Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDepartment Report 05-21-244 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT MAY 21, 2024 3. Docket No. PZ-2023-00227 PUD Amend: Jackson’s Grant Village – Daycare. The applicant seeks PUD Amendment approval to add the (previously known as) Cunningham parcel into the Jackson’s Grant Village PUD. A new Daycare use and land swap is proposed, which will allow for 3 additional townhome units to be constructed. The site is located at 510 West 116th Street and is zoned S-2/Residence and is within the West 116th Street Overlay. Filed by Ashley Ulbricht of Taft Law on behalf of Del DeMao of DeMao Retail Consultants, LLC. *Updates to the report are in blue Overview: The applicant seeks approval to rezone approximately 1.8 acres from S-2/Residence and West 116th Street Overlay to an existing PUD/Planned Unit Development – Jackson’s Grant Village (Z-653-20). The proposed development calls for a land swap, which would allow the proposed use of a daycare facility, to be seamlessly integrated into the commercial portion of the Jackson’s Grant Village (JGV) PUD. The remaining land will be used to develop townhomes, nine of which are currently approved, and three new townhomes are proposed on additional land left over from the land swap. The site is surrounded on the west, north, east by the JGV PUD. South across 116th Street is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Temple, zoned S-2/Single Family Residential. Please see the Petitioner’s Information Packet for more details. Project History: In 2019, when the JGV PUD was proposed, Republic Development sought to purchase the Cunningham parcel to include it in their new PUD development. However, they were unable to purchase the land. The JGV PUD went on through the approval process, and certain protections were put into place to provide buffer to the Cunningham parcel, as it was intended to remain a single-family home. Fast forward to 2023, the Cunningham parcel has now been sold to Air Alchemist, LLC, our petitioner who would like to rezone it and build a daycare facility. After reviewing plans that did not connect the Cunningham parcel into the JGV PUD, we encouraged Air Alchemist, LLC to reach out to Republic Development to see what they would be open to, in terms of connectivity. The proposal that resulted from their discussions was just what Staff had hoped for: full connectivity and seamless integration! Rezoning Process: 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 item is 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 (with public hearings) for both the Development Plan and ADLS approval for the design of the daycare facility, as well as Primary Plat Amendment approval for rearranging the nine existing townhomes and adding the three new townhomes. After the Primary Plat Amendment is approved, they would submit Secondary Plat plans for all 12 townhomes in their new locations to Staff for administrative review which ensure compliance with the PUD prior to submitting building permits. 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. 5 Concept Plan Analysis: As part of the rezone application, the Petitioner has submitted an updated Concept Plan for JGV, which shows the daycare integrated into the commercial space (Area C) of the existing PUD. The nine townhomes that previously faced the commercial area parking lot have been moved to the west and south, where they now face 116th Street and the open space near the west entrance (part of Area B). Drive aisles have been connected from Area B to Area C, around the daycare facility. Along 116th Street, the path will now be installed across the Cunningham parcel, to provide complete pedestrian connectivity around JGV. This land swap and added amenity of a daycare facility will provide 60 new parking spaces for the PUD. This is beneficial for all site users in the shared parking opportunity. Residential owners will have additional spaces for guest parking and commercial tenants will have additional parking available to patrons in the evenings and weekends. Area A, B, and C that are not called out in this petition’s exhibits remain unchanged. Area A (west and northwest portion of JGV) calls for detached residential and the 19 approved lots are already platted. Area B (northeast and south-middle portion) calls for 52 Attached residential (townhomes) and are also already platted. The first townhome building (4 unit) is currently under construction at the SE corner of Hamlet Drive and Otto Lane. To be clear, the Developer of the townhomes will have to reapply for approval of the layout of the townhomes in this petition as it is proposed to be changed from what was previously approved. But Staff is supportive and encouraging of the changes needed to have improved connectivity, site flow, residential views, and additional parking. Area C, the commercial portion of the PUD located in the southeast quadrant remains unchanged with the 3 conceptual multi-tenant buildings proposed. Republic Development is actively working on plans and designs for this commercial area. We hope to see that project before the Plan Commission for approval during 2024. Proposed PUD Revisions: The overarching need for revision to the JGV PUD is to create two commercial sub-districts – one for the original multi- tenant buildings proposed along Springmill Road, and the other is for the new daycare use. The following sections of the existing JGV PUD are proposed to be changed: 1. Section 7. Bulk and Density Standards – the chart is revised to rename the different building types into their designated areas per the concept plan and creates development standards for the two different commercial subareas (original multi-tenant retail and new daycare) a. It does not alter lot sizes, setbacks, minimum unit size, and maximum lot coverage for any of the existing areas, it simply adds a new sub-district for the daycare, which is labeled C-2. 2. Section 7.2 Maximum Residential Densities – section is revised to clarify the last sentence, which states “However, the total number of Dwellings shall be reduced by one Dwelling for each 1,300 square feet of commercial being developed in Area C: Sub-District C-1” (original multi-tenant commercial). The reason for specifying Sub-District C-1 only is that there is no plan for residential to be developed in Sub-District C-2, as it is proposed to be a daycare facility. a. However, it also adds a new section, 7.3. to state that if a commercial use is not developed in Sub-District C-2, or by the master developer in Sub-District C-1, the number of townhomes built on the Cunningham parcel will not impact the number of townhomes allowed to be built within Sub-District C-1. b. This clause is supportable, however, please note Staff would still expect to have complete connectivity between the Cunningham parcel and JGV PUD. 3. Section 8.3 Neighborhood Commercial Buildings – section is amended to include the distinction of Sub-Districts C-1 and C-2, as well as amending Exhibit F, to also have the distinction of Sub-Districts C-1 and C-2. 4. Section 12 Landscaping Standards – section 12.5B is removed entirely as it contained requirements previously established for the Cunningham parcel. Now that it will be fully integrated into the PUD, there is no need to create buffers such as fencing and additional landscaping around property lines that no longer exist. 5. Section 15.2 Infrastructure and Environmental Standards – section adds in the Cunningham parcel to the other existing parcels of the JGV PUD. 6. Section 17.2 – approval from the Master Developer is granted and attached as Exhibit C. 7. Exhibit F, Section 3.1 and 3.2 are amended: a. Sub-District C-1 has the limit of no greater than 5,000 sq. ft. for a retail tenant. b. Sub-District C-2 has a limit of 10,000 sq. ft., as that is the anticipated size of the proposed daycare facility. c. It further clarifies that the maximum of 20,000 sq. ft. allowed in Sub-District C-1 is for all buildings combined, and the 10,000 sq. ft. in Sub-District C-2 is for all buildings combined. 8. Exhibit F, Section 3.6 – revised to allow only for the multi-tenant buildings in Sub-District C-1 to use plane, 6 material changes and separate entrances as their way to break up walls greater than 100’ in length. This brings up a question though, what is required of the building in Sub-District C-2 to break up walls greater than 100’ in length? No other requirements are listed, which appears to be an oversight in the original PUD language. This can be an opportunity to revise language for both commercial Sub-Districts. 9. Exhibit I, Condition 1.1. – revised to specify in Area C: Sub-District C-1, buildings shall not have a first-floor footprint greater than 7,500 sq. ft. January 16, 2023 meeting recap: The Petitioner presented the project proposal and explained how they have been working with the master developer in hopes of incorporating this parcel into the overall JGV PUD. Members of the public spoke and were concerned that this daycare use would be “crammed in” and that the Cunningham parcel should be utilized for more amenities for the residents of JGV. Plan Commission members wanted some clarifications regarding the amount of open space, a deeper dive into the details of the proposal, and hoped to hear from Republic Development regarding the proposal. One member spoke about the positive aspects of the proposal such as shared parking and a use that serves the community. The Plan Commission voted to send this item to the Commercial Committee meeting on February 6, 2024 and have it return to the full Plan Commission for final voting authority. Update Since Public Hearing: The Jackson’s Grant HOA sent out a survey to their residents asking preference for additional townhomes or a new daycare facility within the existing neighboring development, JGV. Unfortunately, the survey provided misinformation regarding the actual plans brought forward by the petitioner of this PUD Amendment request and the potential development possible within the existing JGV PUD. We have received several letters against the daycare proposal, as these neighbors believe it would add unnecessary traffic through the Jackson’s Grant subdivision. They also believe it is a very large daycare facility at 10,000 sq. ft., when it would actually be smaller than the two closest commercial daycares (Heartland Hall – roughly 25,000 sq. ft. and Crème de la Crème roughly 30,000 sq. ft.). We have also received letters in support of the daycare. Those neighbors stated it would be a good amenity for the neighborhood, and one expressed concern over ageism against younger families and children in the Jackson’s Grant subdivision. Again, daycare use is an already allowed use in the existing JGV PUD. Allowing an increase in building size to meet industry standards for proper classroom sizes and quantities should be looked at favorably. As mentioned in the Staff Report during the public hearing, two recently approved commercial daycare facilities in Carmel were roughly 12,000 sq. ft. and 11,000 sq. ft. The proposed daycare if this PUD Amendment is approved will be a one-story building, following JGV PUD design standards and be of similar size to the other proposed commercial buildings (approximately 7,000 sq. ft. and 6,000 sq. ft.) in this SE quadrant of Jackson’s Grant Village. The master developer has also submitted a letter in favor of the daycare proposal and confirmed that they are actively pursuing construction of the planned commercial buildings along Spring Mill Road. Book-ending those commercial buildings with another commercial building makes sense. Lastly, the likelihood of daycare parents using Otto Lane to go through the subdivision to get to Jackson’s Grant Boulevard to go north on Spring Mill is not high. Hamlet Drive at the north end of the JGV property is more likely because left-hand turns are possible from there. However, the proposed layout of the commercial area and townhomes on the NE quadrant of JGV does not steer them towards Otto Lane. The quickest way out would be to make a right turn on Village Green Drive to get back to Spring Mill Road. February 6, 2024 Commercial Committee meeting recap: The Petitioner went over the proposal: 1) daycare use is already an approved use in the JGV PUD, 2) the only area impacted is the commercial and southern townhomes due to the land swap, 3) traffic flow would come from 116th Street and Spring Mill Rd. to Village Green Dr. (west/east) and Keaton Dr. (north/south). The Petitioner clarified the size comparison provided was only that, a comparison. Clarified that the additional parking spaces west of the daycare would be for residential users. Staff commented that we don’t typically see this level of detail for a rezone request. It was asked of the Petitioner to show how they might organize the land swap, how the roads would lay out, etc. But the focus of this petition is the expansion of a daycare use from 5,000 sq. ft. to 10,000 sq. ft. Plan Commission members were concerned over potential events at the daycare and if there would be enough parking. Staff commented that if this proposal were approved, a shared parking arrangement between the daycare and existing commercial area would provide for any potential overage. There was confusion on Section 7.2 of the PUD Amendment. Mr. Wagner from Republic Development clarified that this was inserted to separate Republic’s commercial area (C.1) from the proposed daycare’s commercial area (C.2). A Plan Commissioner asked for a full traffic study so we can have more data on the number of trips to the daycare. The Committee members sent this back to the Full Plan Commission with No Recommendation. All in favor. 7 February 20, 2024 Plan Commission meeting: TABLED March 19, 2024 Plan Commission meeting: TABLED Traffic Study The Petitioner contracted A&F Engineering to do a more in-depth traffic study for the site. This was completed and presented as part of the Petitioner’s new Information Packet for the April 16, 2024 Plan Commission meeting. The traffic study accesses the existing adjacent roadway system and its ability to handle the proposed development. Some items to note: 1) this study is very cautious and shows the worst-case scenario, 2) the more external access points that are available will help to evenly distribute traffic, 3) negative numbers shown in the turn counts represent trips that were already on the main thoroughfares (Pass-by trips). The Petitioner has invited a representative from A&F Engineering to be present at the Plan Commission meeting to present their findings. DOCS final comments: Staff firmly believes that the most beneficial and logical plan would be to include the Cunningham parcel into the JGV PUD. This will allow Staff to hold the proposed developer to the same standards as the rest of JGV. There would be continuity of design and development standards, as well as provide for optimal traffic distribution in the area. Recommendation: The Department of Community Services recommends the Plan Commission sends this item to the City Council with a Favorable Recommendation.