Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 10-15-244 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT OCTOBER 15, 2024 1. Docket No. PZ-2024-00122 CA: Meridian Trails Commitment Amendment 2. Docket No. PZ-2024-00123 V: Meridian Trails Height Variance, 45’ allowed, 47’ and 63’ requested. 3. Docket No. PZ-2024-00130 V: Meridian Trails Parking Variance, 340 spaces required, 232 requested. The applicant seeks approval for commitment amendments and two variances to allow a new 55+ age restricted housing development. The site is located at 201 W. 106th St. and is zoned B-1/Business. Filed by Jim Shinaver and Jon Dobosiewicz of Nelson & Frankenberger on behalf of Steve Pittman and Justus Companies. *Updates to the report are in blue. Project Overview: The applicant seeks approval for Commitment Amendments and 2 Variances to allow a new 55+ age restricted housing development with a small mixed-use component. The proposed development includes approximately169 units and about 5,962 square feet of commercial space. The land surrounding this property to the north, west and south are all single family residential, zoned S-2. Across Illinois Street to the east is the Ascension St. Vincent Heart Hospital, zoned MC (Meridian Corridor). To the northeast is the Farmers Insurance Building, also zoned MC. Please see the Petitioner’s Information Packet for more details. Site History: • In 2018, the property was rezoned from S-2 to B-1 to allow a proposed 3-strory office building. • Several Commitments were agreed to by the original petitioner and the Plan Commission. • The office building project did not move forward, and the land has remained vacant since 2018. • The current petitioner would like to develop 55+ age restricted apartments which would fall under the Nursing, Retirement or Convalescent Facility definition in the UDO as suites for the elderly. • This use is allowed in the B-1 district, but it is not a use listed as allowed in the original Commitments. Additional Analysis: Concept Plan • A concept plan is proposed, but the petitioner will have to come back to the Plan Commission for the final site plan and architecture approval. • The concept plan is similar to the original concept plan with the building located close to Illinois street and a buffer along the south and west boundaries. • A pool and common area are shown as a courtyard space with the apartment building surrounding it. • On the first floor of the northern portion of the building there will be commercial space allowed which will provide uses that are complimentary to and help serve the age restricted community. • The site would be accessed from the existing drive off of 106th Street and from a new curb cut on Illinois Street, which would line up with the existing cut for the Heart Hospital. • In this concept, both surface and underground parking are proposed. • The Nursing, Retirement or Convalescent Facility would require about 340 parking spaces and the concept plan shows 232 parking spaces, which is why a parking variance is requested. • The Nursing, Retirement or Convalescent Facility parking standards are based on 1 space per bed and 1 space per employee. • These units, however, will function more as independent living units. • A 30 ft. setback and green bufferyard will still be provided along the west and south boundaries. • An 8 ft. tall masonry wall will be constructed in the green belt buffer on the south and west boundary. • Stormwater detention will be accommodated through underground storage. Active Transportation • The Petitioner would be required to comply with all UDO and Comprehensive Plan requirements such as bike parking, construction of sidewalks and paths, as well as overall pedestrian safety and connectivity. 5 Architectural Design • New Character Building Imagery is submitted with this commitment amendment. • The building design will be fully reviewed with an ADLS application that will come back for approval by the Plan Commission. • Commitment #8 of the original 2018 commitments lists some architectural commitments and the petitioner is not proposing to change these. • The height is changing from the original commitments and because of the grade change on the site, a variance is also requested. • B-1 has a maximum height of 45 feet, and the petitioner is requesting 47 ft. for the majority of the building and 63 ft. for the northern portion of the building where the ground slopes down. • The portions of the building that are visible from the neighborhoods to the south and west will maintain the 47 ft. height. Landscaping • Significant buffers are required along the west and south property lines. • 30’ bufferyards are shown and are considered a type D bufferyard. • The original commitments refer to tree preservation along the west and south property lines and that is not changing. • Additional trees will also be planted • An 8 ft. tall masonry wall will still be installed within the buffer area. Signage • Any future signage shall comply with the UDO. • The signage plan should be presented with the DP/ADLS application for review. September 17, 2024 Public Hearing Recap: After the petitioner presented the project to the Plan Commission there were 2 people that spoke in opposition to some aspects of the project. Their concerns included the amount of parking, universal design in all units, size/scale of project as compared to S-2 zoning, and desire to reduce the number of units. The petitioner discussed parking noting that zoning standards may be out of date and that recent multi-family projects have been approved with an average of 1.5 to 1.6 parking spaces per dwelling. The residents for this project will mostly have 1 car per household. There will be on-site staff, and universal design will be included as it ties in with the 55+ housing classification. Plan Commission voiced concerns about parking spaces, the steep drive up from 106th St., outdoor places to sit, lighting, potential to use TIF for green infrastructure, removal of invasive trees in tree preservation areas, and the view from Rosado Hill. The Committee voted to send the project to the next Plan Commission Committee meeting with the Plan Commission having final approval. October 1, 2024 Plan Commission Committee Meeting Recap: Petitioner presented additional materials including a parking study, trip generation report, building height views, and landscaping buffer views. Petitioner stated they have had many conversations with the neighbors and only have a few remaining items to work out. The Plan Commission discussed lighting, parking, outside amenities, and visitor parking. A few members still had concerns about the amount of parking. Petitioner agreed to adding large swings like in Midtown and outdoor exercise equipment. The Plan Commission also asked that the wall doesn’t block trees for the new residents, and that the petitioner contact the CRC to look into TIF for sustainability related items such as green infrastructure, renewable energy, and low impact development techniques for water quality. The petitioner agreed to work on these items and the Committee voted to send this item back to the Plan Commission with a 5-0 favorable recommendation. DOCS Remaining Comments/Concerns: None. Recommendation: After all comments have been addressed, the Dept. of Community Services recommends the Plan Commission votes to Approve this item.