Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes SpecStdy 08-30-11 SPECIAL MEETING of the Carmel Plan Commission SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE August 30, 2011 CAUCUS ROOMS, 2nd FLR CARMEL CITY HALL ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, IN 46032 Committee Members Present: Nick Kestner, Woody Rider, Steve Stromquist, Susan Westermeier DOCS Staff Present: Director Michael Hollibaugh, City Planner Angie Conn; Legal Counsel John Molitor Also in attendance: Ramona Hancock, Plan Commission Secretary The Special Studies Committee considered the following item: Docket No. 11050013 Z:  Silvara PUD The applicant seeks approval to rezone 304 acres from S-1/S-2/ Residence & West 116th Street Overlay Zone to PUD/Planned Unit Development. The site is located at 11960 Spring Mill Rd. at the northwest corner of 116th St. and Spring Mill Rd.  Filed by Steve Hardin of Baker & Daniels LLP. Present on behalf of Petitioner: Steve Hardin, attorney, Baker & Daniels; Larry Moon, Republic Development; Mark Nemger, DSW Design & Planning firm; Otto Frenzel, land owner; Jesse Pohlman, Baker & Daniels, and Doug Wagner Topics for discussion: land uses, perimeter buffers, and transitions Overview, Steve Hardin: Family has looked at land use, comp plan/map, & guiding principles Frenzel property is 305 acres Far-reaching goal is a superior development within the city Consistent theme from beginning has been to provide a walk-able, connected community Proposed plan encourages tree preservation and increases quality of life by providing open space and trails Comp Plan provides guidance for land uses Context of property is important US 31 proximity Access off 116th Street IU health campus Employment node Approved, attached residential uses Recently approved PUD, The Bridges Recently approved institutional use Mormon Temple A lot of influences for this intersection Balance of property surrounded by single family residential Site is not a flat piece of ground Site is 90 acres of open space in Williams Creek corridor with significant topographical changes Proposal is highest and best use, appropriate for retail, attached residential & employment node Development team has met with the neighbors—lots of meetings & tours of the property Neighbors have provided feedback Overview, Larry Moon, Republic Development: Site is a special piece of property Republic has had extensive meetings with neighbors PUD creates transitional planning areas from high intensity to residential corridor in the Village Neighborhood node Moving away from commercial corridor, went to large estates at the Enclave Surrounding uses: Claridge Farms, Clay Springs, Claybridge, Springmill Streams, Springmill Ridge, all fairly low density Westpark at Spring Mill, Williams Creek Farms, Spring Lake Estates, & multi-family—larger lots, 2.3 density Uses & intensity are lower to match surrounding neighborhoods. The Estates area homes have been enlarged & compatible in size & density to surrounding area Enclave area now in tune to area of Estates with large lots – expanded area Goal is to be consistent with surrounding neighborhoods & ending with density of 1.25 Creekside area is now 1.8 density per acre, single family & empty nester Bridgecreek expanded to include the Enclave & will have same density as Bridge Creek, 2.6 density – does not affect any adjacent area Bridgecreek expanded farther south—no multi-family north of wooded line at IU health Center Entrance does not align with entrance at Spring Lake—entrance moved farther south at request of Carmel Dept of Engineering Village Neighborhood starts at southern edge of tree line and is smaller at 13 acres rather than 17 acres – commercial area is decreased Density at Bridgecreek (empty nester) is 2.6 units per acre; Village Neighborhood density is 7.0 units per acre; Village Center commercial/mixed use is 4 units per acre Total units 750; prior total was 950 units Mark Nemger, Buffers & Perimeter Landscaping: Bufferyards will be required where the real estate abuts Spring Mill Road and 116th Street At 116th Street, the petitioner proposes a twenty-foot wide greenbelt buffer Village Center buffer is a minimum 20 foot wide greenbelt with type D bufferyard and berm Village Neighborhood is also a minimum 20-foot wide greenbelt with type D bufferyard Within the Estates and Bridgecreek, a minimum 40-foot wide greenbelt will be implemented with a 3-foot tall undulating mound and plantings Clay Center Road: lots that back up to Clay Center Road will have a minimum 40-foot wide greenbelt with 3-foot tall undulating mound and plantings—type D Bufferyard Perimeter landscaping not adjacent to public right-of-way: Claybridge at Springmill, Springmill Streams & Springmill Ridge will be a minimum 30-foot wide landscape buffer easement Forestview—a minimum 20-foot wide greenbelt to be installed where Forestview abuts 116th Street. Landscape buffer easement along the western property line is a minimum, variable easement width between 20 feet wide and 50 feet wide Creekside south property line – a minimum 20-foot wide landscape buffer easement where individual lots within Creekside abut the south property line; (Williams Creek Manor) Steve Hardin, key things: Make sure surrounding uses and density are compatible Revising transitions and uses for compatibility Entrance re-located farther south of Bridgecreek Corner presents challenge for use—tree preservation area added to corner of 116th and Spring Mill Road Number of buffers increased -- will match larger lots along Clay Center Road Lots along the rear have 120 feet of buffer Committee members, Comments/Questions: Engineering approved not aligning entrance on Springmill Road at Spring Lake Estates– if far enough away, probably OK Previously entrances at Enclave, Bridgecreek & Village. Drop in units from 950 to 750 – huge re-design How many homes proposed previously for Estates & Creekside—how many now? Does the number of homes proposed cover multi-family? (Petitioner will email DOCS staff a breakdown in each area numbers. Petitioner will do a comparison between old plan and newly proposed plan before next Committee meeting) Some concerns have been density, some transition, to protect adjacent property owners Buffer is inadequate, would like to see something more substantial – five, two-inch trees will take 10 to 20 years to fill in Need to get feedback from neighbors – need something they can live with (Petitioner says he has tried to be considerate with larger buffers, using City guidance & Ordinance to meet or exceed—buffer will be effective with comparable homes) Like-use to like-use—committed to 180 feet minimum depth—compatible uses, similar size lots, deeper lots, equal to or higher buffer Arborist or City Engineer looked at changes? (No) (Between now and next committee meeting, petitioner to work with Engineering Dept and Arborist) Not enough detail for paths, streets, access points, etc. (Petitioner says No street connection across Williams Creek corridor – will be a trail connection, but no automobile—cars would have to travel south on Spring Mill then cross at next access point) (Petitioner states that changes have only enhanced the proposed Ordinance) Need to see traffic flow Would like areas identified on map with number of units in each neighborhood area General Public Comments/Questions: Sue Dillon, 507 Cornwall. Lot sizes on perimeter now are 120 feet wide and 180 feet deep—does that apply only to the perimeter in the Estates area or all areas? Buffering/drainage – how arranged? Concern that plantings cannot be installed until drainage is established first—trees in buffer area may or may not survive. Petitioner met with most homeowners; petitioner committed to 120 foot wide lots at rear of property for perimeter lots only – if lot is on a cul-de-sac, will be 120 feet wide at the rear and reduced at front if pie-shaped. Grading will be key on site – plantings will enjoy moisture and most likely will survive. Kathy Stetler, 349 Mallard Court. Lot sizes in Bridgecreek equivalent to those adjoining in Spring Lake Estates – 100 feet wide on average? Petitioner: No – across Spring Mill Road, dense buffer being provided across from empty nester area. Ordinance states 55 foot wide lots with side yards Dave Walsh, 1218 Keel Lane, Spring Lake Estates -- change in side yard or front setbacks? Larry Moon’s response: Lot sizes were increased—side and front yard setbacks are 20 and 30 feet aggregate; more intense use will be 40 foot buffer standard at Spring Lake Estates Marilyn Anderson, 3884 Shelborne Court. What is size of perimeter lots—actual acreage? Minimum allowed in S-1 zone is no smaller than 15,000 square feet. Petitioner states smaller lots include preservation area; lot lines compatible with homes abutting Sylvia Naegge, Spring Mill Streams – traffic is a major concern – what is the buffer on the east side of Spring Lake Estates? (Staff would have to research) Larry Moon response – part of requirement is to give City one-half right-of-way on Spring Mill Road to allow for expansion – the 40 foot buffer is outside of that—buffer would start after 36 feet of path. (right-of-way language is in the PUD Ordinance. Woody Rider – City has no intention to widen Spring Mill Road. Jill Meisenheimer, 471 Burlington Lane, Williams Mill. Concern regarding the entrances – now 4 instead of 5 – important for neighbors to see how this would work – need to know the layout Petitioner states that illustrations will show passing blisters and where turn lanes will occur Jim Dillon, 507 Cornwall Court. This is a moving target – the Committee has not seen this until this evening—the Committee is reviewing old documents and diagrams. Committee and public need to see new renderings, charts, new data on the maps – this is not a “handshake” deal – need to SEE revised documents. Petitioner hopes to have new documents for review prior to the next meeting on 9/06. Petitioner will provide up-dates of concept plan next Tuesday. Maria Guisse, Claybridge. Are there maps/drawings available that show where roads will be? Major concern is traffic. Petitioner states no main roads required to be built in conjunction with this development – Woody Rider to research with Engineering & respond Robert Knapp, 513 Cornwall Court; Regarding road improvements on 31 – what is the target date for completion? Woody Rider states upgrades on US 31 will be done by the State, not the City; construction of City’s part of the project south of 146th Street will probably start in 2016 and may go to 2019 Jill Meisenheimer, 471 Burlington Lane, Williams Mill – concern with density of neighborhood – even reducing units to 750 on 305 acres is still too many units. Steve Hardin, response: Williams Mill is approximately 2.35 units per acre – density in proposed PUD is approx 2.47 units per acre Dee Fox, 11389 Royal Court, requests verification of buffer yards along commercial area and the roundabout area at 116th Street and Spring Mill Road – Type A? There is a 150 foot tree preservation area on Spring Mill because it is commercial – commercial areas are meant to be seen…..will the trees be preserved? Also, are we going to discuss what makes senior housing, senior housing? The overall density is a concern – the residents are being asked to trade density for quality and natural areas – the areas regarded as natural areas make sense to preserve, regardless. The residents do not feel it is an equal trade – there needs to be improvements to basic requirements. Steve Hardin, response: The Village Center & Village Neighborhood are appropriate adjacent land uses—identified as appropriate adjacent land uses and the best fit – do not think it is appropriate to tie to only one part of the Comp Plan and what it says Sue Dillon, 507 Cornwall Court. Regarding density, what is the percentage of increase – net 820 houses? Steve Hardin, response: No – the original proposal was capped at 950, the expansion was 20%, now reduced to 10% to a specific area, not number of houses. The overall number of units would not change. Allison Brown, 600 West 106th Street, fears there will be truck stops on US 31 with the upgrades/changes to US 31 and in close proximity to the subject site. David Walsh, Spring Lake Estates: The PUD clearly allows a 20% increase in the number of units – how many units are multi-family? Mr. Walsh also questioned timing of the meeting 9/06, since it is close to Labor Day Holiday and a lot of residents will be out of town. Petitioner response: Multi-family units are capped at 300 and it is so stated in PUD Ordinance Lyle Hartman, 460 Burlington Lane. Williams Mill. Who put the traffic counters on Spring Mill Road? There are issues in Carmel with non-owner/occupied developments, problems such as those that occur at Mohawk Hills. Department: It is unknown who put the traffic counters on Spring Mill Road – it could be Dept of Engineering, or it could be the County. Committee Review of the PUD: Use Table not necessarily changing – The Enclave shows and is no longer – the Enclave column will just disappear Pg 42 section F, -- where would nursing facility be categorized? Note: The Uses mirror the City’s list of uses. Committee sees a problem with the Village Center—page 43—day nursery and pre-school—these uses would not be good with traffic problems at peak hours College or university would only add to traffic situation (correctional institution prohibited) could be adult education, smaller campus, might lead to question of parking – times of use would be key Live/work units – pg 41 – would need approval for home occupation --- petitioner will look at and redline and blueline Pg 43 – Definition of public service facility? Maintenance structure for public utilities – could be a Duke Energy facility or sub-station; limited to 21,000 square feet to any one tenant Pg 44, Village Center—General Service? General personal service – barber/beauty – consistent with City Ordinance Pg 45, Petitioner will remove circus, carnival, etc. Restaurants with drive thru lanes—Committee would like to eliminate drive-thru food sales due to traffic– Petitioner not in favor but will give some thought – not specifically addressed in PUD – neighborhood service node 80,000 sq ft maximum – petitioner will review and address -- perhaps replace with a special use consideration – also limiting the number would be an option – petitioner to consider Pg 46 – Special Event –outdoor activity—petitioner will address Antennae – special use – co-locate if possible Commercial; recreational facility indoor—could be work-out center, health fitness center – petitioner will strike shooting gallery for sure The next Committee Meeting will be September 6 at 6:00 PM with Up-dated detail and materials. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 PM _____________________________ Steve Stromquist, Chairperson _________________________________ Ramona Hancock, Secretary