HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 05-04-11 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
DEPARTMENT REPORT
MAY 4, 2011
9 -10. Docket No. 11020013 DP /ADLS: Woodland Terrace CCRC.
The applicant seeks site plan design approval for a continuing care retirement community (CCRC) on 7 acres.
The application also seeks the following zoning waiver request:
Docket No. 11030006 ZW: Ordinance Chapter 23.08.01.D: front building setback. The site is located at
136 Street and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B-6/Business, within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by
Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger, on behalf of Justus Homes, Inc.
The applicant seeks site and design approval to construct a 4 -story tall Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC)
on 7.1 acres. Proposed are 185 units total 59 assisted living and 126 independent living units. Please view the
petitioner's information packet for further detail on the project.
No BZA variances are needed, thus far. However, there is a zoning waiver request to clarify the front yard building
setback, since the US 31 overlay zone requirements are slightly unclear as to what the front setback is, as it does not
specifically call out a build to line for Smokey Row Rd. The Department is in support of the zoning waiver request.
Context:
The site is located east of the intersection of Old Meridian Street and US Highway 31, at the intersection of Pro Med
Drive and Smokey Row Road (136 Street). The site lies partially within the US Highway 31 Corridor overlay. It is
adjacent to and just west of the Kensington Place Condominiums (zoned R -4). BehaviourCorp and the Pro Med offices
are located just south and west of this site. Divas Salon and a few homes are located just north of this site. Meadowlark
Park is located southeast of this site.
History of site:
The US 31 Corridor overlay zone was established in 1980, and this site was rezoned from R- 2/Residence to B-6/Business
in 1990. Several other recent projects have appeared before the Commission for this site, such as Jackson Square PUD
(denied by Council), Justus Office Building (approved), and Holiday Inn hotel (denied).
April 19 Public Hearing recap:
Many residents of Kensington Place voiced their concerns. The concerns are about the CCRC definition (state vs. local
ordinance), the building axis, the reaction time of elderly drivers that would utilize this development, wildlife and tree
preservation, stormwater, grading, drainage, US 31 Overlay regulations and intent, and the Findings of Fact associated
with Holiday Inn project denial.
At the May 4 committee meeting, the Plan Commission would like to see the following items addressed:
a) Concern of parking potential for banked parking for possible future need.
b) Garage design makes them look like mini warehouses look at changing them.
c) The potential for more green space, such as lakes, parks, and enhanced connection to Meadowlark Park.
d) Stormwater questions about where it goes and how it impacts the neighbors
e) Missing sidewalk portion along Pro Med, south of southernmost drive.
f) Need more detail on the existing commitments and the tree preservation area.
g) Want clarification of CCRC: how the Carmel Zoning Ordinance definition differs from how the State defines it.
h) How to deal with the tree preservation areas and bull dozers getting into them.
i) What is the non access easement (n.a.e.) for?
j) Need to see a visual of the grade changes and height differences with the adjacent sites and buildings.
k) Employees vs. contracted workers of the CCRC?
1) Temporary loss of parking spaces while garages are being constructed.
13
Staff's Outstanding Comments for the Petitioner:
1. Remember to include the Development Plan application's Findings of Fact sheet in your final info packets.
2. Petitioner will need to submit a Replat application, in order to combine the two platted lots into one, to remove the
middle property line, and also to remove part of the non access easement (n.a.e.).
3. Details are needed about the 4 -ft wall and variable height retaining wall/screen wall design, color, etc.
4. DOCS would like to revisit this item at committee level, because a variance might be required: Per the US
31 overlay ordinance, any attached or detached Accessory Building shall have on all sides the same
building proportions, architectural features, construction materials, and in general be architecturally
compatible with the Principal Building(s) with which it is associated. (The Committee needs to determine
whether or not your final garage architecture is acceptable.)
5. The Carmel Dept. of Engineering (DOE) is still reviewing the plans:
a) A traffic study will not be required. DOE analysis has determined the use will generate less traffic than
the uses previously proposed for the real estate, and that further study should not be required.
b) DOE has no comment related to the access from 136 Street for deliveries and for emergency access;
traffic associated with deliveries is expected to be low volume.
c) DOE is still working through the drainage approval; but the overall management plan is consistent
with the master plan of the development.
d) DOE and the petitioner have discussed compliance with the City's 20 -year Thoroughfare Plan. These
discussions are on- going.
e) DOE supports the removal of the "cul -de- bulb" on Pro -Med Lane.
f) DOE supports the location of the path on the east side of Pro -Med Lane.
g) Provided that the proposed signage at the entrance does not affect safe stopping sight distance, DOE
supports the location of the sign within the existing right -of -way. The petitioner has indicated that
they will consider pursuing vacation of the right -of -way associated with the "cul -de- bulb If such
right -of -way is vacated, the sign will not encroach in the right -of -way.
h) The Stormwater Quality plan is consistent with the previous version of this plan. DOE is still working
through approval of the proposed system.
Recommendation:
After all comments /concerns are addressed, the Dept of Community Services (DOCS) recommends that Subdivision
Committee forwards this item to the May 17 Plan Commission meeting.
14