HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 05-04-11 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE
DEPARTMENT REPORT
MAY 4, 2011
1.
'Docket No. 10120008 Z: The Bridges PUD
The applicant seeks approval to rezone 63.7 acres from S- 2/Residence to PUD/Planned Unit Development. The
site is located at 11405 Spring Mill Rd., at the southeast corner of 116 St. and Spring Mill Rd. Filed by Charlie
Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger, on behalf of G. B. Developers II, LLC.
The applicant seeks approval to rezone 63.7 acres from S -2 /Residence to PUD/Planned Unit Development. North of the
site is the Clarian North hospital development, east of the site are office buildings, south/southwest of the site are single
family dwellings, and west of the site is proposed to be a church. The US 31 Corridor Overlay Zone's west boundary is
that of future Illinois St. The proposed development is broken into three blocks: the commercial amenity use block, the
office and residential use block, and the corporate office use block. Please view the petitioner's latest information
packet for further detail on the revised PUD text, conceptual site plan, and conceptual character imagery.
April 12 Committee meeting recap: There was much discussion about the development standards and land uses for the
Office Residential Use Block. Screening for the southwest corner of the site, with trees and berms, was also discussed.
The committee also requested to see a plan that shows a 130,000 sq ft building, on the conceptual plan. The public also
voiced some comments and listed their outstanding concerns, but most of their concerns were relayed to the committee by
an attorney hired by the two closest neighborhoods to the subject parcel. Their major concerns were buffering and
building heights. The petitioner also provided an exhibit of items they will change in the PUD as a result of a prior
meeting they had with that attorney.
C3 Plan Guidance: The Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan "the C3 Plan adopted in May 2009, marks this site as an
area for special study. To this date, no official C3 Plan special study of this specific site has been conducted or adopted;
however, there are several studies of the US 31 Corridor and the Illinois Street Corridor that lend themselves to helping
guide development on this site. Also, the C3 Plan provides for a number of policy objectives which, in this instance, do
not offer concrete guidance, but they do help:
1. The C3 Plan does provide a matrix showing land classification compatibility, showing Best Fit and Conditional Fit
(see pg. 3).
2. The C3Plan also provides an objective to be sensitive to connectivity and transition between adjacent areas.
3. While another objective is to promote mixed use, compact development in areas suitable for commercial
development, the C3 Plan objectives also stress that we must protect residential areas from unsuitable commercial
development.
4. Another objective is to encourage diversity in housing types.
5. The C3 Plan also suggests that we must continue to build upon the economic benefits of the US 31 corridor by
further maximizing its development potential by encouraging new buildings to be constructed at maximum building
heights and encourage parking areas to be structured.
6. The C3 Plan also suggests that every trip to the store should not be a mandatory drive in the car. Residents should be
able to access daily goods by walking or bicycling.
7. The C3Plan lists high quality and well designed landscaping as an objective, along with requiring parking to be on
the rear and side of a property, and to utilize `green' building and low impact development.
All of these aspects should be considered when reviewing this rezone petition.
Context of the Subject Site:
1. Clarian North Hospital Planned Unit Development PUD (north of site) (employment node, urban residential, attached
residential, and neighborhood support center, neighborhood service node)
2. Fidelity Plaza office complex (east of site) (employment node)
3. Proposed Mormon Temple/Meetinghouse future suburban residential homes (west of site) (proposed institutional
node and suburban residential)
4. Residential neighborhoods (south, southwest, southeast, and northwest of site):
1
a) Williams Mill, zoned S -2, 47 lots on 20 acres density of 2.35 units /acre (suburban residential)
b) Spring Mill Place, zoned S -2, 51 lots on 50.6 acres density of 1 unit/acre (low intensity residential)
c) Meridian Suburban, zoned S -2, 57 lots on 26.2 acres density of 2.17 units /acre (suburban residential)
d) Estate land zoned S -2, on average 5 -10 acre parcels. (estate residential)
Transition (height, setback, land use, buffers):
Heights:
Single family detached homes to the south and west of the site are 1 -2 stories tall.
Office buildings east of the site are 6 stories tall, and additional buildings could be 150 -ft tall.
IU Health/Clarian North hospital is 6 -7 stories tall, and could be a maximum of 9 stories or 150 ft. and potential
additional buildings on the Clarian North site, along Springmill Rd., north of 116 St can be a maximum 40 -ft.
Proposed Mormon meeting house and temple west of the site is proposed to be 35 -ft tall, with 120 -ft tall spire.
The Bridges PUD proposes maxim um building heights of 3 stories or 38 feet, when adjacent to Springmill Rd. or
111 St.
Setbacks:
US 31 Overlay for this area calls for build to lines of 90 -ft from US 31, and along 116 Street the underlying zoning
dominates, where the building setbacks are: B6 60 -ft and S2 =35 -ft.
Clarian North PUD calls for building setbacks of: 200 -ft from US 31 116 St for hospital, 20 -ft from Illinois St;
15 -ft side yard. Area 2A (near Springmill 116 15 -ft front yard 30 -ft max. Area 2B, near Springmill Rd.&
116 St.: 15 -30 -ft front yard.
S- 2/Residence zoning calls for building, setbacks of: 35 -ft front, 10 -ft side, 20 -ft rear.
The Bridges PUD proposes a minimum 50 -ft building setback from Springmill Rd. or 111 St. within the Office
Residential Use Block, closest to the Williams Mill Spring Mill Place neighborhoods.
r+` 'lf' l tt o X' .y, r -`.f�aTF c 4iR.41 W>`
Adjacent Land Uses Appropriate Land Uses: ,E 4. 0 r el t 4 Ft t
i
4 4 cam 'e t
lt y N t ^vth�„ E: 1
Clarian North PUD: the land uses ermitted west of E X C s L U 0 a E i A r o l
p 116th f t 55 x, a PM i 1 tt r
Illinois St. east of Springmill Rd ',g
an north 11
o6 St. p A ,a
and iTd Rem Ze�nad S� ��`'1�t s t� 9c a s
known as areas 2 -A and 2 -B (see concept plan to the i PFr1 t A q W y
right) are 1 t 1 �s 1. y h x 4 G 'S�'
2 -A: Single family dwellings, two family dwellings, w i t r s l
multifamily townhomes, home occupations, or an o vt 1 e t ,�4' ry' 1
k r t- tr
assisted living facility. t 4r {p
xk .x 4'''`.!'"'":,'" 5, 1d a '',zy xr^ rT' r,-
2 -B: Single family dwellings, two-family dwellings, ,�>1 >h i '1.01'4. r g�� a :l* n r`
multifamily townhomes, assisted living facility, Child r 4. i t•
Care center, day nursery, medical office buildings 1 1 �`'2` 4 'r `t ,i4 x ih P
buildings, t,. st�`. 4"t wt� 1, 1> 45 .,Ff ✓i,.Y" t i a2
offices general service (limited to ground floor or 7 t
basement) retail limited, food services. (Here is a ;S``''`'1 dt� ,may t `t bi t
f �i i T p- A rt A y. �s[ j k
t 's'i t o g t'
website link to the Clarian North PUD ordinance Z -409-
u�Z71 er, r ���'Se} '�''�y� rz rZi i� s.,� +�c fi
�Y? y r y w kj �k�3{ q ;y 7 xv:,
03: P i o 4 a .4 a
h S t '4 4
http: /cocdocs.ci. Carmel. in. us/ Weblink /0 /doc /202192/Pagel.aspx)
1,E ,�i.� 1J 4 :110".:...‘ j ud t ti qi
S -2 Zoning: The S- 2/Residence zoning classification to; L Sl}ur"•. k i. h "k ra�,l l
permits Single Family dwellings and a Public Service ea t 4'VE t r i
Facility. Special Uses (uses looked upon favorably and yip fi ,�r 4 r 4 t t yII i
t {n A i .a i ,2 m Iffq...i.,A,it, ti q "d $f 4 �i l I
with BZA a roval would be: Clinic or Medical Health i 13 mot` ;t ,14 Center, Place of Worship, Library, Water Management s ���,x.�,, }L_� a r
Facility, College /School, Borrow Pit/Mineral x t qr tom" yel.VAra 1∎
st o r K j jx '�1Zi z 6,:v. y i if 7 i t i i I d u x i
Extraction, Greenhouse, Raising/Breeding of Non -farm -,s. 4, pil,,,
J e'fi' d 4 j �.+i *1'4t 1: t: ''r'"'. �yl .lit
animals, Recreational Facilities, Lake, Cemetery, and t 1 ft r., t4,, y w-
Tower. ti a W X V1$ -ft r w
2
The C3 Plan: The Comprehensive Plan contains a chart showing the best fit and conditional fit land uses. "Best Fit"
are classifications that are most suited for adjacency. "Conditional Fit" indicates land classifications that are suitable
for adjacency if the building orientation, transitions, and architecture are implemented with sensitivity to the context.
The third category are those adjacent land classifications shown as blank, neither C or B, which represent
classifications that are not typically appropriate adjacent to the subject classification and shown as a blank box. (The
neighborhoods surrounding the Bridges PUD site could be considered Suburban Residential or Estate Residential.)
ti
vs in
rr S
z
b
a s 2
0 t 1 'O Z" 3 m tr c m
a II
m m. ,e o 0 0 E ,n w°
m a a a E 11.! m
B b P CL
b r+ Ef m aq arc w° m a
Parts and Recreation x 8 a #4 8 yp x 8x 8x #1 8 w x i8kr t SAM t f.
.w,�..rcn,. _i,�� s�,a. ,x�� x s..� �s�,..P.r� x.$ 4 �i$�, ,�8,�.,�a ;'`�'�g .x.,8..v'�,2,8..�x'3 .r8...,
Estate Residential 8 �8s 8 ,I RI AD c
law Intensity Suburban Residential a1 8; t 8 Rae 0 C ,'C
Suburban Residential Ella s Ct" 8 KO igOgif C :85 tAl *OM 4 Cy a `i C
Urban Residential VA04, RA M 14` 3 B a TIX G C C KilW WE
Attached Residential 8 811t g0:51 1 8 EAR OTC d r z# g s g CAE C s" f8. &A �C
bleighborbood Supp+nrt Center ;i7;t:ov itm won 8 kflA itiAN
Neighborhood Service Node RBU A C C Vi8 i FAX; 401 MAN, r41-4
Institutional Node '4 -1 ,'.1.071 6 tgri 101A NB 44, 06 NIA t'�+' 8.``:042 Beta VAR KO.' 8
Community Vitattty NodB s.,.z f6 NS UV VAR NAV Ale
Employment Node WWII, C A OWE nia. £8 a 9 4 4.10 elAX 40 .`t:e'n
Regional Vitality Node KR C 5 Mal Mg ,8l i g
ore Support 8 is Czvxti s6v.�si i_ .8 I C?'it ..d. C,:". gru,'c -�8a }k s" a�.
Secondary Core ,.ag' C" a C t 8." o,.;C
Primary Core `"e
Ie1 Best Fit
I74,01 Conditional Fit
2020 Vision Plan: (prior comprehensive plan, where portions of the land use map still apply today in the southwest
Clay area). Per the 2020 Vision Plan, low intensity neighborhood areas could serve as a transition use between
medium intensity residential and very low intensity residential, or as a buffer between low intensity regional
employment areas, neighborhood commercial, central business districts and very low intensity residential.
Buffering/Landscaping:
The Bridges PUD spells out specific bufferyards which meet will meet the Bufferyard Regulations of the Zoning
Ordinance Chapter 26.04.
Zoning Ordinance, Buffervards: The Zoning Ordinance Chapter 26 addresses perimeter buffering to require
planting areas and bufferyards between and surrounding land uses. Those regulations are summed up in the table
below:
3
TABLE FOR BUFFERYARD DETERMINAI ION
0C 5 c 3 3 j ax,
Yc D .�11 g. rm ox a
A O w 0 C m, �z
a P r
SINGLE FAMILY B C C D D D D D C D D D
DEVELOPMENT
DUPLEX C A C B 8 C C D B D D D
DEVELOPMENT
MULTI- FAMILY C C 8 .B B_ C. C .D. "C D D D
DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVE D. B B A C C C C B D D D
RECREATION
INSTITUTIONAL D B B CA A C C B D D 0
OFFICE; RETAIL D C C CA A C D B" D D D
WAREHOUSE; D C C' C: C C A B B D D D
LT; INDUSTRY
HVY. INDUSTRY D D D C C D B' B B D D D
Bufferyard Design Standards in the table below are stated in terms of niuriitntun width and
number of plants required per one hundred linear foot increment_
BUFFERYARD MINIMUM YARD WIDTH SHADE TREES ORNAMENTAL TREES SHRUBS*
FRONT SIDE REAR
A 5' 10". 3 2 9
B 5' .10' 3 3 15
C 10' '20' 3 .4 21
D 15' 25' 5 5 27
*Evergreen trees uuay substitute in lieu of shrubbery, on a 1:3 basis (1 conifer equals three shrubs)
C3 Plan, Objective 2.2: Promote a high quality employment corridor along U.S. 31 and I 465 and utilize zoning
overlays, parks, and parkways to help buffer strong residential areas. The C3 Plan stresses buffering adjacent
residential uses from retail centers. Buffering can be anything from plantings to a wall to just distance between
buildings. It can even be a transition of land uses.
C3 Plan, Street Features: This section conveys the primary design standards that make each street classification
unique. The standards include: right -of- -way, maximum number of lanes, minimum lane width, curbs, sidewalks and
paths, on- street parking, street trees, and buffer plantings. Certain Street classifications (as shown on the
Thoroughfare Plan Map) shall be buffered from properties with plantings, berms or walls, that front on them.
Springmill Rd. is considered a Collector Street, 116 St. is considered a Primary Arterial, and Illinois St. is considered
a Secondary Parkway.
C3 Plan, US 31 Corridor Buffering: The Comp Plan stresses respecting transitions to adjacent neighborhoods and
require appropriate buffering. One US 31 Corridor strategy listed is to extend Illinois Street from 106th to 111th
2 Stor Home 3 Stor 'Bulldm 10 Stor Sul {din
Y g Y 9 8 Story Bulltling;
F 1 r Maximum Height When adjacent to rommerc+at s" a r�$ r:. y
106th Street and 11 1ih SUeec c
''Maximum Hegght Whenadjar em ro Restdentlal
mwiiG rte` x.
•r� �r� a
S `t r n a One- haifdtstance between
Spring )Road x i IInolSst f r US. 31 and IBMO6 St ROWS `us.3)
H between t r ti" r
ROW (100) r lf di
two streeROws a� d ROW t One Quartet distance betweens ROW [270) t
k n (130); y,I 06noIsStand US31RO.W.s
4
Street. As U.S. 31 is upgraded, Illinois Street will be necessary to provide north/south access to the employment
corridor on the west side of U.S. 31, as well as reduce traffic on Springmill Rd. Illinois Street also helps establish the
transition from intense office corridor to low density residential areas to the west. This diagram above suggests a scale
down 'of building height to the residential areas to the south and west, between 106 111 Streets, but can be used
as a guide for this rezone.
Staff's Comments:
During the past few months, the petitioner met with the Forestry Dept., Engineering Dept, and Planning Dept. staff
weekly, to address review comments, the PUD text, and the conceptual site plan. Topics discussed were land uses, traffic
flow, road improvements, pedestrian and bicycle accessibility, site plan layout, screening of parking, landscaping and
buffering, building architecture, lighting, signage, and much more.
Last week, the Planning/Zoning Dept. received the petitioner's redline copy of the revised PUD text. After being able to
review this redline version of the PUD with all amendments added, after gathering input from the Plan Commission
members, public, and Staff, there were a few additional changes that Staff wanted to see. These changes mostly pertain to
signage. To this date, Staff is now satisfied with PUD revisions presented to them as all of Staff's concerns are addressed.
A meeting held between the petitioner and staff on April 25 allowed for discussion on the last few clarifications needed,
mostly relating to signage. You will see that the dept. report mailed out to the Special Studies committee members
includes a letter from the petitioner addressing some signage clarifications in the PUD text that the Planning Dept.
requested earlier this week. These items (i) are primarily for clarification, (ii) have staff support, and (iii) were necessary
to make post submittal of the redline PUD text in the packet. Committee members should call Planning/Zoning staff if
they have any questions about these recent changes.
Recommendation:
The Dept of Community Services (DOCS) is inclined to support the PUD as amended, subject to final review and
comment by the Committee, and after outstanding issues and public concerns have been addressed to the Committee's
satisfaction. If inclined to do so, the Committee can forward this item back to the full Plan Commission (May 17
meeting), with a recommendation.
Note: the entire C3 Plan (Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan) can be viewed online at:
www.ci. carmel. in. us /services/DOCS/DOCSCompPlan.htm
5