Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Sub 10-02-07O of �R�F� r Sf �rn FoR TOh,ORROw Ci ty /NDWAN CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MINUTES TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2007 LOCATION: CAUCUS ROOMS TIME: 6:00 P.M. CARMEL CITY HALL DOORS OPEN AT 5:30 P.M. ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, IN 46032 Representing the Committee Rick Ripma, Chairperson Jay Dorman Eric Seidensticker Carol Schleif Sally Shapiro Representing the Department Mike Hollibaugh Adrienne Keeling Angie Conn Lisa Stewart Of Counsel: John Molitor Rick Ripma, Chairman called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Mr. Ripma reviewed the Docket Items for the meeting. The Subdivision Committee will meet to consider the following items: 1. Docket No. 07050013 PP: Forestal Estates Minor Subdivision The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 3 lots on 2.33 acres. The applicant also seeks the following subdivision waiver request. Docket No. 07050019 SW SCO Chapter 6.03.19 Access to Collector Roads The site is located at the northeast corner of 141 st St. and Ditch Rd. and is zoned S- 1 /Residence. Filed by Badger Engineering Assoc. Inc, (formerly filed by DeBoy Land Page 1 of 22 ONE CI`'IC SQL ARE CARNMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 October 2, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes Development Services, Inc.) Chris Badger of Badger Engineering presented for the petitioner. He was accompanied by Nathan Thornberry, Petitioner of M -1, LLC. Mr. Badger reviewed the location of the property. Mr. Badger indicated that Ditch Road had just been reconstructed along with the new roundabout and the petitioner is not proposing construction along Ditch and will access the site from 141 street. They have had conversations with Gary Duncan, Department of Engineering and Engineering has given a green light for the location of the drives and there is a possibility of right in, right out on 141 st in the future. Most of the existing drives that are already constructed from the Ditch Rd. project are right in, right out only and that is acceptable to the petitioner. There is a common area that is approximately 23% and that will be used for drainage and clean water standards, being able to filter the water before it goes into the system. We are tying into the back drain of an existing legal drain that is to the north of the property. Sanitary will also be brought in from the north. Water will be obtained from Ditch Rd. Mr. Badger directed the Committee to their packets for examples of proposed homes. Lots will be selling for $200,000, with homes at $600,000- $700,000 range. This is consistent with zoning. Mr. Duncan also requested a small right -of -way grant, so he could have a 120 ft. radius placed in the corner of the roundabout, we have agreed with him and put in the small right -of -way. Mr. Badger indicated he had been in contact with Angie Conn and have tried to keep this project moving along. Mr. Badger and Mr. Thornberry have met with Scott Brewer, City Forester and have revised our landscaping plans as requested. This concerns whether the buffering is required around a common area. We had shown the area without it in the first set, but now have added it back due to staff comments. The infrastructure is mainly 3 lots, with 3 separate taps for water, one sanitary line that will be bored over to the opposite side of the street, so no disruption in any of the private property or the right -of -way street and over 10 feet deep so the sanitary fill will not have any utility problems. This will be an 8 "line of 1 Chris reviewed the drainage. Angie Conn the petitioner has complied with all of the Department's requests. The only outstanding issue is tree preservation plan. A landscape plan has been submitted and the Department recommends that this be sent on to the full Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation. Jay Dorman presented a question regarding Lot 1, has the curb cut been approved? Chris responded that Gary Duncan had requested that it be put as far to the east as possible and we agreed that with the existing foliage that runs along the fence road that pushing it any closer would make it more difficult to see around. Jay asked if the exit will be right only. Chris clarified that currently it will be left or right because there is no median, but as time goes on there may be a median, at that time it will become a right in, right out only. Carol Schleif had questions regarding drainage. Chris responded with current plans and regulations. They have met all of Carmel's regulations. Carol asked about visitor parking. Chris responded that each home will have its own additional storage. Each home has its own driveway, so no problem there. There will not be any parking on 141 st street or Ditch Rd. Frontage roads were discussed but Chris reviewed and explained to Carol about the regulations how much space these roads would take and the easements that would be necessary, so the frontage roads were not feasible. Carol discussed tree preservation. Chris indicated that because they do not have the actual lot Page 2 of 22 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARNMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 October 2, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes layouts, it is difficult to complete the tree preservation report. However, Lot 2 will be laid out by the end of the week. Chris directed the Committee to look at the aerial on the lower left, you will see that there is an existing lot that had many trees, there is one that will be saved, however, there are some are scrub like trees and they will be removed, and some trees will be saved that are in the pond easement. It is an access easement for the pond. The Fire Department wants to have access to the pond. Carol asked that the developer require an upgrade on fencing, she indicated that she feels wood fences are inappropriate. The developer agreed to metal fencing, and will put this in the covenants. Jay Dorman asked what direction the home on Lot 2 will face. Chris indicated it will face the center of the circle. Carol Schleif asked about side load garages and will these homes have them. Nathan indicated that they are not allowing houses whose front will align with the garages; it will have a curve to it. Chris indicated if you have .5 acre you are able to do many different things with the homes. Carol asked that that the developer commit to the proposed Architectural Design Standards. Chris Badger indicated they are will to comply. Rick Ripma asked how are you going to make the homeowner of Lot 2 know that their access may change. Chris indicated that the covenants will indicate that all access points are right in, right out. However, it will be added into the purchase agreement that the median will be extended. Jay Dorman made a motion to move Docket numbers 07050013 PP: Forestal Estates Minor Subdivision and 07050019 SW SCO Chapter 6.03.19 Access to Collector Roads to the full Plan Commission with the following conditions: That by Friday, October 5 Scott Brewer has in his possession a tree preservation plan, that the amendments to the covenants to include a metal or wrought iron style fence and that lot access will be right in and right out are received and, in addition that the petitioner agrees to adopt the Residential Architectural Design Standard with no front loading garages with the exception of Lot 2 2. 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 St. and is zoned S -2 /Residence. Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Assoc, Inc. Pete Adams of Marshall and Adams Homes and Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Engineering presented for the project. Dennis Olmstead indicated the petitioner has resubmitted the comments from the Engineering Department. He informed the Committee that they did not receive the Engineering Department comments until September 20 which was last week. They re- submitted on September 26 As yet they have not had any response back from those comments, but they feel that they attempted to satisfactorily address all their comments. Dennis indicated that they are working with the Department and their consultants regarding the proposed improvements to 126 and 131 st We have traded plans with their consultant and they are incorporating their access Page 3 of 22 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARNMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 October 2, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes points into their plans too accommodate to accommodate both access points. We did get landscaping and tree preservation plan revised and back to Scott Brewer. Dennis is not aware if another response has been received from Scott, but believes they have addressed his comments received to this point. Angie Conn the City Forester has received the landscape plans and is still in dialogue with the petitioner's landscape architect. The Engineering Department is comfortable with this item moving forward to the full Plan Commission. One issue not yet addressed is the west stub street on this plat and how it relates to the Village of West Clay primary plat. If these issues are addressed the Department recommends that this item be forwarded to the full Plan Commission. Pete Adams indicated that he would address the street connection. He indicated that the streets are very close (he indicated the location on a visual). Stoeppelwerth Engineering has indicated that there is common area to slightly adjust the curve on that street so that it can keep going without a major shift. Rick Ripma asked who was going to adjust their road. Pete indicated they would be adjusting their roads. Dennis indicated that it was their understanding that Brenwick's Plan was flexible enough because they felt there could be some changes in their plan coming down the road, but to keep the project moving, the petitioner decided to adjust their location. Rick Ripma asked if there was a new map. Dennis indicated that he did not have it with him. Rick would like to see the map. Carol Schleif asked about the tree preservation plan and if the Engineering Department was still reviewing. Angie replied that Engineering was comfortable with the response they had received and they are more than halfway through the review process. Carol interpreted this as the review not being done. Dennis responded that they don't have a problem. That they are so close that Engineering does not have a problem with this project moving forward. Angie confirmed this. Carol discussed items that had been requested, i.e. larger trees in backyards of some of the neighbors. There were some neighbors in the middle on the south side. Carol showed on a visual an area where people could drive by and see in their backyards. Carol stated that they have some Norway's and some other spruces that are half -pint size, and that she has asked if you could increase the size, and she thought they had responded yes, but that it does not show on their current plans. Mr. Olmstead indicated that there now was 5 ft. of mounding, with landscaping on the mound on the current plan. Carol indicated that a 6 ft. person walking their dog could see right through and then asked if the petitioner was saying they did not want to do this. She indicated that there were a lot of things that were asked for at the Plan Commission meeting and none of them have been done. Jay Dorman asked if these were requested or were they public comments made. Carol responded that she had asked for the trees and someone else asked for walking paths and benches in the open space area and those were not in the drawings and modified building elevations and architectural standards guidelines. She indicated that there are draft architectural guidelines and we asked if the draft guidelines could be adopted and that has not Page 4 of 22 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARNMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 October 2, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes been done. Mr. Adams indicated that the trees have all been increased to 7 -8 ft. tall. Carol said the PC had asked for 12 ft. Jay asked Carol if she was talking about all of the trees. Carol stated she is interested in the ones that would give people privacy that back up to the thorough fare. Mr. Adams asked if Carol was asking for 12 ft. Norway's on top of the 5 ft. mounding. Carol showed on visual the area she indicated. On Lots 19 -26 the trees are 7 ft. and we want 12 ft. Carol wants a substantial tree. Jay indicated that there is a greater likelihood of a 7 or 8 footer making it to maturity as opposed to putting in a 12 footer. Carol stated she has experience moving a 20 ft. Norway and she has not lost one yet and she knows it is doable. Jay asked if it was the size of the planting or the orientation. He wondered if you have smaller plantings and they are staggered properly could they achieve the same screening. Sally Shapiro asked also if the berm would make a difference. Carol asked if the berm was consistently 5 ft. The petitioner responded the majority of the berm is 5 ft., with a small section in the center that is 4 ft. Jay indicated that with the mounding and 7 8 foot plantings, and as long as Scott Brewer has no issues, he is willing to approve it Carol wants to see it screened. Carol indicated that the 12 ft. trees would not be that much more expensive, but would give them a jump on it. Rick Ripma indicated that the Committee is sometimes given drawings from the street with the landscape so we can see what it would do, that may be another option. Mr. Adams indicated it is an 80 ft. lot line from the right of way line to the lot line. Carol and Rick asked the petitioner to give the Committee a drawing from the street to the houses showing the landscaping to see what the blocking will be. The petitioner agreed to do so. Carol Schleif also asked for benches on the walking paths and the common area. The petitioner agreed to this also. Carol then indicated that the petitioner had only agreed to some of the draft architectural guidelines, she indicated that they had agreed to all but 3 items, however those 3 items are very important. Mr. Adams asked which ones he is missing. Carol indicated the ones that are missing on a visual. One is front loading garages and other was building materials wrapping around and making a vertical change where it makes sense architecturally. Pete Adams indicated they had spent a lot time on the commitments on their homes. Carol indicated that the Oxford model looked like it might be less than 30% Pete stated they are the only subdivision that is all brick. Carol asked if Mr. Adams could offer only models that would meet the architectural guidelines. Mr. Adams indicated they sell the ones people will buy. Carol indicated maybe they could not show the models that don't totally meet the draft guidelines. Jay Dorman asked of the dozen models you have in your packet how many do you think exceed the 30 Pete indicated he wanted to ask his architectural consultant. Rick Ripma also stated that on the front loading garages he has noticed that if you put a nice door on, not a standard door, but a customized door that looks different. Pete asked if they meant like the ones that look like stable doors Rick you have one on Exhibit D it sure helps the look of the exterior of the house if you can do doors that look upscale. Pete indicated that he could commit to doing some type of an enhanced garage door on front loading garages Page 5 of 22 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARNMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 October 2, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes Jay Dorman indicated there were comments from the public at the Plan Commission meeting regarding passing blisters, landscape berm and architectural compatibility. Dennis Olmstead indicated that in their negotiations with the Engineering Department and their consultants indicate there are planned improvements for both 126 and 131 streets which would not require a passing blister and they are looking into how this would fit into the those designs on both of those roads. If they choose not to move forward with those, we would have to go back and revisit a passing blister. The way it sounds to date is that will not be required to have a passing blister. Jay indicated we need to look at a threshold of a timeline, if it is not going to happen within the next few years we need to prepare. Dennis stated that the petitioners were prepared to put the passing blister on the plans, however, on the advice of the Engineering Dept. they have asked that we share our plans with their consultants, so that is where we stand. The issue from the neighbors was they would lose land. Pete Adams stated there was a passing blister shown on a 126 street, which affected the Muelenbeins property and Pete met with them and we discussed and we thought from the comments we got from the Engineering Department that we did not need to go ahead with any right of way acquisition because the space that would take for the passing blister would be encompassed in that. Mr. Muelenbien looked at the plans and thought that was the case. Jay Dorman asked if we still waiting for the Engineering Department to make a ruling on what Pete responded that Engineering told him they could pay towards the Non Reverting Thoroughfare Fund and Carmel would take care of it. Dan and Karen Muelinbein, 2995 West 126 St. Carmel addressed the Committee. Mr. Muelinbein indicated that he had met with Mr. Adams last week and as he understands it, there will be come improvements to 126 St. that would probably necessitate the City obtaining some right -of -ways from us. The conclusion at the meeting we had with Pete Adams was that the City would not require them to build a passing blister because of the pending project and at that time we would negotiate with the City for the right -of -way for the entire project. So they are waiting to here from the City. Jay Dorman indicated the Committee would like to know when these improvements will be taking place. Dennis believes the projects are schedule to 2008 and 2009. Those are improvements all the way from Shelbourne Rd. to Towne Rd.. Enginerring would like to move the 2009 project up to 2008, but were not sure, if this was feasible Rick Ripma we need to have Department Staff look into this. Angie Conn stated that at this time they have indicated still identifying the short term road improvement projects and road construction commitments. Jay Dorman requested that before the Plan Commission it would be good for Staff to make a comment that they have had these conversations on where they stand, so that we can make as an informed decision as possible. Rick Ripma stated that this should be held until the next meeting when all the information could be available. Eric Seidensticker agreed, he feels that there are too many questions to move forward at this time. He would like to see a drawing of a streetscape, check on garage standards to make Page 6 of 22 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARNMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 October 2, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes sure he has enough plans that can do that, bring examples of garage doors, tree preservation plan, and engineering plans. Rick Ripma indicated he also was not comfortable moving this project on until he can see a visual showing where the road will be moved to. Angie stressed the Engineering Dept. is comfortable with moving this project on. Carol Schleif responded that they are not the Committee. Jay Dorman indicated he would vote to move this on with a timetable to receive requested items, because he felt this was the fair thing to do. Carol strongly feels too many things are not in black and white. Dennis Olmstead stated that they would have been in a lot better position to have addressed a lot of these things tonight, if we had received comments back from the Engineering Department. The petitioner voluntarily continued this last month because we had not received any comments at this time. Now we are faced with getting comments less than two weeks before the meeting tonight and trying to get those resubmitted and trying to stay on track for this meeting. I just want to state that part of the problem is lack of responsiveness. Carol said that finger pointing was not helpful. Dennis indicated he was just presenting the facts. Jay Dorman stated that this is an interesting dilemma. What is a reasonable timeline to expect a response from City Departments? Is it one week, two weeks or longer? Carol Schleif indicated that we have had a track record of having petitioners say they will get something to us and then they show up at Plan Commission meeting with their package, and we are in the position of listening to a petitioner and at the same time review materials, and she finds this unacceptable. Jay stated he is not talking about Plan Commission; he is talking about interaction with other departments, i.e., Engineering. Why doesn't the petitioner have a response about landscaping or from engineering. Eric Seidensticker stated this is not our ballgame, however, the petitioner would be within his rights to make a public complaint about it. Dennis Olmstead stated he was not complaining, but just stating a fact. Jay Dorman stated that if he were in his shoes he would be complaining. As a taxpayer and after you pay your fees, you deserve to have a reasonable response in a reasonable amount of time. I voice my complaint on his behalf. Pete Adams indicated he thought he had not been heard at Plan Commission Rick Ripma indicated that the project had been heard and had been denied 10 -0 He discussed the process of how he went directly to Common Council and went through all of these a number of times with the neighborhood association and the planning session with Council members and we have done everything they asked us to do and that was submitted to full Council and approved. So where does that leave us? Carol explained that the petitioner was now coming to us with a DP now and we are reviewing that part of the plans. Jay Dorman gave a quick overview of the process. The Plan Commission asks us to do the Page 7 of 22 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARNMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 October 2, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes data mining and then we report back to them, and we want to give them the most complete information we can. It is anticipated they will accept our recommendation and I would be upset if they did not. Pete Adams this feels like we are doing it twice we had 5 or 6 meetings with everyone on these commitment i.e., full brick which no one else does and they approved it unanimously. Rick Ripma indicated that this is the process. This Docket Number was continued to the November 1, 2007 meeting. 3. Docket No. 07070040 PP: Chesterton Woods Subdivision The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 14 lots on 9 acres and also seeks the following subdivision waiver approvals: WITHDRAWN: Docket No. 07070041 SW SCO Chapter 6.05.01 min. lot width of 50 -ft Docket No. 07070042 SW SCO Chapter 6.03.15 street curvature radius Docket No. 07070043 SW SCO Chapter 7.05.07 percent of woodland clearing The site is located at 2405 E 99th Street, near Haverstick Rd. and is zoned S- 2 /Residence- ROSO. Filed by Matt Skelton of Baker Daniels LLP for 56th Development, LLC Matt Skelton of Baker and Daniels presented. He was accompanied by Rick Huffman and Mark Humphrey of 56 Development, LLC, also arborist consultant Jud Scott with Vine and Branch and Tom Williams of Sea Group, Project Engineer. If everyone is familiar with the site and proposing, I can skip right to the items that are raised in the report. Matt has put things into categories Drainage at the time staff report was written the staff was recommending this group tabling this until next month in order to allow us more time to address the drainage issues. Matt does not think that is necessary and will defer to Angie Conn, but the City Engineer reviewed what we proposed and we have agreed to work with the City as move on through the secondary platting process to address the drainage issues. What we hope is that there will be a coordinated effort between us, the City and Aramore to solve the bigger drainage issues. What we have proposed works for our site, but it does not really do much other a slow the initial storm surge to the south. It reduces that, but does not fix the bigger problem and we hope to work with the City and Aramore to do more. Engineering was satisfied and happy to support what we have done so far. Walking Path there were three items that were mentioned between the plan commission members and some of the neighbors. They pertain to the location of the walking paths, the screening we are proposing and also the type of material that they would consist of. Matt distributed a visual of the development he indicated that this was more current than what appears in Tab 3 in your packet. Compare to the Tab 3 the only real change is, we are trying to maximize the number of trees that we can leave alone in a tree preservation area and what we have been able to do is in the Page 8 of 22 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARNMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 October 2, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes southeast portion of the plan, we have proposed to build a boardwalk crossing over the dry detention area, which would allow water storage underneath that boardwalk and allow us not to run that trail right up against the east property line, so we would not have to clear that and really that is the only change from what you have in your book. It was determined that the trees stay by the east detention and the walkway goes to the end of Chambray Drive. The paths are to connect other neighborhoods and allow pedestrian connectivity up to 99 street. We are proposing that the paths be a crushed stone type of surface, we have spoken with Scott Brewer and he has provided us with some guidance. We will prepare a detail for him to take a look at and sign off on. We are planning to mimic what has been done in the parks. Since the original submission we have worked with the Engineering Department, Matt showed a visual and discussed the southwest corner, we were able to double up and put our path over the storm easement that runs through there, so by doing that it eliminates clearing an additional area down here in the south. Basically gets rid of half the clearing that was originally shown and provides a really nice buffer. Driveway materials Ric Huffman stated that they are not opposed to doing something different. He indicated that there was some confusion regarding what was being requested on the sides of the driveway. Was the Committee asking for a ribbon section, a stamped concrete, a different color or a desire to have a brick paver section? Due to drainage issues the Committee is asking for permeable pavers in areas of the driveway over 16 ft. Ric stated that he has no issue with this request, he just wanted to be clear on what exactly the Committee is requesting. Discussion of the typical width of a driveway ensued. Carol Schleif indicated it was 10 ft., Ric Huffman stated it was 16 to 17 ft. Carol wanted the whole driveway to be permeable pavers due to drainage. Matt indicated that this negatively affect the drainage system. Parking issues were discussed. Carol stated that you would not want two cars sitting in the driveway at the same time in a nice neighborhood, this could happen it someone put a shop in their garage, so if the driveway needs to be less than 16 ft. Utility poles were also discussed. If there is any kind of utility pole relocation required due to the need for a passing blister installation? How would you deal with that. Ric indicated that within reason he is willing to work with the City. These are construction issues and will be dealt with in the construction plans. The neighbor wanted to know what impact will a passing blister is going to have on his property across the street. We are not proposing any improvements outside of the City's existing right -of -way and we have requested that the Engineering Dept. consider whether or not we really need to install a passing blister at the location for 14 homes and if they say its not ok to do it, we won't do it and if they say you have to do we will do it. We have a call in but do not have direction on that as yet. Drainage calculation since the Plan Commission meeting we have redesigned our drainage system so the ponds that show on the visual are no longer really ponds they are dry water retention. We have reworked our calculations and we know that the dry ponds work with the locations that we have provided on the plat. We have not finalized those calculations but will be done this week. Page 9 of 22 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARNMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 October 2, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes Eric Seidensticker asked they knew these would work because soil samples had been done, etc. Are there any other soil samples or calculations that need to be done to prove that these new dry ponds will work? There probably will be more calculations taken and installation of a sub service underneath surface tile to alleviate any standing water. Tree preservation Jud Scott of Vine and Branch presented. From a tree preservation standpoint this is really nice use because you have big sections of trees that are preserved instead of little minuscule pockets, but when you can save a big perimeter around the back and on each side and between the homes, and in the middle section of woods that is a doable preservation plan. I believe Scott Brewer is happy with that, and it is exciting when you can get a wooded lot. I love the idea of putting a path over a pipe, that is a no- brainer why take trees down when you can put the path where the trees are already down and the boardwalk across the retention pond sounds very cool. Carol asked if Angie had spoken with Scott. She replied that she had and he is waiting for a revised tree preservation plan that is large in size. Basically he has approved it. Matt indicated he thought Scott had received a large copy, but, if not, he will get one to him, and will confirm that he got it and has the tree preservation plan. Jud will meet with Scott prior to the Plan Commission meeting. Matt indicated that one of the requests of the Plan Commission to know the exact percentage of tree preservation. Matt outlined the difficulty of doing that. The request was the exact percentage of tree clearing and it is hard to answer that question. I can tell you what the area is the percentage area that has been as quartered off and identified as tree preservation area. We anticipate a number of additional trees beyond that that will be preserved, but until you actual select the house and locate it on the lot, it is hard. The area which is indicated on the visual by the hash lines is 28 Jud continued stating that the area in the preservation area there will be some trees that will be removed, it they are structurally unsound; you do not want trees to fall on people. In the areas that are in the building pads what we have proposed is going lot per lot and staking out the house and stake the driveway out and what can we preserve outside of that and those are what we call builder options. In this site there probably will not be a lot of trees in the front or between the house and the street, but if there is a really cool tree we will try to work around it. However, all utilities are coming in from the road, which will help with the tree preservation area. Jud also stated he anticipates trees in the yards that will be saved, particularly in the backs of the houses. Ric Huffman indicated as you see the pictures of the houses with the driveways going in, what we are willing to do as the builders as well as the developers is to take the homes and align them so that the driveways will be next to each other lot by lot and then the next houses will have the driveways far apart, so you can have a 50 ft. buffer between homes with trees based on how the house if flipped, basically making it a right hand or left hand. That makes the most sense for us. So when you line them on the street, you would have two driveways close together and then a big green area and then two more together close together again. We have done this in the past and it has worked really well. Page 10 of 22 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARNMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 October 2, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes Angie Conn stated that only outstanding issues are the City Forester needs an updated tree preservation plan, still need a copy of the drainage calculations. We did hand out just before the meeting, which you should have a copy, an email from the City Engineering Department. They have changed their stance; the Department would be ok with this item moving out of Committee subject to several commitments. Angie read the following email from Engineering: Engineering is willing to support Committee approval of the Primary Plat provided that the petitioner acknowledges that the Department will not approve the construction plans unless the an adequate outfall per the Storm Water Technical Standards has been established or approved by Engineering and that any downstream restrictions are remedied by the petitioner or accounted for in the design of the on -site detention facility. The petitioner shall also acknowledge that in satisfying these conditions, the final detention facility configuration may have a negative impact on the proposed land plan in terms of lot size or number of lots. The Department is going to change its recommendation and instead recommend that this project be forwarded on to the full Plan Commission on October 16 per the conditions of the Engineering Department. Rick Ripma asked what type of foundations will be put into these houses. The petitioner responded basements. Rick also asked if the petitioner would commit to being both the developer and builder. He indicated the reason he was asking that is that other petitioners have told us they would commit to items and then, the next thing you know someone else if building the houses. So if you are telling us you are going to be the builder I want a commitment that you are going to be the builder. Ric Huffman indicated he was not comfortable with that. He was willing to commit to the architectural standards or to some other tree preservation and the only reason is that it is our intent to be the builder, however, if someone offers us 3 times the money for the property, he could not in good conscience say he would not sell. Rick Ripma indicated that this would mean the Committee will make its decision based on the fact that you would do your trees this way, but we can't depend on whoever comes in there to do it that way. Ric responded that this would have to go with the architectural standards or tree preservation. We have also provided the same tree preservation guidelines that we agreed to for Town Oak Estates are replicated there and we are agreeable to that. Rick Ripma the two biggest issues on this development are the water and the trees and we do not have finalization on either one of those two items. The drainage in this area is terrible and not have the drainage situation clear is uncomfortable to him. Matt responded that the discussion they had with the Engineering Department, we have proposed an answer that works and actually improves the way the drainage works out there, but I believe we will be channeling out drainage to a cooperative system that is actually partnered up with Aramore, us and the City and will not require the redesign of our system, it just means the water will go someplace else, so what we have proposed actually works and is approvable. Rick /Carol asked if Engineering has approved it. Matt they have approved our system, but they will not let us build it until the plans for the final system Rick but they approved your system but in case it has to be connected to something else but it is approved. Matt, yes they have approved what we had but they know that where the drainage is going to end up we can't build it until there is someplace they are happy with for it to go. Rick right now where is it going? Matt now it is shown going to an actual dry well on the site that it discharges into and we are slowing the rate of run off that already goes to that same basin. Rick so less will go there then than does today? Matt Page 11 of 22 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARNMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 October 2, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes correct we know that it is probably not going to stay at that location, it is probably going to end up staying at that location, but will probably end up Matt showed a visual showing the location and stated there is still conversation occurring regarding how the Chesterton neighborhood will construct their system to go there. There needs to be an acceptable solution to this prior to secondary plat approval, Matt's opinion is that this should not affect he primary plat. Rick Ripma asked Angie what is the percentage of woodland to be cleared 30% Matt to be intellectually honest here the ordinance states no more than 30% can be cleared and we are proposing 28% Carol how much will you be clearing? Matt responded that if everything not in a hashed area was cleared then 72% would be cleared. Carol Schleif responded that we are really looking at do we develop this or not. Matt Skelton stated we know that there will more than that spared, but we can not tell you that on a drawing until the home is sited. Jay Dorman asked will this more cleared or preserved? Ric Huffman responded more preserved. Sally Shapiro asked if it was the intent of the guideline for 100% wooded lots or for typical Indiana land where there are a few trees here and there so you want to preserve 30% are we talking about a grassy knoll with some trees on it or are we talking about guidelines that were established for over 100% dense tree forest. Jud Scott said that everyone regrets the loss of trees, but the only alternative is build only one house on the property there is no way to build a subdivision with the way the ordinance is written with the 30 The nice thing about the ordinance as written, it gives Scott big fangs and he can say you are going to do it and gives him some teeth. Usually waivers are given, not on this property, but others you can't build them otherwise, you save as much as you can. Jay Dorman there is another issue here, if you read the engineering report, the final detention facility may have a negative impact on the proposed land plan in terms of lot size or number of lots, maybe if the calculations don't work out, Engineering could say you need to drop a lot. Matt that only would happen if there is not a bigger solution developed in cooperation with the City in regard to the overall drainage solution Rick Ripma stated he is not comfortable moving this forward Matt does not know what would be gained from holding this up. Rick stated because of what Jay just read and because the other ones we have done, we have had detailed tree preservation drawings that we could tell exactly what is going to be saved and we do not have any of that. Jud stated you do have some of it you can see big blocks of trees saved Carol stated that he is talking about a drawing showing what trees are remaining and which ones will be removed Do you know how much that would cost and how much time it would take you don't need to see individual trees that are being save, because you are saving a whole woods. Carol Schleif we usually get a site plan Vine and Branch has done them, others have done with a listing of all significant trees on there. Overlaid on that is the plat with the build able areas, that really tells us, what I like to see. Page 12 of 22 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARNMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 October 2, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes Jay Dorman I would like to see that to, although it will not make me feel any better about losing all of the trees or 72% of them, I still feel bad about it. Carol stated that she would feel better if I know how many of the platted lots might have a chance to make it, since it is so far off from the ordinance. Matt stated that there are probably thousands of trees in that area. Carol Schleif she would really like the ones that are of a significant caliber and health to be inventoried Jay Dorman— what would happen if we told the petitioner to go do this inventory and we don't like it, do we tell them to drop a lot? Rick they could have trees and you could say this one is between the lots can you commit to save that tree and they would have to decide which houses they can build on the lot and save the tree and what way they have to flip the house to save the trees. It just seems like this is a prime piece of ground with lots of trees and to not know, then to have a whole issue of what of by the way what you see here all may change I am not just comfortable with that. Maybe it is not possible I know that this area has tremendous water problems and a lot of trees on it and I want to know that this is going to be ok. I don't think we can take this to Plan Commission and tell them that is the case today. Carol Sally this goes back to my original point is the ordinance written for a piece of property like that or was it written for 100% piece of woods. Rick it is my opinion that the piece of ground that was over by the Monon near the O'Malia's on Roherer Rd. that the community came in and it had all types of trees and we were able to get some movement on where lots we got commitments to make sure they did not tear certain things down and Carol stated that that project had an inventory of trees, all the trees were numbered, all the species were identified and they also indicated the health of the trees on a spreadsheet. Rick they also told us they were going to build on it and now they are trying to sell it. Jud Scott we did the inventory on that property because you asked us to the thing that is hard however, it is not in the ordinance to do an inventory. I love doing inventories Westfield asks for inventories the ordinance wants a woodland analysis and that is what we did for Scott Brewer and that gives a feel for what is there, it is significantly different from an inventory where you are going in and counting trees and doing specific trees with placements and GPS. Rick Ripma stated that the ordinance is written for a community with just few trees, not a community that has this many trees and you are asking for a waiver for big miss in the amount of trees that are supposed to be there, so I don't think asking for an inventory of the trees is outrageous Carol it also tells us the location of lots and that is part of PP process. Matt we have shown the lot locations and do you want to re- describe what the whole idea of the per lot analysis that we be doing as we move forward. Jud the idea for me with the building plan it much like a couple of others that we done that we have said look at this big block of woods that we are saving. We have don't have big blocks of woods because it is not a big block, we have nice section of woods that is not being cut and Page 13 of 22 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARNMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 October 2, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes then each spot we will go in and put the tags in and we will make an analysis, much like we did at Glen Oaks, we are still going and meeting with the builder, indicating this tree stays, this tree goes, can you move the driveway. Rick indicated he understands that, but there are no guarantees that 56 Development will be the builder that's the plan but there is not guarantee of that. If you are going to do anyway for people buying the lot, you can certainly do it for us. I would be ok if you did for where the lots are going to be and if you don't do the areas you are saving all the trees that is fine now it would probably be valuable if you put this is a 32 inch tree, so you can build your case. Jud we are happy to do this. We classify trees 1 -5 and to let you know 4's and 5's need to be cut down Rick that would be fine also are you doing pads he means footprint how many feet around Matt if it would make you more comfortable, even if these guys are not the builder, we can put in our commitments that we have offered to you the requirement that perform this individual lot analysis with Carol, if you are going to do that it ought to be now, the further down the process you go the harder it will be. Matt how accurate will it be the lot lines may move Carol get it done Jay if the Engineering says that something needs to change and they have done the analysis and now we have two pieces of information regarding drainage. Rick the trees will still be there maybe the lot lines need to change It is ok for a tree to be moved for a lot line a tree can be on a lot line Carol it might be that you need to move your lot due to a significant tree and we don't know that yet. Matt we have met your ordinance and on the engineering issues, the engineering department has said that it is ok to move this project forward. The conversation continued Sally my opinion is notwithstanding the engineering email I think they have hired Vine and Branch they have done a valiant job to create the buffer to preserve the trees to save trees, I don't think a tree analysis is necessary or tree inventory is necessary. The petitioner by bringing in Vine and Branch early has a handle on what is there. Ric I would not mind having a commitment to having a Registered Consulting Arborist on staff, there are only two in the State, Jud and a person in Ft. Wayne. When we look at a property we try and have the property what to do with it, we don't try and impose our will on it, so when we walked the property we said keep as many as you can. It is just Mark and I doing this project, we don't have a lot overhead, we are to guys with a lot of experience in the home building business and we want to keep lot -we don't gain anything by cutting trees down. Jud I would love to do it, but they would have to do all the topo's and all the engineering for it, because he will need to know where the tree inventory. You would need GPS I don't know but I think the cost is pretty significant John Molitor you can move forward the primary plat document, but keep in the Committee Page 14 of 22 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARNMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 October 2, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes the subdivision waiver on the percentage of woodlands, that way the developer could have the sense that the project is moving forward if they continue to meet the waiver for the percentage of woodland clearing that can come later on in the process. Matt we can live with that however we have a contractual important time later this month and that would really help us out. We can and will retain a Registered Consulting Arborist to do our lot analyses as we continue to site the homes. Sally asked Ric if he would stay on as architect if you sold the property. We will have to have some type of tree preservation —why would we not just keep the waiver in Committee. Carol made a motion to approve Docket 07070040 PP and Docket 07070042 SW street curvature radius with a condition that there be a Registered Consultant Arborist to be consulted as needed as each home is sited on a lot. With a commitment driveways will be 16 ft. or less with permeable pavers if they want it larger, but not for the whole driveway additional Path will be crushed stone. Angie asked why we are splitting it A lengthy discussion was held regarding possibilities of handling the tree preservation issue. Jay Dorman made a motion to retain Docket in Subdivision committee for the November 1 st meeting. After discussion of what conditions would be required, Jay rescinded his motion. More discussion was held regarding tree preservation. Carol wants to know where the important trees are now so that if lot sites need to be shifted it can be done now. Jud gave an over view of what is a significant tree. There are no national standards; the City relies on the City Forester for his input on tree preservation. Sally Shapiro made a motion Docket No. 07070043 SW Percentage of Woodland Clearing Petitioners are requested to do a tree analysis and inventory of trees that are 16" or greater on any area that is proposed to be a non shaded area, excluding detention ponds by the next Subdivision Meeting on November 1, 2007 to keep in Subdivision Meeting Carol Schleif seconded the motion 3 -2 Approved to stay in committee. Eric Seidensticker and Jay Dorman voted against. 4. Docket No. 07070058 PP: The Legacy (Residential Phase 1) The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 126 lots on 83.34 acres. The site is located at the 6600 block of E. 146th St. and is zoned PUD /Planned Unit Development. Filed by Ed Fleming of Stoeppelwerth Assoc. for Platinum Properties, LLC. Steve Pittman of Pittman Partners presented. He was accompanied by Nick Churchill of Pittman Partners and Tim Walters of Platinum Properties and Dennis Olmstead of Page 15 of 22 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARNMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 October 2, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes Stoeppelwerth and Assoc. We are here to talk about the project known as the Legacy, this is for the suburban residential /custom section phase 1. As you call when we came in before the whole Plan Commission the final work of a year and half was approved in January 2007. Had PUD approved. Now we are ready to move forward with the primary plat for this section. Steve indicated he will work off a sheet he received from Angie Conn which included comments from the Plan Commission. Steve showed several exhibits outline areas that have already been agreed to in the PUD and were discussed at the last Plan Commission meeting. He wanted to reinforce that they are meeting all of their commitments. He showed a visual exhibit the primary plat update from when we met at the Plan Commission I want you to know the changes that have been made since meeting with the Engineering Department and the Fire Department. One thing is to push an entryway off of the center line of 146 street, it has been pushed back further. Another thing is the comment on the hammerhead, they have asked us to make the length of the hammerhead 60 ft., it is currently 50 ft. and we have agreed. On some of the hammerhead cul -de -sacs we will show frontage place and typically that is what we show, Steve showed on a visual where the hammerheads were. After meeting with the Engineering and Fire Departments they said either make your hammerheads 60 ft. or make this a true frontage place and connect that into your through street, Steve showed on the illustration where the connections were made, and showed where the widened hammerhead was. Regarding the ponds, we have stated that the ponds will not have long, unbroken shorelines. We were also asked to put in a bike promenade, this will be the first one in Carmel and how that related to our plat, so even though the bike promenade is not part of the primary plat of the suburban residential area we are showing it (on visual), in addition you also asked for what type of material is on the path, it is an asphalt path. The path will continue between lots 71 72. The next topic covered was tree preservation. We have an area on our plat, starting on 146 street and going toward the north and moving to the south there is significant topography and vegetation so we submitted a tree preservation plan to Scott Brewer to get his comments. Steve spoke with Scott this evening, and we have submitted a plan that he is satisfied with. What we have done on this plan is to show (on visual) the dark section will be preserved in its entirety and the section in a different hash color will be conserved. It will be conserved in a manner similar to what they are talking about in the earlier hearing; where on the conservation area they will be required to bring out Vine and Branch to do a study to make sure that they conserve as many trees as they can. We cannot say the area in the gray area will be preserved; it will be conserved per Vine and Branch plan. In addition we have a tree line or fence row to the west, that tree line, there are some larger parcels that come in off of Cherry Tree Road, we have a tree line there that we will also preserve. There has been some conversation tonight that we are being required to stub a road to that undeveloped property, and they have asked us if we stub that road if we take it to the property line we will have to take out the trees, and we have said we would be glad to dedicate the right -of -way and hold off road 10 or 15 ft. until that connection will be made at a later date, if that is the direction you want to give us we will be glad to do that. The neighbors we have talked with would like us to do that. Page 16 of 22 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARNMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 October 2, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes Engineering is still reviewing plans, but we have talked with Gary Duncan and he has said he is comfortable with us moving forward out of Committee and back to the full Plan Commission. Regarding the Hamilton County Highway Department, there has been some discussion with the Highway Department. Steve showed a visual indicating the area where they will be connecting to 146 street. Currently there is a curb cut there on the property that always gave the farmer access, in addition there is a median cut, so that farmer theoretically could come out of that and make a left hand turn. We have had conversations with the highway department and we have met with one of the County Commissioners. What they have indicated to us they don't have a problem with giving you a curb cut and a right in, right out, they are not willing to commit to giving us a full median cut. The petitioner indicated that although they would like a full median cut, but regardless with continue with the project with just a right in, right out curb cut. The Highway Department thinking is that they would like to have a large intersection at the main entryway right across from the Pedcor apartments and the rest of our curb cuts that would come in along on 146 street, they are looking at those more release valves, not everyone needs to go to that intersection, and people can go to other curb cuts and make right in, right out. The Highway Department has acknowledged that they have made some mistakes further west where they granted a number of median cuts and I have looked at Grandin Hall across from Grace Community Church and there are some areas they don't have a median, so cars can make that left hand turn, it would be difficult to make that turn, we have some places further to our east where you could potentially make that cut and, Rick Ripma opened the meeting to the general public. The following citizens spoke regarding their concerns: Lee Galavan 14193 Klingensmith Blvd., Carmel I am about 1000 ft. from the border of the development. Mr. Galavan indicated his biggest concern is construction traffic, he has not seen how construction traffic will be diverted and hopefully it will not be coming down Cherry Creek out to Hazel Dell and around school Gene Pratt, corner of Powder and Cherry Creek Blvd. When he purchased the property I considered it a residential neighborhood. We are hearing now that the only access for all the traffic in general for the first start of this project is going to be Cherry Creek Blvd. and 146 is right only, so they will have to go some place else. He does not know what the City considers that street, but he considers it a residential street. He also stated that there are a lot of children in the neighborhood. John Kirk, 6532 Canoe Lane, just north of Cherry Creek, he indicated that by looking at the plot it does not look like it goes all the way to River Road. He is curious if this is the first part of this construction and will eventually will it be filled in. If so why can't construction come in from River Road rather an Cherry Creek. Barry Smalstig, 14320 Cherry Tree Avenue, is concerned about Cherry Creek Road itself, not Cherry Creek Blvd. Cherry Tree at 146 Street has a stop light, since this development Page 17 of 22 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARNMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 October 2, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes has proposed shows a road coming through Cherry Tree Grove subdivision, which then comes out to Cherry Tree Rd. it seems pretty obvious that some of this traffic will come out onto Cherry Tree Rd., which is a small two lane road. Another concern is the tree preservation line, to the west of the subdivision we are requesting that become a tree preservation area or at the very least an attempt be made to save the more mature trees. Clifford Ellery, 6592 Canoe Lane his concern is safety. He is pleased to know that the developer has worked closely with the Carmel Fire Department to work on safety issues. Hopefully there are enough entry and exit points to handle a real emergency situation, i.e., tornado, so that emergency equipment can come and in out as well as the residents. Mr. Ellery also discussed the carbon factor that can occur from long lines of congested cars. Nancy Collins, 14207 Arcadian Circle of Cherry Creek Estates I also happen to be the 3 lot north of from the cul -de -sac on the extreme west of portion of your property. I still have not heard if you are going to have entrances off of 146 where is the construction entrance going to be, when will you start construction and where will you start for phase 1. Did you have any discussion with neighbors in Cherry Creek Estates and Settlers Ridge? have just moved there two weeks ago. We are concerned about traffic on Hazel Dell with the school, etc. I am concerned about drainage, concerned because several of us live right up next to your property. Ms. Collins reviewed a visual showing an unfinished road. She indicated the back of her house faces that way and is very open and she sees headlights. Ms. Collins also stated she is one of the few lots that has no tree line Liz Galavan, 14193 Klingensmith Blvd What story level will the homes be that are backing up to Cherry Creek Estates? What is your price range for the homes? Patricia Skiles, 5910 Osage Drive, indicated that in the morning with traffic going to Cherry Creek Elementary is very difficult to go south on Hazel Dell. She also indicated that the neighborhood is a very "kid friendly" neighborhood. Will there be a stop light? She also asked about light pollution how will this be handled. Public Hearing closed. Steve Pittman responded to the citizens. Most of you were not here when we went through the year long process for the PUD. We met with hundreds of neighbors. Tonight we are just talking about the primary plat for our custom home section. We had a rezone on this property, it is 413 acres. We are putting in a spine traffic system that will build that road and stub our property and take it all the way to River Rd. and this should alleviate some of the traffic issues that have been discussed. The timing will depend on the marketplace. As part of our PUD we submitted a traffic study, but all these items were addressed at that time. We are putting our largest lots and most expensive lots next to you. The homes will be 35 ft high, which is the same as your homes. The average price range will be $750,000. Construction traffic, we came up with an agreement with the Plan Commission of how we deal with traffic and where traffic. Steve indicated on a visual a number of areas that will be dealing and explained how these connections will work. Construction traffic will be directed away from residential subdivisions; Steve will continue to work with the Engineering Department. We made a comment as part of the tree preservation issue that we are required to take that to the property line, we are willing to Page 18 of 22 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARNMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 October 2, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes hold that back and dedicate the right of way and leave the tree line in place. There is another approved development in the area and if that is ever developed this road would stub into that development. We are happy to do whatever you want us to do. In regard to safety, with the interconnectivity of roads and improvement of roads and also with the type of development we are planning, this is a more environmentally friendly community. It is our hope that folks will be able to live here, work here, eat dinner here; 40% of this development will be open space, many trails. The plans are to start next spring, weather permitting. We also plan on building out this first section close to 146 street. Also, we would be glad to meet with you and discuss any issues. As far as drainage is concerned we have gone through extensive review the Hamilton County Surveyor's, we will be using low impact development techniques in the use of bio swales, your drainage will not be impacted. Angie Conn, DOCS, pointed out that the rezone, the DP and the plat has appeared before the Technical Advisory Committee and they have reviewed all the issues such as traffic, drainage, easements. The City Forester has tentatively approved the tree preservation plan, but we encourage the petitioner to continue to work with the forester. The Engineering Department is still reviewing the plan but do approve the project moving forward. The biggest issue our Department has is that we learned on September 20 that the project did not get curb cut approval, so we would like to see documentation from the petitioner on getting the curb cut. If the petitioner can provide us with that information, the Department will approve the project moving on to the Plan Commission on October 16 Jay Dorman, indicated he does not have an issue with that stub street backing off of the tree line. It is best to leave trees until development. Construction traffic should be sent through 146 Phase I and Phase II how many lots? 1 -80 2/3 roads of the development go off 146 street. Rick problem with eliminating the stub all together this is not a possibility. The new community only has one entry /exit. Carol Schleif asked for clarification on what issues Scott has Angie replied he is looking at clarification of the tree preservation area. Rick Ripma asked about the light pollution Steve indicated they had to have 93 cut off light pollution We have made a commitment. Jay Dorman made a motion to forward Docket 07070058 PP with the following stipulations 1. City Forester has more than tentative approval of the tree preservation /conservation plan by the time the packets are mailed to us for the full Plan Commission. 2. The Petitioner deliver to the Department written substantiation that their challenges to obtain a full median cut and the status of the request for 146 street access, at least right in, right out. 3. We accept the petitioners commitment to "back off" of the stub street to the west so that the tree line is preserved. 4. All construction traffic for Phase I II enter and exit off of 146 Street, further when Phases III IV are built and Cherry Creek Blvd. is not built, construction traffic shall Page 19 of 22 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARNMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 October 2, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes enter and exit on 146 Street. If construction traffic can go through River Rd. this will be acceptable. 5. Retention ponds will be more natural in shape with no corners or appearance or corners. Sally Shapiro seconded the motion Approved 5 -0 5. Docket 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. ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 Adrienne Keeling presented for the Department, she was accompanied by Mike Hollibaugh. Adrienne indicated that in the Committees' packets they received two drafts one with red lines and one without depending on their reviewing style from September 21 s1 with the gray highlighting indicating changes made since the last Committee meeting. She asked if they could go through those briefly and then we can get into the more detailed areas. She has added a definition or clarification of exactly what the Monon Greenway is and what we are talking about for purposes of this ordinance. We have expanded on the prohibited uses list, and at the last meeting we talked about adding a 15 ft. rear and side setback. She clarified that these setbacks, particularly for the natural section of the trail are intended to apply to only principal building and not accessory buildings. We have added building footprint, maximum fagade lengths in order to keep building footprints and building facades smaller along the trail, more pedestrian, more human scale. We have added fagade offset dimensions as well as some planting requirements. Adrienne suggested that the Committee go through these gray highlighted comments. Of particular interest at the last meeting were the set back and height requirements, so she would like to review those last in effort to get through the other items in the ordinance. At this time the Committee invited Judy Hagan to join the meeting and to participate in the conversation regarding the Monon Trail Overlay Zone. Judy asked if she should give her recommendations at this time. Jay Dorman indicated that they should try and follow Adrienne's lead and start at the beginning, it will be quicker and easier if we go through each item prior to height and setback. Carol Schleif passed out a packet that she and Judy Hagan had put together with their suggestions. Carol and Judy had made changes other than the ones that Adrienne had distributed. Adrienne Keeling began starting at page 1 and going through highlighted areas. Discussion was held regarding the commercial and residential uses in section 23.1-1.02 02 Page 20 of 22 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARNMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 October 2, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes C Mixed use is appropriate for this area. If TIF wants to be part of a project it will be determined by the City Council. The value of the land will dictate the use of the land. The Schedule of Uses was discussed. The expectations of the area were discussed. Residential and commercial uses. Carol had reviewed the incorrect use area. Adrienne will make changes as agreed. Judy Hagen indicated she would like to see 60 ft. set backs in the natural area. It generally tracks with the way development is along the Monon. It is not universal and so there are issues regarding grandfathering and how we want to treat people who are already there. However, for purposes of new development she strongly supports 60 ft. and she wants it to go all the way to Council that way. Carol indicated that she and Judy had gone out measured different areas out on the Monon. We went to different areas and tried to find ones that maintained the feel of what we are seeing Judy and Carol feel that Lexington Farms represents a best effort that was a new development along with Monon which did not feel like it was encroaching or was like a tunnel. They are 60 ft. off the right of way. Mike stated that flip side is a lot of that residential along the Monon is fairly obsolete is a way that large lots, people want smaller homes with smaller lots. A long, lengthy and lively discussion was held. Many aspects of setbacks and building heights in both the urban and natural sections were discussed, with many differing opinions being voiced. There were no definitive decisions made and this item was tabled until the next Sub Committee meeting on November 1, 2007. 6. Docket No. 07080028 OA: Carmel Dr -Range Line Road Overlay Sunset Amendment TABLED DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS The applicant seeks to Amend the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 23F: Carmel Drive Range Line Road Overlay Zone in order to extend the sunset clause. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services. 7. Docket No. 07010008 Z: 116th Guilford Rezone TABLED The applicant seeks to rezone approximately 9.5 acres from 1 -1 /Industrial to R -1 /Residence. The site is located at 1441 S. Guilford Rd. Filed by the Carmel Dept. of Community Services. Sally Shapiro made a motion to adjourn the meeting Eric Seidensticker seconded the motion Meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Page 21 of 22 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARNMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 October 2, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes Rick Ripma, Chairperson Lisa. M. Stewart, Secretary Page 22 of 22 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417