Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-20-22 TAC MinutesPage 1 of 5 City of Carmel Technical Advisory Committee July 20, 2022 CARMEL TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 Place: Virtual meeting. Time: 9:00 a.m. (Approximate start times for each item are listed below) 9:00 a.m. Docket No. PZ-2022-00117 PUD: 96th and Haverstick PUD Rezone The applicant seeks PUD rezone approval to allow a new development consisting of 33 townhomes. The site is located at the northwest corner of 96th Street and Haverstick Road and is zoned S- 2/Residence. Filed by Jim Shinaver and Jon Dobosiewicz of Nelson & Frankenberger on behalf of Estridge Development Management LLC. Jon Dobosiewicz of Nelson & Frankenberger presented the project. This project will include a new subdivision consisting of 33 townhomes within 8 buildings. Dave McCoy – City of Carmel Addressing - No comments. Daren Mindham – City of Carmel Urban Forestry - Comments submitted on ProjectDox. David Littlejohn – City of Carmel Alternative Transportation - Mr. Littlejohn stated he would aim to finalize review comments later that day regarding bike parking and sidewalk alignments. Alex Jordan – City of Carmel Engineering - Comments submitted on ProjectDox. Mr. Jordan stated that Greg Dempsey of Innovative Engineering & Consulting Inc emailed him regarding a traffic study and Mr. Jordan stated that he had not yet spoken with the City Engineer, Jeremy Kashman, but would likely want to see anticipated loading on and off of the site and peak times. Mr. Dobosiewicz inquired if there were any specific intersections to examine within the traffic study. Mr. Jordan confirmed that no specific intersection was needed to be examined within the traffic study and noted that the City Engineer would also like to see the proposed numbers if the site featured four single-family homes, to resemble what current zoning would allow versus the proposed 33 townhomes. Mr. Jordan stated that Mr. Dempsey also planned to show the proposed traffic if an apartment complex were to be built on the subject site as well. Rodney Johnson – AES Indiana - No comments. Nick Mishler – City of Carmel Building & Code Services - No comments. Page 2 of 5 City of Carmel Technical Advisory Committee July 20, 2022 Aliza Shalit – City of Carmel Signage - Comments submitted on ProjectDox. Alexia Lopez – City of Carmel Planning & Zoning - Comments submitted on ProjectDox and inquired about tree preservation. Ms. Lopez stated that tree preservation needed to be considered a priority as the lot was fully wooded and noted that the applicants can determine where they want these areas to be located on the site whether that be as bufferyards or focusing on where the best and healthiest trees were currently located. Ms. Lopez stated that the open space where the proposed site detention was located would be a nice area for tree preservation as the optimum solution would include preserving trees in a large area and not smaller strips. Ms. Lopez stated that on the next round of plans she would like to see less lots to accommodate the required tree preservation within the minimum open space requirements for a townhome community. Ms. Lopez noted that if this was a typical subdivision, the zoning ordinance would require 85% of mature woodlands to be preserved and 65% of young and scrub woodlands to be preserved. Mr. Dobosiewicz stated that the applicants would prepare an exhibit to illustrate the percentage of tree preservation and work to address Ms. Lopez’s concerns. Mr. Johnson stated that he was under the impression that the subject property was on AES lines and have the engineer for this territory contact and work with the applicants. 9:15 a.m. Docket No. PZ-2022-00119 DP/ADLS: Flora on Spring Mill The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a residential neighborhood consisting of 12 brownstones, 12 two-family homes, 10 single-family homes, and 86 townhomes on 18.31 acres. The site is located at 9950 Spring Mill Rd. and is zoned Flora PUD, Ordinance Z-676-22. Filed by Jim Shinaver and Jon Dobosiewicz of Nelson & Frankenberger on behalf of Pittman Partners, Inc. and Onyx and East, LLC. Jon Dobosiewicz of Nelson & Frankenberger presented the project. This project will include a new subdivision consisting of 120 dwellings (12 brownstones, 12 two-family homes, 10 single-family homes, and 86 townhomes) on 18.31 acres. Dave McCoy – City of Carmel Addressing - Mr. McCoy reminded the applicants to notify him to discuss addressing issues and future street names as the project moves forward. Daren Mindham – City of Carmel Urban Forestry - Comments submitted on ProjectDox regarding tree preservation fence labeling, percentage of open space, and bufferyard labeling. David Littlejohn – City of Carmel Alternative Transportation - Comments submitted on ProjectDox regarding bicycle parking and missing sidewalk connections from the concept plan of the PUD. Alex Jordan – City of Carmel Engineering - Comments submitted on ProjectDox. Page 3 of 5 City of Carmel Technical Advisory Committee July 20, 2022 Rodney Johnson – AES Indiana - Mr. Johnson wanted to ensure that AES Indiana would have adequate access for the pad-mount transformers and possibly acquiring an easement. Mr. Johnson also wanted to ensure if all units would require 200-amp services or if some of the single-family homes would require 400-amp services. Todd Rottmann of Rottmann Collier Architects stated that all units were designed to use a 200-amp service but noted that alter down the line an owner could decide to upgrade to a 400-amp service. Nick Mishler – City of Carmel Building & Code Services - No comments. Aliza Shalit – City of Carmel Signage - Comments submitted on ProjectDox. Sam Clark – Hamilton County Surveyor’s Office - Mr. Clark stated he would aim to finalize review comments later that day. Mr. Clark stated that the development would be a county-regulated subdivision and he would need the base flood elevation established to confirm development is outside of the floodplain. Alexia Lopez – City of Carmel Planning & Zoning - Ms. Lopez stated she would aim to finalize review comments later that day and did not anticipate too many comments as the site plan and architectural elevations appeared to reflect the PUD. Ms. Lopez did inquire about the absence of lot lines for the townhomes on the site plans as well as common area spaces and acreage. Ms. Lopez requested an exhibit to better identify the various dwelling types. Mr. Dobosiewicz stated that his office would prepare the requested exhibit. Ryan Murt – City of Carmel Streets - No comments. 9:25 a.m. Docket No. PZ-2022-00118 DP/ADLS: The GOAT The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a building addition/remodel on 0.2 acres. The site is located at 220 2nd St. SW in Frank Hawkins Addition Lot 1. The site is zoned B-2 and is within the Old Town Overlay, Character Sub Area. Filed by Ben Bemis of CEC Inc. on behalf of Kevin Paul, owner. Aaron Hurt with Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. and Dan Moriarity of Studio M Architecture & Planning presented the project. This project will include a new addition of approximately 3,000 sq. ft. to an existing tavern on 0.2 acres. Dave Coots of Coots Henke & Wheeler stated that the project was before the TAC members due to the condition of submitting a DP/ADLS filing required by the City Council during a rezone petition from R-2 to B-2. Ms. Lopez stated that Jason Lemaster with the Hamilton County Health Department could not attend the TAC meeting but requested his comment be relayed in his absence: the project would need additional review by the Hamilton County Health Department for applicable regulated food permit items and inspection scheduling. Dave McCoy – City of Carmel Addressing - No comments. Page 4 of 5 City of Carmel Technical Advisory Committee July 20, 2022 Daren Mindham – City of Carmel Urban Forestry - Comments submitted on ProjectDox regarding plant schedule and requested trees along the north side of the property. David Littlejohn – City of Carmel Alternative Transportation - No comments. Alex Jordan – City of Carmel Engineering - Comments submitted on ProjectDox. Mr. Jordan stated that the largest comment revolved around the City Engineer requesting that the stormline not be relocated and offered to set up a meeting with the City Engineer on possible alternative design solutions. Mr. Moriarity inquired about a required offset from the stormline. Mr. Jordan stated that his office typically requires a 30’ easement over stormlines but noted that the easement is not currently in place and would like to ensure that the foundation and the pipe are not conflicting. Mr. Moriarity inquired about the depth of the stormline. Mr. Hurt stated that his records indicated the stormline was 4’-5’ in depth. Mr. Hurt stated that the stormline runs on the applicant’s property and that they could not locate any easements. Mr. Jordan stated that when Crossroad Engineers designed the Monon Boulevard, they installed the stormline with the rights of access to install due to connecting that alley to the rest of the system. Mr. Clark inquired if the stormline was a reconstruction of the existing county-regulated drain. Mr. Jordan stated that GIS showed the stormline in question as a city line that does discharge into the county line. Mr. Clark stated that a county-regulated pipe runs parallel to the subject stormline. Nick Mishler – City of Carmel Building & Code Services - Mr. Mishler inquired if the existing portion of the tavern would be operating during construction of the proposed addition. Mr. Coots confirmed that the tavern would not be operating as one of the conditions of the rezone was that the tavern would not reopen until the construction was completed and the Certificate of Occupancy issued. Aliza Shalit – City of Carmel Signage - Comments submitted on ProjectDox. Sam Clark – Hamilton County Surveyor’s Office - Mr. Clark stated that the development would need an outlet connection permit from his office and possibly a non-enforcement agreement to allow for the consent to encroach. Ryan Murt – City of Carmel Streets - No comments. Rachel Keesling – City of Carmel Planning & Zoning - Ms. Keesling stated that the building and design met expectations from what was proposed during the rezone process and noted that the comment regarding the stormline could impact the building size. Ms. Keesling brought up a concern about a proposed garage-door opening feature shown on the plans and remembered discussing expanding the vestibule to provide better access and connectivity for servers and patrons navigating throughout the building. Page 5 of 5 City of Carmel Technical Advisory Committee July 20, 2022 Mr. Moriarity stated his only concern with expanding the vestibule and eliminating the outdoor space was a possible issue with meeting the required length for the ADA ramp. Mr. Moriarity stated his concern about how the building size could decrease. Ms. Keesling stated that the building footprint could move toward the western property line and still meet the minimum 5’ rear setback requirement. Mr. Moriarity stated he would work with Mr. Hurt and discuss the possibility of shifting the building footprint back. Mr. Hurt stated that the existing plans showed a 10’ setback with a 6” sanitary lateral and would be able to shift the building back to the 5’ minimum rear setback and might be enough to keep the stormline in place. Mr. Moriarity inquired about what landscaping was shown on the landscape plan for the area where the addition might be relocated to on the northwest corner of the parcel. Ms. Keesling pulled up the landscape plan and no landscaping was shown for this area. Mr. Hurt stated that the intention was to keep this as a grassy area and noted that Mr. Mindham had requested plantings along the north side. Ms. Keesling requested more trees along the north and west property lines to provide additional buffering and screening to the neighbors. Angie Conn – City of Carmel Planning & Zoning - Ms. Conn inquired about the prior BZA variances that were withdrawn if the applicants were planning to refile, and if so, what the timeline would look like. Mr. Coots stated that he was unsure if it had been determined yet what variances would be required and if the applicants would need to withdraw or amend their previous filings. Mr. Coots stated that the applicants were hoping to not need any variances but may need to apply for a variance for signage. Ms. Keesling stated that the applicants may also need to apply for a variance for lot coverage. Mr. Moriarity inquired if Ms. Keesling calculated lot coverage for the project. Ms. Keesling stated that Mr. Hurt had reported 87% lot coverage. Mr. Hurt confirmed this and stated that the proposed improvements add more green space that what exists currently due to a large amount of gravel on site. Ms. Keesling stated she would work with Angie as the project advances.