HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT REPORT
July 19, 2011
1 -2. 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 (Smokey Row Rd.) 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.
Introduction: 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. 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 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. Overall, the site will be 49% green space, trees planting areas, which exceeds the Overlay
Ordinance requirement of 35 The latest site plan shows about 1.65 acres (or 23 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.)
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.
July 5 July 12 Committee Meeting Recap: The proposal now proposed differs from that originally heard by the Plan
Commission on April 19 in these ways:
1. The entire building has been relocated slightly farther to the south/west on the lot. This creates 10 additional feet
between the east side of the building, which space Justus now includes in the Tree Preservation Area (TPA), making
the TPA 60 feet wide between the building and Kensington Place (KP) and 118 feet between the south parking
lot/garage and the KP property line. (See Tab 1 of the info packet.)
2. The building height has been reduced along KP by eliminating the east half of the fourth story of the wing running
alongside KP. (See Tab 1; Tab 3 of the info packet.)
3. Mechanical equipment located on the lowered area has been moved to roof of the fourth floor (farther from KP and
behind the parapet wall) to reduce its noise impact on KP. (Tab 3 of the info packet.))
4. This part of the building is further reduced in height by replacing the 10 -foot mansard/architectural parapet wall on
the Kensington side of that wing with a 20 -inch crown molding feature instead. (See Tab; Tab 7 of the info packet.)
5. The remaining parapet walls in all other locations have been scaled back to 8 feet in height, from 10 feet, still
permitting the faux gables to remain without appearing outsized on the parapet. (Tab 3 of the info packet.)
6. The roof of the third floor along KP (where half of the fourth floor was removed) might be developed as a rooftop
greenspace. (Tab 2) If it is, then an additional railing would be added on the east roo.fline. (Tab 7)
a. This concept was suggested by the committee on 7/5 committee; at the 7/12 meeting, it seemed it had been given
more than lip service by the petitioner, but plans /engineering weren't mature enough for them to commit yet.
7. To accommodate the building's relocation farther south and west, these parking field changes also were made:
a. South of the building, remove one garage and slide the other two to the West (adds 58 feet in width to the TPA
which starts at the east building line of the long garage).
b. :Remove one parking garage from the south end of the building.
c. Among the four garages on the NW portion of the site, reduce the E -W length of the southern-most garage.
d. In the NW portion, added surface spaces on both sides (top and left) of the very NW corner of the site.
8. Change assisted living units from 59 to 65, .Independent living from 126 to 120. Also change in mix of 2BR, 1BR., and
Studios. Total number of units remains at 185, and total parking spaces required and provided remains 173.
The petitioner also submitted a profile showing how the project's modified outline and location compares to what was
previously approved for the Justus Office building. It shows a profile along KP•that is meaningfully lower (and farther
away from KP) than the office building would have been, than the zoning ordinance allows and than the original proposal
for this project contemplated (Tab 5). A related point is the concept of light/air impacts on KP; both petitioner and KP
provided independently engineered depictions of wintertime afternoon shadows from the building that were very similar
in their results, showing minimal if any shadows cast beyond the Justus property line. (Tab 6)
New commitments include a requirement that the courtyard be constructed as part of Phase 1, if construction is phased.
Also, if phased, Phase 1 will include units facilitating all three levels of care, Phase 2 footprint will be grass lawn until
construction begins, and the exterior walls of the Phase 1 building where Phase 2 will connect/start will be constructed for
easy demolition when Phase 2 is added. (The committee asked for a rendering next week depicting how this will appear
and the caveat that if Phase 2 never happens, we still expect this wall to appear "complete" and have design integrity now,
as initially constructed in Phase 1. This is an open item to be resolved in the PC meeting.)
Lastly, one remonstrator asked /suggested the balconies along KP be fully inset to reduce their "impact" on KP and further
reasoned that this would reduce construction costs, but also reducing the interior square footage of each unit. Petitioner
was wary of the idea, but a committee member committed to put the idea before the full PC for consideration.
The "is it really a CCRC" issue was addressed by the committee remaining focused on the definition of CCRC in the
zoning ordinance, as opposed to personal intellectual or experience- ha.sed interpretations of a CCRC. Indirectly, Judy and
John's site visits and escorted tour of two other Justus properties (and Brad's multiple drive- throughs of Crestwood
Village North) did little to nothing to make the committee feel able to challenge the petition on those grounds.
8
The item was forwarded to the full Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation vote of 3 -1, and with the proposed
C:'ommitments.
Potential Ordinance Amendment: Here is some additional information in light of Woodland Terrace CCRC going back
to Committee and the discussion regarding a potential amendment of building heights in the US 31 Overlay.
Timeline:
June 1985 Kensington Place Rezone: R2 -R4 (Z -207, 17 -85 Z)
1989 Kensington Place Subdivision Platted
August 1990 Tri- County/Pro Med Rezone: R2 -B6 (Z -252, 40 -90 Z)
1996 US 31 Task Force Established, begins process of recommending changes to the US 31 Overlay Zone
Dec. 1997 US 31 Height Regulations amended to include 40% distance requirement from any residential property
line (Z -324, 80 -97 OA)
June 1999 US 31 Height Regulations amended to increase height between I -465 131 and stipulate 40%
distance from S -2 R -1 residential. (Z -334, 105 -98 OA)
May 2000 US 31 Height Regulations amended the 40% distance text to apply to any residential use/ zone. (Z -340)
Considerations, Should an Ordinance Amendment Occur:
1. Should the 40% distance from residential caveat supersede the underlying zoning height maximums? B -5 and B-
6 districts outside of the Overlay do not carry that restriction.
a. B -5 45' (80' when in overlay between I -465 131
b. B -6 100' (150' when in overlay between I -465 131st
2. Should the 40% distance from residential caveat supersede minimum building heights?
a. 38'/3 occupiable floors along US 31 I -465
b. 26'/2 occupiable floors along adjoining streets such as Pennsylvania Illinois Streets.
Staff's Outstanding Comments 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 offer these comments:
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; 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 discussed compliance with the 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.
i) A small amount of additional road right -of -way along the 136 Street frontage needs to be dedicated.
Recommendation: The Dept of Community Services (DOCS) recommends that the Plan Commission approves this
item with the conditions of: 1.) the Engineering Department's approval of the final construction documents and 2.)
providing DOCS with a copy of the recorded commitments. (Findings of Fact must be submitted by the petitioner and
signed by the Plan Commission president.)
9