Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDepartment Report 08-16-229 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT AUGUST 16, 2022 I. Old Business 1. Docket No. PZ-2022-00045 DP/ADLS: Jackson’s Grant Village Section 2. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for 52 townhomes and an amenity building on 8.83 acres. The site is located at the NW corner of 116th Street and Springmill Road. It is zoned Jackson’s Grant Village PUD (Ordinance Z-653-20). Filed by Douglas Wagner with Republic Development LLC. *Updates to the Report are written in blue Project Overview: This project is seeking DP/ADLS approval for 52 townhomes and a clubhouse in Section 2 in Jackson’s Grant Village. There will be a minimum of 30% open space for the whole of Jackson’s Grant Village, per the PUD and Section 1 approval. The property is zoned Jackson’s Grant Village PUD, Ordinance Z-653-20. Please see the Petitioner’s Information Packet for more details. PUD Standards this project MEETS: - Min. Lot widths - Min. Lot areas - Min. Setbacks - Maximum height - Maximum number of townhomes - Maximum number of units per building - 30% Minimum Common Area - Perimeter Landscaping PUD Standards NOT MET, therefore adjustments are needed or a variance will be needed: - None Site Plan and Engineering: The site plan is in line with the Concept Plan that was submitted with the PUD. There will be entrances to the development from 116th Street and Springmill Road that were approved with Section 1, the single- family portion. The townhomes will have access from these new public streets as well as from a new private drive that will provide access to the commercial buildings in the future. Alleys are provided behind all of the townhomes to access rear loaded garages. 2 parking spaces per unit are provided in the garages as required by the PUD and 59 off street parking spaces will be installed with this section. Tree preservation and common areas are located throughout the Jackson’s Grant Village development. Active Transportation: 5 ft. sidewalks are proposed on both sides of all streets as is required. A 10 ft. wide asphalt path already exists along Springmill Rd., and the petitioner will install path along 116th St. Additional sidewalks are provided throughout the townhome area to provide appropriate pedestrian connections. Short term bike parking spaces are also provided throughout the townhome area. Architectural Design: The townhomes have a modern design with large, black framed windows and large, front balconies. The front and side facades are primarily brick, and the colors vary from unit to unit. The PUD requires masonry on all facades in an amount equal to the first-floor façade. This is provided and the front and side facades have brick on the second floor as well. Petitioner has also agreed to add brick to the sides of the walls on the front façade for the units which project past the front of the adjacent unit. The other building materials include horizontal siding and board and batten. There are large front balconies and rooftop patios on each unit. There are numerous windows on the elevations which help break up the facades and adds architectural interest. The PUD also requires streetscape diversity with varied elevations, building materials and colors. The elevations do vary by color, and the petitioner has changed some of the details for each unit such as the front window types and the front doors. Lighting: Street lights were approved with the Section 1 primary plat and will be limited to 15 ft. tall in the residential areas and 18 ft. tall in the commercial parking areas. One additional streetlight is proposed on the private drive going south into the townhome and commercial area. The character and design of the street lighting will be decorative and similar to the existing Jackson’s Grant lighting. Architectural building lights are also shown on the front and rear elevations of the townhomes and the clubhouse. 10 Landscaping: Open space is shown on the development plan and matches the concept plan in the PUD. This includes a tree preservation area in the southeast corner of the development and a park and clubhouse toward the middle. A minimum of 30% of the site is shown as Open Space. Individual lot and foundation plantings are provided, and the petitioner has added additional trees to the front and rear yards to meet the PUD requirements. A/C units will be screened by shrubs on the rear of the buildings. The Urban Forester has approved the landscape plan. Signage: Subdivision entry signage was reviewed with the primary plat for Section 1. With this townhome proposal a small 12” by 15” sign is proposed at each entry door to the clubhouse. Some model home signage is also proposed and will meet the size requirements of the UDO. There is a location for signage proposed at the entrance off of Springmill Rd., which will come through for review later. All signage is required to follow the standards in the UDO. June 21, 2022, Public Hearing Recap: The Petitioner went over the site and architectures details. There was discussion about the Jackson’s Grant HOA and this neighborhood. It was confirmed that this neighborhood will have its own HOA. Some questions brought up by the Plan Commission included: number of visitor parking spaces, lengths of driveways, will people try to park in the alleys, should there be no parking signs, and can trees be added to the rear between driveways. The Plan Commission also discussed the amenity building and asked if there was a minimum size and why the design was different from the townhomes. Tree preservation area violations in Jackson’s Grant was brought up and the Plan Commission requested a status update as to how that issue was being resolved. The project was sent to the July 5th Residential Committee meeting with the Plan Commission having final voting authority. July 5, 2022, Residential Committee Recap: The petitioner went through the comments in the staff report and the comments from the Plan Commission meeting. Petitioner stated it will be difficult to add brick to the rear upper floors because there is no structural support, and they will look at adding some detail on the backs instead of an additional window. 4- and 5-unit elevations were shown, and they are still working on additional color options. Mailboxes will be individual mailboxes not a bank of mailboxes. Petitioner added trees to the lots in the front and at the rear corners. The Committee asked about additional landscaping on the ends of the buildings that face a street and the petitioner agreed. The petitioner and Committee discussed the parking summary; 210 spaces are required for all of Jackson’s Grant Village, 283 are provided, and 14 townhomes will have parking in the rear driveways. The petitioner updated the Committee on the status of the tree preservation easement (TPE) encroachments at Jackson’s Grant and the petitioner agreed to add signage to the tree preservation areas for Jackson’s Grant Village. The Committee requested renderings and the additional colors for the 4- and 5-unit buildings, exterior detailing on the back, end units to break up the siding, a design for the TPE signs, and what extra steps have been made to fix the TPE encroachment at Jackson’s Grant. August 2, 2022, Residential Committee Recap: The petitioner went through the responses to the Committee questions and the Department Report. They have made changes to the architecture, provided 4- and 5-unit color elevations, and revised the landscape plan to show more shrubs on the sides of the visible end units. There was a lot of discussion and rehash of the tree preservation area encroachments at Jackson’s Grant. The petitioner is going to put tree preservation signs in the common areas with tree preservation and they are still working to get the homeowners into compliance. Some homeowners have already complied and are no longer encroaching into the tree preservation areas. The Committee asked the Urban Forester to look at the encroachments again and send another letter to the HOA (petitioner) with what needs to be removed and what should be fixed, like planting new trees. The Committee also asked in another builder could come in and build townhomes on this site. The answer is yes, but if they propose a different design then they will have to go back to the Plan Commission for an ADLS Amendment. DOCS Remaining Comments/Concerns: All comments have been addressed. Recommendation: The Department of Community Services recommends the Plan Commission votes to Approve this item.