Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDepartment Report 04-23-202 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT MARCH 17, 2020 2. Docket No. 19120002 PUD: Jackson’s Grant Village PUD Rezone. The applicant seeks approval to rezone 20.77 acres to PUD/Planned Unit Development in order to develop a mixed use project with single family, townhomes, and neighborhood commercial space. The site is located at the northwest corner of 116th Street and Springmill Rd., just south of the existing Silvara PUD (Z-553-11)/Jackson’s Grant development. It is currently zoned S-2/Residential within the West 116th Street Overlay. Filed by Steven Hardin of Faegre Drinker on behalf of Republic Development. Overview: The applicant seeks approval to rezone approximately 21 acres from S-2/Residence to PUD/Planned Unit Development. The proposed development will be divided into three development areas per the Concept Plan. It will be a mixed-use project, with traditional single-family detached homes in Area A, townhomes (attached homes) in Area B, and a neighborhood commercial node with residential (townhomes) in Area C. A maximum of 94 dwellings is proposed. Please see the Petitioner’s Information Packet for more details. Project History: The original Silvara PUD, proposed and approved in 2011, included these 21 acres in their proposal. It was to be called the Village Center of the PUD. There was a single-family section on the west half, with two entrances into the site – one off of West 116th Street and one off of Springmill Road. The Village Center would allow apartments and townhomes, office, institutional, general retail and service, cultural and entertainment (i.e. restaurants), and recreational uses. It was their goal then to provide a “wonderful gathering place that fosters community spirit where neighbors connect with one another.” It was a key amenity planned for the District. Over the course of the public hearing process and subsequent meetings, it was determined that these 21 acres at the south end of the property were to be removed from the PUD proposal at that time, thus eliminating the commercial node. The project ended up with only residential development, at an overall density of 2.15 u/a (605 units total). Site Context: Surrounding zoning classifications are S-1 to the west, S-2 to the south, and PUD to the north, east, and southeast. To the immediate south is the Latter Day Saints Temple, and further south are the Heritage at Spring Mill subdivision (42 lots on 27.4 acres = 1.53 u/a), and Williams Mill Subdivision (47 lots on 20 acres = 2.35 u/a). To the southeast is the Bridges PUD. The land immediately east across Spring Mill Road is farmland and wooded area, owned by IU Health. It is zoned PUD and is split into two areas north/south as Area 2-A along Spring Mill Road and 116th Street, and Area 2-B along Illinois Street adjacent to the hospital. Area 2-A is intended to “provide a transition between potential residential uses on the west side of Spring Mill Road and those high intensity uses recommended along the US 31 Corridor.” Permitted uses in Area 2-A include: single family, two-family dwellings, multi-family townhouse dwellings, home occupations, and assisted living facilities. Area 2-B is “intended to have higher intensity dwelling, office and other uses typically associated with and in closer proximity to a major hospital facility.” (Per the Clarian North Hospital Campus PUD Z-409- 03 – see inset image to right for visual.) To the west are single family estate lots, and the Williams Creek Manor subdivision (9 lots on about 9 acres). North is the existing Jackson’s Grant on Williams Creek subdivision, zoned PUD. Rezoning Process: There has been a lot of public remonstrance (both in favor and against) and concern regarding this project. Staff has identified five main issues from over 50 letters and emails: • Density, 3 • Increased traffic/vehicular congestion/noise, • Safety concerns due to increased traffic, • Reduced property values, • Approval of commercial node in JG Village will open the door to new commercial west of Springmill Road As a reminder, the rezone process involves the following: The Plan Commission will hear the proposal brought forward by the Developer, so long as proper public notice has been given. Once the public hearing has been held and subsequent committee meetings where the items are fully evaluated, the Plan Commission will then make a recommendation on the rezone to the City Council. They can vote to send it to the City Council with a Favorable Recommendation, an Unfavorable Recommendation, or No Recommendation. If this rezone is ultimately approved by the City Council, the developer would have to come back through the Plan Commission process for Development Plan and ADLS approval for the commercial areas, and Primary Plat approvals for the residential areas, to ensure compliance with the PUD. According to Section 9.05.A.3. of the UDO, in considering this PUD rezone proposal, both the Plan Commission and the Common Council shall pay reasonable regard to: a. The extent to which the PUD Oridinance provides 1) a mixed use development or 2) addresses unusual site conditions or surroundings; b. The Comprehensive Plan and any other adopted planning studies or reports; c. The extent to which the proposal fulfills the general purposes of the Subdivision Control and Zoning Ordinances d. Current conditions and the character of current structures and uses in each district and its surroundings; e. The most desirable use for which the land in each district is adapted; f. The conservation of property values throughout the City and the Township; and g. Responsible development and growth. Comprehensive Plan Analysis: The Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan (C3 Plan) was enacted to help manage growth and development by identifying the intended intensity of commercial development and potential density of residential development throughout the City. There are many general policies and objectives listed to offer guidance. Some of the main policies are: 1. Manage Community Form – achieve a superior quality built and natural environment where people reside, work, and recreate. 2. Be a Leading Edge City – a community with broad name recognition, notable culture, positive image, diversity in housing, broad employment range, business vitality, sense of place, architectural presence, environmental awareness, effective public transportation, and a desirable quality of life. 3. Be a City of Neighborhoods – to help build and/or reinforce the fabric of a city. Determined by major physical boundaries, mix of housing styles, within walking distance to neighborhood service center. 4. Inspire Environmental Awareness – protect natural areas, use native plant material, reduce energy consumption, utilize ‘green’ building materials to lessen the impact on the environment. Above are underlined statements which Staff believes have been met by this PUD proposal, as well as the existing Jackson’s Grant (Silvara) PUD. Please note that the C3 Land Classification Plan Map depicts this area as remaining Estate Residential in character, in a conceptual manner. The C3 Plan states that this map should not be construed as representing the precise location of land classifications but used as a foundation for support and influence with land use and development form decisions and zoning map changes. The Land Classification Map does not establish the right to a certain density or intensity. The C3 Plan is a broadbrush approach to future land planning. Each development proposal should be reviewed with consideration of all sections of the C3 Plan in addition to site features, context, design standards, transition, buffering, and development standards. The existing Silvara PUD was one of our “truest” PUDS in terms of meeting the requirements of “unusual site conditions or surroundings” with the creek running through the site and large areas of woods to work around. It was thoughtfully and carefully planned to preserve the creek and wooded areas and provide opportunities to look out at and interact with the natural areas by providing trails and setbacks. Land Classification Plan: The Estate Residential category calls for 1 unit per acre or less. Best Fit uses would be Parks and Recreation, Estate Residential, or Low Intensity Suburban Residential (1-1.3 u/a). Conditional Fits list Suburban Residential (1.4-4 u/a) and Institutional Node. A Conditional Fit is appropriate when the more intense development is installed with sensitivity and appropriate buffers to the adjacent uses. The use of height limitations, similar uses, and gradual increase in lot sizes all contribute to appropriate transitions of intensity to less dense areas within a development. 4 Proper Transitions & Neighborhood Commercial Node: The neighborhoods on the west and north ends of the existing Jackson’s Grant subdivision are large lot detached single family. As the subdivision moves to the east side of William’s Creek, the lot sizes get smaller and the density increases slightly. In keeping with the context of the Hamlet, the Petitioner proposes new townhomes to be located next to existing (proposed) townhomes, continuing the same look and feel further south down Springmill Road. On the west and north edges of this new Village area, the Petitioner proposes traditional detached single-family homes, in line with the Stableside neighborhood character immediately north in Jackson’s Grant. The center part around the Cunningham property (not included in this rezone) and at the SE corner of the site, closest to the Latter Day Saints Temple and the Bridges commercial development, is proposed to have additional townhomes and a commercial node. Density: The Jackson’s Grant Village PUD calls for a maximum of 94 dwellings, with a reduction of one unit per 1,000 sq. ft. of commercial building developed. Right now, the Concept Plan shows 74 units with about 20,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, thus accounting for the reduction of units (20 less units for 20,000 sq. ft.). The conceptual mix of units is as follows: 19 single family detached lots on the west and north part of the lot, 43 larger lot townhomes at the northeast and middle part of the site, and 12 smaller lot townhomes north of 116th Street and the tree preservation area. If constructed as shown in this Concept Plan, the density is 3.56 units/acre (74/20.77). If the number of units were to increase to the maximum due to no commercial development, the density would be 4.53 units/acre (94/20.77). Concept Plan Analysis: As part of the rezone application, the Petitioner has submitted a Concept Plan, to show what could be built if this site is rezoned to the PUD zoning classification. This concept plan is not the final plan of what will be developed on the site. Staff typically asks to see a Concept Plan to get an idea of what the Petitioner has in mind, and to start the conversation of how the site should be developed. For example, if there is a stand of trees on the site that should be saved, vehicular and pedestrian connections to adjacent parcels that need to be made, additional right-of-way that needs to be dedicated, building placement on site, etc. We try to let the Petitioner know up front what the Department will expect to see. Regarding the Concept Plan proposed for this project, the Petitioner has worked with Staff to bring certainty to the plan, showing three specific areas for development which must be adhered to. Area A (west and northwest portions) calls for detached residential, Area B (northeast and south-middle portion) calls for Attached residential (townhomes), and Area C (southeast portion) calls for neighborhood commercial node and possibly attached residential. Staff is appreciative the Petitioner has committed to these areas of development, as the uses in these locations foster appropriate transitions to the busy intersection of Springmill Road and 116th Street. Staff has the following concerns regarding the Concept Plan/PUD, and if this rezone were to be approved, these are items that we would work with the Petitioner on when they return for Development Plan, ADLS, and Primary Plat approvals. 1. Proposed conceptual layout of townhomes adjacent to Area C (orange in color on concept plan) 2. Proposed conceptual layout of townhomes in the middle part of the site (blue townhomes south of the detached single family residential) 3. Buffering of townhome uses adjacent to single family home not included as part of this rezone (Cunningham property) 4. General concern for lack of driveway space and ultimately parking locations for residents and visitors 5. Architectural design for the sides and rears of attached residential units. DOCS Remaining Comments/Concerns: Overall, Staff believes that this project is an appropriate plat that will be a good transition of land uses from east to west, given the nature of the existing developments south of 116th Street and potential development east of Springmill Road. We encourage and support mixed uses, when planned and executed appropriately. The Comprehensive Plan and its policies, as a whole, support this type of development. As this project moves to the Committee stages, we will dive into and further evaluate more detailed portions of this PUD. Recommendation: The Department of Community Services recommends the Plan Commission sends this item to the Commercial Committee meeting on March 31, 2020 for further review and discussion.