HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes RES 1-02-24City of Carmel
1
Residential Committee 1-2-24
Carmel Plan Commission
RESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE
Tuesday, January 2, 2024 Meeting Minutes
LOCATION: Caucus Rooms, City Hall
Members Present: Sue Westermeier (Chair), Dubbie Buckler, Adam Campagna, Jeff Hill
Staff Present: Alexia Lopez (Planning Administrator), Bric Butler (Recording Secretary), Sergey Grechukhin, (Legal
Counsel to the Plan Commission)
Meeting Time: 6:00 p.m.
1. Docket No. PZ-2023-00014 PUD: Andrews PUD Rezone
The applicant seeks PUD rezone approval to allow a new neighborhood consisting of 30 single-family
dwellings. The site is located at 4411 E 146th Street and is zoned R-1/Residence. Filed by Jim Shinaver
and Jon Dobosiewicz of Nelson & Frankenberger on behalf of Schafer Development, LLC
Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewicz:
• Staff request to clarify section 2.E.2 and 2.F.2 regarding the dwellings masonry wainscots to ensure all
sides match has been met in current revision of the PUD text.
• Staff request to remove a particular option regarding architectural standards for the side elevations of the
dwellings has been met in the current revision of the PUD text.
• Staff request to have a minimum number of dwellings that would have a front porch that is forward of the
two-bay garage by a minimum of six feet has been met. The petitioner indicates they could commit that a
minimum of five of the dwellings meet the aforementioned standards and all other porches not forward of
the garage will be a minimum of 80 sq. ft.
• Staff request regarding the specificity of the definition of the term “elevation” has been addressed, new
definition clarifies that changes in materials and window placement alone do not constitute differences in
elevation. To be considered a different elevation any single change including but not limited to roof line,
number/style/design of gables, roof pitches, inclusion of dormers (zero vs. one or more), porch design, and
porch placement shall qualify as a change.
• Staff request to add definition of primary/main roofline was added to ordinance under definition section.
• Removed images of example elevations out of the ordinance. Clarifies that architectural standards are still
present, but images were removed as they are not relevant to the administration of the ordinance.
• Open space plan still to be finalized between project engineer and Daren Mindham, Urban Forester.
• Staff request to reinsert language requiring minimum 50 ft. buffer along the north of the site has been
fulfilled on the condition that items like the dog park fence and fence around community garden can be
within 25 ft. of 146th Street.
Department Report: Alexia Lopez
• The petitioner made several changes since the department report. Staff met with the petitioner today (1-2-
2024) regarding recent changes. Staff agreed with most of the changes but states they now have some
follow-up clarification questions.
• The petitioner clarified for staff that all porches can be six feet deep at minimum.
• Roof pitch concerns: A 5/12 vs 6/12 pitch roof could still look very similar while technically being
different. Staff would like to see this portion of the text shored up with additional detail. Petitioner instead
indicates that they will simply remove roof pitch from the list of architectural options to be a qualifier to
make two elevations be different.
• Staff reiterated the need for updated open space plan.
• Street tree planting text is still indicating only one per lot. Staff desired to see additional wording to assure
2
Residential Committee 1-2-24
street trees are located on the entrance street and surrounding the common area. Petitioner agrees to clarify
the wording to ensure the request is fulfilled.
• Staff reiterated to the committee that the site plan has been updated to show the stub street to the east.
• Staff indicated that the City Engineer was not supportive of the reduced right of way width at this time
without more data to show the need. Petitioner clarified they will still be adding a speed hump in the
neighborhood at the connection point to the Gray Oaks neighborhood. Staff reiterated that the curvature of
the neighborhood road will also help slow down traffic.
• Staff indicated the petitioner added text to include a minimum of ten new native trees per acre of common
area as requested by staff.
• Staff will provide a favorable recommendation seeing as the petitioner is amenable to addressing their
remaining concerns in a suitable fashion prior to the full Plan Commission hearing.
Committee Comments:
Hill: Does the concession you made on the front porches that extend beyond the garages, how does that affect the
home placement. Do they still work on the five or six lots we talked about? Maybe it’s a non-issue can you help
me understand that?
Ramage: Yes, it’s a non-issue. The setback in the ordinance is a variable setback I believe its twenty two feet and
twenty four feet and it varies two foot to two foot lot to lot. So, we had a couple of plans in there already that had
you know a large protruding front porch so we would have baked in the deepest floor plan on our lot fit exhibit so
we should not have a problem as it relates to setbacks. What that would do is push it further to the rear of the lot,
so maybe a handful of lots in particular don’t have a ton of space however these all have rear covered porches and
things so it’s less important to this buyer than a buyer like me who has three kids.
Hill: So might be a smaller rear yard but we are not going to need to see a variance for anything like that?
Ramage: I know where you are going, and I do not think that scenario is going to rear its ugly head.
Hill: If we send you on your way, we want you to be on your way, not come back.
Ramage: Us too, thank you!
Hill: I appreciate the addition of the stub street. I know that was important and I appreciate that collaboration. The
other thought I had, we talked last time about the reduced right of way width, I think that would have been a good
way to slow traffic down but the longer I stare at this thing the curvilinear elements at the south end, the speed
hump, the tight curves you have there, I don’t think speeds will generally be an issue. There is an avenue to help
correct that in particular at the entrance to the south. I guess can you speak to what needs to be done to satisfy the
open space requirements?
Ramage: R1 open space requirement is as I understand it 25% I feel that we will have no problem achieving 25%
the plan in front of you for whatever reason has shown 53% as calculated by the engineer. So that raised a couple
of red flags to everyone, we told the engineer you need to get with Daren and make sure you are interpreting the
ordinance correctly because certain buffer yards only count as 50% not 100% towards the open space calculation
so in addition to a couple items related to street trees, Kimley-Horn is going to make sure they are 100% aligned
in how the calculation is being done, and we will reflect that appropriately. It will not be less than 25%.
Buckler: That doesn’t affect anything in here [referencing provided handout] right?
Ramage: No, the plan would still look the same, nothing is going to change. The only thing we might do is
increase the minimum as set forth in the ordinance to make sure it is calculated correctly.
Campagna: What is the actual acreage of the open space here? It’s definitely not 12.4 acres.
Ramage: No, sorry I apologize about that. That open space in particular…less than a third of an acre.
Campagna: I guess my real question was is there anything planned for it?
Ramage: We have not programed what I will call the center island open space yet. Now with the stub street
pointing directly at that maybe something goes there but we have not programmed that.
Campagna: A little bit of chaos with people crossing the street depending on how busy it is.
Buckler: I just appreciate all the changes and concessions that have been made, it’s a much better project now.
Campagna: I guess it would just be nice to know a general idea of what this space would be used for. Is it just
3
Residential Committee 1-2-24
going to be open grassland, is there going to be any additional landscaping plans for it?
Ramage: Now I also believe there is a street tree requirement along the common area. So, it will be landscaped,
let’s call it, but it certainly won’t look like an orchard. I think we can make it look nice, not just like someone’s
extended backyard. To the extent of “is there something identifiable to put there outside of well-placed trees?” I
don’t have that answer at this time.
Westermeier: Things that could be placed there would be like park benches?
Ramage: Yeah probably something like that.
Westermeier: To make it not look like an extension of someone’s [backyard].
Ramage: Maybe there is something we can do, some outdoor seating or something like that. With that being
surrounded by houses it wouldn’t have the aesthetic appeal that maybe the pond overlook would have. So, I don’t
think it looks representative of what the images are in the PUD ordinance of what the pond overlook would be.
We can go back and figure out how we might plant it and we can continue to have those conversations.
Lopez: Could you commit to a certain number of trees? If it is less than an acre you technically would not be
required to put trees in that area.
Ramage: Let me do this, let me go figure out what’s in this area. I’ll give you the pro-rata of ten per acre. If its .6
[acres] I’ll give you six, if its .4 [acres] I’ll give you four, if its 9/10ths of an acre I’ll give you nine.
Westemeier: The department wants 10. So, I’m trying to work with you here. I mean as many trees as we can do
we need it. But I’d like if this thing moves forward for it to be done and known at the full Plan Commission.
Ramage: On how it’s going to be programmed, at Plan Commission? Yes.
Westemeier: And then what kind [of tree] are we looking at?
Ramage: I’m not hesitating because I don’t want to answer the question. I am just not the landscape architect
who can tell you that something looks good.
Campagna: I think my fear on that is do you want to go in there and it just look like an undeveloped lot?
Westemeier: That’s an excellent point, I think that’s what we are trying to do since you brought it up.
Ramage: I’m going to get slapped for this and I probably know that…If I’m measuring out the size of the lot,
would I be able to add another lot there to fill it in for the one I lost to the stub street on the other end?
Westemeier: No, but it doesn’t hurt to ask.
Lopez: You’d still need to meet the 25% open space.
Ramage: That’s fine I knew the answer before I asked the question.
Westermeier: I would ask Jon to come back with a summary of everything we have committed to right now that
will be added to any recommendation we make.
Dobosiewicz: My understanding is the recommendation will be based upon the information we provided this
evening and the changes that were made and identified in the redline. There are four additional items, one was in
regard to porches, that all would be six feet deep. The second item was with regard to the difference in elevations
being exclusive of roof pitch. The third item was to delete in part the language in regards to street trees and the
per lot requirements in favor of the language we reviewed this evening. The fourth item is with regard to
landscaping within that internal open space area which at this point is a per acre ratio of ten per acre that we are
going to take a longer look at and come back with before the full Plan Commission.
Westermeier: You are going to provide an updated open space plan?
Ramage: Yes.
Buckler referenced handout suggesting possible tree locations to the petitioner.
Ramage: We would probably try and strategically place trees to help shield any headlights that would be shining.
So, you might see something across from the stub street so that lights don’t continue to shine across to the western
side of the project. So, move your pen to the left [referenced handout] those lots across the street, you’d probably
see some trees on the eastern side of that central triangle closer to the stub street. As you’re coming south from
the entrance off 146th Street you’d probably see some trees bunched right about in there to help block…
Buckler again referenced the handout regarding possible tree placement.
Ramage: I will do you one better, let’s just call it a half-acre so it will be five or six [trees]. It will be that plus the
street trees because there is a street tree requirement, even for non-lots.
4
Residential Committee 1-2-24
Dobosiewicz: The numbers we are talking about are in addition to what you see in the tree lawn, between the
sidewalk and the street.
Buckler: Well no, altogether you have three showing.
Ramage: What we are saying is the calculation we are doing of ten per acre would be in addition [to the street
trees].
Buckler: Oh, you want six inside here
Buckler was satisfied with tree quantity and placement once clarification is made by the petitioner that the street
trees will be in addition to the approximately six trees in the common area tree lawn and not the only trees present
in the area.
Campagna: This [common area] will become a dog park unless you get some good idea for it, and then like if
you don’t program it correctly and have a vision for it people aren’t going to go up here and go into it.
Ramage: Now it won’t have the fencing so it won’t be the activity dog park, but there are people way smarter
than me that have better ideas on how to do this, and I understand the committee’s desire what they want to see so
let us go figure that out.
Westermeier: What did you do about the window sizes on the side of the houses? Did you add any windows?
Ramage: We did, the windows already there were a minimum of two per side and we established the minimum
square footage I believe of eight square feet.
Westermeier: Those ones you were showing in the pictures and those ones over there in Fishers that were so
small, what size were those?
Ramage: Those were four sq. ft., so it’s one foot tall by four feet wide. That would be in something like a
bathroom typically, that doesn’t count. It’s going to be two windows that are at least eight square feet and then if
it has one of those one by four windows that’s just a bonus and it doesn’t count towards one of the two.
Westermeier: So, Jon [Dobosiewicz], you want to add to your list to remove item seven which was the
architectural styles just to add to the things we were summarizing? Does the PUD need to spell out anything
about the 50 foot buffer on the north that you can have a dog fence?
Ramage: We wrote it in the redline for tonight.
Campagna: Sorry last question I guess. Since we are talking about trees in the open space, just to clarify the Gray
Oaks area the dark green that we are looking at, is that going to be maintained as mature trees that are going to
stay or do we have any additional tree plantings for that area?
Ramage: There is a thirty foot tree preservation area to preserve the mature trees.
The remaining 6 items that the petitioner agreed to address included, requiring 6 ft. deep porches,
removing the architectural styles from the monotony mitigation, removing roof pitch from elevation
definition, removing 1 street tree per lot since street trees are required every 25 to 50 ft., providing an
updated open space plan, and adding landscaping within the central common area.
Motion by Hill, seconded by Campagna, to send item back to full Plan Commission with positive
recommendation subject to sufficient addressing of the six items the petitioner has agreed to continue
working on with staff. APPROVED 4-0.
Adjourned at 6:35 pm
_______________________________ ___________________________________________
Bric Butler – Recording Secretary Sue Westermeier - Residential Committee Chair