Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-05-19 RES G�ic J'T.:.;.,.:. Cityof Cl i -.(voisoi_l•-•-- Carmel Plan Commission RESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE February 5, 2019 Meeting Minutes LOCATION: CAUCUS ROOMS CARMEL CITY HALL,21''D FLOOR ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL,IN 46032 Members Present: Joshua Kirsh Nick Kestner Brad Grabow Members Absent: Michael Casati Susan Westermeier Staff Present: Angie Conn,Planning Administrator Joe Shestak,Administrative Assistant Legal Counsel: John Molitor IThe meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Joshua Kirsh 1. Tabled to March 5 Docket No. 18010004 Z:Westbridge PUD Rezone Y.. . .1, • .. . .- • W. -• -- .. - - •_ • _. .. . - __ • - - - ..•.. , ---• 2. Tabled to March 5 Docket No. 18100001 PUD: 106th and Ditch PUD Rezone S ... .- - -- . 3. Docket No. 18110010 PP: Hampstead Garden Subdivision,Primary Plat(aka Camferdam) 4. Docket No. 18110012 SW: Hampstead Waiver-UDO 7.25.E.3: Connectivity: All developments shall provide stub streets The applicant seeks primary plat and design standard waiver approval for a 12 lot subdivision on 18 acres. The site is located on the east side of Hoover Road,north of 116th Street.It is zoned S-1/Residential. Filed by Nelson and Frankenberger,on behalf of Platinum Properties Management Company. Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewicz: • With me are Jim Rinehart,Jim Shinaver,Matt Pleasant, Steve Edwards,and Tim Walters • We are having some issues in naming this development but we won't have an entrance sign • Passed out exhibits of how they plan to treat the common detention areas • A sign would be required to identify it as an area for storm water management • These exhibits show our preference in how we want to treat these areas but we are open for your suggestions • Platinum Properties prefers more natural looking fields for the common areas • Passed out an exhibit to show the placement of the building pads on lots 6&7 • Lot 7 has the option of placing the home in front or behind the pipeline easement • We do not have connectivity proposed for a future pathway across the adjacent private estate properties 1 Residential Committee Minutes 2-5-19 • We will install a path along the frontage of our subdivision that would connect to the existing networks that could get you to Coxhall Gardens • We would lose a large amount of tree preservation if a stub street were provided at the planned location from the 23 lot platted subdivision directly to the south of us • The topography shows the grade lowers significantly within the tree preservation area to the east and proposed stub street area to the south • Staff has expressed they would need us to provide a stub street connecting to a future development to the south. We believe the platted development to the south should provide connectivity to Hoover Road and 116th Street. • Showed examples on the map of how some subdivisions in this area do not have any connecting or stub streets 1. 33 lots in High Grove,north of this proposal just connects to Hoover Road 2. 16 lots in VOWC,refers to the map 3. Sedgwick has 26 lots and does not have any connector streets • These examples of developments with cul-de-sacs that are served by collector roadways support our rational for what would be the most appropriate plan for connectivity of our 12 lots along Hoover Road • Platinum Properties have been in discussions with the owner of the development directly south of us and they have no immediate plans to develop Department Report: Angie Conn: • It will be up to the Committee members if they want a pedestrian path to go along the south property line and/or through the pipeline easement. Coxhall Gardens is to the immediate west of this property. • Currently there's only a path on the west side of Hoover Road,but they will provide a path along their frontage on Hoover Road. • The developer can work with Engineering Dept.about the possibility of a crosswalk to Coxhall Gardens. We have concerns about mid-block crossings. • There are private estate lots to the north and east, so you can't run a path to or through those existing lots • The City and Staff are taking our stance to add connectivity between neighborhoods. It benefits the community as a whole,fire dept.,police,vehicular,pedestrian and bike connectivity between neighborhoods. • The Planning Director is allowed to do slight modifications to the primary plat to the south, in considering stub- street connectivity. We believe this primary plat can be reconfigured. • The Petitioner has addressed most of our concerns and comments • We still have a concern of the stub street connecting to the neighborhood to the south and that's why we are proposing this is continued to the March 5 Residential Committee meeting Committee Comments: Nick: I like to see a stub street and connectivity,but I'm having trouble seeing this. Angie: This is a challenge for the developers to be creative and move their own cul-de-sac. The pipeline easement creates challenges. Brad: Do we have conceptual alternative transportation routes from Clay Center to Hoover Road? Angie: There was a connection in the Thoroughfare Plan a few years ago. Then we had an amendment to remove it. Brad: Now there's a middle school going in there now. Jon Dobosiewicz: It went north from Ditch and 116"'(refers to thoroughfare map) and it goes south-east across the VOWC to Ditch Road. That is the amendment that was removed. Brad: I'm more concern with trying to avoid foreclosing future opportunities to alternative transportation to the grade school. This area is badly underserved of road-side multi-use paths. The important piece to this is the ability to get from Spring Mill or Clay Center to Hoover Road. That east-west connectivity can be a huge asset. Nick: When is the path along 116th street being done? Josh: It's a real challenge with tough topography,expensive real estate,creeks on both sides,and wooded areas. It's not off the table. The parcels to the north and east have substantial investment to keep them as private estates. Brad: When the grade school opens, it will open the pricing on those for sale real estate properties. Jon Dobosiewicz: Back in 2002,when these properties were being sold and developed,the City advised them to setback their trees and fence line along the ROW on 116th Street, since eventually the City would build a path on the ROW. I agree there's a need for pedestrian connectivity,and if we can assist in helping, let us know. Josh: How do we get connectivity from the Floyd property to Hampstead Gardens? Brad: You have the path on east side of Hoover that stops at High Grove. Josh: What are Jackson,Irsay,and Foyd commitments on their frontage when they redeveloped their sites? Angie: Alex Jordan from Engineering said they will either dedicate street ROW or build a 2 Residential Committee Minutes 2-5-19 path. Josh: I don't want them to be blindsided with this process. Angie: There were issues because they didn't have to go through the platting process because they had such large parcels. Otherwise we would have gotten the ROW for the path. Josh: Mr.Hayes can get a path in front of his house. The Petitioners can have conversations with Mr. Hayes and Iwe can make that a condition before we go for final approval. Jon Dobosiewicz: Platinum Properties would be able to construct the path across on Mr. Hayes property if the ROW is available. Josh: Take this conversation offline with Mr. Hayes. Josh: Mr.Hayes has concerns with the creek to the south of his property,north of this development. Two months of the year,the creek flows greatly. I'm going to ask as a requirement that you work with John Thomas, storm water administrator with the City. This is a critical piece of wetland/watershed area,and we want to get it right. We want it more naturalized than manicured. We can start 75%natural and 25%non-naturalized. I will not settle on 50-50. Jim Rinehart: We have rules that we have to follow. It is very subjective and people will have their own opinions. What we've seen is the natural look works a lot better on large scale then on a small scale. Tim Walter: We have some concern with the creek along our north property line,and we would be comfortable making that basin look natural. On the south side we can do something similar. Behind lot 7 would remain natural and leave Lots 8& 12 more manicured. Josh: I don't want to happen here what happened in Foster Estates,where we had low detention areas get turned into basketball courts, sheds,mounds,and trees. John Thomas and the City don't have enough people to check on these things. Residences of lots 4, 5,&6 should be required to sign a document to understand what's going on with the BMPs. Tim Walter: John Thomas will make it all BMPs. Josh: Can we do some natural landscape along the frontage of the subdivision? Jim Rinehart: The landscape requirements that the City have in place,will require us to have it fully planted. We want to save as many trees as we can. Our goal is try to be as natural as we can. We can do grasses and mulch beds underneath the trees. Josh: I want that in writing as a commitment. Josh: What's the plan to keep the pipeline easement naturalized to the north of lot 6? Tim Walter: That's all in the tree preservation area. We had no plans for it. We can add some natural grasses to have it like a prairie. Josh: Let's have an agreement to have it mowed on a regular schedule to keep it as a prairie. How do we identify this area for the owner of lot 6? Can they cut down the trees? Brad: Hamilton County Conservation recommends 10'-15' you can mow into this area to prevent certain things from growing into a manicured lawn. You will need a buffer area from the natural area. Jon Dobosiewicz: We can add some additional language to have this area preserved. Josh: I would want a written commitment for each of these six areas. You must address with the homeowners not to mow these areas. I would ask a commitment for signage"don't mow"or"storm water management." Jim Rinehart: Jackson Grant has more of the positive reinforcement signage and explains in drawings and wordings in what is happening in this space. Josh: Please work with John Thomas to come up with a maintenance plan. Nick: I like it natural but I also like it manicure. You could put a grass band around these areas so the natural plantings don't come right up to the road and private properties. Include a manicured strip up to the street. I don't want it to look like the Monon Center where it's natural all the way up to the street. Tim Walter: We would keep a manicured strip and make it look like it's controlled. Jon Dobosiewicz: This would help determine the different areas of the private property and naturalized area. Josh: Reference Hamilton County Soil&Water when doing this. Josh: The last real issue between Staff and the Petitioners is about the connectivity to the south. When we make the development to the south connect to a road,why wouldn't it just be connected to Hoover Road? Brad: Given there's no immediate opportunities to connect to the north. There are estate properties that come in between this and the subdivisions to the north-east. I think the connectivity of the stub street is speculative. Only half of the lots would use this street. The value is too hard to predict right now. There's more value in alternative transportation connectivity than a street connectivity. There's a hardship in the surrounding uses and the number of lots given in this development. Josh: Staff wants us to forward this to the next Committee meeting to discuss the stub-street. Angie: We do want you to forward this and discuss this more at the Committee. If you feel that you want to grant this waiver of the stub street with Ia favorable recommendation,then you can forward this onto the full Plan Commission. Angie: Staff mentioned that we want more trees around the detention bases. Is it possible to add more trees? Tim Walter: We were thinking more grasses and perennial types. Josh: I want you to put and save as many trees as possible.Jim Rinehart: We will save as many trees that already exist on the north perimeter. We will not tear them 3 Residential Committee Minutes 2-5-19 down if we don't have to. It makes sense to place them on the perimeters. Josh: The homeowners will also put trees in their own lots. Angie: Street trees and perimeter buffers are required by the UDO. Jon Dobosiewicz: The only areas where there are not a lot of trees are along the south edge of the creek. We can add trees on the north side of lots 1 &2. Jim Rinehart: The aerial shows some trees in that area,but some are on the other property. Angie: The last remaining issue is the stub-street connectivity to the south. Staff presented our case and the petitioner presented their case. It's now up to the Committee to decide. Brad: Lot 1 would be right hand load,and lot 12 would be left hand load. The landscape plan shows an extensive landscaping along Hoover Road,but having these lots this way will enhance the appearance of the subdivision from traffic on Hoover Road. Jon Dobosiewicz: So the driveways(loading)will be away from Hoover Road?Brad:Yes Brad: I like the goose-neck light fixtures that Spring Mill Streams installed. They are 10' high,LED, and only cast light downward. Given the wooded natural area of this area and the lack of natural light,these types of street lighting would be good at every corner. Angie: Use this for street lighting or coach/garage lighting? Brad: Street lighting Josh: I would like a written commitment that you will talk offline with Mr. Hayes to allow you to build a path and work with Mr.Hayes to get dedicated ROW to do that. Brad: By the time that is written,that commitment is recorded, and that conversation would be long in the past. I think we have to trust Jon,Jim and the Petitioner to have that conversation between now and the next Plan Commission meeting. Josh: That's fair. Can we go over the written commitments that we added? To make sure we are all on the same page. Jim Shinaver: • Prepare an exhibit that will outline the six(6)natural areas. • Areas 3 and 4 will be described as more natural areas,with the appropriate signage • Areas 1,2, 5, and 6 will have a natural channel,but around this channel will be more of a maintained area, as opposed to the natural looking areas that will be for 3 and 4. • We will address language for lot 6 with the pipeline easement and the appropriate type of preventive treatment and maintenance. We will add language that it will be subject to John Thomas' approval of that maintenance plan. We will have a maintenance plan through the approval of John Thomas. • Add some grasses and mulch beds along the trees on Hoover Road in attempt to make it more naturalized • Lot 1 will have a right handed garage and lot 12 a left handed garage away from(not facing)Hoover Road • A street light fixture that will be approximately 10' in height,with a goose neck light that casts it's light downward Jim Rinehart: I don't want to overcommit. We definitely will talk to John Thomas,but I don't know that we necessarily want to commit to having an Operation&Maintenance Plan put together for something that hasn't been designed yet. Josh: That's fair. Jim Rinehart: It will be part of our discussion. Nick: To keep the info simple,the detention areas should be named A, B,C,D, so they are not mixed up with the lot numbers. Josh: Yes, convert them accordingly. A motion made by Brad and seconded by Nick to forward Docket Nos. 18110010 PP & 18110012 SW to Full Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation subject to the discussed commitments. Approved 3-0, Absent Casati, Westermeier The meeting adjourned at 7:18 p.m. e Shest. —Secretary Josh Kirsh 4111111 $ 4 Residential Committee Minutes 2-5-19