Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence: J Hagan Review Comments 4-11-11 Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 2:32 PM To: Dorman, Jay; 'Bradford S Grabow (brad.grabow +cpc ©gmail.com)'; 'irizarryhm ©Iilly.com'; 'ephraimwilfong ©gmail.com'; 'Steve Lawson (indylawson ©gmail.com)' Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; 'John Molitor'; Hancock, Rarnona B; Hagan, Judy Subject: FW: Letter to Chair Steve Stromquist with Bridges PUD concerns attached Attachments: The Bridges PUD Ordinance Concerns.doc Good afternoon, Subdivision Committee members: Judy asked that I send this email and attachment to all of you. (The Special Studies Committee members received this on April 11.) Thanks, Angie Conn, Planning Administrator P: 571 -2281 From,: r172jff sbcg net [mailto =r172Aksbcgloba..net]. Sent: Moriday,•'April 11, 2011 3:28 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: Letter to Chair Steve Stromquist .with Bridges PUD concerns attached Dear Steve, Thank you for soliciting comments 'and concerns about The Bridges PUD from Plan Commission members who do not serve on your committee. Twill not be able to attend the April 12 Special Studies Subcommittee meeting and appreciate the opportunity to comment on the PUD and submit questions. First I'll comment on thedocuinentsI rely on as a Plan Commission member,as.thePUD is examined. An impression seems to have been created that this is a special study area in a vacuum. In fact, the opposite is true. ,A,Special Study Area was established because a number of interests intersect on this property. The Comprehensive Plan and..a variety of studies over the years give direction and guidance reflecting expectations of 'residents and along one of the finest residential corridors in Carmel and Indianapolis. 1988 Spring Mill Road: Residential Corridor Ordinance 1997 U.S. 31 Development Plan Strategies 2001 Illinois Corridor Aligmment'Ordinance 2003 Clarian PUD 2005 West 116' Street Overlay Zone Ordinance 2009 C3 Comprehensive Plan and Thoroughfare Plan 2009 U.S..31 Strategic Plan Task force Draft A11.of;these documents inform the discussion and correctly note that this is a special area where a number of "edges" collide. Further,, while none of these documents support this PUD, they do provide guidance and ways to resolve the issues raised by this proposal. I hope that everyone has access to the information in all of these documents. Pages 7, 9 and 86 of the Comprehensive Plan provide the underpinnings for discussion. Second, though I do not claim to beparticularly knowledgeable about the economics of grocery stores or drug stores or retail in general, I am familiar with the abandoned stores in our community and the vacant store fronts. I feel it is imperative that any retail or services be oriented to and located on Illinois Street so that 10 to 15 years from now, when the grocery company wants to move somewhere else or the small establishments change, they can more easily be re- purposed or retrofitted for something useful but not negatively impact the existing residential areas. Nobody wants t� be responsible for an abandoned grocery on Spring Mill Road, one Page 1 of 2 Hancock, Ramona B From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 4:06 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Cc: 'Dierckman, Leo'; 'nkrental @aol.com'; Rider, Kevin D; 'Stromquist, Steve'; 'Suewestermeier @aol.com'; 'John Molitor'; Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: FW: Letter to Chair Steve Stromquist with Bridges PUD concerns attached Hi Ramona'- please print out paper copies of this email and its attachment for the Committee members for Tuesday night's meeting. I will forward them email. -Angie Conn, Planning Administrator` From: rl72jf @sbcglobal.net [mailto:r172jf @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 3:28 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: Letter to Chair Steve Stromquist with Bridges PUD concerns attached Dear Steve, Thank you for soliciting comments and concerns about The Bridges PUD from Plan Commission members who do not serve on your committee. I will not be able to attend the April 12 Special Studies Subcommittee meeting and appreciate the opportunity to comment on the PUD and submit questions. First I'll comment on the documents I rely on as a Plan Commission member as the PUD is examined. An impression seems to have been created that this is a special study area in a vacuum. In fact, the opposite is true. A Special Study Area was established because a number of interests intersect on this property. The Comprehensive Plan and a variety of studies over the years give direction and guidance reflecting expectations of residents and developers along one of the finest residential corridors in Carmel and Indianapolis. 1988 Spring Mill Road Residential Corridor Ordinance 1997 U.S. 31 Development Plan Strategies 2001 Illinois Corridor Alignment Ordinance 2003 Clarian PUD 2005 West 116 Street Overlay Zone Ordinance 2009 C3 Comprehensive Plan and Thoroughfare Plan 2009 U.S. 31 Strategic Plan Task Force Draft All of these documents inform the discussion and correctly note that this is a special area where a number of "edges" collide. Further, while none of these documents support this PUD, they do provide guidance and ways to resolve the issues raised by this proposal. I hope that everyone has access to the information in all of these documents. Pages 7, 9 and 86 of the Comprehensive Plan provide the underpinnings for discussion. 4/11/2011 Judy Hagan review comments, Bridges PUD From: r Hagan, Judy Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 3:28 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: Letter to Chair Steve Stromquist with Bridges PUD concerns attached Attachments: The Bridges PUD Ordinance Concerns.doc Dear Steve, Thank you for soliciting comments and concerns about The Bridges PUD from Plan Commission members who do not serve on your committee. I will not be able to attend the April 12 Special Studies Subcommittee meeting and appreciate the opportunity to comment on the PUD and submit questions. First I'll comment on the documents I rely on as a Plan Commission member as the PUD is examined. An impression seems to have been created that this is a special study area in a vacuum. In fact, the opposite is true. A Special Study Area was established because a number of interests intersect on this property. The Comprehensive Plan and a variety of studies over the years give direction and guidance reflecting expectations of residents and developers along one of the finest residential corridors in Carmel and Indianapolis. 1988 Spring Mill Road Residential Corridor Ordinance 1997 U.S. 31 Development Plan Strategies 2001 Illinois Corridor Alignment Ordinance 2003 Clarian PUD 2005 West 116 Street Overlay Zone Ordinance 2009 C3 Comprehensive Plan and Thoroughfare Plan 2009 U.S. 31 Strategic Plan Task Force Draft All of these documents inform the discussion and correctly note that this is a special area where a number of "edges" collide. Further, while none of these documents support this PUD, they do provide guidance and ways to resolve the issues raised by this proposal. I hope that everyone has access to the information in all of these documents. Pages 7, 9 and 86 of the Comprehensive Plan provide the underpinnings for discussion. Second, though I do not claim to be particularly knowledgeable about the economics of grocery stores or drug stores or retail in general, I am familiar with the abandoned stores in our community and the vacant store fronts. I feel it is imperative that any retail or services be oriented to and located on Illinois Street so that 10 to 15 years from now, when the grocery company wants to move somewhere else or the small establishments change, they can more easily be re- purposed or retrofitted for something useful but not negatively impact the existing residential areas. Nobody wants to be responsible for an abandoned grocery on Spring Mill Road, one of our premier residential corridors. If the attraction of the location for a grocery and other retail/service amenities is to serve the U.S. 31 Corridor, then they should be oriented to Illinois Street with a traditional streetscape. Third, the subject of traffic. Spring Mill Road has a unique challenge in that it is the only residential corridor in Carmel located in close proximity to a limited access highway, soon to be a freeway. It is natural that great thought needs to be given to how transition is made from the premier U. S. 31 Corridor to the equally premier Spring Mill Road residential corridor. The goal should be minimization of traffic generation on Spring Mill Road. A sea of asphalt parking lot studded with buildings is not a plan for traffic minimization and demonstrates that the proposal will generate rather than mitigate traffic issues. Residential use which would provide live /work neighborhoods and sustainable retail and service uses is in fact limited by the PUD. 1 Based on all the studies and conversation both formal and informal over the many years, this is not the proposal that might have been expected. Now the Plan Commission is tasked with making sure that this proposal serves the interests of all. I have attached my specific questions to date about the PUD ordinance language. Thank you for incorporating those questions into your deliberations. Thank you, Judy Hagan The Bridges PUD Ordinance Section 1 Applicability of Ordinance 1.2 If conflict between PUD and Zoning Ordinance and issue not addressed in PUD, what happens? Does that mean no standard? Section 2 Definitions and Rules of Construction 2.2 (i) clarify how uses in Exhibit 4 may otherwise be defined in PUD. 2.2 (iii) what "other capitalized terms" are in the PUD? Define Architectural Review Board? It is not required by the PUD. 2.2 Review definition of Blocks and ability to enlarge or reduce size. 2.2 What impact could BZA filings have on PUD? 2.2 Concept Plan "may vary in all respects Only text then applies. 2.2 Conceptual Imagery "not intended to delineate exactly", designs will comply With Architectural Standards in Exhibit 6 which are pretty vague. 2.2 clarify Cultural and Entertainment Uses as listed in Exhibit 4. 2.2 Development Requirements: What ones may be missing from PUD? 2.2 Development Standards Matrix Exhibit 5 does not address internal circulation or pedestrian and bike 2.2 Office Uses: all 3 blocks can be office as permitted use. Nothing confirming residential use 2.2 Parking Space: why does not match Zoning Ordinance? 2.2 Signage: clarify how signage definitions differ from Sign Ordinance 25.07? Section 4 Corporate Office Use Block 4.1.13- Why are GFA Retail and Service Uses so limited in Corporate Office Use Block? 4.1.D- What part of Section 12 relates to the Permitted Uses in Corporate Office Use Block? 4.2 Concerns listed by exhibit number or Section number following 4.3- What does "property adjacent" refer to? Section 5 Office and Residential Use Block 5.(i) "may contain a mix of "Attached Dwellings" but no commitment to do so. Since the Definition of "Attached Dwellings" indicates could be owner occupied, which seems desirable, there should be a firm commitment to an owner occupied component in the PUD. 5.1- All Retail Service Uses and Cultural /Entertainment Uses in Commercial Amenity Block all permitted in Office Residential Use Block. This continues to limit the residential use component. Section 7 Landscaping Requirements 7.1.A. What is an "urban area Need some standards for planting spaces. 7.1.C. Take care on selection of ornamental grasses which should be native species. Non natives are escaping and becoming invasives. 7.2- Add section on timing of various landscape installations. 7.3.A Perimeter landscaping dimensions seem to actually be the same space described as the building set backs in Exhibit 5 Development Standards Matrix. It is not clear where all of the proposed buffering material can actually be planted. Could staff clarify with a cross section of a building showing setbacks and perimeter buffering described here? 7.3.13 If all these things can be included, there will not be planting room, nor a greenbelt. 7.3.G The PUD should include standards for internal buffering and street trees. 7.4.0 Clarify Street Trees are actually in ROW and maintained by City so how count toward the "perimeter buffer planting standards provided in Section 7.3 7.5.E Foundation plantings again seem to equal buffer planting requirements. 7.6- Parking lot plantings need review 7.8- Should be plan for comprehensive care of total landscape rather than individual parcels eventually. This raises the question of the internal street design and standards, internal pedestrian/bike plan, and street trees. Section 8 Lighting Requirements What are the differences between what the PUD proposes and the Zoning Ordinance standards? Why should the PUD differ? Section 9 Signne Requirements What are the differences between what the PUD proposes and the Zoning Ordinance standards? Why should the PUD differ? Section 10 Parking Requirements 10.1.A. Sea of asphalt currently. How many spaces actually needed? 10.1.G What is internal connection plan for both vehicles and pedestrian/bike? 10.1.H. Could staff draw a picture of this? 10.2 How does Off Street Loading and Service Area Requirements differ from Zoning Ordinance? Section 11— Pedestrian Circulation An internal plan and standards for bike and pedestrian connectivity is needed. Are internal streets private or public, curbed and guttered? Section 12 Use Limitations 12.1 Can staff demonstrate what 250,000 sq It of retail looks like? That figure does not include retail in other blocks. 12.2 Why residential limit of 350 units? Section 13 Additional Requirements and Standards Where these differ from Zoning Ordinance, what is the difference? 13.8 Right of Way Widths. 116 Street -PUD 60' half/Thoroughfare Plan calls for 75' half Illinois St. PUD 50'half/ Thoroughfare Plan calls for 60' half 111 St. PUD 75' half east of Illinois, 25'half Illinois to Spring Mill Road/ Thoroughfare Plan calls for 75' half east of Illinois/ 40' to 55' half Illinois to SMR Spring Mill RD PUD 50' half/Thoroughfare Plan calls for 40' half Reduced R.O.W. will mean less street tree space, less landscape buffering, less pedestrian/bike access. Section 14 Declaration(s) of Covenants and Owners Association(s) All of these items are "mays" not shalls. How are covenants enforced in absence of recording? What role does an Architectural Review Board play in guidelines? Section 15 Procedural Provisions 2 15.1 Question about second sentence "platting shall not create property lines to which setback or any other standards of this PUD shall be applied'. Clarify what that means. Over time, what happens? 15.2.13 The DP /ADLS only "satisfies the Development Requirements specified within this Bridges Ordinance If not listed, Plan Commission cannot require. 15.3.0 Clarify what modifications go to Plan Commission, which to Hearing Officer, which to Subcommittee? 15.4 Variances. Clarify what in a PUD can go to BZA? Section 16 Controlling Developer's Consent Clarify what happens if pieces of property sold off? Exhibit 6 Architectural Standards A quick review suggests that this section does not include very much in the way of concrete standards to measure a DP /ADLS. Lots of "mays Lots of "character of individual businesses "Flat roofs will be utilized in many instances Can staff recommend language that better articulates and defines the style proposed? Storm Water Management There is no storm water management plan or storm water use standards included in the PUD, nor impact on landscape buffer, plantings, utility locations, paths, sidewalks, greenbelt, etc.