Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Sub 03-05-02CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MARCH 05, 2002 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Subdivision Committee met on March 03, 2002 at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall, Members present were: Dave Cremeans; Marilyn Anderson, ex- officio; Dan Dutcher; Wayne Haney; Ron Houck; and Maureen Pearson. Jon Dobosiewicz was in attendance representing the Department of Community Services. Item I.Docket No. 159 -01- PP, The Townhomes at Hazel Dell Petitioner seeks approval to plat a ninety -nine lot subdivision on 23.95 acres. The site is located northwest of East I I6 Street and Hazel Dell Parkway. The site is zoned R -2 /Residence. The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waivers: 159 -01aSW SCO 7.0.1 Minimum distance between units of 6; 159 -01bSW SCO 7.6.3 Minimum width of 75' for Open Space 159 -01cSW SCO 6.3.20 Every Residential subdivided property shall be served from a public street 159 -01dSW SCO 6.3.24 Frontage Place exceeds 600' and does not terminate at street 159 -01eSW SCO 6.5.1 Minimum lot frontage of 50' at right -of -way line. Filed by Paul Rioux of Platinum Properties Jim Nelson appeared before the Committee representing the applicant. Paul Rioux of Platinum Properties was also present. Following the public hearing, the petitioner had additional meetings with the Department and the neighborhood. Comments made at those meetings as well as comments made by the Subdivision Committee were taken into consideration and the plans were revised in an attempt to address those comments. The density was shifted from south to north to the extent possible, and greater separation between the buildings was provided. In the area south of the southern-most drive, there are now 8 buildings; previously there were 10. The distance between the buildings has been expanded from 25 feet to 65 feet. In addition, the petitioner has provided for architectural diversity with respect to the front elevation of the individual townhomes, thus eliminating all one building material or "all one cover." Paul Rioux of Platinum Properties further described the changes made. Mr. Rioux said he had met on two occasions with the neighboring homeowners groups. Previously, there were 10 buildings proposed on the plan that fronted on Hazel Dell Parkway, 12 buildings in total. In response to comments and public input, two buildings have been eliminated S:\PlanConu-nission\Minutes\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\2002mar from the Hazel Dell front, and additional units have been added to the north as far as logically possible. Lake Forest and Brookfield Subdivisions will not be connected by street. The buildings have also been "turned" so there is less exposure to Lake Forest. There will be mounding and fencing in the area from the south to Mr. Pursel's property that is more exposed. Platinum properties committed to continue the fence south of the property. The exposed area of facade seen by the Lake Forest residents has been reduced by 25 The buildings have been separated by 65 feet in each case and additional parking has been added for a total of 88 off street spaces. The parking was "flipped" to the east side of the road. An additional 200 feet of open space has also been created. At last evening's meeting, re- locating the open space to the south close to Lake Forest was discussed; this would be one less building exposed to the neighbors. Mr. Rioux said one main concern was the architectural design of the buildings. The desired appearance is that of individual residences rather than one large facade of one color and more like an apartment. An artist's rendering was displayed showing alternating front and style: shutters, bay windows, boxed -out windows, and a set -off of three feet gives each of the buildings a "home look" and individual character. In regard to the rear elevation of the buildings, there are two alternatives. For the buildings that face Lake Forest community, brick will appear 3 stories high on the end units as well as the entire side of the buildings; the interior units will have vinyl. Architectural standards will be committed to and in accordance with the recorded plat. Lastly, the petitioner is willing to commit to no floodlights, no exterior lighting other than coach lights, and wrought iron on the porches. At the end of 200 feet of fence at the south end, the beginning of the Pursel property, mounding and landscaping will be incorporated. Jon Dobosiewicz referred to the Department Report that mentioned items to be addressed by the petitioner such as providing additional open space area to the south and additional landscaping. In addition, the Department requests a copy of the commitments regarding set -backs prior to returning to the full Commission. Also, the revisions to the landscape plan must be reviewed by Scott Brewer, Urban Forester, to confirm that the plantings are equivalent or exceed the original number of plant materials. It looks as if additional shrubs and evergreens have been added for buffering. The Department is agreeable to the number and placement of parking spaces and the re- distribution of the buildings specifically addresses concerns raised at the previous Committee meeting. In response to additional letters received from the public, everything received since last Friday has been distributed to the Committee members and, in fact, all Plan Commission members. In response to questions from Dave Cremeans, Jon Dobosiewicz asked if the Committee really wanted a part in determining the colors of the buildings and referring this item to the Special Study Committee for approval or whether or not the Subdivision Committee is satisfied with the project as revised. Jon Dobosiewicz said the Department is satisfied S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes \2002mar 2 with the revisions, i.e. the shutters that individualize the homes, windows at the rear, windows would also help dress -up the side of the buildings. Ron Houck asked if the written commitments were available this evening. Jim Nelson said it was not previously known exactly what the commitments were going to be. However, there is a set of written commitments on file that deal with the 6 -acre pocket of open space to the north, and the intention is to formalize the site plan and the specific commitments. Ron Houck expressed concern with the view between the building and parking lot. Will these areas be open asphalt, or landscaped. There should be some plantings to shield this area from view. Paul Riox said that in each case, the parking spaces are pretty -well shielded from view. At the perimeter, there is a lot of landscaping, something like 900 shrubs planned. Some of the landscaping will be shifted to the south end, but the numbers remain the same. The petitioner would like to trade -off numbers to the side, although Scott Brewer is not confident that large trees would survive. Mr. Rioux believes there is a large amount of plant material; if 300 large trees would work would work rather than 475 small trees, a better job could be done of screening. It is also difficult to fit 475 small trees on the site. Jon Dobosiewicz recommended that landscaping provisions be included at Scott Brewer's discretion; the Committee has the ability, and this could be included as a part of the motion. Ron Houck asked the distance of the setback from Hazel Dell to the garage; Jon Dobosiewicz said the distance from the Hazel Dell right -of -way would be 18 feet plus the driveway, plus an additional 20 feet for a total of approximately 60 feet from the edge of pavement. Marilyn Anderson had some comments regarding the smaller trees. It is less of a shock to a tree -root system to plant smaller trees; in a few years, the smaller trees "catch up" to the larger trees and there is little visual difference. It is the initial planting that is a visual difference in size versus quantity. Marilyn agreed that this should be left up to Scott Brewer. Marilyn Anderson also asked about the increase in the greenspace to the south and what neighbors supported this change. Wayne Haney commented that this is a very difficult site; the petitioner is proposing 97 units. The proposal will put 3 to 400 people in the area and 200 plus cars into the narrow strip of land. The units are three -story walk -ups, most with no rear yard, no side yard, minute front yard, and no recreational amenities in or near this site. This proposal is too dense a development with absolutely no amenities and a view of traffic on Hazel Dell. Dave Cremeans allowed additional public input: S:\PlanConu-nission\Minutes\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\2002mar Chad Randall, Forest Park Lane, representing Lake Forest Subdivision, opposes the development and would like to understand better the "labor situation." Mr. Randall submitted a petition of homeowners in opposition. Lake Forest Subdivision is relatively active and has met with Michael Hollibaugh regarding this proposed development. The density is still opposed. There are concerns that could be legitimized, but the waivers being sought by the petitioner will affect the product and the immediate area. The homeowners had the following questions: 1) Is this the highest and best use of the land? 2) The R -2 Zoning and height of the structure, (maximum height is 25 feet); 3) the depth of the lots; and 4) the practical difficulty associated with the site. Under the Open Space Ordinance, there is a difference between a major subdivision and a minor subdivision what is this? Even though R -2 provides for minimal lot sizes and minimal lot standards, according to Chapter 7, these can be voided. The Open Space Ordinance allows the proposed density. The practical difficulty has been self imposed by the developer and the property should not be developed by granting waivers that will indirectly affect the Lake Forest Homeowners. The combination of the three -story structures and the waivers is not acceptable. A two story structure would be considered acceptable by the Lake Forest Homeowners. Lake Forest is proud of its neighborhood and environment that includes parks recognized by the National Forestry Association as well as the National Assoc. of Homebuilders. Dan Kane, 12419 Springbrooke Run, representing 25 homeowners in northern Lake Forest and the southern portion of Springbrooke —those persons most affected by the proposed development, are in full support of this development. The previous proposals by Stout Development were not acceptable to any of the adjoining neighbors. The property is zoned R -2 and does allow the proposal. At some point in time, the property will be developed, and we have the opportunity to approve what is most palatable. Again, the 25 homeowners that Mr. Kane represents fully support this proposal. Robert Garnsen, 5201 Purcel Lane, has been opposed to this project all along and asks that it not be approved. However, two -story structures to include the 6 acres to the north would lower the density that is being addressed two months in a row. Mr. Garnsen could not understand why the northern portion is not being developed. It would be preferable to have the buildings facing each other with their backsides facing the adjoining developments. If the waivers are approved, Mr. Garnsen asked that all commitments be submitted in writing. Also, 475 trees and 900 shrubs into an area like this would offer an opportunity to put in trees on a "two for one" basis; for instance one tree of 3 or 4 caliper versus two trees at 1 /2 caliper. This would also offer immediate screening as opposed to 4 years growth. Mr. Garnsen asked that for each building needing a 75 foot waiver, the developer will install two or more trees to the best visual advantage. Pat Skiles? Agreed with comments made by Mr. Wayne Haney—Ms. Skiles is opposed to the proposal for this type of housing. Jon Dobosiewicz commented that there has been a lot of public input on this project and the comments have been reviewed. Regarding the question brought up about standards S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes \2002mar 4 and setback requirements, the Committee is reminded that they are in a solid position in forwarding a recommendation to the full Commission, positive or negative. The density has been brought up as an issue; the permitted density of this property under the R -2 zoning and under the Open Space Ordinance is 3.9 units per acre. Additional density is allowed in exchange for providing additional open space. Regarding the height of the structures —this is a package in a concept for the committee and the Plan Commission to consider. Variance or waiver is not a "bad word." It is the ability for the Plan Commission to use its judgment in determining whether or not the proposal by the petitioner is equal to or superior to the requirements set forth in the Subdivision Control Ordinance. In this case, the petitioner has provided evidence that they are providing a situation equal to or superior to the requirements in the Ordinance. The current proposal is a superior format as opposed to individual houses on 50 -foot wide lots, 6 feet between the structures, and another access point onto Hazel Dell Parkway. However, that is not what the Committee is being asked to consider. From a general standpoint, this is what the Committee should be considering. With regard to legal precedent, it would not apply in this case. The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals VS McDonald's is not pertinent to this issue. A lot of public input has been offered on this process and evidence submitted that would help the Committee apply the Ordinance. Unless there are specific questions on ideas presented and /or specific recommendations, Jon Dobosiewicz requested a meeting with the petitioner's attorney and asked that the commitments be crafted for submission to the Department and ultimate distribution with the Department Report in advance of the full Commission meeting. Jim Nelson clarified his understanding of the referred commitments. 1) The open space now on file with the Department, 6 acres on the northern portion of the site, will be developed in accordance with the site plan shown, subject to changes as recommended by the DOCS and Plan Commission. 2) The landscape plan will be subject to final review by Scott Brewer, Urban Forester, who might consider the substitution of plant material. 3) The petitioner will commit to the architectural design of the building represented by drawings as shown to the Committee. 4) The DOCS will be responsible for the selection or color palate of materials; the windows will have shutters, both front and back. 5) The fence will be continued from the western property line down to the southern end and across the southern end of the property. 6) Those buildings that face Hazel Dell Parkway will have brick on the ends and the backs of the buildings. Dave Cremeans said a major issue seems to be a three -story structure as opposed to two stories. Mr. Rioux said that Ryland Homes' product is a three -story product. One of the things with these homes is that they are 1800 to 2200 square feet homes that will sell for $150,000 to $225,000. You will not get first time homebuyers looking at these as an alternative when you look at what is available in Carmel for that price. The life style, type of life, and market appeal of this product will not attract children. The homes will be low maintenance with no yards. The homes will attract professionals, couples, divorcees, etc. If the homes were reduced to two stories, they would be 1100 to 1500 S:\PlanConu-nission\Minutes\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\2002mar square feet and would sell from $89,900 to $150,000. Two -story structures would change the character, the price point, and the perception of this property. Jon Dobosiewicz commented the proposal meets all of the standards of the Ordinance. There are a lot of advantages to this product and there are a lot of concerns expressed. All of the concerns need to be weighed by the Committee before forwarding a recommendation to the full Commission. Ron Houck commented the facade can be changed by varying the setback and the materials used; also the window treatments. Ron asked for some variation in the facades of the buildings so that it will look less like an apartment building. There is a perceived need for screening as far as landscaping. Perhaps a larger count in some areas would suffice as opposed to sprinkling larger trees throughout the entire area. Ron asked if there were additional amenities, other than trails. Ron Houck commented that when an item is forwarded to the Committee for review, it deserves action. Ron Houck then moved to forward Docket No. 159 -01 DP, Townhomes at Hazel Dell, to the Commission with a favorable recommendation, with the request that the Subdivision Waivers be considered together. The motion was seconded by Maureen Pearson and voted 4 in favor, one opposed (Wayne Haney). MOTION APPROVED. Item 2. Docket No. 24 -02 ADLS Long Branch Estates Subdivision, Temporary Sales Office Identification Sign. Petitioner seeks approval to amend their Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping Signage for a temporary sales office identification sign. The site is located on Lot 42 in Long Branch Estates Subdivision. The site is zoned S- 1 /Residential. Filed by Pulte Homes of Indiana Paul Rioux of Platinum Properties appeared before the Committee as developer of Long Branch Estates located at 116 Street and Shelborne Road. Pulte Homes is the builder in the Subdivision. The petitioner is requesting a temporary sales office identification sign. Jon Dobosiewicz said that with the revision of the Subdivision Ordinance, standards for signage is now addressed and this is an item that will be seen frequently in the next few months as signage is brought before the Committee. The Department's recommendation is for approval. Dan Dutcher moved for approval of Docket No. 24 -02 ADLS, Long Branch Estates Subdivision, Temporary Sales Office Identification Sign. The motion was seconded by Ron Houck and APPROVED 5 -0. S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes \2002mar 6 Item 3. Docket No. 26 -02 ADLS, Long Branch Estates Subdivision, Subdivision Sign Petitioner seeks approval to amend their Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping 7 Signage for a subdivision sign. The site is located at the intersection of 116 Street and Long Branch Lane. The site is zoned S- 1 /Residential. Filed by Northside Investments, LLC. Paul Rioux of Platinum Properties appeared before the Committee requesting a Subdivision sign for entrance into the Long Branch Estates community on the wing wall. Jon Dobosiewicz reviewed the current proposal for signage located on either side of the wing wall, up- lighted. The signage is allowed under the current Ordinance. Ron Houck asked about the materials for the sign. The petitioner said the sign will be cut limestone with black letters, centered on the brick wing wall. Maureen Pearson moved for approval of Docket No. 26 -02 ADLS, Long Branch Estates Subdivision Sign. The motion was seconded by Ron Houck and APPROVED 5 -0. Un- numbered Item. Docket No. 150 -01 DP Amend /ADLS Amend, Stewart Stewart Office Building, received verbal approval at the Commission meeting on February 19, 2002 (Ron Houck recused.) The Commission members that were present at that meeting were requested to fill out the formal Findings of Fact. Reminder to the Committee: Architectural Standards items are to be submitted to Jon Dobosiewicz at the DOCS. The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 PM. Dave Cremeans, Chairperson Ramona Hancock, Secretary S :\P1anCommission\ Minutes\ SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes \2002mar