Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDepartment Report 11-19-241 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT NOVEMBER 19, 2024 1. Docket No. PZ-2024-00028 PUD: Towne 146 PUD Rezone. The applicant seeks PUD rezone approval to allow a new neighborhood consisting of single-family homes and townhomes. The site is located at 2275 W 146th Street and is zoned S-1/Residence. Filed by Jim Shinaver and Jon Dobosiewicz of Nelson & Frankenberger on behalf of Lennar Homes of Indiana, LLC. *Updates to the report are in blue. Project Overview: The applicant seeks approval to rezone approximately 15.67 acres from S-1/Residence to PUD/Planned Unit Development. The proposed development will have a mix of single-family and single-family attached housing. A maximum of 87 dwellings is proposed. Please see the Petitioner’s Information Packet for more details. Site Context: Surrounding zoning classifications are S-1/ROSO to the south, PUD to the east and west, with 146th St. located to the north. Across 146th St. is property in Westfield that is zoned PUD. The Subdivision to the south and southeast is Saddle Creek; a single-family neighborhood that has 467 lots with the old ROSO zoning that allowed smaller lot standards than S-1. To the east is the Ambleside Subdivision which is currently under construction, is zoned PUD, and allows a mix of 260 smaller single-family lots and townhomes. To the southwest is the Lincolnshire Subdivision which is composed of 82 single-family homes that were developed under the old ROSO standards and allowed smaller lot standards and setbacks. Directly west is Shadow Wood; a single-family subdivision zoned PUD with 29 lots. The property to the north in Westfield is zoned PUD and allows a large office/retail area and a multi-family area with no more than 480 dwelling units. Rezoning Process: 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: • The extent to which the PUD Ordinance provides 1) a mixed-use development or 2) addresses unusual site conditions or surroundings; • The Comprehensive Plan and any other adopted planning studies or reports; • The extent to which the proposal fulfills the general purposes of the Subdivision Control/Zoning Ordinances • Current conditions and the character of current structures and uses in each district and its surroundings; • The most desirable use for which the land in each district is adapted; • The conservation of property values throughout the City and the Township; and • Responsible development and growth. 2 Comprehensive Plan Analysis: • The Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) provides a guide for development and a common vision for the City. • The Policy Goals and Objectives of the Comp Plan calls for such things as a variety of housing types, a mixture of land uses, and promoting housing options to support aging in place. • It also guides development to protect single-family neighborhoods from dissimilar adjacent uses with respect to scale of buildings, lighting, noise and other incompatible impacts. • Under Development Patterns in the Comp Plan, this area is classified as West Neighborhoods which can have characteristics including lot sizes from 1/8 to 5+ acres; building coverage between 20% to 50%; 2.5 story heights; front yards, gardens, porches, stoops; and residential uses. • Because this site is along 146th St, it also falls into the Typical Corridor classification as well. • Typical corridors are “Primary E/W and N/S routes that provide connectivity to community assets throughout the City. These corridors are based on adjacent patterns and serve as transitions between places. They allow expanded housing options and limited commercial as long as they are consistent with the character of adjacent patterns.” • Building a residential neighborhood adjacent to a residential neighborhood is a compatible land use. • The 1 and 2-story height of the homes, the large setback to the south, and the landscaped buffer area allows for a sensitive transition from the 2-story single-family homes to the south to this neighborhood and then the 4 lane, divided 146th Street. Additional Analysis: Concept Plan: • Since the first meeting, the concept plan has been modified, and the petitioner has removed the small shops that would have provided neighborhood places for residents to walk or bike to. • Residents will now have to exclusively rely on driving their cars for their daily needs. • The site still provides appropriate transitions by locating a landscape buffer along the south, followed by single-family detached lots, and then moving to townhomes and smaller detached single-family homes. • 87 dwellings are proposed, for a density of 5.55 units per acre. (The previous plan had a density of 5.87) • There are 4 proposed entrances from the frontage road that runs south of 146th Street. • The internal street layout is similar to a grid style street system and provides short blocks with good connections to promote pedestrian friendly streets. • Updated Traffic Impact Study was completed by a third-party consultant and showed a minimal increase in peak hour trips from this project. • The traffic study found that no improvements were needed to ensure the roadway system would accommodate the increased traffic volumes. • 3 acres of common area are planned with a pond, tree preservation area, wetland and neighborhood park. • Stormwater drainage will be accommodated through a retention pond. Petitioner, please confirm the Engineering Dept. is comfortable with the updated drainage report. • Petitioner has proposed expanding the Ambleside pond from the east to create a larger water feature and amenity. • Larger ponds provide better water quality treatment and can be visually more appealing as they start to resemble a small lake instead of just a little detention pond. Active Transportation • Sidewalks are required on both sides of the street. • A path will connect to the path in Ambleside and it will go north all the way to the path along 146th St and out to Towne Rd. • This will allow the two neighborhoods to be connected to each other. • An additional sidewalk connection was made to connect to 146th Street. 3 Architectural Design • The PUD includes Architectural Character Imagery along with Architectural Standards. • There will be some homes with garage doors facing the street, but the majority of the residential units will have garage doors facing an alley. This further enhances the streetscape aesthetics. • The Character Imagery shows 1-story and 2-story buildings, with the maximum height limited in the PUD to 28 ft. and 32 ft. • Residential buildings shall have a masonry wainscot, and the front wainscot material shall be the same on the sides and rear. • Covered porches and/or stoops are required and porches shall be 6 ft. deep in Area and B. • Monotony mitigation standards are in place to help avoid a cookie cutter or repetitive aesthetic. • 2 color schemes are proposed for the townhomes and the PUD says adjacent buildings shall have alternating colors. • Masonry has been added to the fronts of the 6-unit buildings to break up the façade, which adds to the architectural character. This same brick treatment could also enhance the other townhome buildings. • ADLS approval will be required for the townhome buildings. Landscaping: • A minimum of 3 acres of the development will be common area. • A drainage easement is shown along the southern border on the Concept Plan. • There is a park area in the southeast quadrant and tree preservation in the southeast corner. • There will be wetland preservation in the southeast corner as well, which is beneficial to the City and to our water quality. • The PUD contains an Open Space exhibit that labels the Common Areas and open space types. • A minimum of 10 trees per acre of open space will be planted in common areas. • Foundation and lot plantings (like a tree in the front yard) are required in the PUD as are street trees. • 2 shade trees are required in the rear yard of the southern perimeter lots • Native vegetation areas shall be provided along the perimeter of the pond. Signage: • The PUD allows a subdivision entry sign at each connection of internal streets to the frontage road. • All other signage requirements shall comply with the UDO. August 20, 2024 Public Hearing Recap: After the petitioner presented, there were 4 people that spoke opposed to the project. Their main concerns included lighting, noise, and traffic from the commercial space; density; large pond; loss of trees; and drainage impact on Saddle Creek ponds. The Commissioners brought up concerns related to the commercial use, a drive-thru allowed, the shared pond management, tree preservation, and allowing rentals. There was some support for the smaller ranch homes that would fill a housing need in the community, the higher density, and the overall site design. The Commission asked to reconsider mailbox location, look at more tree preservation, add a path connection to 146th St, add landscaping and buffering in the south side drainage easement, reduce height allowed for single-family homes, and look at maximum commercial tenant size and possibly reduce. The Commission voted to send the project to the Plan Commission Committee. September 3, 2024 Committee Meeting Recap: Petitioner announced they have removed the commercial component from the development and are working on a revised concept plan. They are considering more detached 2-story product and are examining what a standalone pond would look like and how maintenance of a combined pond would work. Many Plan Commissioners were supportive of removing the commercial. The pond was discussed, and petitioner said the County did not request the large pond, but they did not oppose it either. Other comments that came up from the Plan Commission included the higher density as compared to Ambleside and surrounding subdivisions, rental 4 restrictions, request for special, destination style amenities, and a place to go with kids. Not all members were opposed to the combined pond, and it was mentioned that the increased density wouldn’t be noticeable between Ambleside and this project, but it could help provide more attainable housing. Plan Commission also requested invasive trees be removed in any preservation areas and new trees planted. The Committee voted to send the project to the next Plan Commission Committee meeting. October 1, 2024 Committee Meeting Recap: Two options of a revised site plan were presented and included only residential and no commercial. One version showed a combined pond, and one showed a separate pond. More trees were preserved with the new plan and the combined pond would have greater water quality benefits. Revised traffic report showed reduced peak hour trips. Rental restrictions were discussed and petitioner agreed to look at restrictions for corporate investors. Committee members also asked about sidewalk connections, front door orientation, and 1st floor bedrooms. The Committee voted to send the project to the next Plan Commission Committee meeting. November 7, 2024 Committee Meeting Recap: Petitioner was able to address some of the remaining comments from the staff report and they did add commitments for rental restrictions. They also agreed to plant 10 trees per acre of common area and are willing to add a 2nd sidewalk connection to 146th St. The Committee requested updated images to show the masonry wainscot on the sides of homes as per the PUD, the removal of the zoning waiver provisions in the PUD, they supported the second pedestrian connection to 146th St., and trees along the southern drainage easement. There was also a lot of discussion regarding the creation of a shared pond between this PUD and Ambleside. Some Committee members still had concerns that the two HOAs would argue over the maintenance of the pond, and they asked the petitioner if Ambleside was aware of the proposal and if they could reach out to Ambleside. Not all Committee members were opposed to the shared pond and could see the water quality benefits of creating one larger pond instead of two separate smaller ponds. There were still a few remaining comments, but the petitioner said they could address those by the next Plan Commission meeting. The Committee voted to send the project back to the Plan Commission with a Favorable Recommendation, contingent on addressing the remaining items. DOCS Remaining Comments/Concerns: The petitioner has made several changes and improvements to the site layout and PUD standards based on feedback. The Dept. only has a few remaining items: 1. Remove “rear yard drainage easements” from encroaching into the wetland preservation easement. 2. Add the word “have” to Section 4.E of the Architectural Standards to clarify the 6-unit Townhome buildings shall “have” additional masonry… 3. What is the Engineering Department’s feedback about the revised preliminary drainage report? Are they comfortable that the new layout and detention will be adequately sized to avoid issues down the line? Recommendation: Once all comments and concerns are addressed, the Department of Community Services recommends the Plan Commission sends this item to the City Council with a Favorable Recommendation.