Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 03-18-03 CARMEL/CLAY PLJ DEPARTMENT REPORT March 18, 2003 511. Docket No. 32-03 Z; 11300 Block of North Michigan Road (B-2 Rezone) The petitioner seeks to rezone a Parcel,from 8-1 Residential to B-2/Business. The 14.826 acre site is located along the east side of Michigan Road % mile north of 1 06th Street. Filed by Steve Pittman of Pittman Partners. 6h. Docket No. 33-03 Z; 11300 Block of North Michigan Road (R-4 Rezone) The petitioner seeks to rezone a Parcel from S-1 Residential to R-4lResidential. The 20 acre site is located along the east side of Michigan Road Y2 mile north of 1061h Street. Filed by Steve Pittman of Pittman Partners. The applicant is proposing to rezone approximately 35 acres from the S-l/Residential classification to aB-2lBusinessand R-4/Residential. The applicant has provided an information packet including the development requirements for each zone and several renderings. However, there is nothing to back up the renderings with a guarantee. The petition as filed is for B-2 and R-4 zoning. While the B-2 area within the US 421 Overlay would have to meet the overlay requirements there is nothing in the application regulating design of the remainder of the commercial area. ill addition, the concept for the residential component is just that, a concept. Nothing has been proposed by the applicant that would prevent the residential portion of the site from being developed in any matmer available under the R-4 standards. That approach is not something the Department will support. The applicant needs to offer commitments that clarifY their intent or let the Plan Commission know that they are just providing the renderings as a representation of what may be done on the property, if rezoned. Permitted uses such as a Mobile home court being a permitted special use under the R-4 zoning may not be something the Commission or adjoining residents are open to. It may not be the intent of the petitioner to develop the property in this manner but they have not closed the door on the potential for such a project. This issue along with other development standards and commitments are addressed later in this report. With that said the Department feels that a proposal of the nature described with the informational booklet is appropriate for this site. The proposed residential component offers a single-family attached transition between the retail and single-family detached neighborhood to the south and east. The renderings displayed offer a charac,ter and quality exceeding that required under the existing S-1 zoning and the petitioner presents an opportunity to the Plan Commission and City C01:ll1cil to review the site from a comprehensive approach allowing the ability to seek addition architectural and site improvements not typically provide if the applicant was simply proposing to plat the area outside the overlay as a single-fami~y subdivision. - next page - Docket No. 32-03 Z & 33-03 ; 11300 Block of North Michigan Road (B-2 & R-4 Rezone) - Continued The following issues need to be fully addressed by the petitioner, for review by the Plan Commission, prior to forwarding this proposal to the City Council for [mal action: 1, Permitted uses: If Townhomes are what they want then the discussion should be limited to Multiple-family dwellings by way of commitment. 2, Setbacks I buffers: Adequate buffer yard standards should be determined. There is nothing that prevents the applicant from clearing the site after the rezone is approved. While I am sure that is not their intent the fact is that they may flip the parcel once it is rezoned and we want standards to run with the land not relying on verbal representations made by a petitioner. 3. Architectural Designs I building materials: What do the other three sides of the residential buildings look like? Are they of the same materials? Is the applicant willing to commit to specific materials and design~? 4. Design Review for the commercial area: The Department requests that the applicant commit to application of the US 421 Overlay Zone requirements for the entire commercial area. This will provide for consistent design across the conunercial area and provide a simple guarantee to the Plan Commission of a standard they are familiar and comfortable with. 5. Maximum heights: Do height limitations want to be established that create a transition from the typical1y two story structures along the perimeter of the site allowing three story within the interior ofthe site. 6. Site Layout: Is the layout proposed by the applicant the best for the site. Are they committing to retum to the Commission with at primary plat. This feature would provide greater discretion by the Plan Commission regarding the final layout. In addition, specific commitments could be made to address the characteristics of community proposed by the applicant. 7. Access: Where the best locations for access to the site are? l-Iow many stubs are necessary? etc. While this is not an exhaustive list of the issues that need additional analysis I believe it provides for a reasonable basis for discussion at the hearing Tuesday evening and direction for the Committee. The Department is requesting that the Plan Commission forward these petitions to the Subdivision Committee for further discussi()n and consideration on April 3 r . We would also like to request, based on the significant level of additional information necessary for the petitioner to accurately convey the proposal, that the Public Hearing be left open. This will allow the public the opportunity to comment more effectively once additional information is submitted. One CivfoSqucre Carmel, IN 4SC32 (317) 57~ .:2417 . Fax: (31 7) S7~ -2426 F;3)C Pdgi!S~ from: '-- Phone: D..:f: e~ Re: CC~ o Urgent 0 For Review 0 Please Comment 0 P[ease Reply o Please Recyele ~I ;; //7 P p-eA~ ~M~^,~~ fJ~ :f>~e)W0 c<J2 //3 a? '1 ~~~;tz