Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 04-03-03 ~'; . CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE DEPARTMENT REPORT April 3, 2003 1. Docket No. 164-02 Z; Riverview Medical Park (PUD) The applicant seeks to rezone 11.09 acres form 8-1 Residential to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. The site is zoned 8-1 (Residential). Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson and Frankenberger for Plum Creek Partners, LLC. The applicant is requesting a favorable recommendation from the Plan Commission on their petition to rezone 11.09 acres from S-1 Residential to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. The Public Hearing for the item was opened at the December, Plan Commission meeting and the applicant requested the item be tabled at the January, Committee meeting. The Committee met and discussed this petition on the February 4th meeting date at which time it was continued. The applicant made a request to table the item last month (March) and it was not on the March 4th agenda. The following report is identical to the report made for the February Committee meeting. Items to be considered include primarily those under items 2 and 3 below. The Department feels that the following items need to be addressed as part of the review for this request and prior to the Plan Commission forwarding this petition to the City Council: 1. Question One: Is the subject location, based on the Comprehensive Plan, an appropriate location for "Neighborhood Commercial"? If yes, then one could proceed to question number 2. Ifno, then while question 2 becomes less critical to review it is still important for the Plan Commission to consider as the [mal decision will be made by the City Council. The Department recommends that the Plan Commission review the PUD to ensure it is appropriate for neighborhood commercial even if they determine neighborhood commercial is not appropriate for this location. Items to note: a. The location is at the comer of 146th Street and Hazel Dell Parkway. Is there concern that the design and construction of these roads may not support the traffic generated by the proposed use? b. Is there an appropriate distribution of neighborhood commercial areas within the community and would this location compliment the others? Are there other comparable office uses in the area? c. The Land Use Map does not identify this area for commercial use. Likewise, the Land Use Map does not identify the other existing neighborhood commercial areas (i.e. 131 st/Hazel Dell and 126th/Gray). It is only in the text of the Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance that one will find reference to the implementation of neighborhood commercial areas. d. Is the site naturally buffered from low intensity residential areas through the existence of at least one ofthe following: main roads, institutional buildings, open space, landscaping and screening? Committee Report 2003-0403.rtf Page14of19 ,', . e. Is pedestrian and bicycle access to the area available? 2. Question Two: Do the permitted uses and development standards (setbacks, building heights, landscape standards, architectural design requirements, signage limitations) reflect a character appropriate for "Neighborhood Commercial"? If yes, then one could proceed to question number three. Items to note: a. Do the proposed standards protect and maintain the character of neighboring residential areas? Chapter 18 of the Ordinance addresses standards that were adopted by the Plan Commission and City Council to achieve this goal. The intent of the district is to allow for commercial development near areas zoned or utilized for residential purposes. This should be used as a benchmark. b. Do the proposed development standards reflect those required for the two other areas in Carmel characterized as neighborhood commercial areas (131 st/Haze1 Dell, 126th/Gray Road). c. Permitted uses are significantly restricted as compared to other commercial areas adjacent to residential areas. Is this appropriate or should the PUD permit retail uses as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan? (What are neighborhood-serving uses? Do the uses in the PUD match these or are the proposed uses of a community or regional serving nature?) d. Should an allowance for convenience shopping be provided? e. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that neighborhood commercial areas should have no more than 10 acres and 100,000 sq. ft. of retail. Is this proposal compatible? f. Is the intensity and scale of the proposed plan compatible with the surrounding residential uses? 3. Question Three: If the Plan Commission has answered questions one and two affirmatively they must then decide if now is the appropriate time to rezone the parcel to allow "Neighborhood Commercial"? Items to note: a. What are the potential impacts on other neighborhood commercial areas? (131 st/Hazel Dell, 126th/Gray Road). b. Are the surrounding low-intensity neighborhoods adequately served by and accessible to existing neighborhood commercial centers? c. Does the Plan Commission want to establish appropriate locations for future neighborhood commercial uses on the Land Use Map and establish timing criteria? The Department recommends that this item be forwarded back to the full Plan Commission after all comments and questions have been addressed. Committee Report 2003-0403.rtf Page 15 of 19