Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes SpecStdy 06-03-03 City of Carmel CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE Minutes TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 2003 REPRESENTING THE CITY OF CARMEL: Laurence Lillig Diana Knoll Ron Houck Nick Kestner Wayne Wilson (TABLED) 1.Docket No. 53-03 ADLS Amend; Tom Wood Ford Filed by Tim Kinglespaugh of Sign Craft. Petitioner seeks amended Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping & Signage approval for one wall and three ground signs. The site is located at 3130 East 96th Street. The site is zoned B-3/Business. 2.(ADLS ONLY) Docket No. 45-03 DP/ADLS; Mark Swanson Building Filed by Mark A. Swanson. REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER: Mark Swanson, SWANSON AND ASSOCIATES The applicant seeks to construct a multi-tenant building. The site is located at 550 East 106th Street. The site is zoned B-5/Business and is within the Home Place District Overlay Zone. The last time we were here there were some issues raised about the project. We were asked by the Committee to take these issues back to DOCS to resolve them. We meet with them on May 14, 2003. The first item discussed was the front set encroachment. We had encroached about three feet in front of the building line. It was actually building ornamentation, which is acceptable according to the Ordinance. The red line indicates our building line and our building is behind that. Next issue was the rooftop equipment we had provided screening for three sides and DOCS asked that we screen all four sides. Third item is adding additional landscaping around the parking areas. We have parking to the west and east of the building then intent was to live screen with evergreens around two sides of the parking area to screen from the street although we meet the requirements we agreed 1 S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SpecStudy\\2003\\ss2003jun03 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 to add additional plantings for denseness. Photometrics at the last meeting showed point five feet candles at the property line -- that is different from the building line, which basically is the right-of-way line, and in excess of the allowable. So we changed, moved and eliminated some light fixtures. So now we show that we do not exceed point three at the building line on four sides of the property. The Photometrics do show the lighting in the parking area and on the building. KNOLL: Jerry Chomanezek is not here and I will give his comments. Has the Department reconciled itself with the petitioner’s innovated design particularly the artist’s façade of the east west elevation? LILLIG: Yes and if the Committee is satisfied the Department is satisfied…... KNOLLL: The minimal glass would be more attractive with an additional window along north elevation. SWANSON: This is the north elevation with glass upstairs and downstairs. LILLIG: The one tenant multi-level building allows three signs on the site, if they have another tenant that wants a sign in addition, they will need to file for a variance. The design of the sign is acceptable. Building materials submitted are acceptable. There are three items from the Department report rendered as recordable documents. First, is the Right-of-Way Dedication approved through the Hamilton County Highway and the Board of County Commissioners? Second, Asphalt Path Commitment, and third is the Cross-Access Easement. WILSON: Motion to approve Docket no.45-03 DP/ADLS. KRESTNER: Second. KNOLL: All in favor? Motion carried: Four (4) in favor, zero (0) opposed. 3 Docket No. 05-03 DP/ADLS; Old Meridian Professional Building Filed by James K. Wheeler of Coots, Henke & Wheeler for John N. Kirk and Lowell Thomas Kirk. REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER: Jim Wheeler, COOTS HENKE & WHEELER John Kirk Mike Deboy, MID-STATES ENGINEERING Robert Hymen, HYMEN & ASSOCIATES The applicant seeks approval to construct an office building. The site is located at the southwest corner of Old Meridian Street and Pennsylvania Street. The site is zoned B-6/Business within the US 31 Overlay Zone. The proposed building is two-story with a one-story section the two-story each floor having 7,200 square feet and the one-story section having 2,640 square feet. Two entrances, one off of Pennsylvania and the other off Meridian. KNOLL: Has Petitioner provided additional deeding of the right-of-way as requested prior to proceedings or as part of proceedings? WHEELER: No, not yet. We will commit for that to be done. LILLIG: Sixty-foot one-half (60’) on Meridian. This will go before the Board of Works. KNOLL: On this set of plans--the sidewalk is on the curb? 2 S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SpecStudy\\2003\\ss2003jun03 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 WHEELER: Yes. WILSON: On the Conseco side there is no sidewalk by the Helipad—what about on Pennsylvania? WHEELER: No. LILLIG: ATP calls for a path on Pennsylvania. WILSON: So there is a section here that is not connected to a path? LILLIG: That is correct. KNOLL: Are we concerned about the entrance in such close proximity to the roundabout? WHEELER: We positioned that entrance as far south as we could. KNOLL: I have a question about modern structure of the building in the Old Meridian Corridor—like, light fixtures are to create an Old Meridian atmosphere. WHEELER: We did stay with that Old Meridian design on lighting. KNOLL: Drainage and Storm Sewer questions, did we get those answered? LILLIG: J. Dobosiewicz is making recommendations that final approval be made subject to Carmel Department of Engineering. WILSON: So there will be onsite detention? WHEELER: Yes. LILLIG: I do have a question about signage. I noticed in the renderings that there is a brick ground sign? Have you checked into utilities? WHEELER: You mean width, height and location? LILLIG: The location is up on the site and not next to the curb as it is shown. Do you have an elevation of the sign? WHEELER: The height is four feet (4’), matching brick and illuminated at night. LILLIG: There is a Limestone band on the top of building, and this has that too? WHEELER: Not sure. WILSON: How do you propose getting from the path to the building? WHEELER: There are several access points. WILSON: You do not want it going into the parking lot—and how many signs? LILLIG: If it is a single-tenant building then twin application sign combinations of wall sign and ground sign or two ground etc. If multi-tenant—the twin identification signs plus a site identification sign. WILSON: Motion to forward to the Plan Commission 05-03 DP/ADLS. KNOLL: All in favor? Motion carried—four (4) in favor, zero (0) opposed. 4. Docket No. 67-03 DP/ADLS; North Augusta Subdivision, Lot 13 (part); Brinson Properties, LLC Filed by Darrell Phillips of Weihe Engineers, Inc. for Jacob Brinson. REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER: Darrell Phillips, WEIHE ENGINEERS Jacob Brinson, PETITIONER Rick Renschen, RIVER GROUP ARCHITECTS 3 S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SpecStudy\\2003\\ss2003jun03 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 The applicant seeks development plan approval to allow the construction of an office building. The th site is located a 3934 West 96 Street. The site is zoned B-2/Business within the US 421/Michigan Road Corridor Overlay Zone. In addition to the DP/ADLS approval the applicant has filed variances that will be addressed by the BZA in June. There were no concerns expressed at the public hearing. th Commission members expressed the following: Illustration of a ten feet (10’) asphalt path along 96 Street, larger sign and dumpster details, concern regarding amount of asphalt, and questions on how detention was being addressed. PHILLIPS: The four variances include building setback from fifteen feet (15’) to ten feet (10’) to accommodate drive, walks and parking. We also need a variance on the rear lot from twenty-five feet (25’) residential to ten feet (10’) to support an eastern drive and ingress/egress across the property, and a Landscaping variance from six feet (6’) to three (3’). We will pass around the dumpster and signage information. WILSON: To the east side—is it currently residential? PHILLIPS: Yes. WILSON: So on the fourth variance on the east side you want to be three point five feet (3.5’) from a residential line? PHILLIPS: Yes. LILLIG/WILSON I cannot buy into that. WILSON: Is this in the US 421 Overlay Zone? LILLIG: It is. WILSON: So this is residential going business? LILLIG: Yes. WILSON: Does the Overlay allow residential? LILLIG: No, not for new construction. Continued discussion without resolution, KNOLL: The TAC report identified septic tank and storm detention needs. PHILLIPS: Septic tanks have been removed. We have talked with Jenny Chapman from the Surveyor’s office on the storm sewer needs. We are providing storm water underground/parking lot detention 11X17.The improvement we will th make to the existing storm on 96 Street will be a large pipe and parking lot detention in and around these inlets. Kent Ward has suggested we approach it in this way. WILSON: Who thought it was looking like a sea of asphalt? What about that? PHILLIPS: Partly driven by the ingress/egress. We did remove one parking spot and possibly making this island bigger to minimize that. KESTNER: You show three point five feet (3.5’) landscaping. What will you plant that will grow there? PHILLIPS: Trees per Scott Brewer. WILSON: If this were not residential what would it require for landscaping? LILLIG: Six feet (6’) perimeter/parking lot buffer for the Overlay. Lot 13 was the last B-2 lot before we get back into S-1. 4 S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SpecStudy\\2003\\ss2003jun03 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 PHILLIPS: Yes. LILLIG: This site was Zoned B-2 long before the Overlay Zone was put into place. With the size of the site as a business being grandfathered—that is what drives these variances. This is the last piece of business property to be developed in this fashion. I do not think we want this pattern of development th to spread down 96 Street and as the last piece of B-2. Jon Dobosiewicz and Scott Brewer have been working with them to find a way that is acceptable and make it work. KNOLL: What about the ten-foot (10’) asphalt path? PHILLIPS: We have it showing on the plan, but do we have to build it now? LILLIG: We did not at that time have in place regulations to govern that with regard to commercial properties but we do now through the Thoroughfare Plan. I do have a couple of concerns for the petitioner. Right-of-way dedication for th 96 Street needs to be accomplished prior to the ILP (Improvement Location Permit) being issued. PHILLIPS: He’s requesting we plat it. LILLIG: Then replat the lot. Secondly, the lighting fixtures on C-A, we are seeing drop lines and we prefer to see flat lines. KESTNER: Walkway from the path to the building? PHILLIPS: We can do something, not sure…(interrupted) LILLIG: I would suggest that when you do your asphalt path that you make an asphalt connection to line up with your sidewalk. KESTNER: and stripe the crosswalk! WILSON: I move we approve 67-03 DP/ADLS. WILSON: Second. KNOLL: All in favor? Motion carried. Five (5) in favor zero (0) opposed. 5. Docket No. 68-03 DP/ADLS; (TABLED) East 96th Street Auto Park, Lot 3; Tom Wood Jaguar Filed by Lawrence E. Lawhead for Tom Wood Jaguar, Inc. The applicant seeks approval to construct an automobile dealership. The site is located at 4620 East th 96 Street. The site is zoned B-3/Business. 6. Docket No. 70-03 ADLS; Alexandria (Public Hearing on Zoning Waivers only) Filed by Paul G. Reis of Drewry Simmons Pitts & Vornehm for Edward Rose Properties, Inc. REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER: Paul Reis, DREWRY SIMMONS PITTS & VORNEHM Mike Gorman, EDWARD ROSE PROPERTIES Steve Hormann, EDWARD ROSE PROPERTIES John Houchin, EDWARD ROSE PROPERTIES 5 S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SpecStudy\\2003\\ss2003jun03 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 Gary Murray, PAUL I CRIPE Carah Spelena, CRIPE ENGINEERS The applicant seeks approval to construct a multi-family development. The site is generally located st south of 131 Street between Old Meridian Avenue and Pennsylvania Street. The site is zoned Old Meridian - Multi Family (OM-MF). The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Zoning Waivers: 70-03a ZW ZO 20G.04.05(D) parking space size 70-03b ZW ZO 20G.04.02(B) private streets 70-03c ZW ZO 20G.05.02.D(3) brick exterior requirement 70-03d ZW ZO 20G.04.06.C(1) planting strip/parking setback We presented this project to the Plan Commission on May 20, 2003. Since that meeting we have continued to work with the Department of Community Services (DOCS) to address the issues of the Plan Commission, City Engineers and DOCS. There was an issue with the width of the east/west Street. It has been widened to twenty-six feet (26’) and is now a public street as well as the st boulevard that runs out to 131 Street. Total units have increased to 248. Issue with the Landscape plan for more variety in species. This has been revised and we are waiting on S. Brewer’s approval. Issue raised by the Plan Commission on ingress/egress. We have an elevation today from you showing the entrances at the front and the back.—the green arrows mark the common entrances. The other issue was about streets. We are seeking a waiver to make this street a private street. It was anticipated that this would be a connector. We are providing that through street. WILSON: What is the size of the private street? REIS: Two, eleven feet (11’) lanes. WILSON: The size of this area is a two-foot difference from being up to the City Standard. LILLIG: The City Standard is twenty-six feet (26’). KESTNER: What is in between here and the Grand Boulevard? REIS: It is zoned for S-1, we will want to develop that in the future. There was concern about the run-off. Essentially all the water is captured in this retention pond so it will not go on any other property. We currently have an agreement with the property owner next door on shared maintenance. That is all we have to discuss other than we do have another meeting with Dick Hill and Kate Weese to finalize the site plan. The Department has been in favor of the waiver but will defer to the Street Department. LILLIG: I talked with Kate Weese today and she still has concerns about the entrances and pavement widths and parallel parking, snow removal and utility vehicles parking on the street. I would be in support of that meeting with Engineering as soon as possible. WILSON: How wide is the parallel parking? REIS: Seven and one half feet (7 ½’). 6 S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SpecStudy\\2003\\ss2003jun03 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 HOUCK: Would like an explanation on the request of the brick exterior requirement. We should consider the various elevation exposures from street view and how it would look without brick REIS: From the street you will see brick. LILLIG: Can you explain the waiver for parking size? REIS: The City does not have a standard for parallel parking so the waiver is to have parallel parking away from the ninety degree City Standard. LILLIG: So the size is angled parking at seven and one half feet by twenty feet (7 ½’ x 20’). REIS: The planting strip has gone from five and one half feet (5 ½’) to three and one half feet (3 ½’). LILLIG: On this plan you show thirty-five feet (35’) dimension along Pennsylvania, is that to make a full sixty (60) for the half or is that for both sides? Please double-check that. It also shows a sidewalk along Pennsylvania Street; it is supposed to be a ten-foot (10’) asphalt path. Then up on Main Street there is a walk that is in front of the buildings on site but nothing in the way of the public walk in the Main Street right-of-way. I believe Main Street calls for an asphalt path. Are the streets going to be platted or dedicated? REIS: Dedicated. Continued discussion about parking and dedicated streets… KESTNER: I have concern about the safety of the intersections and the smallness of the parking spaces. REIS: What we would like to do is to get a favorable recommendation tonight. We th would like to meet with the City maybe on the 12 and try to resolve all th issues so we can come back on the 17ready for an approval. Engineering will or will not sign off on the streets. Making the changes to the crosswalks, paths, and the dimensions. KNOLL: What is the comfort level of the Committee overall? WILSON: I do not like it. I will not vote for it. I hear the word “upscale” but everything I see about the project is not “upscale”. It is not Carmel Standard. We have not addressed the issue of streets that do not match up with City width streets. I do not like a retention area that is going to be cold- managed and st become a dry run like we had at 131 Street by Inlow Park. Every other complex similar to this has been held to higher standards resulting in an upscale attitude. The parking issue needs to be addressed. I would like to see the lake retention addressed. I would like to see the 21 ½ to 23 go to 26. Sooner or later the City is going to end up with this. To say this would not become a cut through is wrong—it will become a cut- through! I hear neighborhoods all the time complaining about traffic cutting through. I will not vote for this project without changes. REIS: What do you think about the pond? WILSON: You have not come close to maximum retaining. So the issue of widening the road so you can get to twenty-six feet, that is the first thing to address. 7 S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SpecStudy\\2003\\ss2003jun03 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 Second, the decision needs to be made between the apartment people or Summer Trace needs the control so the City does not have to go against multiple property owners if it becomes a problem. REIS: It is common to have a joint drainage easement area between the two private parties I do not know where the City comes in. WILSON: Okay, they buy property with a water amenity and the water goes away…that will be a big issue. I guarantee you that they will price the apartments with water views. REIS: Okay. KNOLL: I am suggesting that we table this to June 12, 3003 Special Studies for further review. Unanimously agreed. Docket No. 82-03 ADLS Amend; (03050031); Day Furs Filed by William Armstrong of Guarantee Properties, LP. REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER: Bill Armstrong, GUARANTEED PROPERTIES April Hensley, Architect Petitioner seeks amended Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping & Signage approval for a building addition and exterior alterations. The site is located at 1361 South Range Line Road. The site is zoned B-8/Business. PETITIONER: This was built years ago as a carpet store. It is a metal/steel frame building. It has been remodeled once before. We are proposing to add 1907 square feet on two stories in the front and extend it the entire length of the building. The dormer windows are decoration only with the first floor with retail and the second with office space. The inside front display area is for tastefully displayed furs. The signage as represented here meets the code. LILLIG: Over glass? HENSLEY: Yes. WILSON: Building type. HENSLEY: Split-face block, cedar and Hardy-plank that looks like wood style siding. WILSON: Why the Gable? HENSLEY: Wanted to make it architecturally interesting, yet tasteful. KESTNER/KNOLL: My concern is the amount of impervious area. How can you landscape? ARMSTRONG: We are meeting the guidelines according to Scott Brewer. We are adding as much landscaping when and where applicable. We have easements that cannot be disturbed. These strips of green will also have landscaping. Discussion on location for Day Furs situated between Fast Food restaurants. 8 S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SpecStudy\\2003\\ss2003jun03 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 HOUCK: Although I agree with what is being said, if we look down the road and as these places are updated, I like the look of Day Furs. Eventually, they will be the models for future reconstruction along Range Line. WILSON: I do not like the sign in the window. KNOLL: I think it is an interesting style….Department? LILLIG: The positioning of the dumpster enclosure is positioned with a parking space across it. If someone is parked in that space, how is the dumpster emptied? ARMSTRONG: Well, we are not open until late morning and will assume the dumpster will not be emptied during business hours. Also, we could not situate it the other way because of the utility pole. Cinergy will not relocate the pole. WILSON: I would like to see some sort of landscaping around the building, maybe containers with a tree on each side or window boxes. KNOLL: Are there any comments on the gables, the dormers, the false windows? ARMSTRONG: Functionally, we wanted this to look good from any direction. With Taco Bell at the same setback as our building, we wanted to stand out. HENSLEY: We are making a commercial statement with a softer retail feel to the area. WILSON: I do not like the double window thing. HENSLEY: I was trying to be functional and architecturally attractive—it was a situation function due to the lack of space available. KESTNER: We do have a problem with the sides of the building. The long expansion needs to be broken up with vegetation. KNOLL: We all agree with that. HENSLEY: If the sign were lowered but still in front of the window but in a better area would that be amenable? WILSON: Okay. LILLIG: You will need to talk with Engineering for a Consent to Encroach in the utility easement. You will need to show us your easement dimensions---Range Line Road, is it dedicated or proposed at forty-five feet (45’)? ARMSTRONG: Dedicated forty-five feet (45’). LILLIG: The two parallel spaces in the front are twenty-five feet (25’) long and nine feet (9’) wide. ARMSTRONG: It is an oversight. KESTNER: If we hold the dormers and signage for another proposal and approve the rest they could get started. ARMSTRONG: We do want to start construction next Monday. KNOLL: Okay the sign moved down, planter box, gable dormers, are we leaving the pillars? The pillars stay. Okay then those three things. Do I have a motion? WILSON: Move to approve Docket No. 82-03 ADLS Amend. KESTNER: Second. KNOLL: All in favor? Motion carried five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed. Docket No. 150-02b OA; (TABLED INDEFINITLY) Filed by the Department of Community Services. 9 S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SpecStudy\\2003\\ss2003jun03 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 Amendments to the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance – Patch #4 The petitioner seeks to add new provisions to and make several corrective amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Docket No. 162-02 OA; 163-02 CPA (TABLED INDEFINITLY) Filed by the Department of Community Services. Amendment to the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance - Agricultural District Amendment to the Carmel/Clay Comprehensive Plan - Agricultural District The petitioner seeks to add a new zoning district to the Zoning Ordinance. There being no further business to come before the Committee this evening, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 PM. _____________________________ Dianna Knoll, Chairperson _____________________________________ Ramona Hancock, Secretary 10 S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SpecStudy\\2003\\ss2003jun03 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417