Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 09-04-07 "/ CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE DEPARTMENT REPORT September 4, 2007 1. Docket No. 070700017 ADLS Amend: The Ginkgo Tree The applicant seeks approval for a parking area expansion. The site is located at 105 I't Ave NE and i's zoned B-l/Business within the Old Town Overlay - Character subarea. Fired by Jennifer & Carl Hartmann. The appl icant 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 corner of I st Street NE and 1'1 A venue 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 torn down. There is a mature tree on-site that will 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-l/Business zoned properties along 1 st Ave. back to Residential. While the City will not be asking to rezone the Ginkgo Tree property back to residential, he believes that the City and business owners 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 has made some suggestions on how to preserve the tree, as the new concrete parking area is installed. If the Hartman's can keep the soil volume they have now, 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 and tree root preservation, but it is a slightly more expensive alternative to concrete. The City Forester has stated that the Hartmann's should have a certified arborist prune the tree, and "deadwood" any material out of it. At the August 7 Special Studies committee meeting, this item was tabled and the petitioner was told that issues need to be resolved before appear at the Sept. 4 committee meeting. On Aug. 30, the petitioner met with and received comments form the Forestry, Engineering, and Planning/zoning departments. DOCS concerns/comments: 1.) The preservation of the existing trees on site should take precedence. 2.) The maximum lot cov~r is 70% (this includes building footprint and pavement). The petitioner should provide the percent of lot cover, after all improvements. A rough calculation from the department shows 68% lot coveL 3.) The City Forester would like an updated landscape plan that shows the new parking area expansion and the removal of the garage. 4.) The Engineering Dept and the Planning/Zoning Dept are okay with the proposed parking area curbing. 5.) The proposed parking space dimensions and aisle width are tight. However, the Engineering Dept has reviewed the layout and it can work. 6.) The initial rezone of the property included a commitment that there would be a maximum of two employee vehicles parked on-site; all other employees were to use the Lions Club parking lot. The petitioner should verify this at the Sept. 4 meeting, 7,) Multiple Engineering Dept comments!concems: ,/) a. Is the construction of the parking on-site necessary to comply with zoning requirements or are the spaces simply desired by the petitioner? b. The Department suggests that any app.rovals be conditioned upon adhering to the requirement.',; outlined in an email to the petitioner from Gary Duncan dated November 14, 2006 as well as the conditions of the BPW &5 approval for the curb cut modifications. The current plan does not represent the conditions of the BPW &S approval or the email noted above. c. The following comments are related to the site plan attached to the application: LThe installation of a curb along the east and north may further help preserve the tree. 2. The curbing indicated does not meet current City Standards. 3. The proposed plan does not indicate the distance from the property line to the proposed eastern edge of the parking lot. 4. Engineeling 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. 5. Engineering supports any efforts to utilize low impact improvements such as penneable pavers. 6. 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. d. Verify the grading/topography elevations of the proposed driveway/parking area. The drop in grade seems steep. Note: This item only requires final approval by this committee. The Department of Community Services recommends the Special Studies Committee approve the request with the following conditions: 1. conditioned upon adhering to the requirements outlined in an email to the petitioner from Gary Duncan ( Engineering Dept) dated November 14, 2006, as well as 2. the conditions of the BPW &5 approval for the curb cut modifications.