Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 01-16-24 2 Plan Commission Minutes 1-16-24 Public Hearing: Grabow: Explained the Rules of Procedure for a public hearing in front of the Plan Commission. 1. 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. Petitioner: Ashley Ulbricht, Taft Law: • Petitioner provided overview of originally approved PUD from August 17th, 2020. Petitioner indicated that at the time of the original proposal in 2019 that the initial developer, Republic Development, sought to purchase a parcel of land to be included in this development (commonly referred to as the Cunningham parcel) that remained residential (S-2) at the time, but since then the petitioner has purchased the land and requests the commission rezone the approximately 1.8 acre property into the Jackson’s Grant Village PUD. • Petitioner believed that the way in which the Jackson’s Grant Village PUD was created in 2020 created a problem of having a large residential (the Cunningham parcel) and that their proposal will remedy the problem. • The petitioner stated that in order to properly incorporate the new parcel of land into the PUD that some of the approved land uses and locations of those uses will need to be modified. Such modifications include amending the already approved use block area B and area C. Area B being currently the multi-family townhomes and area C the existing neighborhood commercial node. • Daycare use is already permitted in area C. Petitioner desires to break up area C into sub-districts C1 and C2. The intent of C1 being to maintain the current standards of the original multi-tenant building development while C2 will allow for the stand-alone daycare. • Existing area A of the PUD consisting of lots for 19 detached single-family homes will not be modified at all by the proposal. Area B, the residential townhome section, if approved would incorporate the Cunningham parcel and allow for additional townhomes to be placed in the area of the former Cunningham parcel. These townhomes would be the ones that were proposed on area formerly part of area B that would now be area C2 where the proposed Daycare would be placed with additional parking. • The petitioner stressed that the zoning amendment is not intended to bypass additional development plan and ADLS process. The petitioner also emphasized that there shall be no alteration to lot sizes, setbacks, minimum unit size, or maximum lot coverage for any existing area. Petitioner: Del Demao, Owner- Demao Retail Consultants, LLC.: • The petitioner thanked staff for their help in amending the existing PUD into the plan it was overall originally meant to be. Public Comments: Gus Navarra • Navarra is a resident of Jackson’s Grant who was involved in the original Jacksons Grant Village PUD process. He stated that at the time of Jackson’s Grant Village PUD development the land began as an S2 low-density single-family zoning until the developer, Republic Development, filed to rezone the property to a higher density mixed use PUD that was ultimately approved by the City Council after the Plan Commission provided an unfavorable recommendation. He noted that over 70% of the Jackson’s Grant homeowners submitted letters in opposition to the rezone. • Navarra is currently concerned that the additional 10,000 sq. ft. of retail space for the daycare which he believes should be referred to as a “school” and its 60 associated parking spots is going to negatively impact the area due to increased traffic counts. • Navarra suggested other amenities that could be placed in the area of the proposed daycare such as hiking/biking trails, tennis courts, pickleball courts, playground etc. for the surrounding residents of Jackson’s Grant and Jackson’s Grant Village where he feels the existing amenities are not adequate for the number of residents already residing in the area. 3 Plan Commission Minutes 1-16-24 Jill Meisenheimer • Meisenheimer noted the initial apprehension of the nearby community in 2019-2020 about the movement of commercial activity to the west of Spring Mill Road. She quotes Director Hollibaugh as having said that the commercial development at the corner of 116th and Spring Mill Road was the “test case for the neighborhood corner store initiative” and that the use becoming a 10,000 square foot daycare is not fitting to the original plan of having a neighborhood store that is used by the surrounding community. • Meisenheimer went on to state that the original PUD limits individual tenant space to 5,000 square feet while the new daycare would be twice that. • Meisenheimer had the following questions for the developer and commission. o Were the nearby neighbors included in the discussion of the planning of this amendment? o Were the Jackson’s Grant residents surveyed if they would use a daycare? • Meisenheimer was concerned that the amenities for Jackson’s Grant residents are already insufficient and that additional residences in the Village will further strain those amenities capacity. She suggests that some of the land for the proposed daycare (if reduced in size) and some of the townhomes instead be used for additional amenities. • Meisenheimer stated concerns about the safety of the roundabout at 116th and Spring Mill Rd. and cast doubts on the accuracy of the traffic study. Petitioner Rebuttal: Del Demao: • The petitioner contrasted his proposed development with that of the existing daycare Crème de la Crème. o Crème de la Crème is 30,999 square feet while their proposed daycare is only 10,000 square feet. o Crème de la Crème serves those primarily east of US 31 while the proposed daycare would service those to the west of US 31 • The petitioner stated he believed the PUD allowed for up to 20,000 sq. ft. while they are only requesting a building half that size. • Parking of 60 spaces is not a definite number, it will be fully determined in the ADLS process. Department Report: Rachel Keesling • The daycare proposal started out as only a daycare on a separate lot distinct and disjointed from Jackson’s Village PUD yet evolved into a better project more integrated into the surrounding area. • The property would have had to be rezoned regardless as the Cunningham parcel is S2 residential. • The shortages of available slots at existing daycares and their extensive wait times show a need for additional daycares in the area. • Daycare use is permitted within the PUD, but the PUD currently limits any single tenant space to 5,000 sq. ft, which is reasonable for the shops along Spring Mill Road. Therefore, the petitioner has opted to make a new subsection for their project within the PUD with language specific to their use. • Carmel daycares range in size. Within two miles of the proposed daycare there are three daycares across the spectrum in size, one of them has 117 kids, another has 267 kids, the final one has room for up to 500 kids. All of these facilities are full with one year waitlists. • Recently approved daycare facility projects include KinderCare at Westin Point Drive and Michigan Road at about 12,000 square feet and can hold up to 146 kids, and Guidepost Montessori at Retail Parkway and Michigan Road at about 11,000 square feet and can hold up to 138 kids. These locations show that the proposed daycare facility at Jackson’s Grant Village PUD is in line with other recently approved locations. • The additional parking provided by the daycare will only be in use by the daycare during daytime hours and therefore can provide additional parking in the late afternoon and evening for retail shops and restaurants in the vicinity. • Not all daycare drop-offs occur at the same time so parking lot congestion that was raised as a concern by remonstrators should not actually be an issue. • Recommend the petition go to the next meeting of the Plan Commission Commercial Committee to go over the details of the PUD language changes. Committee Comments: Buckler requested the existing and conceptual maps be reshown on the display screen for clarification from the petitioner on exact location and size of the daycare. Buckler also receives confirmation from the petitioner that the tree buffer on 4 Plan Commission Minutes 1-16-24 116th Street will be preserved. Campagna: Ashley, the area immediately south of what’s shown as the daycare is that like a playground outdoor space for the kids? Ulbricht: So, this would be an outdoor play space for the children. It is not part of the building footprint, but again the design of the actual building would be another approval before you with design plan and ADLS. To even get to that point we need to rezone the PUD to make it able to even get to that point. Nobody is approving the design of the daycare tonight. Zoccola: At committee if you can bring a picture of what this would look like from 116th Street with these townhomes. When we went through and updated the comprehensive plan what we heard loudly and clearly from everyone who lives in this area is how important it is to preserve that very natural low density look along 116th Street…Similarly since some of the trees all along the Cunningham property were built into the open space and that was the overall total factored in open space, if that total number of open space has changed I would like to know what that calculation is. Zoccola indicated she would like to see the full Plan Commission have the final voting authority, not the Commercial Committee, due to the controversy surrounding the initial PUD and now the proposed changes. Minnaar: I noticed that the maximum dwelling units in in the Jackson Grant CB area will not exceed a max – certain amount of homes. Is that part of the ordinance going to be rewritten? Ulbricht: We are not changing densities; we are not playing with densities at all. The only reason why 7.2 has any additional text at all was to define subdistrict C1…Section 7.3 was added as a worst-case scenario clause at the request of Republic. To be honest I mean a worst-case scenario clause like if my client passes away and this doesn’t happen. That was included so that it would revert back to the old ordinance. Minnaar went on to also inquire about the expansion of parking for the daycare and the prohibition on commercial parking lots per the PUD. Staff clarified that commercial parking lots are lots in which you pay to park to store a vehicle not a regular parking lot for business clients. Grabow: Can you in broad strokes lay out which parking might be coming out of area C and where the new parking is, we are going to get to net +60 parking, can you explain how we get to that? Demao: That is not a definite number, there is nothing specific that has to be 60 parking spaces. It was a situation where the tenant does have a required number of spaces…additional parking spaces in the rear were added as a request and I believe as well some of the townhome users wanted some additional parking for their guests.” Grabow asks for additional clarification from the petitioner on where parking is being rearranged from C1 to C2. Petitioner references the provided conceptual site plan within the info packet. Grabow: At committee if you could show what your best guess of the intended queuing would be at peak drop off and pickup times for those parents who maybe have to wait for a parking spot to free up to take their kids in. Kirsh: Can you try and figure out between now and the Commercial Committee what level of the community is going to be serviced and I would like to see a breakdown of the 10,000 sq ft. of daycare space and how it is going to be used. Grabow: When we get ADLS we will do a deeper dive on this but my recollection is that the design standards in the PUD language for the commercial component was largely driven out of a sensitivity to the fact that the buildings were all on the perimeter of the project and most of them even front and pulled up close to Spring Mill Road. I would hope that down the road we see, even though its an interior building, that we would see the high design standard that is shown in these concepts, because a ton of thought and planning went into achieving these standards for the C1 area. Hill: I have very strong interests getting this roped into the PUD. Not quite sure I understand the need to add three additional townhome units. I think of how this 1.8 acre parcel if it came to us individual how it might be rezoned or considered it would not come with three additional units. I don’t understand how Republic or McKenzie is not here. I am a strong proponent of making sure there is zero impact to the wooded preservation area. If there are further exhibits, because it looks like some exhibits might contradict each other. Also I thought there is a lot of additional parking and that we might need to try and still right size that, but from staff comments I do see benefits from the shared parking with other 5 Plan Commission Minutes 1-16-24 tenants so that we don’t have spill over into the neighborhood streets. Commissioner Hill agreed with Commissioner Zoccola in his desire to see final voting authority remain before the full Plan Commission not the sub-committee. A motion made by Kirsh and seconded by Campagna to send Docket No. PZ-2023-00227 to Commercial Committee meeting with final voting power to the full Plan Commission. Approved 6-0, absent Minnaar and Westermeier. 2. Docket No. PZ-2023-00280 SW: Fields Market Garden Parking in Floodplain Waiver – UDO 7.13.D: No Parking in Flood Hazard Area, Pervious Parking Requested. 3. Docket No. PZ-2023-00281 SW: Fields Market Garden Water Quality Easement Waiver - UDO 7.10.F.3: Floodway fringe plus 25 ft. buffer water quality easement, No buffer Requested. The applicant seeks two design standard waivers related to the floodplain for the Fields Market Garden urban farm at the North End development. The site is located at 270 W Smoky Row and is zoned UR/Urban Residential. Filed by Charlie Mattox with Crossroad Engineers on behalf of the Owner, Fields Market Garden, LLC. Petitioner: Charlie Mattox, Crossroads Engineers: • Parking within the floodplain and water quality easement is entirely prohibited per the UDO and only a very small portion of the lot is outside of the floodplain and over half is within the water quality easement effectively prohibiting any on site parking at all for this parcel. • Parking will be open to the public and serve the public and the proposed pervious pavement product will help maintain the natural infiltration present under the current conditions. • The waivers shall not alter bike or pedestrian plan. Trail along Smokey Row Road remains and bike parking will be provided. • All areas that would fall within the easement area will be pervious or planting beds. The greenhouse, henhouse, etc. will not be within the floodplain limits. • The floodway covers a majority of the property and will the additional 25-foot easement it creates a unique hardship of making the lot undevelopable without waivers being provided. • Some disturbance for dirt work will occur within the floodway to make sure all buildings are two feet above base flood elevation as required per Carmel and DNR regulations. Public Comments: None Department Report: Alexia Lopez • Petitioner is seeking two subdivision waivers for an urban farm. • Petitioner is proposing a permeable material for the lot and will be providing other flood mitigation as needed. • Planning and Engineering staff is of the opinion that due to the low intensity of the use as a farm, the permeable parking surface, and other flood plain mitigation that the waivers should be granted. Committee Comments: Buckler moves to suspend the rules to consider and vote on the item at the current meeting, seconded by Kirsh, motion carried 7-0, absent Minnaar and Westermeier. Grabow: Is the parking lot designed to be level or will it be slightly graded away from the floodplain so if there is runoff from the parked cars it won’t run into the floodplain? Mattox: Right now the whole site sheet flows northeasterly. The parking lot will be graded to roughly sheet flow following existing conditions. A motion made by Kirsh and seconded by Hill to approve Docket No. PZ-2023-00280 SW and PZ-2023-00281 SW Approved 7-0, absent Minnaar and Westermeier.