HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 04-15-03
/..
.r~
City of Carmel
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
-MEMO RAND UM-
Date; AprillO, 2003
To: Plan ConunissionMembers
From: Jon C. Dobosiewicz
Department of Community Services
Re; AprillSth Plan Commission meeting - Department Reports
Please find enclosed the Department Reports for the April1Sth Plan Commission meeting. An
additional Agenda has been included.
As a reminder both Committees will meet on April 22 (Tuesday). The Special Studies
Committee meeting will begin at 6 PM and the Subdivision Committee will begin at 7 PM:
If you have any questions please give me a ca).1 at 571-2417.
Page 1
ONE CIVIC SQUARE
CARMEL, INDIANA 46032
317/571~2417
CARM:EL/CLA Y PLAN COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT REPORT
April 15, 2003
Ii. Docket N~j03;.;.i;,+3tJO.;nlO-Ck~f N ortb Michigan Road (B-2 Rezone)
The petitioner seeks to rezone a Parcel from 8-1 Residential to B-2/Business. The 14.826
acre site is located along the east side of Michigan Road Yz mile north of 106111 Street.
Filed by Steve Pittman of Pittman Partners.
2i. Docket Nor3;3::;OrZ}1130pBlocl}JofNorth Michigan Road (R-4 Rezone)
The petitiorler seeKS to rezone-aparcel from S-1 Residential to R-4/Residential. The 20
acre site is located alongthe east side of Michigan Road Y:z mile north of 1061h Street.
Filed by Steve Pittman of Pittman Partners.
The applicant is requesting a favorable recommendation from the Plan Commission on their
petition to rezone approximately 15 acres B-21 Business and 20 acres R-4/Residential.
The Subdivision Committee forwards a favorable recommendation to the full Plan Commission
by a vote of 5-0 subject to the verification that the proposed commitments address all concerns
raised within the last Department Report. Please fmd a copy of the proposed commitment
attached as well as the details of the last Department Report on the fonowing page. The
Commitment does address the concerns raised by the Department.
The Department recommends that the Plan Commission forward both Docket No. 32-03 Z
and 33-03 Z to the City Council with Favorable Recommendations subject to the applicant
recording the proposed commitment.
The following is the list of issues identified in the last Department report (March 18, 2003):
1. Permitted uses: If Townhomes are what they want then the discussion should be limited to
Multiple-family dwellings by way of commitment.
2. Setbacks I buffers: Adequate buffer yard standards should be determined. There is nothing
that prevents the applicant from clearing the site. after the rezone is approved. While I am
sure that is not their intent the fact is that they may flip the parcel once it is rezoned and we
want standards to mil with the land' not relying on verbal representations made by a
petitioner.
3. Architectural Designs I building materials: What do the other three sides of the
residential buildings look like? Are they of the same materials? Is the applicant willing to
commit to specific materials and designs?
4. Design Review for the commercial area: The Department requests that the applicant
commit to application of the US 421 Overlay Zone requirements for the entire commercial
area. This will provide for consistent design across the commercial area and provide a
simple guarantee to the Plan Commission of a standard they are familiar and comfortable
with.
5. Maximum heights: Do height limitations want to be established that create a transition
from the typically two story structures along the perimeter of the site allowing three story
within the interior of the site.
6. Site Layout: Is the layout proposed by the applicant th,e best for the site. Are they
committing to return to the Commission with at primary plat? This feature would provide
greater discretion by the Plan Conunission regarding the fmallayout. In addition, specific
commitments could be made to 'address the characteristics of community proposed by the
applicant.
7. Access: Where the best locations for access to the site are? How many stubs are
necessary? Etc.