HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 02-19-19 Department Report: Rachel Keesling:
• The Petitioner has been working with staff on their updates and we are pleased with these changes
• A brick trash enclosure was provided to us
• The lighting plan has been updated
• There are a few outstanding items
o The Urban Forester needs to sign off on the landscape plan. He has requested additional plantings
around the base of the building.
o Reducing the height of parking lot light poles from 25' to 24'
o Lighting fixture cut sheets are needed
o Bicycle racks need to comply with inverted U-Shape design
o Size of the bicycle parking pad needs to be verified on the plans
• Staff feels confident we can get these items addressed
• A connection point for Redd Road needs to be agreed upon with the property owner to the north
• We ask you to approve this project subject to these remaining issues and conditions
Commercial Committee Report: Alan Potasnik:
• There's nothing more to add from what Staff has just presented
Committee Comments:
Sue: I would like to commend the Committee and Petitioner on the changes you did. A lot of work has been done and it
reflects on how good it looks now.
Brad: Is the proposed connectivity at the north or north-west corner in the rear of the property,which would be
eventually Redd Road? Bert Boldizsar: referred to the site map shown on overhead. Brad: I assume they will have to
coordinate with the development to the north in establishing a connection of Redd Road? Rachel: They will have to
provide their overall site plan showing all 7 acres and Redd Road connecting north. Once they provide that we can issue
their Letter of Grant, subject to your approval tonight.
A motion made by Sue and seconded by Tom to approve Docket No. 18100014 DP/ADLS with conditions:
• Bicycle parking pad size to be shown on site plan
• Bicycle parking rack to be changed to the inverted U Shape design
• Parking lot light pole height to be reduced to 24'
• Lighting fixture cut sheets to be provided for file
• Redd Road alignment will be worked out with property owner to the north and shown on
final overall development plan
Motion passes 8-0,absent Casati
2. Docket No. 18110010 PP: Hampstead Garden Subdivision,Primary Plat(aka Camferdam)
3. Docket No. 18110012 SW: Hampstead Gardens 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: Jim Shinaver
• With me tonight is Paul Rioux of Platinum Properties
• Open space will be provided north and south of the 12 lots
• Our proposed access to this subdivision is at Hoover Road
• There's a pipeline easement that runs through the east side of the property
• There will be 60%tree preservation of the existing woodlands and will provide 32%open space
• We believe the approval of the waiver of the stub street will result in allowing preservation of significant wooded
areas,the character of the property,and more open space
• Our commitments will include:
Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 2-19-19 2
o Landscape treatment of the retention areas located on the north and south side of the site
o Stormwater management would be addressed by John Thomas,City of Carmel
o Additional landscaping along Hoover Road
o Garage locations would not face Hoover Road
o Street Light fixture designs as requested
o Covenants and restrictions would be included to future homeowners
• We ask for your approval tonight
Department Report: Rachel Keesling:
• There was a lot of discussion at the Committee on stormwater management,trees,paths,and waiver to not
provide a stub street to the south
• There is a list of seven(7)commitments in the info packet that the Petitioner has agreed to
• There are few remaining issues from TAC members. They typically like to know these issues at the primary plat
level to avoid a major change at the secondary plat level.
o Issues around the creek and drainage basins
o The creeks might become classified as regulated drains.A 75' easement would be needed. The detention
proposed on the north side is within this area. The Engineering Dept.believes there should be enough
acreage to accommodate a design change without a major change to the plot.
o Tri-Co Regional Sewer District has not yet seen the sanitary sewer plans. This would come at the
secondary plat level.
o Crossroad Engineers has not signed off on the drainage plans
• This development meets all general requirements of the UDO for S-1except for the stub street connectivity
• The UDO specifically states that the primary plat must provide a stub street
• Connecting to the proposed stub street to the south is not the best location. We have requested the Petitioner to
provide an alternate location of a stub street.
• If the subdivision to the south ever gets developed, it could be revised to a more logical stub street location
111 • Connectivity is important for so many reasons for being helpful for the fire and police department, school bus
pickup and drop-offs,and decreased traffic volume
• This can be brought back to Committee to further discuss the stub street connection. If this moves forward
tonight,the Department recommends negative recommendation consideration of this item.
• If voted in favor tonight,please address all TAC comments and have the Petitioner provide a copy of their
recorded commitments
Residential Committee Report: Josh Kirsh:
• The outstanding TAC comments leave me with some concerns
• The Committee did not believe the stub street connection would be beneficial
• The stub street that is currently proposed in the plat to the south is not in a good location
• If the development in the south moves the stub street to their cul-de-sac to the west,it would make better sense
for that stub street to connect to Hoover Road and not to the north(Hampstead Gardens)
• The Committee voted 3-0 with a favorable recommendation of the waiver
Committee Comments:
Alan: I'm having a hard time in why we need to have this stub street. We want to maintain these natural areas that
already exist. With the outstanding issues at TAC, if TAC already met,why haven't these issues already been addressed?
Rachel: TAC meets one month before the first public hearing(PC)meeting. At that point,we are working back and
forth with the Petitioner to address TACs comments and concerns. It usually doesn't get final approval before we are
here tonight. We try to get everything done before the secondary plat level. Jim Shinaver: This was nobody's fault.
The Staff report suggested we go to a second committee meeting but we only went to one committee meeting. We
submitted our comments,but we were asked that our second round revisions are due on Friday,Feb.22. We reached out
to John Thomas on the stormwater management and to Darren Mindham on the landscaping plan. Platinum Properties
has done a lot of work in the City of Carmel and I'm confident they will address all the outstanding TAC comments. We
don't believe any of the additional questions would result in a major change to the subdivision plat. Alan: It now sounds
like this is not so unusual. How would you truly benefit a subdivision to the south(of Hampstead Gardens)that may
never be built,with removing significant of woodland area,dealing with the creek,and the pipeline easement, it seems
Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 2-19-19 3
like a reach to get this stub street placed.To what extent did the Committee discuss the stub street? Josh: We spent a
descent amount of time discussing the stub street. We don't disagree with Staff on the benefits of a stub street,but for
this instance,we had a hard time in how this would benefit this subdivision.
John Adams: I live in a subdivision that is laid out just like this.It has 12 lots with one street that ends up with a cul-de-
sac. It's all local traffic. You don't get any additional traffic and there's a safety advantage to that. I can't justify in
having a connecting street since this one is so small and it's unknown what will get built to the south. I am very
concerned with all the outstanding issues with the Engineering and TAC comments,particularly with respect of the flood
plain and the creek easements. We don't need another subdivision where the streets,rear and front yards have flooding
issues.
Brad: Do you feel assurance if these issues will be resolved without affecting the platting of the 12 lots? Jim Shinaver:
Mr.Paul Rioux is confident that these will get resolved. Brad: We rely on the expertise on the TAC members to raise
their concerns. We don't want to be the engineer and design the drainage system. John: I suggest to approval
contention on approval of TAC. Tom: I don't support the idea of sending this back to Committee and we need to make a
decision tonight. Jim Shinaver: There are many agencies that are a part of TAC. They issued no complaints to us
about our request to not have a stub street. Through the TAC process we did not receive any comments about the stub
street.
Brad: Immediately to the west are Coxhall gardens,and to the north,east,and southeast are private estate properties.
When looking at future opportunities,there's no possible connection. The practical value of a stub street seems very
remote. 20 years from now,we may want to look at connectivity to the east for the future public school on the other side
of Clay Center Road.
John Molitor: TAC is not a committee of this commission. They don't make decisions by taking a vote. I would
caution you that I don't think it's appropriate to delegate to TAC in making a decision. Brad: I totally agree. TAC
raises issues,and Staff and the Petitioner have to work through those issues.
John Adams: Will this have to come back to the Plan Commission if there are any major changes? Rachel: Yes, for a
primary plat amendment. However through the secondary plat process,they can make minor modifications and would
not have to come back to the Plan Commission.
A motion made by Alan and seconded by Josh subject to the recorded commitments provided by the Petitioner to
approve Docket Nos. 18110010 PP,and 18110012 SW.
Motion passes 8-0,absent Casati
John Molitor: The secondary plat process is a formal process. The Ordinance and the PC delegate that process to Staff
to allow them to approve it as long there's no major modifications. The SP is the final documentation that is recorded.
Meeting Adjourned at 6:57 p.m.
J Shestak Plan Commission Secretary B ad Grabow' President
Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 2-19-19 4