HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 2-21-12 •
•
CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT REPORT
FEBRUARY 21, 2012
2. Docket No. 11120027 Z: Highpointe on Meridian PUD.
The applicant seeks approval to rezone 27 acres to PUD/Planned Unit Development for commercial, office, and
residential uses. The site is located at the southwest corner of 136`h St. &Illinois St. It is zoned B-5/Business
within the US 31 Corridor Overlay Zone. Filed by Paul Reis of Krieg Devault for Frank Regan, owner.
History of the Subject Site
This site was rezoned from S-2/Residential to B-5/Business in 1991, under Plan Commission docket no. 32-91 Z and City
Council Ordinance Z-262. Part of the rezone approval included the relocation of a gas pipeline, to be closer and parallel
to the road right of way of future Illinois Street. Also,most of the road right of way for the future Illinois Street was
dedicated to the City, as part of this rezone proposal. Also land for the proposed pump station site was dedicated to the
City, also as part of this rezone proposal.
Rezone covenants were adopted as part of that 1991 rezone approval.The first covenant was that the building heights
were restricted to be a maximum of 3 stories in height, not to exceed 40 feet. The second covenant was that the height of
buildings fronting on or adjacent to 136`1, Street were restricted to 2 stories,not to exceed 30 feet, and the architecture of
such buildings shall maintain a residential appearance.
Context of Subject Site
Surrounding zoning land use classifications are S-2/Residence to the north and west, and B-6/Business to the east(within
the US 31 Overlay Zone).
To the north is the Village of Mount Carmel Subdivision (specifically Section 6) with a density is 1.37 units/acre. To the
west is Bentley Oaks Subdivision (2.6 u/ac) and Park Meadows Parks at Springmill (2.5 u/ac). Most of these homes are 2
stories tall. To the east are 2 or 3 story tall medical offices, Illinois St& US 31, with St. Vincent Hospital just past that,
which is about 3-4 stories tall.
•
Although the subject parcel lies is within the US 31 Overlay Zone, it is nearly 200 feet from the drive lanes of US 31 and
is separated from those drive lanes by the US 31 road right of way and by Illinois Parkway.
Comprehensive Plan Guidance
According to the Land Classification Plan Map (see attached) in the Comprehensive Plan (C3 Plan),
• The existing residential developments to the north and west can be classified as "Suburban Residential".
• This subject site is intended for an Employment Node, where there are large office buildings providing regional
employment with opportunity to integrate employment-serving mixed uses.
• An Employment Node is considered a Conditional Fit,next to Suburban Residential areas, meaning it is
appropriate when it is installed with sensitivity next to the residential area. See the Appropriate Adjacent Land
Classifications table (attached).
• A Neighborhood Support Center(that provides daily goods, services & amenities to residential areas within
walking distance) is a type of commercial development considered compatible to Suburban Residential uses,
according to the Appropriate Adjacent Land Classifications table (attached).
The North Central Carmel Policies & Objectives section of the C3 Plan (attached) lists objectives that pertain to:
• Encouraging compact urban form and mixed-use development
• Promoting protection of single family neighborhoods through buffering, transitional design, infrastructure
investment, and landscaping beautification.
• Allowing the tallest structures to be along US 31
\L,• Encouraging neighborhood and community serving commercial nodes in strategic locations
• Integrating employment-serving commercial uses to allow workers to walk to restaurants and other businesses.
2
Allow for a broader mix of uses, including additional residential and service retail.
The West Carmel Policies & Objectives section of the C3 Plan(attached) lists objectives that pertain to:
• Preserving the estate character of West Carmel
• Protecting large-lot residential areas
The City-wide Policies and Objectives section of the C3 Plan(attached):
• Supports neighborhood support centers (not in excessive quantities)
• Strongly promotes mixed-use developments (combining commercial and residential uses)
• Encourages walkability and bikability so that every trip does not have to be in a vehicle
• Promotes appropriate transitions
• Favors protection of natural areas
• Promotes parking lots in the rear or to the sides of properties
The US 31 Corridor Plan of the C3 Plan (attached):
• Denotes the subject site as being an Employment Corridor,where building heights should not exceed 3 stories
when adjacent to residential neighborhoods.
• Also denotes the preservation of residential areas.
• Limited opportunity for business- serving and employee-serving commercial should be allowed in existing
buildings, such as restaurants and print shops.
• Transition the mass and scale of structures between US 31 &Illinois St. to minimize impact to residential
development to the west.
• Respect transitions to adjacent neighborhoods and require appropriate buffering.
The entire Comprehensive Plan document can be viewed online at: http://www.carmel.in.gov/index.aspx?page=202 .
Analysis
Several factors should be taken into consideration when reviewing this proposed change in use: the prior rezone approval
and its covenants; the Comprehensive Plan; current conditions/character of current structures and uses in each district;
the highest,best and most desirable use for which the land in each district is adapted; conserving property values
throughout the City and Township; and lastly,responsible and smart development/growth.
The current zoning of B-5/Business and US 31/Meridian St. Overlay Zone permits mostly office uses, with a small
percentage of some hotel, restaurant, and service/retail support uses. (These chapters can be viewed online at:
http://www.carmel.in.gov/index.aspx?page=41&parent=198.)The Overlay Zone excludes all residential uses; however, a
nursing/retirement/convalescent facility is permitted in the Overlay,but would only be permitted by Special Use approval
from the Board of Zoning Appeals in the B-5 zone.
The proposed PUD land uses are (A)residential uses, limited to multi-family dwelling units and a senior living
community, (B) general and professional offices uses, and (C) limited retail and service commercial uses, supportive of
the office and residential uses.
The proposed rezone to a PUD classification would permit the multifamily land uses, which is currently not permitted in
the overlay zone. The Department is comfortable with the change in use from office to a mix of uses.
It should be noted that not all office uses operate only 5 days a week from 9am-5pm. There is potential for any office use
to have multiple shifts and could operate around the clock. It is not necessarily the"lesser evil"when it comes to
intensity of land uses. Also, lights from office windows do have the potential to shine towards the neighbors at night; it
is not just a wall sign that could cause light pollution.
Having a residential use on this site could be considered a good thing, so that the area is not`dead' on week nights and on
the weekends. The people living there would have their `eyes on the streets', which could help deter crime.
3
Site design should play a role when considering a Planned Unit Development(PUD). The purpose of a PUD is to
provide opportunities to create more desirable environments through the application of more flexible and diversified land
development standards than the existing regulations. A PUD is intended to be used to encourage the application of new
techniques and new technology to community development that will result in superior living or development
arrangements with lasting values.
This challenging site has many constraints, such as the gas pipeline easement and a drainage easement, which further
constrain the development parameters of this narrow site.
The Department likes that fact that the buildings are pulled up to the streets to create a good streetscape. Pulling the
buildings up to Illinois Street also allows for the office buildings to be located furthest away from the residential areas to
the east. The Dept. also likes the on street parking along the private streets. The preservation of the trees at the northeast
corner of the site is also a good feature.
The following are areas of concern to the Department: transition, transition of scale and massing,pedestrian and bicycle
accessibility, landscaping arid buffering,building architecture, and signage, among other things. The Department
believes the current site plan could use some improvements:
• Respect transitions to adjacent neighborhoods and require appropriate buffering. Wider and/or taller buffers
separating the multi-family buildings from the single family homes.
• More densely planted buffers,with berms or a masonry wall or privacy fence.
• Additional landscaping in parking areas.
• Planting appropriate trees around the pond areas, such as bald cypress, making them amenity areas, as well.
• Reducing the height, scale, and massing of the multifamily buildings that are closest to the single family
residential areas, such as only having 2 story tall apartment buildings there. Transition the mass and scale of
structures to minimize impact to residential development to the west and to the north.
• Add light shields on the perimeter parking lot pole lights to further direct the light away from the neighbors.
• Adding more green/space within the multifamily area, so residents have areas to take their dogs.
If the site is designed well, then it would make the uses appropriate for this area. The Department would like to see
changes made to the conceptual development plan and hopes the committee will work with the petitioner on these issues
as well.
Please also view the petitioner's info packet for more detail.
Stairs outstanding comments for the petitioner
1. Engineering Dept. comments:
a. While not included in our comments, a traffic study is required per Carmel Zoning Ordinance 24.02 B.3.a. The
Department has issued TAC comments and has received an informal response. The Depai tnient agrees that
most, if not all of the comments,will be addressed in connection with the review and approval of the
Development Plan. The Department will review the response to the additional right-of-way request with the
petitioner. It has been requested that the need for auxiliary lanes at the entrances on Illinois Street be analyzed.
The Department expects these to be addressed in the traffic report. The plan needs to further identify and
clarify how storm water treatment will be provided. The Department is requesting improvements to 136th Street
that will close the existing median break at Memory Lane. The proposed access to 136th Street will be restricted
to be right-in/right-out only.
2. The Urban Forestry Dept. has requested changes to the landscaping language in the PUD; almost every aspect of the
landscaping standards been written in at lesser levels than what the zoning ordinance requires.
3. The Alternative Transportation Systems Coordinator would like the petitioner to add text into the PUD that
sidewalks are required on both sides of a private street. He would also like the petitioner to comply with the Carmel
Zoning Ordinance requirements for bicycle parking, and not deviate from that standard.
4. DOCS has requested some changes to the proposed language in the PUD.
4
a. Perhaps this PUD should have more architectural building standards and/or conceptual renderings; see The
Bridges PUD Z-550-11 and Silvara PUD Z-553-11 as examples. (This should be discussed further.)
b. Page 4—section 3.1 Permitted Uses—can you swap out Senior Living Community for Continuing Care
Retirement Community(CCRC), so it more closely matches the Carmel Zoning Ordinance defined uses?
c. Page 7—section 5.4.A—DOCS would still like a greater side/rear yard building setback for a
multifamily housing complex (instead of 5-ft). (This should be discussed further.)
d. Page 7—section 5.7—maximum parcel coverage takes into account all impervious surfaces(building footprint,
pavement, etc.),per the Zoning Ordinance definition in ZO Chapter 3, so, when you refer to 65%, does that
take into account all impervious surfaces?
e. Page 8—section G—DOCS would recommend continuous facades of more than 100-ft wide shall be designed
with vertical offsets,not 200 ft.
f. Page 11 —section I—Perimeter Bufferyard widths should be discussed further(along with transition).
g. Page 14—section 7.A.B - CCRC parking ratios; DOCS is okay with this ratio, if you also add: Plus one space
per employee of the largest shift.
h. Page 14, section 7.B: the Dept. would like on-street parking along one or both sides of a private drive to be
made a requirement in this section.
i. Section 9.3 A: Could this be simplified to just state the colors of the signs shall not be restricted and logos will
be respected in regards to color? DOCS would still like to see the signs come through as part of the ADLS to
specify what types of signs, lighting, and placement on the buildings. (DOCS is ok with color and will respect
color choices, not trying to pin anyone down to a specific color. DOGS prefers that the signs be of similar
construction style, so they look cohesive on the building.)
j. Section 9.3 B: DOCS is not ok with permitting signage on every facade of every building. The
Department would be more supportive of language referring to non-illuminated wall signs to help aid
people in finding destinations on the sides of buildings that face residential.
k. Section 9.3 B: DOCS is not okay with illuminated wall signs facing any residential use, inside of or
outside of the development. (From the site plan, it looks as if the only spot an illuminated wall sign
may face the proposed multifamily residential is on the retirement care building.)
1. Section 9.3 C: Please reduce the height of Ground Signs to 8 feet tall, to stay in line with the current sign
ordinance.
m. Section 9.3 D: Again,please reduce to 8' tall.
n. Section 10 vs. Section 2—need further clarification about the approval process (plan commission approvals vs.
director's approvals) and clarification of terms, such as preliminary development plan vs. final development
plan.
o. The Dept. suggests that the petitioner submits an exhibit showing building shadows, a shadow study.
p. The Dept. suggests that the petitioner submits sightline exhibits, from the proposed buildings to adjacent
houses.
q. The Commission should discuss whether or not it is a good idea for the petitioner to have a perimeter
fence/wall, in lieu of perimeter bufferyard plantings.
Recommendation: The Dept of Community Services (DOCS)recommends that the Plan Commission sends this item to
the March 6 Subdivision Committee meeting for further review and discussion.
5