Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Sub 08-07-07of CA �VNONE y�A C i t y RTOMORROW o /NDIMAN CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MINUTES TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 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 Carol Schlief Representing the Department Angie Conn Of Counsel: John Molitor Rick Ripma, Chairman called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. Mr. Ripma reviewed the Docket Items for the meeting. The Subdivision Committee will meet to consider the following items: 1. Docket No. 06050020 PP: Clay Creek The applicant seeks approval to plat 30 lots on 29.971 acres. The applicant also seeks the following waivers: Docket No. 06050021 SW: SCO Chapter 6.03.07 Cul -de -sac Length request to have cul de sac in excess of 600 feet in length Docket No. 06050022 SW: SCO Chapter 6.05.07 Orientation of Home request to allow dwellings to face internal street Docket No. 06050023 SW: SCO Chapter 7.05.07 Clearing more than 15% mature woodlands The site is located on Hoover Road north of 116th Street and is zoned S 1. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for MHE Development Co. LLC. Charlie Frankenberger presented for the petitioner, MHE Development. He was accompanied Page 1 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 August 7, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes by Bob Ellis and Art Kaiser. The property is just north of 116 on east side of Hoover Road. Mr. Frankenberger gave an overview of the background of this project. The public hearing on this matter occurred before the Plan Commission last year in July and was followed by a meeting of the Subdivision Committee in August 2006. At that time after conferring the Engineering Department and TAC, we presented an original plan, as seen your brochure. Mr. Frankenberger reviewed the location on a aerial map visual to the Committee. The Thoroughfare Plan calls for the extension of Meeting House Road to the east. As part of this request we have agreed to dedicate the land for the extension of Meeting House Road, but also to build it as well. This is a significant burden for a 30 lot subdivision. The original plan placed the eastern extension of Meeting House Rd. along our northern boundary which unfortunately was along the southern boundary of High Grove and Clay Springs subdivisions. The residents of High Grove and Clay Springs last year came to the hearings and opposed the location of Meeting House Rd. along their southern boundary line. In an effort to reconcile many differing consideration of the Meeting House Rd. we then had numerous meetings with the Department of Community Services and finally arrived at a revised plan for the subdivision. We promised neighbors that we would meet again after we had revised our plan. To this end we sent out a written invitation to everyone who we had sent the original notice that the Subdivision Committee meeting was occurring tonight. During the neighborhood meeting those attending from High Grove and Clay Springs were very supportive of the revised plans and the relocation of Meeting House Road. It is our understanding that primarily the support comes from the recognition that the revised plan eliminates a lot of uncertainty that has caused some devaluation in the area the uncertainty is over the location of Meeting House Road and the character of the homes and density of what is to be built to the south. This proposal Clay Creek replaces that uncertainty with the relocation of Meeting House Rd. so it is not on the southern boundary of the subdivision along with one lot per acre and homes with an anticipated value of $750,000 $950,000. As mentioned in the informational packets, three waivers are needed. The first waiver pertains to the length of the street running north and south along our eastern boundary and concluding in a cul -de -sac that is more than 600 ft and this requires approval of the waiver. The second waiver allows the clearing of more than 15% of the mature woodlands this waiver and the commitment to reforestation are discussed in detail in your information brochures. The third waiver pertains to the orientation of the residence on Lot. Carmel has a frontage place ordinance that requires the residence to fact a perimeter street as a collector or arterial. The problem is that both Meeting House Road and Hoover Road are collector streets. The home on this lot will face of one of those collector streets, Meeting House Road. Because the home faces Meeting House Rd. we did not think we needed a waiver, because it adheres to the ordinance, but to be on the safe side, we have kept the waiver request on file in case you thought it was necessary. There are a couple of other loose ends that we have tried, somewhat unsuccessfully to tie down. There are two owners to the south; Mr. Frankenberger showed the home locations on a visual. The owners are Mr. Dane Love, and Mr. Don Hayes. Mr. Love accesses his home through an access easement that extends from Hoover Rd. to his residence. It existed that way when he purchased the home and that is how he accesses it today. He has asked that we give him and easement for utilities and a personal driveway to his house. While not required we reluctantly agreed to show a 20 ft. easement in the common area (showed on a visual) it would be approximately 75ft or so to the east of lot 12, Charlie distributed a map of where the easement would be. This easement would be available to Mr. Love in the event that sometime in the future, he decided to clear trees and install utilities and Page 2 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 August 7, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes a driveway to his house. In this event, we relayed to Mr. Love it would be necessary for him to return to the Plan Commission and ask for approval to clear additional trees, to achieve the easement for his driveway and utilities. Mr. Love reconsidered after we proposed this and emailed back and suggested rather than a 20 ft. easement there should be a 50 ft. easement, and we told him that this was not acceptable. The granting of easements to surrounding owners is not a requirement of the Subdivision Control Ordinance; we were willing to give a 20 ft. easement. Mr. Love also asked us for permission to encroach with him mini barn, which encroaches onto the common area; we agreed to give him that for 5 years. After agreeing to Mr. Love's original request for an easement and the encroachment of his mini barn, a neighbor to the west of Mr. Love, Mr. Hayes, sent a letter that although he could not come to the neighborhood meeting on July 12 he also wanted an easement. We relayed we do not have utility easements going north and south, we are going along River Road. We relayed that if he wanted an easement, it would probably be best that when Mr. Love did his easement and his utilities were extended then Mr. Hayes could stub into that. I believe Mr. Love spoke to Mr. Hayes about this, but Mr. Love indicated to me in an email that he would not want to by granting that easement suffer a loss of trees on his lot, in particular a sugar maple. We have been unable to resolve this issue, it is the preference of the petitioner not to give an easement, it is not a requirement, Mr. Love purchased his lot with an access easement, it was a known condition at that time and we do no believe it is a burden of the developer to resolve land issues and perceived defects of surrounding owners In summary, Clay Creed will be a low- density upscale subdivision, per the S 1 requirements the density will not exceed 1 home per acre To insure the upscale character of the residences, we will include architectural standards, although not required and architectural commitments. The expected price range is $750,000 $950,000. There is 8.62 acres of open space representing a 28.7% of the community exceeding the S1 standard open space of 15 Rick Ripma indicated that since it has been some time since the last meeting, he will open the meeting for public comment. He asked that speakers be as concise as possible. We will start with remonstrators of the project. One person asked to be heard. Dane Love, 12011 Hoover Rd. I am the individual south of the proposed Clay Creek development. I have had easement through Mr. Hayes's property. Mr. Love asked if the committee had received a copy of his remonstrance. Mr. Ripma indicated that they had. Mr. Love indicated he would like to correct Mr. Frankenberger on some of his presentation. I did not say to or mean to imply to Mr. Frankenberger or to Mr. Hayes that I would not allow an easement through my property to his. The sugar maple in question is located (shown on a visual) just a bit south of the proposed utility easement. The idea for that is that, an easement would be provided as long as no damage occurs to that tree, but I did not say I would no allow it. (Mr. Frankenberger shared an email that Mr. Love had sent to Mr. Frankenberger where he did indicate he would not allow it.) Mr. Love indicated that this is not what he meant, but rather as he stated previously, only if there is no damage to the sugar maple. Mr. Love used a visual to show the location of the maple. I was offered a 20 ft. easement and I did come back say well I think I need additional footage, so I requested an additional 30 ft. which would equal 50. I did indicate that any part could be retired at some future point in time, if it should not be required. The issue that I have, is speaking with the utility companies, including Vectren, Clay Wastewater, electricity, each utility has a certain number feet of separation from Page 3 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 August 7, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes each other. It is possible to put a utility underneath a driveway, but by the time you add the separation from each party, it is not possible to fit into a 20 ft. easement. Therefore, I felt a 50 ft. with the offer that could be retired at some time. In speaking with Vectren gas I guess what they would envision, gas on one side of the driveway, telephone and electricity underneath the driveway because they would be in conduit, and water on the other side. So this would be at least 15 ft. My idea would be to put a water main and sewer main through some other portion, it could be somewhere between the offered easement and the other property line. I would say that location would be determined by whomever, maybe a City arborist, who could locate it in an effort to save trees. That is my desire and I think their desire as well. A 20 ft. easement is adequate for a driveway, but I am not certain it is adequate for all the utility easements. Carol Schlief asked Mr. Love how he currently received his electrical power. Mr. Love indicated there is an overhead pole that goes along the driveway. Mrs. Schleif asked if there was a reason he could no longer use this pole. Mr. Love indicated that he can continue to use this pole. Ms. Schlief then asked where Mr. Love's water comes from. He indicated he has well/septic. Ms. Schlief asked is the sewer will be going up Hoover Rd. Mr. Love has spoken with Rick Hartman about this and he is not sure. Mr. Love and Mr. Frankenberger indicated on the visual where the likely locations for the line will be. Mr. Love reviewed possible scenarios for future waste treatment. Carol Schlief indicated she was puzzled as to why the Committee was discussing this issue. If they don't even know where the stations are going to go, wouldn't this be an issue for future meetings. Seems like we need an overall plan for everything south of this development, and that is not really the purpose of this committee. Rick Ripma indicated that Mr. Love is just indicating to the Committee what he wants done. They did agree to a 20 ft. easement and the Committee does not have to agree with anything. Carol Schlief indicated that she was concerned that we are trying to protect these trees and 20 or 50 ft. more. I am concerned about the lots at the bottom and should be even doing that. Carol indicated that the placement of utility easements is not part of the zoning or subdivision ordinance, so questioned if it is appropriate for these issues to be discussed here. Angie Conn DOCS indicated that the Subdivision Ordinance has been followed by the petitioner with the exception of the cul -de -sac length. Rick Ripma indicated that the developer does not want to provide an easement and Mr. Love is indicating what he would like and that this community affects him. Mr. Love asked if Carol had received a copy of his remonstrance. She indicated she had. He asked that if be read. He also indicated he was concerned about the removal of trees. The point that I made was that lot 912 could be eliminated, thereby, saving a half acre of trees, it would be better for me if they did not remove this 1 /2 acre of trees. These are in my front yard, if the clearing of woodland is not an issue, we do not need to discuss this. The other issue I have is regarding Meeting House Rd. They show on their plans a 30 ft. width road and it is a collector road. I have outlined the City ordinance, that this road violates, please Page 4 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 August 7, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes read that. My primary concern is just getting access that is for the safety of me and my family, primarily because it makes fire and police protection more accessible. Rick Ripma asked if anyone else would like to speak. Don Hayes of 12021 Hoover Road, I live next door to Mr. Love. We attended a meeting on June 20 with the Mayor of Carmel and Michael Hollibaugh at that meeting we were informed that most developers want to work with the adjacent landowners and provide access to utilities. Mr. Love and I are not concerned right now today or tomorrow, we are concerned with building all these large houses that but sharing a driveway it will deflate the value of our property. Dennis Carafile ?sp) of 1562 Clay Springs Drive, I would like to say I appreciate the cooperation of the developer to the neighbors in High Grove and Clay Springs regarding the relocation of the road, that was our primary concern. I have questions, what are the plans on improving or replacing the existing farm fence that runs along the south boundary of High Grove and Clay Springs and what are the plans for mounding and landscaping along that fence line. George Geiger, owner of Shamrock Builders, we have been working in Carmel for over 20 years. I just want to say I support the project 100 We had some serious concerns with the original plan, and this has been a challenging project, but I think the developer has gone out of his was to make it work. Doug Bainey, 1555 Clay Springs Drive. I too had concerns about this project, however, the developer has worked hard to meet the concerns of the neighbors. Joe Maturo ?sp) address inaudible I would like to confirm what Mr. Geiger stated that our neighbors fell the developers are worked very hard with us and we wanted to be here as a positive presence. Rick Ripma closed the public hearing. Charlie Frankenberger responded to the public comments. We did cover our position on Mr. Love and Mr. Hayes'. It is helpful to keep our eye on the big picture, to see the problems that this subdivision has solved with the many residents in Clay Springs and High Grove. Many of the people who had previously remonstrated are no here tonight, which I think we can assume is because there are now pleased with the direction of this project. Easements for surrounding owners are not required. In normal situations they purchased, we had offered a 20 ft. easement, it was not acceptable, and we withdrew that offer. Regarding the fence line, there is a fence line of trees, it is our intention to leave that intact. We do not want to go in and take the fence out because that can cause tree damage. Angie Conn DOCS, The petitioner has worked hard with the adjacent neighbors and the City to come up with a viable plat that provides an actual collector road, it also shows tree bufferings. The City Forester is still waiting for a revised landscape plan. He still has some concerns about the number of woodlands being removed. He recommended to me this evening to possibly Page 5 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 August 7, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes eliminate one of the lots or to do some creative design work with retention basins. The Engineering department has no major concerns with this new layout. They are pleased the new road will be built by the developer, there is some concern about Lot 930, there is a gas line that runs through the easement in the corner of the lot, and the Department is no sure how a house will fit on this lot, it may be tight. The Department does recommend that this project be forwarded to the whole Plan Commission after all concerns have been addressed. Rick Ripma asked the Committee for feedback, and indicated that the felt that moving the street made a big difference and really helped. Jay Dorman indicated to the Mr. Frankenberger regarding the tree line to the north of the fence, put an orange construction tape when you start building. As far as Mr. Love is concerned, while not the purpose of this Committee, if offered a 20 ft. easement for free, I would take it. You will have to come back to the Commission to do any type of variance or easement. Regarding Lot 30, you will have to review and if you are not able to build this would resolve some of the City Forester's issues. If you cannot add enough forestry here at this project, perhaps you can work with the City Forester and make a contribution to be put in some other area could be worked out. Jay asked about a "hook" in the retention basin, it looks like a path or a street. Art Kaiser, designer of the project responded it is a berm that will be installed to provide storm water detention. It required some clearing, so we included that into our clearing amounts. Jay indicated some trees on the visual and asked how many will be removed. Mr. Kaiser responded that no trees will be removed. We will be going with a dry retention basin; therefore, it does not need clearing. Carol Schleif I don't think the easement is the developer's responsibility. If I had to take a lot out I would take the one on the bottom left where it is a very steep slope. I would like to see two fewer lots due to the trees. Carol indicated that this plan is much better solution. She indicated she had architectural issues. Some of it is wording and some of it are things that are coming up in our guidelines. Under historical guidelines we are trying to get away from buildings that are rectangular, with a gabled roof, that look like Monopoly hotels. I see your reference to historical architectural styles, which I really like and then I see colonial homes, cape cod, craftsman (which can be that shape) traditional farmhouses can also be that shape, although typically upper scale ones are not. When I combine that with ridge lines and you discuss multiple ridge lines, two or three are allowed only one can be on a screen porch. Ms. Schleif indicated she. Charlie Frankenberger indicated the real purpose of the historical style is to have some relief from the masonry requirement, because on historical style homes the masonry is not as appropriate. It was no so much to permit us to do specific historical style house, but if we do them then there is some relief from the masonry requirements. Carol indicated that in an effort to conserve time, she would write up her comments and send forward via email. I am inserting her comments here: 1: Definitions Page 6 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 August 7, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes Historic Architectural Style: Add to the end: including non boxlike overall volumes and complexity in footprints and roof shapes. I doubt this development would be doing this, so adding this would not affect Clay Creek because of its price point. Overhang replace framing with "face of This is for protection of openings to prevent rotten sill plates. The west coast they commonly have 24 -36 inch overhangs, 16" would be nice here..... Ridgeline Change: "horizontal" to "sloped Delete: "or the angle formed by and "of a pitched area." Add "excluding dormers and porches to the end. Section 2: Real Estate 5. Roof Pitch Please list minimum slope for ancillary roofs (4:12 would be nice) You might also include an exception for Colonial or Tudor styles with front entry and living porches with outdoor porches /decks above, because they are an integral part of the design. (they need almost flat roofs to shed rain water) In general, flat roofs are discouraged because they look tacked on after the -fact. 6. Roof Ridgeline: Add to the end: "if they are not attached to a box shaped main structure." This shouldn't affect Clay Creek because of its price point either. Covered porches need to be an integral part of the structure, not attached to a box. 7. Corner Breaks: Delete last sentence. The intent of corner breaks is to have the entire mass of the building to modulate. Covered porches that are attached to a box are not an integral part of the structure. They look more like an after thought. Section 8: Front Landscaping As you know, my preference is full foundation landscaping because it is visible in neighborhoods with multiple blocks. However in this case, I have to defer to Rick and Jay on this one, and let this go this time, except for the house along Hoover Road that we all agreed should not have exposed foundations. Section 10: Miscellaneous C. Mailboxes: Add "with integral newspaper slots" to help cut down on multi colored plastic newspaper holders. I saw some in West Chase that were black metal, and in Windemere they are painted wood (cost less at about $75 each). E. The photos are nice, but I noticed that the one with the side loaded garage had a two -car garage door facing the street. Could this be changed to a one -car garage in your commitments? George Geiger responded that as a builder it is important to understand the cost implication, some of things can really affect us. For example the Village of West Clay is a very expensive place to build, it looks like it, but it can really add to the cost of a home when you start requiring certain architectural styles and authenticity. Carol indicated that at this price point it should not be a factor. George indicated that in fact it can. After the above discussion regarding landscaping Mr. Geiger indicated that he would prefer that money be spend on architecture, and not necessarily landscaping. Discussion was held regarding the need for landscaping in the back. Rick indicated that there is a point when we go over board. Page 7 ONE CIVIC SQL ARE CARNMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 August 7, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes The Committee discussed the use of dusk to dawn yard lights versus street lights. Carol indicated that when the lights go out in yard lights and the owners do not replace the light bulbs, this is a security system. The HOA cannot go on private property because of someone getting injured getting off a ladder and cannot replace. Is there any way in the covenants to protect he HOA so they could Charlie indicated that no HOA will be willing to do this. The last issue Carol discussed was windows. One window per half story, if that could say dormer. Rick Ripma indicated that the Committee needed to discuss three waivers. The first has to do with the cul -de -sac length Carol Schlief asked how long is the cul -de -sac it is 800 ft. Rick indicated that it is his opinion that the developer is building a road that we want built, there are things we can give them a bit of help on. All agreed. Waiver number 2 the orientation of the house on lot Jay Dorman indicated it looked like there was landscaping buffering, please increase the landscaping to make this a non issue, Carol reiterated the need for full foundation plantings on this home. How about a fencing covenant i.e. that all fencing will be black wrought iron fencing should be consistent. Waiver number 3 Charlie Frankenberger gave an update on this project. Losing a lot is not financial feasible. There is 10.6 acres of woodlands; clearing within the right of way is 1 acre. We in dete if we took out more than 15% did not count that 9.6 the total amount cleared is 2.13 acres 15% would be 1.45 acres the difference is .7 acres there are about 110 trees per acre on the wooded area, so it mathematically comes out to taking out 77 trees for which we would provide reforestation. Art has cataloged every tree on this site we are very cautious of the trees. We will meet with Scott Brewer to discuss this issue Rick Ripma indicated that it is not the responsibility of the Committee to address the easement request issue. Carol motioned to approve Docket No. 06050020 PP: Clay Creek Docket No. 06050021 Docket No. 06050022 Docket No. 06050023 SW Jay Dorman seconded the motion Approved 3 -0 2. Docket No. 07050013 PP: Forestal Estates Minor Subdivision Page 8 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 August 7, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes 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 141S St. and Ditch Rd. and is zoned S- 1 /Residence. Filed by Stacey Fouts of DeBoy Land Development Services, Inc. Mike DeBoy of DeBoy Land Development Services presented. He is representing M1 construction and their desire to plat 3 lots at the northeast corner of 141 and Ditch Rd. Three lots are on 2.88 acres. He was accompanied by Stacy Fouts of DeBoy Land Development and Nathan Thornberry of M1 Construction. Mr. DeBoy reviewed on a visual where the property is. He indicated where there was a current house it has a curb cut onto Ditch Rd. at the northwest corner of the property in question and garage. The roundabout is obviously at the intersection and 141s' St. and Ditch. Here is what we proposed are these three lots. One comment was about alternate transportation We have not had an opportunity to meet with Scott Brewer but we believe have good plan. There are existing trees. We will work with the tree preservation plan, so that we can keep or maintain as many trees as possible. I will give copies to staff. We have residential zoning on all sides of this development. We are fully aware of the responsibilities of buffer yard and landscaping, so we will work to be in full compliance. There are new planning details and we have incorporated that into plan and attached accordingly. There is some redundancy. As you look at the aerial photo there is some redundancy along the periphery as well as vegetation on the site. We want to advantage of that redundancy to see if we cannot reduce the overall numbers. I want to emphasize that it would be defeatist for us strip the site. As you look at the landscape plan, this was a comment that came back from staff, we will address the drainage issues. The reason we do not have a final drainage plan is because of the access issues which we will address later. However we do have a detention facility located on the northeast corner of the property. It is a naturally low spot on the property and the review of the drainage plan for the subdivision to the north Kingsborough, their drainage plan allowed for our drainage to be taken through there, in other words they allowed for approximately 3 acres of off site water, which is this project, to be taken through and outlet through there. There is a recorded easement as part of their subdivision as well as a physical legal drain. So what we anticipate is collecting the water, outleting in here, having the City consultant (Crossroads) review it, and well as the City Engineer and County Surveyors. One of the issue is that there is a structure but it does not physically go onto our property so there is an issue that we need to work out either with the City of Carmel or Surveyors, on how we outlet effectively to that structure. Do we get a right of entry, and staff is aware of what I am talking about. If we cannot get a right of entry or an understanding then we will have to modify or figure another or more traditional way, or a more surface type outlet that is effective for this type of area. Looking for feedback from this committee on cuts because that affects all of what we do. We can rectify all other issues in a positive fashion to everyone's satisfaction, however, the curb cuts effect how we get to that point I will take the more traditional approach and tell that there are 3 lots and we would like to have 3 curb cuts, although I know this I not acceptable. I say this because there is already two (showed Page 9 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 August 7, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes on a visual) what we are looking at is to use the existing curb cut (showed on visual) showed on the visual where the petitioner would like to put the new one. All the tracks would be compliant with the zoning use. We would provide ample area on each site so the particular tracks could be, so traffic would not have to back out on 141S street or onto Ditch Rd. We understand that might not be the most feasible option, I am not without understanding and sympathy, however, it is fairly obvious that these two tracks this showed on visual the location of homes and where they would face. The other alternative we would propose is a shared curb cut. Showed on visual. We are taking or adding curb cuts, just moving one. One recommendation that Staff had is to bring it on to the far east side, that makes if very difficult to it is not the best solution to service these properties. Further discussion was held while viewing a visual on possible locations for the curb cuts. We are more than willing to take any recommendations or directive that you and go forward. Angie Conn DOCS The petitioner covered all of the Department's concerns. The Engineering Department's concern is about the way the driveways will interact with traffic going in and out to the roundabout. There may be a potential median in the future, and then residents would only be able to do right in/right out The Department does recommend that this item be forwarded to the full Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation. Jay Dorman is there a median on Ditch Rd. that would constrain the house on the north? Nathan there is a median on Ditch it goes north until approximately the entrance to Kingsborough. You are ok maintaining a curb cut knowing there is a median. I think you can work out the landscaping and the curb but, however, I am more concerned about the look and feel of the architecture of the homes, the orientation toward the street. You will need to work with Engineering to work out the curb cuts, our concern is if all the rules and regulations are followed. Nathan Thornberry, we would like all turnaround driveways, most homes along 141' have that, the combined driveway does not help us with that. Carol Schlief indicated she would like to see more details regarding this project. Nathan Thornberry indicated that several pages in the front show homes that we have designed for prospective buyers already. Old Country French, European architecture 1 11/2 story homes is what is anticipated. No 2 story homes. Carol Schleif asked this be put in writing. This is the first time she has looked at these plans. This does not appear to her to be a complete package. Jay Dorman —we need to see more detailed architecture, landscaping, etc.. Nathan Thornberry indicated that this is his first submittal. Mike DeBoy indicated he had not thought staff comments were very harsh because our issue is it Page 10 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 August 7, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes Carol Schleif indicated if you do not have all the information, you need to wait until the next meeting. Another question is you are not meeting mass density requirements, but this is a minor subdivision which doesn't allow you to have reduction anyway for open space Angie indicated that they are exempt. Carol, so we either give them a waiver for being less than 1 unit per acre. You need 15,000 sq. ft. per lot. Mike DeBoy we are 9 /10's or closer on all lots. Carol Schleif would like to see full submittal and do not bring to committee, but submit prior so that she has the opportunity to fully review the packet. Mr. Thornberry was encouraged to be more thorough in his presentation, i.e. bring photos of prospective homes, landscaping, etc. which would more clearly represent his plans for this area. The Committee supports this project in principal but needs more information. The Petitioner and Committee agreed to move this project to the next meeting on September 4, 2007 3. Docket No. 07010008 Z: 116 Guilford Rezone TABLED The applicant seeks to rezone approximately 9.5 acres from I -1 /Industrial to R- 1 /Residence. The site is located at 1441 S. Guilford Rd. Filed by the Carmel Dept. of Community Services. 4. Docket No. 07050023 OA: Monon Trail Overlay Zone The applicant seeks to adopt Chapter 231-1: 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 Services. She came to discuss the Monon Trail Overlay Zone. Ms. Keeling began with a brief history as to the need of the Overlay. Adrienne indicated that requests by various Councilmen, City Staff and interested parties, Monon enthusiasts have been made about adopting an overlay or regulation regarding how we want the trail to move forward in the future. We have had some instances of encroachment on to the right of way or onto a tree area. We have had development pressure over the past couple of years of projects coming in along the trail, in the more urban area of Carmel. What this overlay does is sets out a set of regulation for the private property that abuts the Monon. This is a zoning ordinance text amendment and we would seek to create a new chapter in the zoning ordinance which is in your packets for review. The other part, which we have not introduced, is the zoning map amendment which actually sets out either a corridor, which could be a set number of feet on either side of the trail, or it sets out specific parcels like we did with Carmel Drive, Rangline Road overlay where we identified parcels that touched the trail. A brief tour of the proposed amendment, we have distinguished two different areas of the Monon. Adrienne indicated that on page 2 of the ordinance, she has inserted a location map. One is the urban area and one is what Page 11 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 August 7, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes we are calling the natural area. The urban area is roughly defined from Old Town to Carmel Drive, but more specifically we are thinking the first block north of Bub's Burgers down to the parcel on the south side of Carmel Drive. That would be considered the urban section and everything else would be considered the natural section. In the natural section the language is more protective, keep things setback and hoping to keep the current character as it now. The urban section we know there are some developments coming, i.e. City Center and Old Town which has seen a significant amount of development.. This is the general overview of what we are hoping to achieve by establishing an overlay district. The copy that you have in your packet shows any changes that we have made since the public hearing and based on comments from outside sources and a few Plan Commission comments and more staff changes. Adrienne outlined one of the more significant changes since the public hearing, beginning on page 3 or your ordinance, there was a section entitled Trail Specifications and highlighted in your draft is a note. We have taken out Trail Specifications, in other words, we do not want to get into what the wider trail cross sections will be like in the zoning ordinance because we feel that is more of a Thoroughfare type issue, than a zoning issue. With this overlay we want to focus on the private property that abuts the trail, similar to roadways, we do not have road cross sections in the zoning ordinance. This is not to say the Monon is a road, but it is a Thoroughfare on the Alternative Transportation Plan, so we would like to address the trail cross section itself, how it may widen out in the urban section. The Comprehensive Plan and in the Thoroughfare Plan handle that and have the zoning ordinance focus on abutting properties. There are several moving parts here, trying to make as simple as possible. Jay Dorman on the three sections which of those are now regulated by some sort of overlay zone and are they the same geographic width, dimension? Adrienne Keeling, part of the southern section of the north natural area is governed by the Old Town Overlay, part of the section moving north is governed by the Carmel Drive /Rangline Road Overlay, particularly the area north of 136 Street. It is focused along Rangeline, but part of that boundary does bleed over to the trail. Also, there is the US 31 Overlay in the northern area. In the urban section the Old Town Overlay is in play as well as certain pieces, particularly those that lie between Rangeline Road and the trail, some of those go all the way through, several of those would be governed by the Carmel Drive /Rangeline Road Overlay. Jay Dorman asked if the Monon Overlay would be the overriding regulation, thereby providing some consistency. Adrienne indicated that a petitioner would go directly to the Monon Overlay. Jay also asked from a process standpoint, on page 4, all trail connections whether residential or commercial shall be designed by the director and /or City of Carmel Alternate Transportation Coordinator. What is the process a petitioner would follow? To be customer friendly which is it or is it both? Adrienne Keeling indicated it would be both. By process the Alternative Transportation Coordinator is in involved with the Technical Advisory Committee, so the Coordinator does review plans and does issue review /comment letters before it goes before the Plan Commission. The Parks Department has been involved with TAC, but because of the nature of trail connections, you would have asphalt and work being done on the City's property, so we felt that Page 12 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 August 7, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes Parks as the maintaining body has got to be involved. Ideally, this will all be taken care of at the Technical Advisory Committee level. We are working on the process by which Parks will sign off. There will be a standard type of form letter, so that we would know. The Plan Commission could make this a condition of approval. This is also a trigger by this being an ordinance, that we could withhold building permits or withhold signing plats. Rick Ripma indicated that this section should read approved by both the Director and Alternate Transportation Coordinator. Jay Dorman indicated he thought it was important to clarify the process so that the consumer will be able to clearly look at the Overlay and realize what is covered. There was discussion regarding the map and ways to make it more clear on how much area is involved in the overlay. Carol Schleif indicated that while reviewing the section going over to 3r Avenue, what if there is a parcel that did no go all the way over some petitions that have come in quite tall and that might effect the next layer over. I have marked this amendment up heavily and after going through the guidelines I keep adding more and more getting more specific because there is exceptions to everything. We need to get this as workable upfront as quick as possible. I would like to review again. However, especially in the commercial areas, we need to extend to the next street, then there needed to, I want to see sections through the trail area. Do we need three areas instead of two? City Center could be rather grand and have large buildings and some nice alleys of trees and some really civic looking things, yet north of 126 it might be a different character with residential on the other side 3r and some portions there may be other issues there may a reason to look at different building heights to humanize what is going on the trail since you expect grander things at the city center. The drawings I have seen are spectacular. Have you spoken about having 3 sections? Adrienne Keeling we have talked about the various characters, here is a very civic space out side of City Hall for the most part south of here it is natural a lot of trees, city center will have a different character than even city hall. North of city center drive it is different and old town is different than that. We have talked about the different characters, but we have not distinguished building or zoning standards. Carol Schleif as I was working on set backs and how you make people walking on the trail feel comfortable and eat in a restaurant and relax and not be overwhelmed by a real tall building I was thinking about all the different areas along the trail, I started generating, maybe in this area we should have this type of land interfacing between the building and the people. Lengthy discussion was held regarding what the committee is responsible for. This is a very complex issue, every parcel of land on the trail is covered by covenants and whenever a landowner, the city, etc. changes anything it is in violation of a covenant. Issues reviewed included, landscaping and its important to the greenway, building height, natural tree canopies, how do you transition from a person on a sidewalk to a building, to a residence across the street Page 13 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 August 7, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes with a commercial, there are basic design techniques to do that; if duplications between th overlay and the standards, do we plan commission how much authority they are willing to give the Design Review Committee. Guidelines are a tool. On building setbacks there zoning on the trail there is a large difference in zoning on the trail, because this supersedes all of this can we get a spreadsheet on what would change by doing this overlay this overlay is about the Monon not the adjacent zoning, we are trying to create uniform standards this how this respects the Monon The Monon is for everyone and it should stay this way Jay Dorman since this is a new piece of legislation for the new people who are on the Monon how are they informed about the new regulations Adrienne Keeling when we are the point of identify parcels then the affective and adjacent parcels will be sent certified mailings letting them know there is a public hearing. Jay Dorman asked when that should be done. Adrienne Keeling her goal is to have this done by the end of the year and through the Council process. Rick Ripma the basics are good, protecting the Monon is good which will increase the value of every property that goes along the Monon trail. He stressed that the Committee cannot spend to much time on the details of this, or as has happened in the past, the project will go away. Jay Dorman suggested that rather than covering all the many details at this time we could build into an automatic sunset after a number of years, and bring it back and review and enhance. Overlays can be reviewed frequently Carol Schleif will consolidate and email Adrienne her changes. John Molitor indicated that it would be appropriate to have a special meeting of the Committee on August 21 to discuss this item. This will then give you a new draft which then can be reviewed at the next meeting. It was determine that committee members submit their top 5 enhances and email to Adrienne. Jay Dorman moved to table this item to a special meeting on 8/21 at 5:45 p.m. Carol Schleif seconded the motion. Approved 3 -0 move to the 8/21. 5. Docket No. 07020020 OA: US 31 421 Overlay Architectural Design Amendment The applicant seeks to Amend the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 23B: US Highway 31 Corridor Overlay Zone and Chapter 23C: US Highway 421— Michigan Road Corridor Overlay Zone, in order to amend the Architectural Design Requirements. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services. Page 14 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 August 7, 2007 Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Minutes Adrienne Keeling presented for the Department of community Service. This ordinance was introduced at the June Plan Commission meeting and was sent to Special Studies last month, but it was determined that it should be sent to Subdivision Committee. There are three general amendments to each overlay, starting with US 31, deleting references to the "Golden section" which deals with building scale and proportion and is outdated. Exterior corners on buildings in the 31 Overlay to be offset by at least 8 ft. The overlay does require 8 exterior external corners, but this requires a distance for the corners, and finally to strengthen the roof design requirements, to better integrate things like penthouses and parapet walls, to help eliminate box shaped buildings. Moving on to the 421 Overlay, deleting references to the "golden section," and the other materials requirements would be changing. Right now there is no limit where the materials are place on the fagade of the building, but we are now proposing that shingles, clapboard siding, etc. would be limited to 10% and fmally perimeter fencing in the 421 Overlay. There previously have not been any standards for perimeter fences and it was suggested that in light of the Home Depot fence, and possible misunderstandings with that project have some standards put into place and at the public hearing there was discussion regarding wooden vs. masonry and highlighted in yellow in your brochures. Rick Ripma should this be done page by page. Carol Schlief indicated that she had gone through the Amendment and has made many suggestions through the document. Issues discussed included: The use of the term architectural metal panels and possible replacements for this term. Privacy issues involving commercial building height in residential neighborhoods. The possibility of more diversity in the US 421, by decreasing sq. footage, bringing in smaller businesses. The possibility of requiring TPO material/lighter colored roofing Materials used in building i.e., wood siding and other materials may not exceed 10% of the total building Fencing materials and the distances between fences; and the possibility of inserting the fencing amendment into the US 31 Overlay also. Carol Schleif will email Adrienne with all of her suggestions of all of these amendments. Adrienne will then insert into the document which will be reviewed on at the September 4, 2006 Subdivision Committee Meeting. Jay Dorman indicated to Adrienne that the Committee is open to any recommendations after she receives and reviews Carol's document. Jay Dorman motioned to adjourn the meeting. Carol Schleif seconded the motion. Approved 3 -0 meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Lisa M. Stewart Rick Ripma Page 15 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417