Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Sub 11-01-07of CA �VNONE y�A C i t y RTOMORROW o /NDIMAN CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MINUTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2007 LOCATION: CAUCUS ROOMS TIME: 6:00 P.M. CARMEL CITY HALL ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, IN 46032 DOORS OPEN AT 5:30 P.M. Representing the Committee Rick Ripma, Chairperson Eric Seidensticker Carol Schleif Sally Shapiro Representing the Department Adrienne Keeling Angie Conn Lisa Stewart Of Counsel: John Molitor Rick Ripma, Chairman called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Ripma reviewed the Docket Items for the meeting. The Subdivision Committee will meet to consider the following items: 1. Docket No. 07070010 PP: Trillium The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 57 residential lots on 32.447 acres. The site is located at 2555 W 131 St. and is zoned S -2 /Residence -ROSO. Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Assoc, Inc. Gordon Kritz, of Stoeppelwerth Associates presented for the petitioner. Gordon distributed responses to the previous questions of the Subdivision Committee. The request to adjust the western stub street to align with the approved subdivision to the west. That is completed. When development occurs to the west they will have to make a small adjustment to align with us. Page I of 12 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 November 1, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes The request to have park benches along the sitting areas. Those were always intended, but were not graphically shown in the past. It is now shown where they will be located. There will be 2 -3 benches at each of the sitting areas. Regarding garages having decorative doors, Adams and Marshall has provided a detail of some of the proposed decorations planned throughout the development. Additional landscaping Carol Schleif indicated that the drawings submitted did not show what was requested. They had asked for 12 ft. Norway's or sufficient screen to block the view from the street. Carol described how she took their drawings and drew in what they said they were going to plant, and it shows that only 5 trees on the whole block will be green in the winter time. Carol showed her drawing of what it will look like in the winter time. Their plantings will only provide a screen 6 months of the year and 6 months will have not screening. Carol would prefer to see something that is green and substantial 12 months out of the year. She also requested that rather than doing a rendering that they do an elevation that is truly what is happening. Gordon will pass on this information to the petitioner. Gordon indicated that the garages have the appropriate number of windows. The petitioner has already recorded the architectural commitments during zoning and they have already committed to two windows. Carol questioned if there are still front loading garages on the homes. Gordon indicated that they are an option for the purchaser. Carol asked about the 30% of the facade being garage door. Gordon responded that with the size of the lots and homes that is not feasible. In order to meet that requirement you would need an 80 ft. wide home and with set backs would need a 90 ft. lots. These are predominantly 70 ft. lots with the exception of the ones on the northwest, which are 80 ft. A 30% maximum would not work. Carol stated that is why she did not want 70 ft. lots. She indicated the Committee has gone through this with other projects and she has had to do drawings on those on how you can do it how to do side loading or bring the cars around back. This goes counter to all the design guidelines we have been working on. Carol stated that 30% is a standard number in a lot of cities. Carol passed our a number of versions on how to do this on 80 ft. lots and stated it is not true that the lots are 70 ft. Gordon stated that the Committee needs to keep in mind that the market for these homes is empty nesters. At this time Gordon was joined by John Hotalin of Adams and Marshall. John responded that he understood that folks would like to see bigger lots, however, this is an empty nester community, and they generally do not want a larger lot. Carol stated she did not think it was the size of the lots, but rather the maintenance required, and this could be covered by the HOA covenants regarding who is going to mow the lawn, etc. John replied that this is not so much about lot size as it is about density which has cleared those hurdles. He thinks that the design orientation of their home sites generally are front to rear design orientation, the homes are deeper than they are wide as opposed to other home builders whose home site may be wider and more shallow, so those garage facade ratios can be a little different when you are building wide and shallow versus front to back. Angie Conn stated that this subdivision is to be platted under the Open Space Ordinance which does allow for the narrower lots as an incentive for them to provide more open space. Carol stated that most of their open space is underwater or not useable Carol reiterated that she sees the Committee being pushed and pushed Angie stated that there is an ordinance amendment before Council that could change this ordinance. Gordon Page 2 of 12 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 November 1, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes resumed speaking about materials this goes back to recorded commitment that have already been done all homes will be brick wrapped. Angie Conn gave the Department report. The City Forester has been working with the petitioner and he has just received the new landscape plan/revision yesterday and they are just working out very minor details and the plan has tentatively approved. However, with the Department of Engineering there are several unresolved issues as seen in the Department Report, therefore, the Department recommends this item be tabled until the November 29 meeting. If the petitioner can guarantee that they can have all of this issues resolved by the next Plan Commission meeting, the Committee can forward it on. Gordon indicated he has been in contact with Gary Duncan and has an email from him. On October 2n when the first report came out, they were not supposed to be any issues due to road construction on 126 and 131S Engineering wise there are still some outstanding issues that they are trying to work out with the people who develop on it, what they are ok with getting the project out of Committee without those issues being resolved. As long as we continue to work with them on the last report he had mentioned that the issues need to be resolved before this moves out of committee some confusion here the email says they are ok Rick stated that the Committee likes to have all issues resolved prior to moving out of Committee. Carol stated she wants to see everything. Gordon asked that in regard to the two outstanding issues, i.e. the trees, and possible lot width and adjustments there, as far as Engineering portions are concerned, the Engineering Department is ok with us continuing to work with them, it could be a very long process, the city's road design, that is at the mercy of when they get that done. What Engineering comments do you want to see resolved? Rick Ripma stated that since the Committee has not seen the Engineering comments, they are unable to make a decision. We would like to have everything done before hand, which is not being done; we don't have time to review it. Rick explained further that the Committee is trying to stop projects from going forward until we have everything resolved. You cannot build until you have them resolved. We want to know what the resolution is. Rick then indicated he was under the impression that the petitioner's street was the only one that had to be moved, that the Village of West Clay's stub was already in, but that now appears not to be the case. Gordon stated that is correct he reviewed a visual. Discussion was held regarding the street alignment of the street. Both plans will need to be adjusted. Location of the benches there will be at least two. Rick stated that he is uncomfortable with the commitment on the garage doors, it gives too much latitude with what you can put in. He would like to see what exactly you are putting in and would like that to be part of the record. If you are only going to offer one, than it is fine, however, it more styles are being offered we want to see them. Also the drawing for the landscape plan showed two story houses and you are not building two story, but one story so this is not a clear drawing of what landscaping will look like we asked for trees and they put in little shrubs. Carol distributed a drawing that she did of what the block will look like in the winter. Carol gave to Gordon drawings of how to do rear loading lots as she had done in Nashville this would be one to handle the lot issue and would give privacy to the homes, it would be one way not to have front loading garages. Carol Schleif made a motion to continue this item to the November 29 meeting Page 3 of 12 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 November 1, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes Eric Seidensticker seconded the motion. Approved 4 -0 Docket No. 07080031 PP: Wellsprings of West Clay The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 11 lots on 14.3 acres. Also, subdivision waivers requested are: Docket No. 07080032 SW SCO 6.05.07 homes facing an arterial/collector road Docket No. 07080033 SW SCO 6.03.07 cul -de -sac length The site is located at approximately 12210 Shelborne Rd. and is zoned S -1 /Residence. Filed by S. Kurt Menner of Lifesprings Group, LLC.6 -9. Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger presented for the petitioner. He was accompanied by Kurt Menner, Gordon Kritz, Tom Jones, Michael Sunzell and Peggy Burton and neighbor to left Jeff Kent They have been referred to the Subdivision by the Plan Commission on October 16 Charlie reviewed the property information. He reviewed the information on a visual. The property is located on the west side of the street across from West Clay Elementary School. This Subdivision will be a low- density, upscale residential neighborhood to be known as Wellsprings of West Clay. There will be 11 lots on 14.3 acres; this will be a density of .77 lots per acre. We are asking for two waivers, (1) to allow the internal street ending in a cul -de -sac to exceed 600 ft. in length and (2) the homes on the lots adjacent to Shelborne Rd. allow the sides of those homes to face Shelborne Rd. At Plan commission we indicated that a drawing would be submitted indicating how the two homes would look behind a decorative brick entry wall from the perspective of someone standing on Shelborne Rd. and facing west and everyone should have received a drawing Charlie showed a visual which gives a perspective, The view corridor will be very nice per the illustration. There will be decorative brick walls with intermittent columns and wrought iron fences on either side of the entry way and also by water features on either side of the entry way. Also mentioned at Plan Commission the cul -de -sac will be attractively landscaped and distinguished by a fountain. We have included architectural commitments and have included character illustrations to bring the architectural commitments to life. The anticipated price range is from $900,000 to $1.5 million Angie Conn gave the Department report the City Forester has received revised landscape plans addressing his comments and he has tentatively approved the plan. The Engineering Department does have a few issues that they are working out with the petitioner. Also, as of October 24th, Engineering indicated they have not received a response to their comment letter, and based on this the Department recommends that this item to table this item to the November 29 meeting. Charlie Frankenberger responded to the report. He stated the response was received yesterday by the petitioner, so they have not had time to fully review. Rick Ripma asked if the cul -de -sac will eventually need to go to the property to the west and also can moving vans, fire trucks, maneuver in the cul -de -sac. Charlie responded. It has been their thought when designing this that the petitioner does not know when the Page 4 of 12 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 November 1, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes land to the west will be developed so when the land to the west than that developer will connect to the western part of the cul -de -sac and the cul -de -sac will remain. We received in the comments from the Engineering Department a statement that if the cul -de -sac is to remain, it must be designed as a roundabout and we have not determined what that means. Typically a roundabout is a function of the streets that connect to the roundabout, so you would not expect to see a roundabout the size of the one on Hazel Dell in a residential development. We have to work through the Engineering Dept. if we run into a situation where we are given the option of building a disproportionate roundabout, or agreeing that if and when it is later developed, we have to take it out I think we will revise our plans. Still we need to speak with Engineering. Gordon Kritz responded he will confirm with Engineering that the cul -de -sac is sufficient radius to support large truck traffic. Gordon will send design standards showing that it will be able to get. Carol Schleif stated that the lake is still very geometric in shape —Carol indicated she had looked up the topo and it is really quite flat there is not a lot of grade change on that whole site. Gordon Kritz state that they could meander that a bit. Carol strongly suggested that the petitioner slide the lake down to the end of the lot and around the back of lot 11. She stated that if you slide it down, the lots could be wider and more proportionate. It is her opinion that these lots are very long and narrow. Gordon reviewed the outlet via a visual. There was discussion regarding the possibility of moving the lake. Charlie Frankenberger stated that the lots are long, but they are not narrow. They are 120 ft. Charlie stated but that this is now a large lot for Carmel. Carol agreed it was bigger than Committee has been seeing. Discussion was held regarding different opinions of what determines a wide lot. Carol strongly suggested that the lake could be moved that the topo indicated that. Charlie strongly stated that he disagreed with Carol's assessment. He stated that the lots are quite wide and long, and the way the homes are situated on the lots they will not look at all disproportionate Carol and Charlie continued a discussion on this issue. Kurt Menner of Lifesprings Group addressed the Committee. We evaluated many different options; his preferred one was to do exactly what is now being suggested. However, the requirements for roads, etc. did allow for that, so we need to stick with the road configuration. He has been told that due to the topography and drainage point and to tie all that in, really requires that the pond be up high. We can change the shape a bit, although it needs to flow into the outlet or move a ton of earth to really shift that topography. Also to move the pond, it would take a bit away from lot 11. So we evaluated numerous plans to get the best configuration. This is the best configuration that both satisfies ordinances, building and engineering regulations for the design of the subdivision including drainage and roads, access points, and also to keep the density down 1 acre size. Carol asked how the petitioner would make the shore more realistic Gordon stated that it could be undulated. Carol indicated that according to the grade lines it is fairly steep from the property line all the way down to the water line and there is not a lot of wiggle room and that is why she is saying that maybe having it all in one spot instead of having it Page 5 of 12 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 November 1, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes come this way is your answer. The area is maxed out and there will no open space that anyone will be able to sit on with the grade lines like this. It is sloped and you need to start worrying about children falling in at this point. Carol indicated that she has drawn these types of plans herself and she feels there is an opportunity to make something naturalistic and she stated that if the petitioner's engineer could not do this, they perhaps need a new engineer. She emphasized if was not her goal for them to retain another engineer; however, they need one who can give the correct answers. Carol again reiterated that she would like to see the lots wider. Charlie Frankenberger indicated he did not understand what Carol was suggesting. He again strongly stated that the lots are not narrow, and it does meet the density requirements. Carol stated that density is not everything, it is just a number. It is what you do with the development, how does it look and feel. Carol Schleif then moved the discussion to the issue of side loading garages Discussion ensued regarding roof pitches, and side loading garages. Charlie stated that they are requesting primary plat approval and there are no architectural standards for the S 1 district other than a minim house size of 900 sq. ft. one story. We are offering the architectural commitments to prospective buyers. Carol asked the petitioner why with 120 ft. lots why do you need front loading garages? Charlie indicated some people might like them. His supposition was probably not very many; however, if someone at this price point wants a front loading garage they should be able to have one. He pointed out that there are custom homes all over Carmel that have front loading garages. He suggested that this should be left up to the customer. Carol disagreed and said just the petitioners should say no and put into the commitments they are not allowed front loading garages. Carol also stated that putting in nice, beautiful garage doors that are part of the architecture, part of the design and complimentary that is permissible, but we have had so many go in that are functional, they do not had to the house, but detract from the house and in this price range with this lot width it is not necessary. Carol asked if they were going to have an architect design the homes and stamp the plans. Discussion was held on possible builders. This item will be forwarded to the November 29 meeting. Docket No. 07080036 PP: Rosado Hill The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 3 lots on 9.05 acres. Also, subdivision waivers requested are: WITHDRAWN• Doeket No. 07080037 SMI SCO ti 03 03 Q, ti nn nn st streets t as n t par-e Docket No. 07080038 SW SCO 6.05.01 all lots shall abut a public right of way Docket No. 07080039 SW SCO 6.05.07 6.03.19 homes must face a parkway /arterial road Docket No. 07080040 SW SCO 8.09.02 installation of paths /sidewalks Page 6 of 12 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 November 1, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes The site is located at the southeast corner of 106 St. Spring Mill Rd. and is zoned S- 2 /Residence. Filed by Joseph Scimia of Baker Daniels, LLP. Joseph Scimia of Baker and Daniels presented. He was accompanied by Nathan Aulthouse, along with the 3 petitioners. We are proposing to plat the southeast corner of 106 and Springmill Rd. It is approximately 9 acres and currently there are two residential lots available. There were some open issues at the Plan Commission level which have primarily been resolved. Mr. Scimia distributed a visual for the Committee to review the required right -of -way that was required for 116 and Springmill under the Thoroughfare Plan. We had previously tried to protect some of the view for Lot 1, by reducing the right -of -way. Through numerous discussions with County Highway Dept. along with looking at the plan, I can tell you now that we have revised the right -of -way to comply with the Thoroughfare Plan and we will be providing the entire width required.. Angie has received communication from the Highway Department that all issues have been resolved. The second issue was the drainage that runs along 106 street. We had proposed an irregular width for that regulated drain and the concern was to preserve as much of the open area as possible, so that we can plant trees and shrubbery because once 106 street is improved it will add view and dull noise to the lot above it. Nathan has done a good job and as you can see on the plan there is a configuration of that regulated drain which is acceptable to the county surveyor. The next issue is tree preservation plan, previously we had committed to tree preservation in the area identified on the visual as green. We have expanded on that to make the tree preservation larger than before, so it now the entire green area identified in the drawing. One concern that the City Forester had was, what do we do in the non —tree preservation area. Last time we met we had not completed the inventory of trees in the non tree preservation area, identified in white on the drawing. We have now completed that inventory and what we have a list of all trees that will be preserved, with the possible exception on Lot 3 in middle of driveway, we are going to put the driveway in the middle to save the trees. Other than dead or diseased trees, no trees will be removed unless necessary to prevent injury to persons or damage to property. Two other issues which are the crux of the case one is the architectural guidelines that we were asked to commit to by staff. At the Plan Commission we presented our concerns about that. Quite honestly, the homes as designed do not comply in every respect with the those proposed guidelines. The architecture is somewhat contemporary, but they are being designed by a well -known architect, and will be built by the same builder and will have similar architectural styles. They are primarily stucco and glass and so we will not be willing to commit to those, because in this case we have more than achieved a high level of architectural integrity. The last issue that the petitioner requests the Committee to waive the requirement is to install sidewalks along the perimeter along 106 street and Springmill Rd. That request is somewhat unusual and somewhat unpopular. We are not saying it is not appropriate to have sidewalks and recreational path to the area, what we are asking that it not be done at this time and that there also be some consideration given to the unique circumstances of Page 7 of 12 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 November 1, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes this developer. The first thing is that there are plans to make significant improvements on Springmill and 106 Street under the Thoroughfare Plan. I don't know when that will happen. We are providing the underlying real estate for that to occur. If you look at the terrain of the site, it is difficult to imagine how to get a sidewalk in there in its current condition. When the road is widened and goes to 4 lanes we understand what will have to happen. There will have to be leveling of the entire areas and some embankments and retaining walls created. So it is our feeling it does not make sense to do this now, since in the future they would have to be torn up or reconfigured. It is also a fairness issue, we are committing more than an acre of right -a -way free of charge as a result of the planning process and that value of that land is very high, six figures. This is property that the petitioners went out and acquired at fair market value and now they are going to dedicate a large portion of it roughly 20% for right a way permits and then at the county level also they have to commit to a drain over the blue area which is another acre. The cost of the sidewalks depending on where they are located and they would include two pedestrian paths because they are going to cost $40 50,000. In recognition of the design issues I have already raised and also in fairness we are asking to waive the requirements, due to the fact that when the road is done, they will be widened as part of that. Angie Conn, gave the Department report and stated that the petitioner has been working with the City Forester and there are very few minor updates required and have been approved by the City Forester. The Department would be comfortable with the petitioner not committing to the draft architectural guidelines. However, regarding the build -out of the sidewalks and paths, at the very least the City would like to see the Department of Engineering approve a construction estimate of the petitioner not building paths and see what the cost is for putting in the paths and bridges and contributing monies to a non reverting thoroughfare fund. This has not been done as yet, so the Department recommends that this item be tabled until November 29 Eric Seidensticker asked what if there was no land transaction, and the petitioners were not requesting a waiver, and the road was widened how would the City handle that. Angie stated that she believes the City purchases a right of way at fair market value and the City puts in the sidewalk, etc. Eric asked if we are taking advantage of a group of people who have happened to purchase the land that the city wants to take advantage of them by making them pay for the sidewalks and paths. Angie stated that they are platting a subdivision and any person that wants to plat a subdivision has to pay for these items. Mr. Scimia stated that currently this is a two lot parcel and two homes could be built without going through this process, however, we have three people who want to build homes here. Angie stated that the City ordinance does not make a determination between a three lot subdivision and a 10 lot subdivision. Rick Ripma stated that this requirement should not be surprise to the petitioners. This is something we have required for years. Rick further stated that this may be one of the reasons you have not seen a developer buy the property because they knew what was going to happen. We have made some exceptions, i.e. 106 and Ditch Rd. that did not Page 8 of 12 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 November 1, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes make them put in as wide a path because of the topography. The whole idea is that you connect everything with sidewalks, it is important to keep in mind that this is about the whole areas, not just the area of the petitioners. Rick has checked with some developers and they do not think that the sidewalks will need to be taken out. He has been told that they should be able to position the road, so they will not have to take out the sidewalks. Mr. Scimia indicated that if the developer was Mr. Pittman this would be because he owns property on the other side and developed the Reserve. However, the question is how you go around the lift station. Eric stated it does not seem reasonable to put in a sidewalk at this point in time, especially since we have nothing to connect to it. Sally Shapiro agreed. Angie that it is somewhat a dual jurisdiction with the County is doing the roads and the City is enforcing the Alternative Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. Scimia indicated that it is currently under County jurisdiction and that is why we have a unique situation and in reality we have giving the land under the specifications for the City and not the County which is less than this. Discussion ensued regarding the lift station and how to move around this. Engineering has not been asked about where to place this. Ron Carter, President of the Parks and Recreation Committee for the City Council spoke to this issue. 106' street is extremely important from the standpoint of alternative transportation for the community. 106 street is projected to go from the standpoint of bicycling and pedestrian traffic, all the way from Hazel Dell and connect to Zionsville on Michigan Rd. anything that is adjacent is going to need to have connectivity also. It is extremely important area to make sure we get the connectivity. Carol asked Angie to go to Engineering and get their best idea on what they think ought to be there. Mr. Scimia asked is no one on the Committee willing to give a waiver, and have the taxpayers pay for this given the huge benefit of the donated land. If there is to be no waiver when then would he not advise the petitioners to drop the plan and sit back and wait for the City to condemn the property, and put the $250,000 back? Under normal circumstances we would get paid for that taking, it is going to be used for the entire community and benefit for them. Carol Schleif said no they should not get a waiver, this should happen just like everyone else does it. Joe stated that everyone else gets paid for their land. Eric asked what the incremental cost is when the City widens that street and if they would put sidewalks in at that time, would you be willing to pay for the incremental cost of the additional size of the sidewalk. Joe we would consider this, however, what we want is some fairness on the fact we are being asked to do more that is what traditionally done. Most developers do not have this amount taken for a right of way 65 ft. of their property. Eric clarified with the petitioners that they are ok with giving the land. Joe stated yes, but what they have a problem with is the cost of the sidewalk and paths. Eric would like Engineering to provide numbers as to the cost. Page 9 of 12 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 November 1, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes Eric stated that the cost to the petitioner should be the incremental cost not the total cost of replacing the entire sidewalk. Angie stated that typically the petitioner gets 2 or 3 estimates and then it gets approval by the Department of Engineering. Carol asked that Angie and petitioner to coordinate on getting estimates. Carol asked if an architect would be designing the homes. The petitioner responded in the affirmative. Evan Woolan he has come back to do these homes. Carol asked about why the petitioners are not stubbing their street to the neighbors to the east. Angie responded that it is not actually a road into the area, but rather a driveway which does not have to be stubbed The petitioner requested to be continued to the November 29 meeting. 3. No. 07050023 OA: Monon Trail Overlay Zone The applicant seeks to adopt Chapter 23H: Monon Trail Overlay Zone into the Carmel Zoning Ordinance. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services. Adrienne Keeling presented for the Department of Community. She indicated that Committee members should have received packets with the latest version of the draft for review. Adrienne began a review of the draft. She will adhere with the recommendation that we go through the highlighted areas in order, and save the height and set back issues until the end. The following areas of review discussed by the Committee were and word additions /deletions were made. No final vote was taken these recommendation, however Adrienne Keeling will insert the changes were to the draft in the following areas, 23H.00.01 Purpose, Intent and Authority 23H.02 .01 Plan Commission Approval 23H.03.02 Permitted Uses See appendix A Schedule of Uses 23H.04.01 Prohibited Uses 23H.07. Building Orientation and Footprint 23H.07.01 Urban Section (A, B, C) 23H.07.02 Natural Section (A, B) 23H.09 .01 Building Requirements Detailed discussion was held regarding the need for employee showers in buildings. The State requires 1 unit per 15,000 sq. ft. building in non residential building which is accessible to all employees. 23H.10 Architectural Design Discussion regarding the following 23H.10 sections was held. 23H.10.01, 02,03,04,05,06,07,08,09,19 —lengthy Page 10 of 12 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 November 1, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes discussion on these sections was held including remarks regarding underground parking, appropriate buildings for the Monon was held and 23H.11 Urban Section 23H.11.01 (A) Tree Preservation Requirements, (B) Planting Requirements 23H.11.02 (B) Tree Preservation Requirements Adrienne will make changes as suggested. 23H.11.03 General Landscaping Requirements (B) (C) (E) some additions /changes will be made to the wording. 23H.14.02 Bicycle parking the number of bike spaces required was discussed. How many bike parking structures to be allowed. 23H.14.03 Parking areas 23H.14.04 Parking structures lengthy discussion on height of parking garage calculation. 23H.15.01 Other Requirements Boundary Markers no issues At this time the Committee went back to review C 1 area. Review of permitted uses was discussed. Ron Carter discussed access points onto the Monon Trail. This needs to be closely monitored. His feeling was the Parks Director would be the most appropriate person. Adrienne will add in this wording. Sally stated that the Parks Department is vigilant regarding access points and deal with citizens frequently who feel they can just put in a access point since they adjoin the Monon. At this time the Committee determined that a special meeting was needed to discuss the remaining areas of the overlay. Adrienne will contact members and determined a consensus of a meeting date. Sally Shapiro made a motion to adjourn Eric Seidensticker seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Rick Ripma, Chairperson Lisa M. Stewart Page 11 of 12 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417