HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 05-16-06
w
(;)
CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT REPORT
May 16, 2006
- -
'21:. . -Dock~t N()~ 05120026 Z and ~5!~OOZ7 DP/ADLS: Village GreenPUD
The applicant seeks to rezone 9.42 acres from R2/Residential to PUDIPlanned
Unit Development for the purpose of creating 50 townhomes.
The site is located 211 W. Smokey Row Rd.
Filed by Jim Shinaver of Nelson and Frankenberger for Bay Development Co.
and Drees Premiere Homes Inc.
The applicant is requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development to allow the
construction of 50 single family attached homes. Refer to the packet for full details. The
public hearing for this item was held at the February 21, 2006 Plan Commission meeting.
This item was heard at the March 7th, 30th, and May 4th Committee meetings.
At the last committee meeting questions arose regarding City process in regards to traffic
studies and wetland mitigation. The following gives a brief summary of the process of
review for each:
Transportation Impact Study (Traffic Report) Process:
Transportation Impact Studies are only required when anyone of the following criteria
are met:
A. Significantly Sized Project:
a. A residential development that contains 150 or more dwelling units
b. A non residential development that generates 100 or more peak hour trips in
the peak direction.
B. Nearby Congestion:
If the proposed development is expected to significantly impact surrounding
roadways, intersections, or sets of intersections which are already operating at
level of service C or worse during any hour which is selected by DOCS for
analysis.
C. If the proposed development is expected by DOCS to significantly impact a
roadway segment identified by the Thoroughfare Plan.
If any of the above criteria are met, a traffic study is submitted to the City (both to DOCS
and Engineering). If the above are not met - the department may still request some
degree of traffic analysis for review. These studies provide data that is used to determine
necessary road network upgrades (that would be required as a result of the proposed
development), and to help forecast the need for future upgrades (taking into consideration
all developments currently proposed).
w
w
Wetlands Process:
An independent consultant conducts a wetlands analysis and identifies any wetlands -
based upon federal identification criteria. Prior to any work that would disturb these
wetlands, the applicant must apply for permits from the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management (IDEM) and the Army Corps of Engineers. The City does
not hold back projects that propose wetland mitigation, with the assurance that projects
can not move ahead with construction until they receive IDEM and the Army Corps of
Engineers approval for a successful mitigation. Typically the City's Environmental
Planner stays in contact with these agencies and the petitioner throughout the process of
mitigation.
Also requested were direct comments from both the Environmental PlannerlUrban
Forrester and the Dept of Engineering. See the following:
Scott Brewer, Environmental PlannerlUrban Forrester:
"As far as the plant material to be newly installed, I have no further issues with the plans,
although I would have liked to see more plant material around the front of the units. But
as completely as they are surrounded with ROWand drainage and utility easements, that
does not seem possible.
As far as tree preservation goes, apparently nothing outside the flood plain will be
preserved, and many substantial older trees within the flood plain have been
recommended to be removed by Vine and Branch because they represent fall hazards to
buildings that will be constructed or residents. While I am not arguing that these trees
should be preserved to put people in danger, I am saying that they represent a (wildlife)
value, and a plan for mitigation of these trees should be presented (and I should received
a copy to comment on) as part of any wetland mitigation plan required by the state or
jurisdiction. This part of the plan should show the planting of native species similar to
the species removed."
Gary Duncan, Dept. of Engineering:
"Provided that the petitioner has acknowledged that any approvals by the Plan
Commission are conditional upon incorporating Items 16,24,25,27 and 34 of a letter
dated January 17,2006 from Engineering to the petitioner into the final construction
drawings, all Engineering issues related to the primary plat have been satisfactorily
addressed. "
This item was sent back to the full Plan Commission with no action from the Special
Studies Committee.
The Department recommends that the Plan Commission forward this request to the
City Council with a positive recommendation.
..
(.;)
Page 1 of 1
o
DeVore, Laura B
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Griffin, Matt L
Friday, May 12, 200610:07 PM
DeVore, Laura B
Brad Schneider; Charlie Frankenberger (E-mail); Dave Barnes (E-mail); Jim Shinaver (E-mail); John
Pearson; John Talbot (E-mail); Jon Isaacs (E-mail); Keeling, Adrienne M; Kevin Roberts PE (E-
mail); Larry Kemper (E-mail); Mark Monroe (E-mail); Mary Solada (E-mail); Matthew Skelton (E-
mail); Mike Armstrong (E-mail)
Subject: Carmel Plan Commission Reports: May 16, 2006
Please see the attached.
Matthew L. Griffin, AICP
Planning Administrator
Department of Community Services
City of Cannel
One Civic Square
Cannel, IN 46032
phone: 317.571.2417
fax: 317.663.3208
email: mgriffin@carmel.in.gov
5/16/2006