejohn, on this.) E. The Planning Dept. and the Alternative Transportation Systems Coordinator might be okay having sidewalks on only 1 side of the street, along lots 11, 12, 35, 36, and 189-191, and not have sidewalk along that area that opens up to the river view shed, where there is such a steep grade change. However, the Commission will have to ultimately decide. 13. Signage: Please provide more details on entry monument signage, in particular, lighting, construction, size, height, etc. The Dept. would also like to see more info on any accessory signage throughout the neighborhood, if applicable. 14. Engineering Dept. approval status: (Please provide an update on this. The Planning Dept. is aware that formal review comments will be issued by the Engineering Dept. by early next week.) 15. Along Clay Center Rd., the 20-ft wide trail easement that is proposed to run through the future school site: who will build that, who will record that easement; when will it be built? Does Carmel/Clay Schools know about this proposed easement, so they can incorporate it into their future school site plan? 16. What is the proposed design of each bridge? Please provide photo examples and/or provide the design specifications for each type of bridge proposed to be built. 17. Sheet 8 of plat: Permeable pavers are proposed to be used in the street in the ‘eyebrow area’. Is this street material permitted by the PUD ordinance text and considered a Low Impact Development (LID) technique? 18. Lots 229 & 103 – please add in a sidewalk segment. (Petitioner stated that they could do this.) 19. Lots 121, 124 – please extend sidewalk out (perpendicular through the Common Area #21) and out to the path along Clay Center Rd... (Petitioner stated that they could do this.) 20. Lots 247, 237, and 72 – please add the sidewalk segment back in, for pedestrian access Clay Center Rd. (Petitioner stated that they could do this.) 21. Petitioner: please find out if Carmel/Clay Schools would be okay with a vehicular connection to their future school site, from/through this neighborhood. (A representative from the school emailed Staff back that 1) There are currently no discussions regarding the construction of a new school at the future school site; 2) the school could entertain the idea of a vehicular connection to/from the Silvara neighborhood, if it works out and makes sense, but it would depend on the site design for a school and the ability to control inbound traffic; and 3) The school system is supportive of pedestrian connections from the Silvara neighborhood. 22. Fire Dept. feedback: The Fire Dept. is okay with the proposed plat layout and with the current number of total access points. They just need an auto-turn exhibit and a revised utility plan to see if an additional hydrant was added. 23. Paseo Areas design/terminus: This might need to be revised, or another Waiver might need to be filed for and requested from the Subdivision Control Ordinance. 24. Street jogs: This design might need to be revised, or another Waiver might need to be filed for and requested from Subdivision Control Ordinance. SCO chapter 6.03.01 states: the street and alley layout shall provide access to all lots and parcels of land within the subdivision, and where streets cross other streets, jogs shall be created only where essential and appropriate. Street jogs with centerline offsets of less than one hundred fifty (150) feet shall not be permitted. Dept. Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Committee discusses this item and then continues it to the October 1 Subdivision Committee meeting, for further review and discussion.