Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 06-21-11 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT June 21,2011 1. Docket No. 11020013 DP /ADLS: Woodland Terrace CCRC. The applicant seeks site plan design approval for a continuing care retirement community (CCRC) on approximately 7 acres. The application also seeks the following zoning waiver request: 2. 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 St. 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 acres. Proposed are 185 units total: 59 assisted living and 126 independent living units, with a skilled nursing care rehabilitation component. In the ordinance Appendix A: Schedule of Uses, a CCRC is not listed, so it was determined that the Nursing/Retirement /Convalescent Facility land use would be used when referring to permitted land uses. This land use is permitted in the B -6 zoning district, and is not excluded from the US 31 Overlay Zone. Please view the petitioner's information packet for further detail on the project. As proposed, no BZA variances are needed for this project. 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 call out a build -to line specifically for Smokey Row Road. The Department is in support of this 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 Zone. 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 pond 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). With the initial 1990 rezone, some of the commitments made were to keep a 50 -ft wide greenbelt area along the east side of the site and that building heights are 50 -ft. maximum. If this commitment were not in place, the permitted building height would be 100 -ft. (The Zoning Ordinance defines Building Height as: The vertical distance from the lot ground level to the highest point of the roof for a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof and to the mean height between eaves and ridges for gable, hip and gambrel roofs.. Also, the parapet that screens the rooftop mounted equipment is not counted towards the total building height) Tree Preservation/Landscaping: The updated landscape plan, tree preservation plan, and tree preservation plan best management practices (BMP's) language have been approved by the City Forester. The petitioner has gone above and beyond the tree preservation best management practices, as well as preserving more trees than is required by the US 31 Overlay regulations. The site is about 1.45 acres (or 20.5 of tree preservation area on 7 acres. Again, within these areas, 100% of the trees are preserved, and not just 70% of all trees that are 9 -inch DBH (diameter at breast height) or larger and located within the greenbelt. (The US 31 Overlay regulations only require that the Landscape Plan preserves not less than 70% of all trees that are a.) 9 -inch DBH (diameter at breast height) or larger, and b.) Located within the greenbelt, planting strips, and perimeter buffers.) Overall, the site will be 46.5% green space planting areas, which exceeds the Overlay Ordinance requirement of 35 Since the last committee meeting, the petitioner revised the landscape plan to add several trees /shrubs to the east side of the building, west of the 50 -ft wide tree preservation area, to add 3 IF to the visual buffer, even during the winter months. Drainage of the Site/Area: (From the Engineering Dept. on May 16.) We understand there have been additional questions asked regarding the drainage for the proposed Woodland Terrace. The current plan proposes to collect and convey the majority of the site to the south and then into the existing detention facility; bypassing Kensington Place. The Kensington Place development anticipated storm water runoff from a certain portion of the property to the west. This is evidenced by the existing contours and the inlet provided at the low spot about two thirds of the way up the western property line. Most of the acreage that presently drains into Kensington Place is being modified with development to drain to another outfall. The acreage draining from the west into Kensington Place is being reduced, and the peak runoff rate in the proposed condition is less than the existing condition. The portion of the Woodland Terrace site that will continue to drain into Kensington Place is composed primarily of the 50 -foot wide tree buffer area. Besides a reduction in the water shed that drains through this area into Kensington Place, the 50 -foot wide tree preservation area will remain unaffected by the development. The drainage plan and supporting calculations of Woodland Terrace is subject to final construction plan review by the Engineering Dept. staff before any construction permits are issued. The current drainage plan is consistent with the master drainage plan for the Pro -Med development. May 4 Committee Meeting Recap: There was discussion about all topics brought up at the public hearing, and the petitioner also addressed all items listed in the May 4 department report. The petitioner presented additional info about the garage design, comparisons of grade changes and height differences, the retaining wall design, and screening of electric meters. There was a question about the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and actual acreage of the site, and there was also some discussion by the committee to possibly shift the building to the west, in order to help with construction equipment not encroaching into the tree preservation area and to help with the building not `looming' over the Kensington neighborhood. (But, most likely, this was cause the need to seek several variances and waivers.) Then end result was a Committee vote of 3 -1 favorable recommendation, with the conditions to `strengthen' the tree preservation plan best management practices (BMP's) language and plan and to present a zoning waivers option/site plan to the plan commission to possibly shift the building west, to even further protect the '50 -ft wide tree preservation area (but would cause the need for several waiver requests). Update: After reviewing the site plan for possibilities to move the building west, away from Kensington Subdivision, the petitioner is only able to move the building between 3 to 5 feet, and that would have to be with the plan commission's approval of several zoning waivers. In an effort to try to increase the buffer view in lieu of moving the building, the petitioner will add additional landscaping along the east side of the building (the west side of the 50 -ft wide tree preservation area) to enhance the view from Kensington, even in winter months. The landscape designer worked with the City Forester to select plants which will grow well in a shaded area, such as this buffer area. Staff's Outstanding Continents for the Petitioner: 1. Note: Petitioner will eventually 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.). (This will be reviewed administratively.) 2. On the construction plans, please continue the short segment of 5 -ft wide sidewalk to the south property line, along Pro Med Drive, south of the southernmost entry drive. 3. The Carmel Dept. of Engineering (DOE) is close to approving the plans and ask that, if this petition is approved, there is a condition of Engineering Department's approval of the final construction documents: a) A traffic study is not 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. (The original traffic study in 2008 accounted for a hotel with conference center and an office building, which are considered more intense uses. Since then, there have also been improvements to the intersection of Smokey Row Old Meridian Street.) b) DOE has no comment related to the access from 136 Street for deliveries and for emergency access; 4 Y 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. i) A small amount of additional road right -of -way along the 136 Street frontage needs to be dedicated. Recommendation: It is DOCS' professional opinion that this project meets the quantitative requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. After all comments /concerns are addressed, the Dept of Community Services (DOCS) recommends that the Commission votes to approve this item, with the condition of: the Engineering Department's approval of the final construction documents. Note: Findings of Fact must be submitted by the petitioner and signed by the Plan Commission president. 5