Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 08-07-07 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE DEPARTMENT REPORT August 7, 2007 7. Docket No. 070700017 ADLS Amend: The Ginkgo Tree The applicant seeks approval for a parking area expansion. The site is located at 105 1st Ave NE and is zoned B-1 /Business within the Old Town Overlay - Character subarea. Filed by Jennifer & Carl Hartmann. The applicant seeks committee approval to tear down an existing garage and create an additional concrete parking area. The site is located within Old Town at the northeast comer of 1 st Street NE and 1 sl Avenue NE. This location is an important transition between the commercial uses along Main and the residential neighborhood. The site does not contain a contributing building, per the Old Town Overlay Map, and so the garage structure can be tom down. However, there is a mature tree on-site that should definitely be preserved, as it adds character and value to the property and to Old Town, as a whole. The Planning/Zoning Director has stated that later this summer, DOCS will be filing with the Plan Commission a rezone request to change the B-IlBusiness zoned properties along 1st Ave. back to Residential. While the City will not be asking to rezone the Ginko Tree property back to residential, he believes that the City and business ovmers need to be cautious with how business expands with respect to the residential nature of Old Town. In this case, every effort should be made to preserve the large maple tree. The City Forester has talked with the Engineering Dept. about the Ginkgo Tree, as well as made a site visit and talked to Mrs. Hartmann. He thinks the idea of removing the tree to increase the parking by possibly one space (if that) does not make a lot of sense. If the Hartman's can keep the soil volume they have now, and he thinks they can, and then it should not be a problem to preserve the tree. Also, the use of pervious pavers or permeable concrete could provide some advantage to storm water drainage, but drainage could be improved simply by re-Iaying the old concrete surface with new material and engineering drainage solutions. The City Forester has stated that the Hartmann's should have a certified arborist pnme the tree, and "deadwood" any material out of it. They can build a short curb on the east side if they would like to prevent any erosion. DOCS concerns/comments: 1.) The preservation of the existing trees on sit~ should take precedence. 2.) The increase of pavement within Old Town is a concern because ofthe decreasing green space and increased storm water runoff. If approved, the petitioner should try to use 100% or some pervious pavers, instead of poured concrete. 3.) The maximum lot cover is 70% (this includes building footprint and pavement). The petitioner should provide the percent of lot cover, after all improvements are made. Variance from the BZA (Board of Zoning Appeals) may be required. 4.) Multiple Engineering Dept comments/concerns: a. Is the construction ofthe parking on-site necessary to comply with zoning requirements or are the spaces simply desired by the petitioner? b. Could the plan bear to lose one proposed space on-site in favor of preserving the tree and creating new green space knowing that there will be future on-street parking spaces? c. Is a variance needed for the proposed dimensions of the parking spaces? d. From what I understand, at the BZA hearing the petitioner committed that employees would utilize off-site parking. The petitioner should confirm that the parking is being constructed for customers. e. The Department suggests that any approvals be conditioned upon adhering to the requirements outlined in an email to the petitioner from Gary Duncan dated November 14,2006 as well as the conditions of the BPW &8 approval for the curb cut modifications. The current plan does not represent the conditions of the BPW &8 approval or the email noted above. f. The following comments are related to the site plan attached to the application: 1. ~While I have not discussed this with Mr. Hartmann, the current ordinance requires all parking lots to be curbed with City Standard Curb unless water quality system necessitates absence of such curb. The petitioner has indicated a cillb along the east side of the proposed parking lot; but not around the entire parking lot. The installation of a curb may further help preserve the tree. 2. The curbing indicated does not meet current City Standards. Also, variance approval fro the BZA may be required for not having parking area curbing around the whole parking area. c. The proposed plan does not indicate required work in the right-of-way that was a condition of the BPW &8 approval. 3. The proposed plan does not indicate the distance from the property line to the proposed eastern edge of the parking lot. 4. The proposed plan indicates a curb cut on 1st Street NE that is wider than what the BPW&S approved. 5. Engineering supports the preservation of the existing tree on the property. Engineering actually provided a suggested parking layout to the petitioner in November of 2006 that attempted to minimize the impact to the existing tree. 6. Engineering supports any efforts to utilize low impact improvements such as permeable pavers. 7. Engineering indicated reservations related to the restricted area available to construct an adequate parking area in accordance with accepted practice in previous correspondence with the petitioner. Note: This item only requires final approval by this committee. If necessary, the Department of Community Services recommends that the Special Studies Committee table the request to. the Sept. 4 meeting, to leave the petitioner time to address aU comments and concerns.