Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDepartment Report 06-16-20 6 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT JUNE 16, 2020 I. Old Business 1. 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. *Updates to the Dept. Report are written in blue. 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. 7 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 120 letters and emails (including second and third submissions): • Density, • 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 Ordinance 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 8 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. 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. April 23 Plan Commission meeting recap: The Petitioner went over the project discussing the history of the Jackson’s Grant PUD as a whole and the proposed uses within the concept plan. Densities, average costs, and transitions of the different sections within the Jackson’s Grant subdivision were covered. Illustrative examples of the character of the single-family homes, townhomes, and commercial area were also shown. The Plan Commission Members had many questions about the project. Some of the concerns mentioned were regarding the following: allowed accessory uses, general permitted uses that draw large numbers of people, location of the proposed neighborhood amenity, townhomes having rental unit restrictions, residential allowed above commercial area, preservation/addition of greenspace/buffering, will this be part of the JG HOA, concern for too much flexibility, size of commercial space, traffic in and around the area, understanding the notion of no commercial west of Spring Mill Rd., and the transition along 116th Street. The Plan Commission forwarded this item to the Commercial 9 Committee meeting on Thursday, May 7, 2020, with the final decision for recommendation to the City Council returning to the full Plan Commission. May 7 Commercial Committee meeting recap: The Petitioner went over changes to the PUD document, highlighting the following: noise restrictions and hours of operation; uses – removing residential kennels, training facility, indoor theatre, meeting and party hall; adjusting the commercial section layout; confirming amenities – community building and village green/park, and pond overlook; buffering – increase to Type B buffer (20’) adjacent to west property line adjacent to the Noland property, clarification on allowed/prohibited location of attached dwellings; height – maximum height allowed is 35’, no more three story limit (which could be taller than 35’); overall potential lot count is reduced by three due to one type of townhome proposed; commitment to off-street parking for one per seven attached units; regarding rental units – only one person can own one unit; exterior building material list – eliminated lesser quality materials; Traffic study to be discussed at June committee meeting, would like to have Jeremy Kashman, Director of Engineering Dept. at that meeting. Committee members had concerns about the following: change to 7 AM for noise restrictions, getting a path connection along the Cunningham property, desire for naturalized pond edges, permitted uses (antenna allowed as SU, Clinic or medical health allowed for small scale doctors’ offices), residential allowed as a possible use on the second floor of the retail, moving one home north on Otto Lane (cannot because it is a drainage easement), traffic study completed (in the works), construction traffic limitations/times/noise restrictions, rentals restricted (not at this time), include Cunningham property in drainage calculations (not at this time, but will look at it). Some members were ok with the retail component, could see it as convenient from a walkability standpoint. Other members were concerned about the necessity of it. Continued to the Thursday, June 4, 2020 Commercial Committee meeting. Summary of additional changes made to PUD in preparation for 6-4-20 meeting: A Traffic study was provided, changed time of noise restrictions to 7 AM as requested, clarification provided that the side yard setback for attached residential buildings is the minimum distance between the side walls of 2 multi-family buildings, clarification for allowed on street parking adjacent to or across the street from the commercial area, interior parking lot landscaping clarified to mean at least two rows of parking, drainage design recalculated to include the Cunningham property, native vegetation proposed for 50% of the lake’s banks, construction traffic limitations, detached residential architectural guidelines – separating porches and stoops and providing requirements for each, sidewalk requirement to go directly to front door for both detached and attached homes (except where courtyard style garages are utilized or other physical impediments restrict the ability to put this in on the detached homes), clarification in the roofline section for attached homes, and additional architectural requirements for end units or side elevations for attached homes. June 4 Commercial Committee meeting recap: Steve Fehribach discussed the traffic report, and due to decreased traffic because of COVID-19, they referred back to the 2011 counts and recommendations for additional info. Believe that adding a left in only to the retail section will benefit the development and take unnecessary trips off of the north street. Has concluded that the proposed development will not cause an adverse effect to the road system. Jeremy Kashman, Director of Engineering agrees that the retail node should have a left in to separate traffic from the north. If it were residential, we would stick with a right in/right out at this point. The Petitioner went over changes to PUD that were outlined in the Dept. Report and discussed a few additional changes. These changes were clarifying for attached residential that required masonry must be to be equal the first floor façade area (instead of first floor surface area), the side elevations (end units) have additional architectural enhancements, the rear façade enhancements were adjusted to not allow duplicating requirements, and language was added to state that there will be streetscape diversity with varied elevations and materials. Other changes were made to address Engineering Dept. concerns, which were to deletion some sections that referenced road improvement credits, which were hold overs from the original PUD for Jackson’s Grant. They clarified that the Noland’s property Type B buffer will start at the end of tree preservation area, not at the north end of the property. The Concept Plan calls this out. Committee members had questions about the number of townhomes (decreased by 3 units), orientation of townhomes off of 116th Street (those will be the fronts facing 116th), and if enhancements are planned for the Tree Preservation Area (possibly a trail, taking care of the TPA by clearing dead or invasive species, but trying to leave it natural). A question was asked regarding Mrs. Cunningham’s current position? The Petitioner clarified that have reached out; however, she is not interested in selling or participating in this zoning request. A question came up regarding outdoor gathering areas and 10 concerns for empty commercial spaces. The Petitioner has intentionally planned seating and dining areas between the buildings and established small parks and green spaces throughout the development. Regarding uses for the commercial, the intention is for an independent coffee shop (maybe with sandwiches), appointment-based offices such as dentists or attorney, or small office spaces. They want this to be a space that people want to go to, not that they have to go to. The question of “no commercial west of Springmill” came up and Mike Hollibaugh, Director of DOCS, offered additional commentary regarding the benefit of local serving commercial. A Committee member commented that it may be the lowest intensity commercial we have seen for west of Springmill. It was requested that a sight line study from 2nd or 3rd floor window to the west (towards Noland property) and to the east (toward Cunningham property) be provided for review. One Committee member said that the small proposed commercial is a solid transition and a good thing. Another member stated they are not in favor of the commercial area and would like to see it removed. The Petitioner commented that they see this as an amenity for the community, that convenience is desired, and they are confident that they can make it work. If commercial doesn’t work, up to 15 more townhomes could be placed in this area. It was re-stated for the public’s benefit to remember that this will go onto the City Council and the public hearing process will happen all over again. This item was sent to the Plan Commission with a Favorable Recommendation, 3-1. Additional change to PUD since Committee meeting: 1. Staff requested the Petitioner add a statement that would prohibit parking between the commercial buildings and Springmill Road. This will provide greater certainty and requirement for the Concept Plan to be built as we have seen it presented. This can be found on page 10, Section 11.3. DOCS Remaining concerns and final comments: Please provide the requested sight line study as outlined above. DOCS Staff is in support of this mixed-use development, which provides diversity in housing types and an appropriately scaled neighborhood commercial node. Through thoughtful planning, we can create context sensitive, mixed uses and convenient places for people to gather. Several positive features were added to the PUD throughout the Plan Commission process: additional residential parking required, architectural enhancements for single family homes adjacent to the street, architectural enhancements for sides and rears of townhomes and as well as streetscape diversity requirements, tree preservation areas, multiple parks, planning for stormwater capacity to include Cunningham property (if developed in the future), construction traffic restrictions, noise restrictions, well defined use areas within the concept plan, restriction that parking cannot be between the building and Springmill Road for commercial area, large crowd type uses were prohibited, and no drive thru uses allowed. These features mentioned, among others in the proposed PUD, help to enhance community quality of life by creating the appropriate transitions needed from the single-family residential areas to the proposed small-scale commercial. Recommendation: After all comments and concerns are addressed, the Department of Community Services recommends the Plan Commission forwards this item to the City Council with a Favorable Recommendation.