Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 09-17-13 - 1 - CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT SEPT. 17, 2013 1. Docket No. 13080010 OA: Old Town Overlay Demolition Sunset Amendment 2013. The applicant seeks to amend the Carmel Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 23D: Old Town District Overlay Zone in order to enact a 1-year extension to the sunset clause (expiration date) on the process for demolition of Contributing Buildings in the Overlay. Filed by the Carmel Dept. of Community Services. This proposal is to extend the sunset provision (expiration date) on the requirement for Director Approval to demolish contributing buildings in the Old Town District Overlay Zone. Background: In harmony with the Purpose and Intent of the Old Town Overlay, many residents in recent years have echoed the importance of maintaining the historic character of commercial and residential areas in Old Town. Therefore, in 2008 the Old Town Overlay was amended to require approval by the Director to demolish a contributing building anywhere in the boundary of the Overlay (previously Director Approval was only required in the Historic Range Line Road Sub-Area). Along with the 2008 requirements, a sunset/expiration date was established. The sunset/expiration date has been extended the last two years, and it is now set to expire on December 31, 2013. Along with the time extensions was a request for a detailed review of the Contributing Building Map. In the mean time, the City Council established the Carmel Historic Preservation Commission. They are currently under contact with Historic Landmarks to perform a township-wide survey of structures. At last check, the Historic Preservation Commission had received preliminary drafts; however, it is too early to know how this might affect the Old Town Contributing Building Map. For this reason, the Department proposes to extend the sunset provision for an additional year to give the Preservation Commission and staff time to review the results of the survey and propose revisions to the Contributing Building Map. The information packet that the Commissioners received last week contains: 1. A Copy of Contributing Building Map (Old Town Overlay, Figure 3), which identifies the Contributing Buildings to which the demolition requirements apply. 2. A Copy of the Ordinance Proposal Department Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Plan Commission votes to suspend its rules of procedure this evening and votes to forward this item to City Council with a favorable recommendation. - 2 - CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT SEPT. 17, 2013 2. Docket No. 13070013 SW: Village of WestClay, Section 10010-E, Waiver. The applicant seeks a waiver from Subdivision Control Ordinance Section 6.03.16 for tangents on reverse curves on streets. The site is located 2555 W. 131st St. (Main St.), but the subject street segment is located right across the street from 2545 W. 126th St. The site is zoned S-2/ Residence- ROSO. Filed by Matt Lohmeyer of Pulte Homes of Indiana, LLC. The applicant seeks a waiver from Subdivision Control Ordinance Section 6.03.16 for tangents on reverse curves on streets. The location of this proposed street alignment is right across the street of, and just north of, 2545 W. 126th Street. Per the Subdivision Control Ordinance (SCO), it states the tangent between reversed curves should be 100 feet, per the current road right of way width. However, this section of street for Village of WestClay Section 10010- E has an amended width that was agreed to by Pulte and the City to change the street right of way to 60-ft wide. This change, in essence, changes the curves, tangents and centerline configurations, thus the petitioner cannot meet the tangents of 100-ft in this particular stretch of road. The Subdivision Control Ordinance (SCO) Section 6.03.16 states: “Between reversed curves on streets, there shall be a tangent of not less than one hundred (100) feet on streets with a right-of-way greater than fifty (50) feet. The minimum tangent shall be fifty (50) feet on streets with a right-of-way of fifty (50) feet or less and that are 1250 feet or more in length from intersection to intersection or from intersection to the center point of the circle terminating a cul-de-sac or cul-de-loop. There shall be no minimum tangent on streets with a right-of- way of fifty (50) feet or less and that are less than 1250 feet in length.” The Department believes that the proposed layout of this subdivision meets the overall City policy of vehicular and pedestrian connectivity. This subdivision (Section 10010) will be c onnected north to south from 126th Street to 131st Street, as well as east to west tying into the West Village Townhomes of the Village of WestClay. If this tangent waiver was not approved, the alternative configuration would affect the drainage facility (pond) that is already installed, as well as interfere with having sidewalks on both sides of the entrance street. As proposed, the entrance drive and sidewalks fulfill the requirements of the Thoroughfare Plan for a road connection at this location, between 126th Street and 131st Street. The Petitioner has agreed to work with both the Engineering Department, as well as concerned neighbors, to reach a solution that works for all. The Planning Department is in support of this petition. (Please also see the Aug.14 letter of concern from Mr. and Mrs. Muehlenbein, as well as a letter from Pulte Homes, which was mailed out with your Dept. Reports last month.) Please view the Petitioner’s Information Packet from last month, for more details. Department Recommendation: Only after all comments/concerns are addressed, then the Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Plan Commission votes to suspend its rules of procedure and votes to approve this item this evening. - 3 - CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT SEPT. 17, 2013 3. TABLED TO OCT. 15 - Docket No. 13070011 DP/ADLS: Marsh Retail Center (Lot 3, Sun/Mundy One Two Three Subdivision). The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a multi-tenant retail building. The site is located at 10725 N. Michigan Rd., just west of the Marsh supermarket. The site is zoned B-2/Business and lies in the Michigan Rd. Overlay Zone. Filed by Bill Niemier of Sa ndor Development, on behalf of 106 Michigan Realty LLC. This item is tabled to the October 15 Plan Commission meeting. - 4 - CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT SEPT. 17, 2013 4. Docket No. 13070009 DP/ADLS: Horizon Bank. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for new bank/financial institution with drive thru. The site is zoned OM/V-Old Meridian District/Village Zone. The site is located at the northeast corner of Old Meridian Street and Carmel Drive, northwest of 1200 Carmel Dr. Filed by Christopher Brayak of Wightman & Associates, Inc. The applicant seeks approval to construct a new 7,322 sq. ft. bank/financial institution with drive thru. This 2- story brick building will have a limestone base, with a capped dark green cornice at the t op, and with dark green awnings over the first floor windows. All windows are proposed to be clear vision glass. The main entrance will have a suspended cantilevered canopy. The building is pulled up to Old Meridian Street, with the drive thru component located at the building’s rear. Please view the Petitioner’s Information Packet for more details. To the north is Providence at Old Meridian, to the west is Meijer, to the east is the former Shepherd Insurance Building, and to the south across the street is a medical office building. The site will c onnect to the Providence at Old Meridian site, as well as to the former Shepherd Insurance Building site, for vehicular and pedestrian connectivity. The signage will be a projecting/blade sign along Old Meridian Street and a ground sign along Carmel Drive. The bank will not utilize a separate trash dumpster. The trash, some of which is confidential, will be retained inside the building and then disposed of offsite by bank personnel. A few months ago, the Plan Commission sent a favorable recommendation to City Council for the bank to rezone their southern parcel, comprised of 0.32 acres, from the Old Meridian/Office Zone to the Old Meridian/ Village Zone. This was requested to have the entire project area built on gr ound that is one zoning classification. Back then, only the northern parcel was zoned Old Meridian/Village Zone. That rezone will be heard by City Council on Sept. 16, 2013, as Ordinance Z-579-13. And in conjunction with that rezone request, a plat vacation was requested prior to that, at the June 18th Plan Commission meeting, to begin the process of combining these two triangular parcels of land. This was presented under Docket No. 13040014 PV, and was approved by the Plan Commission. Outstanding Planning Dept. Review Comments: 1. Please include the Development Plan application’s Findings of Fact sheet in your final information packets. 2. Please bring the exterior color and building material samples to the public hearing. Petitioner will do this. 3. Provide a copy of the Official List of Adjacent Property Owners from Hamilton County Auditor’s Office. This will be done by the project’s attorney. 4. Please prepare an estimated construction cost to comply with the Thoroughfare Plan & Alternative Transportation Plan. A copy of this item still needs to be provided to Staff. 5. Please label the street rights of way on site plan. Staff still doesn’t see where this is labeled on sheet C1.0. 6. Please add a cross parking easement, in order to allow for parking on your site for patrons of the Providence at Old Meridian site. A copy of this easement/agreement still needs to be submitted to Staff. 7. Please add landscaping along Carmel Dr., per Zoning Ordinance chapter 20G.04.06. The petitioner has done this, but more shade trees should probably be added along Carmel Dr. The petitioner told the City Forester that there is no room for additional trees along Carmel Dr. because of the tree preservation being required, too. However, Staff would like the Commission to further review this. - 5 - 8. Please add shade street trees along Carmel Dr. The petitioner has done this, but more shade trees need to be added along Carmel Dr. The petitioner told the City Forester that there is no room for additional trees along Carmel Dr. because of the tree preservation being required, too. However, Staff would like the Commission to further review this. 9. Please provide design details and cut sheets on all light fixtures. The lighting design details were submitted in the info packets on sheet C5.0, but the Staff needs a pdf showing this, too, because the version of the pdf we received does not show the lighting details/specs on the photometric plan. 10. Please list what ‘green’ or sustainable site or building design aspects will implemented, similar to the LEED checklist from the US Green Building Council (though not required). The petitioner stated that they have done this, but they still need to provide Staff with a copy of the filled out sheet. 11. Is the maximum business frontage being met or exceeded in the OM/Village District? This business/ building will occupy 67.5 feet of frontage, so Staff would like the Commission to further review this. Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20G.05.03.B(4), Maximum Frontage, states: (a) No single retail business may exceed fifty (50) feet of frontage on Old Meridian Street, except as noted in (b), below. (b) There shall be allowed a maximum of 2 businesses that occupy up to 150-ft of frontage on Old Meridian Street. (c) Buildings which are intended for occupancy by more than one business may be up to one hundred fifty feet in frontage, however, said buildings shall be designed with vertical offsets as described in Subsection C below. (d) Continuous façades more than fifty (50) feet wide, shall be designed with vertical offsets at intervals which evenly divide the façade into halves, thirds, or quarters, etc., or shall be designed at intervals not less than fifty (50) feet, whichever is less. These offsets may be projecting, recessed, or may be a simple change in building material or detailing. (Figure 15) 12. Roof cornice design/style: Staff would like the Commission to further review this feature. 13. Corner tower element: please make is a tarnished green copper color, or change it to be an asphalt shingle roofing material. Per the petitioner, the tower is a branding element, plus the green color will be a darker green as shown in the info packets. Staff would like the Commission to further review this feature. 14. Windows: right now the upper floor windows are smaller in size than the first floor windows. Please make them all the same size, so that they line up vertically. Staff would like the Commission to further review the windows’ layout and patterning. 15. Need details on the signage for the drive thru lanes that will be on the ca nopy. There will be no signs; the drive through canopies will only have green and red lane open/closed indicator lights. The petitioner will provide a catalog cut sheet for the design of these indicator lights. 16. Blade sign, Awnings, and Landscaping in R/W: these items need Board of Public Works approval to encroach into the street right of way; please work with the City Engineering Dept. on that. Petitioner has not contacted the BPW to get on a meeting agenda just yet. 17. New comment: Please screen the transformer/utility/switch boxes at the street intersection with landscaping. 18. New Comment: Please provide a more details about the handrail and riser stairs along the building entrance. 19. New Comment: Please clarify the signage colors. Is the dark color a dark green, and not black? 20. New Comment: Please revisit the idea of possibly adding a few on-street parking spaces to the Old Meridian Street frontage…did the City Engineering Dept. advise against this? 21. New comment: at the street intersection of Old Meridian St. and Carmel Dr., please add 2 ADA ramps that are perpendicular to the streets, instead of the one you show currently. Department Recommendation: The Planning Dept. recommends that the Plan Commission forwards this item to the Tuesday, October 1 Special Studies Committee meeting for further review and discussion. - 6 - CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT SEPT. 17, 2013 5. WITHDRAWN - Docket No. 13060016 DP/ADLS: Point Blank Range & Gun Shop. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for an indoor shooting range and gun shop. The site is located at 969 N. Range Line Rd. It is zoned B-3/Business and lies within the Meridian St.-US 31 Overlay Zone, Carmel Dr.- Range Line Rd. Overlay Zone, and Special Flood Hazard Area. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger P.C. The project for this particular site has been permanently withdrawn. - 7 - CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT SEPT. 17, 2013 1. Docket No. 13020021 DP/ADLS: Auto Max. 2. Docket No. 13060003 ZW: Waiver for reduced bufferyards; ZO Chptr 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, - 8 - 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. 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.) Sept. 3 Committee meeting recap: The petitioner submitted a revised rendering of the building front façade, and they submitted a new materials list. They will wrap the front building posts to make them appear more like columns, they will widen the horizontal band trim at the bottom of the gable, and they have added a decorative vent to the roof gable. The committee discussed the petition a little more and also discussed the front door design and whether or not it should have a window or be a solid door. The petitioner also let the committee know that by the night of the meeting on the Sept. 17th, they should have an easement/agreement with the property owner to the north about the shared entry drive. The committee then voted 4-0 to send this item to the full Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation, subject to the petitioner resolving the 2 outstanding review comments from staff, regarding the north property line and regarding the easement, by the night of the Sept. 17 PC meeting. 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. Four attorneys are now involved with this, and the final info will be submitted by the evening of the Sept. 17 PC meeting. 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. Four attorneys are now involved with this, but it should be finalized by the evening of the Sept. 17 PC meeting. Please view the Petitioner’s Information Packet for more details. Department Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Commission votes to approve these 2 items, with the condition that the Petitioner provides documentation to the Planning Dept. about the shared driveway entry and easements/agreements. (A Findings of Fact sheet should be submitted by the Petitioner the night of the meeting, to the Commission president). - 9 - CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT SEPT. 17, 2013 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 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 sp aces 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. Please view the Petitioner’s revised Information Packet for more details, dated Sept. 12. 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 a bout 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. 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. (That meeting occurred on Aug. 21 with DOCS staff, with several building design changes proposed an agreed upon.) Sept. 3 Committee meeting recap: The petitioner was present to discuss any of the outstanding comments and to present revised building elevations. There was some discussion about the tan brick band on the building front. - 10 - It was clarified that a warm white color will be used, rather than the stark white color originally proposed. Details were also handed out about the proposed retaining wall; it will be 4-ft tall and 100-ft long. The committee then voted 4-0 to send this item to the full Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation with the conditions that the Planning Dept. receives a Recorded copy of the agreement/commitment that Mainstreet is writing up with the property owner, that the east elevation will have a horizontal fencing material change, with perhaps hardi-plank panels that are an 8-inch or 12-inch wide trim material, and that the walkway through the handicap area shifts with the landscape island moving, to make the pedestrian access area wider on the site plan. Outstanding Staff Review Comment: 1. The stark white building color was to be replaced with a creamier white/tan color. Most of the elevations in the Sept. 12 info packets again show a stark bright white color, and this should be changed to be more of a cream/eggshell white color. The petitioner should reaffirm that the color will not be the stark bright white color. Department Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends that the Commission approves this item with the following condition: that the Petitioner submits a recorded copy of the agreement/commitment a bout the build-out of the future drive extension (to be submitted to DOCS before the final building Certificate of Occupancy is issued). (The Commission president needs to sign the Findings of Fact sheet the evening of Sept. 17, after the vote.) - 11 - CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT SEPT. 17, 2013 4. 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., too. 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 comprise 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. Please view the Petitioner’s revised Information Packet for more details. The site will be located west and south of the pr oposed Ricker’s gas station & convenience store. It will also be located north of the recently approved Harvest Bible Church. West of the subject site is an open space, flood plain area. This part of the Legacy PUD is 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 proposed that primarily office and retail/service uses will occ upy these proposed buildings. This development will help bring additional amenities for the convenience needs of the public to this area. 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. Also, the perspective 3D drawing provided at the meeting was very helpful in illustrating how the building will look, helping 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. Sept. 3 Committee meeting recap: The Petitioner addressed/discussed all of the remaining Staff Comments. The revisions to the parking lot landscape islands were reviewed and discussed. The reason the overall green area is not that much larger is due to the sidewalk additions. Also, a cast stone bullnose watertable course building base was added all the way around the northern most building, but will not be on the tan tower elements. The wall sconce lighting fixture design and model type were clarified, as there was a previous typo that caused confusion. Regarding the sign package, all letters will be face-lit and back-lighting, in addition to face lighting, which is an option (both; not one or the other). It was pointed out that the site plan shows 5-ft wide sidewalks, but the site dimension Legend shows 4-ft (under item D), which is a typo. The petitioner stated that they will submit the correct site plan sheet legend. At the end of the meeting, the committee voted 5-0 to send this item to the full Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation. Dept. Recommendation: DOCS recommends the Commission votes to approve this item. (Petitioner, please submit the Findings of Fact sheet for the Commission president to sign on Sept. 17.) - 12 - CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT SEPT. 17, 2013 5. 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 requests 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 office/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. 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. Overall, the Department feels this is a good PUD, and that it is the best possible PUD language for both the City and the Petitioner. Please view the Petitioner’s revised Information Packet, with the latest version of the PUD ordinance, for more details. This project has been discussed at length, for many hours at a time, at four Plan Commission meetings thus far: the June 18th Plan Commission meeting public hearing, the June 26th Committee Meeting, the August 6th Committee meeting, and the September 3 Committee meeting. Sept. 3 Committee meeting recap: The petitioner went through the final version of the red-lined proposed PUD ordinance and point by point listed out all of the changes that have been made. Then, the committee voted 5-0 to send this item to the full Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation. No Remaining Staff Comments : All review comments from the Planning/Zoning Dept. and Forestry Dept. have been adequately addressed by the Petitioner. Department Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Commission votes to send this rezone item to the City Council with a favorable recommendation.