Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 05-20-254 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT MAY 20, 2025 I. Old Business 1. Docket No. PZ-2024-00222 PUD: US 421-WCD PUD Rezone The applicant seeks PUD rezone approval to allow a new 360-unit apartment community with commercial and retail uses along Michigan Road. The site is located at 9998 N Michigan Road and is zoned I-1/Industrial within the US 421 Corridor Overlay. Filed by Jim Shinaver and Jon Dobosiewicz of Nelson & Frankenberger on behalf of Edward Rose Properties, Inc. *Updates to the report are written in blue. Project Overview: The applicant seeks approval to rezone approximately 22 acres of land to a PUD to facilitate a mixed-use development featuring multi-family residential and commercial components. The property is located west of Michigan Road, south of Retail Parkway extension, and north of 99th Street. The property is currently zoned I-1 Industrial and is within the US 421-Michigan Road Overlay District. To the west and south are I-1/Industrial zoned and used properties, to the north are B-2/Business zoned properties, and to the east is Michigan Road and then B-2 and B-3/Business properties. Please see the Petitioner’s Information Packet for more details. 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. 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 a variety of things. Some goals include promoting a variety of housing types, a mixture of land uses, and opportunities that allow more residents to be located within a short walk or bike ride to many daily needs. This can be seen in this development. • It also guides development to ensure the economic opportunities and benefits are available to all through workforce and affordable housing. The apartments in this project will be market rate and not affordable. 5 • Under Development Patterns in the Comp Plan, this area is classified as a Gateway which is intended to feature large lot mixed-use and commercial areas along or near access points into Carmel. • It includes characteristics such as max heights of 5 stories; building coverage between 30% to 60; avoiding parking lot placement between front of building and the road; commercial, residential, retail, and light industrial/manufacturing uses. Additional Analysis: Change of Use: • The proposed PUD would change the use of the site from industrial to residential. • There are pros and cons to this change of use. • Pros: o Additional housing units will be provided. While the project would be market rate units, it would provide options for people that may not be able to afford to buy a single-family home. o The proposed site plan includes a well thought out layout with a boulevard and pedestrian friendly streets, open space and amenities, and tree preservation. We are not guaranteed this with an industrial use. o The architecture of the apartment buildings will enhance the aesthetics as compared to industrial style buildings. o Having additional residents living in this area will boost the businesses along Michigan Road. o Less heavy-duty vehicles that might come with Industrial businesses. • Cons: o Carmel will lose a potential industrial business site. The City already has very limited industrial zoned land. Only 1% of all land in Carmel is zoned I-1.(see map below with I-1 parcels circled.) o This could also lead to a loss of employment opportunities. o New residents in the apartments will be living next to existing industrially used parcels. o While the proposed project will bring additional housing needed to Carmel, it will not fall under the affordable category. o New apartments could limit future growth of Industrial uses as residents may remonstrate against new industrial businesses. 6 Concept Plan: • The site plan consists of 7 multi-family buildings with 360 units and a retail outlot. • A new north/south boulevard street will be built to connect the Retail Parkway extension to 99th St. • Parking is accommodated through surface parking lots, perpendicular parking along private streets, garages in Buildings A, B, and C, and parallel parking. • The PUD will require 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling. • A traffic letter was completed by a third-party consultant to review the number of vehicles that will be generated and the surrounding roadway system. • The traffic letter states that the proposed project would not negatively affect the surrounding street system and would generate less traffic during the AM and PM peak than the existing office building. • 5 acres of common area are shown and include a central pond, 2 dog parks, a pool, and tree preservation. • Stormwater drainage will be accommodated through the central pond with native landscaping around it. • Future development of the retail outlot in Area B will be required to follow B-3/Business district standards as well as the Michigan Road Overlay standards. • Petitioner has added a requirement for a minimum 6,500 sq. ft. plaza area in the retail Area B. • They have also added additional requirements that will hopefully create a more unique, pedestrian friendly retail area that will compliment and connect with the apartments. Active Transportation: • Sidewalks are shown throughout the development, and the developer has added additional connections per staff’s request. • They have provided a separate sidewalk and bike path exhibit so that it is clear where the pedestrian infrastructure is. • The PUD requires the developer to seek approval for a signalized crosswalk across Michigan Road. • The PUD has been updated to require short-term and long-term bike parking. Architectural Design: • The PUD includes Architectural Character Imagery with modern style apartment buildings that appear to have quality building materials and well-designed architecture. • Architectural requirements are now included in the PUD. • Maximum building height per the PUD is 60 ft. and the apartment buildings will be 3 and 4 stories. • The future retail outlot will follow the Michigan Road design standards. Landscaping: • About 5 acres of the development will be common area. • Required amenities are listed in the PUD and include a pool, fitness area, roof terrace, and pet park. • Native vegetation shall be provided around a minimum of 40% of the perimeter of the pond. • A minimum of 2 acres of tree preservation will be provided in the northwest corner of the site. • 10 ft. bufferyards will be provided along the north and west perimeter. • Foundation and parking lot plantings will comply with the standards in the UDO. Signage: • All signage will comply with the UDO. Sustainability Measures and Affordable Housing: • The petitioner has stated they are not able to commit to green or sustainable site or building design aspects at this time. • Also, they have stated that as a market-rate multi-family operator, they do not have experience with affordable housing and are not agreeable to offering below market housing for this development. 7 March 18th Public Hearing Recap: The petitioner presented the concept plan, conceptual building architecture, and an additional rendering of the development. A neighboring business to the south spoke in favor of the development and several letters were received before the meeting in support. Plan Commission members had questions about how many bedrooms were in each unit, what will it look like at night, potential for workforce housing, and if the list of uses in B-3 could be reduced for this PUD. They also wanted to see a walking path or amenity area by the tree preservation area, architectural standards, and a well-designed, destination retail area on the Area B outlot. The Plan Commission voted to send the project to the PC Committee with the final vote back at full Plan Commission. April 1st Committee Meeting Recap: Petitioner presented updates to the project. Avison Young, consultant for the developer, gave an overview of their market analysis of the feasibility of multi-family use versus industrial use on this site. The Plan Commission members asked about the signalized crosswalk across Michigan Rd., if the RCI Globe could be saved as art on the site, and about any prohibited uses for the retail. There was also discussion about the layout of the retail area with some favoring more visually appealing buildings along Michigan Rd. and others favoring a plaza that connects to the boulevard, and parallel parking along the internal drive between the retail and apartments. The Plan Commission also wanted to make sure that what was shown in the images for the architecture and the streetscape (including the brick pavers) is what gets built. PC Committee voted to send the project to the next PC Committee on May 6th. May 6th Committee Meeting Recap: Petitioner presented updates to the project, including an updated boulevard cross section, excluded uses in the retail area, updated retail layouts, updated architectural standards, and willingness to attempt to save the RCI globe. The Plan Commission asked about the co-working amenity, if a drive-thru was still allowed, are there any ADA accessible units, can they have a conversation with other groups that have done some affordable/attainable units, and what will the retail site look like during apartment construction. PC Committee voted 6-0 favorable recommendation back to the full Plan Commission. DOCS Remaining Comments/Concerns: The Petitioner has made many changes to the PUD and addressed the majority of staff comments. We only have 3 final comments to tighten up the wording in the PUD. 1. Sec.4.3.D.2: Add wording related to the saving the RCI Globe, that the developer will explore incorporating the globe within the site, during the DP/ADLS process. 2. Sec.4.3.D.2: The 150 day timeline for the city to find a home for the globe (should the developer not be able to place it on site) should start when the developer files for DP/ADLS, not when they take possession of the Real Estate. 3. Sec. 6.2.D: Regarding the colored concrete crosswalks, wording should be added to require this. The way it is written now, it doesn’t seem required. Recommendation: After all comments are addressed, the Dept. of Community Services recommends that the Plan Commission votes to send this item to the City Council with a Favorable Recommendation.