HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence: Responses to Planning Dept Comments 2012-12-03D E V E L O P M E N T
7378 N 550 E, Lebanon, Indiana 46052, phone (317) 721 -8279
December 3, 2012
Angie Conn
City of Carmel Planning and Zoning Division
Department of Community Services
1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor
Carmel, IN 46032
RE: Hadley Grove Responses to TAC Comments received from the Planning Department
Dear Angie,
Below are our responses to your comments regarding the Hadley Grove PUD Ordinance and Primary
Plat. Let me know if you have any questions regarding the changes we have made.
Very truly yours,
11th Street Development
ti e-e7/
Bryan D. Stumpf, PLA, AICP
President
cc: file
BDS:bds
Planning /Zoning Dept. review comments regarding the PUD text & Exhibits:
1. Please provide digital copies of any revised plans and applications.
Response: Digital copies of revised plans are attached.
2. Please provide copies of your correspondence with the TAC members and their
correspondence with you.
Response: Copies of correspondence with TAC members is attached.
3. Please provide digital copies of any revised plans and applications.
Response: Digital copies of revised plans are attached.
4. Provide the filled out and notarized affidavit of notice of public hearing page of the
application.
Response: The affidavit has been sent in a prior email.
5. Provide the filled out Notice of Public Hearing page of the application.
Response: The affidavit has been sent in a prior email.
6. Provide the filled out and notarized Public Notice Sign Placement affidavit page of
the application.
Response: The affidavit has been sent in a prior email.
7. Provide a copy of the Official List of Adjacent Property Owners from Hamilton
County Auditor's Office.
Response: The adjoiner list from the County has been sent in a prior email.
8. Please create a spreadsheet comparing the development standards regulations of
this PUD ordinance to the S -1 zoning district, along with ZO Chapter 26 Bufferyards,
SCO Chapter 7 Open space ordinance, etc.
Response: The development standards comparison is attached.
9. Prepare an estimated construction cost to comply with the Thoroughfare Plan &
Alternative Transportation Plan; contact the Engineering Dept. for more details, at
571 -2441.
Response: The City has recently constructed the improvements to Towne Road and Main
Street in substantial compliance to the Thoroughfare Plan and Alternative Transportation
Plan. Therefore, since no improvements are required no construction cost estimate is
necessary.
10. Please confirm with the City Engineering Dept. that either a traffic impact analysis
or a traffic study is required.
Response: No traffic study is required.
11. Please contact the CWIC2 citizens group to get their input about the rezone. Their
contact info can be found here: www.cwic2.org/
Response: We met with CWIC2 and they are supportive of the project. Attached are minutes
of the meeting with CWIC2.
Page 2 of 11
12. Please provide exhibits explaining how this rezone /use complies with the
Comprehensive Plan, analyzing the Land Classification Plan's Appropriate Adjacent
Land Classifications Table, Part 2: Comprehensive Plan Essence's Policies and
Objectives, and so on.
Response: The comprehensive plan analysis is attached.
13. Daren Mindham with the City Forestry Dept, will review the Tree Preservation and
Landscape Plan aspects of the plans.
Response: Refer to our responses to Daren Mindham's comments.
14. Page 2, section 2.2 — building height: eaves is mis- spelled and types as caves.
Response: The requested change has been made.
15. Page 3 - front loaded garage definition, please insert the word `where', so it
reads: The garage where the garage door of which...
Response: For clarity, the wording has been changed to read, "A garage where the garage
door is parallel..."
16. Page 4, Section 4.1 - the petitioner should consider inserting the development
standards matrix in this portion of the PUD text, rather than having an exhibit at the
end of the ordinance, as an attachment.
Response: The information from Exhibit 3 — Site Requirement Matrix has been moved. The
development standards have been incorporated into Section 4.2 and the architectural
standards have been incorporated into Section 4.3 of the PUD ordinance.
17. Page 5, section 5: add that open space shall comprise of a minimum of 10 acres (or
30 %).
Response: Section 5.2 has been revised to read, "A minimum of 11 acres or 35% of the
District..."
18. Page 5, section 5.2 - this statement is repetitive with the first statement in section
5. Can you just combine them?
Response: The area quantification in the first statement in Section 5 has been removed so
now only Section 5.2 contains the minimum open space quantity standard.
19. Page 5, section 5.3.A: please change the word `should' to `shall'.
Response: The requested change has been made.
Page 3 of 11
20. Page 8, section D: remove the phrase `an ADLS plan' and replace it with `the
Secondary Plat and construction plans ".
Response: The requested change has been made.
21. Page 9, section E: remove the phrase `an ADLS plan' and replace it with `the
Secondary Plat and construction plans ".
Response: The requested change has been made.
22. Page 9, Section 6.3: The Dept. would like you to commit to having a 6 -ft wide tree
planting strip within the street right of way, as part of the street's cross section. To go
along with this, Section 6.3.A should be amended to have street trees installed within
the road right of way, and not within 10 -ft of the road right of way...
Response: Section 6.3 has been revised so the street trees are planted within the street right -
of -way. Per the discussion at the TAC meeting, the primary plat has been revised to show a 5-
foot wide tree planting strip within the street right -of -way.
23. Page 9, Section 6.3.D - concern about this requirement. The primary plat should be
amended to show a separation of the easements and the required tree planting areas.
Response: Per the discussion at the TAC meeting, this issue is resolved by moving the street
trees into the right -of -way.
24. Page 9, Section 6.3.0 - please amend the last clause of the sentence, to read: to
*allow* free passage along the sidewalk.
Response: The requested change has been made.
25. Page 10, section6.5 - please list the bufferyard types and widths within this
section.
Response: The requested change has been made.
26. Page 10, Section 6.6.B(i): require that all lots shall be required to plant at least one
shade tree in the front yard, as part of the required 2 trees.
Response: The requested change has been made.
27. Page 10, section 7: add a Permitted Uses section, and list Single Family Detached
Dwellings as the only permitted use, or as one of several permitted land uses.
Response: A permitted uses section allowing Single Family Dwellings, Model Homes, and
residential accessory structures permitted by the zoning ordinance has been added.
Page 4 of 11
28. Page 13, section 11: perhaps add 131st Street, to Main Street.
Response: The requested change has been made.
29. Page 13, section 11: you write as depicted in Exhibit 6, but that exhibit does not
really for a sign, or examples of a sign. Please amend the exhibit.
Response: The exhibit has been updated.
30. Exhibit 3 - minimum lot frontage at street should be amended to read 50 -ft, rather
than 40 -ft. (Otherwise, a subdivision control ordinance (SCO) waiver request
application needs to be submitted, to seek a waiver from the subdivision control
ordinance for the primary plat- from the required minimum 50 -ft lot width at the right
of way (SCO chapter 6.05.01).)
Response: The minimum lot frontage at the street has been changed to 50 feet. Note: the
development standards are now located in Section 4.2.
31. Exhibit 3 - when you list the minimum square footage, do you mean the
minimum first floor square footage? Would this be different for a one story house vs. a
two story?
Response: No. This is the minimum total square footage. This minimum does not change
whether it is a one- or two -story house. This standard is substantially higher than the
minimum ground floor area requirements in the S -1 district (1,000 s.f. for a one -story dwelling
and 800 s.f. for a two -story dwelling).
32. Exhibit 3: add to this matrix the maximum lot coverage percentage. Something like
40 or 45 %, since the S -1 zone permits 35 %. Lot coverage includes all impervious
surfaces.
Response: A maximum lot coverage of 45% has been added. Note: the development
standards are now located in Section 4.2.
33. Exhibit 3 - under permitted building materials, please add that EIFS shall not be
used within 8 -ft of ground level.
Response: The requested change has been made. Note: the architectural standards are now
located in Section 4.3.
34. Exhibit 3 - under Garage Type, please show that front loading garages are recessed
10 -ft or 20 -ft, rather than 4 -ft.
Response: We have retained the current four foot standard to remain consistent with the
property immediately abutting the site to the north.
Page 5 of 11
35. Exhibit 3 - under Garage Type, please delete "not attached to the Dwelling" and
just use `detached'.
Response: The requested change has been made. Note: the architectural standards are now
located in Section 4.3.
36. Exhibit 3 - under Garage Type, add a maximum 2 -car garage requirement for
something similar so that if more than a 2 -car it needs to be court loaded or side
loaded. Perhaps you can also add that the garage facade cannot take up more than 30-
40% of the front facade of the house...
Response: The requested change has been made. Note: the architectural standards are now
located in Section 4.3.
37. Exhibit 3 - under Chimneys, please add: and shall be stone, brick, or synthetic
stone /brick, only.
Response: The requested change has been made. Note: the architectural standards are now
located in Section 4.3.
38. Exhibit 3 — under Porch — please change the depth to 8 -ft instead of 4 -ft.
Response: The minimum depth has been changed to 6 -ft.
39. Exhibit 3 - please add an anti - monotony code. See attached example, called Home
Mix Guidelines.
Response: The Home Mix Guidelines were added as Exhibit 3.
40. Exhibit 3, footnote 3. Please add a clause that no shed style or cantilevered
chimneys are permitted.
Response: This change was not made to prevent confusion. While we identify in the PUD
ordinance that direct vent as fireplaces are not required to have chimneys, we believe the
addition of the proposed language may cause confusion regarding the use of direct vent gas
fireplaces.
41. Exhibit 3, footnote 4 - where it states that entryways should be deep enough,
please provide a minimum dimension , such as 6 -ft deep and /or a minimum of 30 sq ft,
or something similar.
Response: We added a minimum area of 16 sq. ft. for entryway coverings.
42. Elevations (Exhibit 4) - please include an elevation that shows a font loaded
garage, too.
Page 6 of 11
Response: Additional elevations have been added to Exhibit 4.
43. Elevations (Exhibit 4) - the Dept. suggests using a different type of
design /architecture for the homes, perhaps pulling inspiration from the Village of
WestClay architecture that is located just to the site's south and east.
Response: We considered different architecture, but chose to remain with the style shown to
be more harmonious with the residential architecture immediately abutting the site to the
west and north rather than styles that are further away to the south and southeast.
44. Consider incorporating the attached Draft Residential Architecture Design
Standards.
Response: We considered the proposed architectural standards and opted not to include
them in the Hadley Grove PUD ordinance.
45. The petitioner should consider providing a copy of each section of the Carmel
Zoning Ordinance that the PUD ordinance references, to include in the plan
commission file with the final recorded PUD rezone. Or, the petitioner can just
reference the most current version of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance within the PUD
ordinance text.
Response: The term "as amended" was added to the definition of Zoning Ordinance in Section
2.2 so that the current version of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance is being referenced.
Furthermore, in Section 1.3 the phrase "in effect on the date of enactment of this Hadley
Grove Ordinance" was removed so the current version of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance would
be used.
Planning /Zoning Dept. review comments regarding the Primary Plat:
46. The primary plat should be amended to show a separation of the easements and
the required tree planting areas, so that there is no conflict. Also, please separate the
tree preservation & landscaping easements from the utility easements.
Response: This issue has been largely resolved by the change to place the street trees within
the rights -of -way. The tree preservation and landscape easements have been added to the
primary plat.
47. Per the Thoroughfare Plan, please show /label a 70 -ft half right of way along
131st St.
Response: The 50 -ft half right -of -way has been retained on the primary plat along Main
Street. The improvements for Main Street have already been constructed by the City of
Carmel (on the owner's property) in substantial compliance with the Thoroughfare Plan. We
believe that the additional 20 feet of right -of -way being requested is an unnecessary taking
and lacks a rational nexus given the roadway improvements have already been installed and
Page 7 of 11
the improvements shown on the cross section in the Thoroughfare Plan can be constructed
within a 50 -ft half right -of -way.
48. Please submit two subdivision control ordinance (SCO) waiver request
applications. It looks like you'll need a few waivers from the subdivision control
ordinance for the primary plat -- from the required minimum 50 -ft lot width at the
right of way (SCO chapter 6.05.01) and from the requirement that houses need to face
a collector /parkway when the lots are adjacent /abutting (SCO chapter 6.05.07 and
6.03.19).
Response: The waivers are not necessary. First, in Section 4.2, C the Minimum Lot Frontage
at the Street was changed to 50 feet. Second, Section 4.2, L was added stating, "Home
Orientation: All Dwellings within the subdivision shall face and derive access from the local
roads internal to the site."
49. Show /verify that Lost Creek Land aligns with the platted street to the north of this
site.
Response: The required information has been added to the primary plat.
50. We assume that the street trees will be planted within the road right of way; please
verify this.
Response: Yes, the street trees will be planted within the road right -of -way.
51. On the local street section, please show a 6 -ft wide tree planting strip within the
street right of way, pushing the sidewalk to the outer edge with no 1 -ft strip.
Response: Per the discussion at the TAC meeting, the road cross section has been modified to
show a five foot wide tree planting strip and five foot sidewalk with the edge of the walk being
at the edge of the right -of -way.
52. Please add a pedestrian path or sidewalk that runs between lots 32 & 33 to
connect to Towne Rd. Or show a pedestrian connection from the west site of lot 38
that connects east, to Towne Rd.
Response: The pedestrian path was not added. The goal of the community design was to
maximize how many trees are protected in Common Area B. Adding the path would cause
further encroachment into the tree preservation area. Furthermore, this is a small
neighborhood and the distances to nearby paths within the right -of -way are not burdensome.
53. The Dept. strongly suggests connecting Madeline Court to Towne Road,
eliminating of the cul -de -sac.
Response: We examined this option and such an entry is not recommended. There are public
safety concerns due to the short distance between where the Hadley Grove entry would be
Page 8 of 11
located and the entry to the Lakes at Towne Road III. Furthermore, the left turn lane to be
constructed providing access to the Lakes at Towne Road III is very close to where the Hadley
Grove entry would be creating an undesirable incentive for u -turns on Towne Road.
54. Please submit a draft copy of the neighborhood Covenants & Restrictions.
Response: A copy of the neighborhood covenants are part of the documents submitted with
the updated PUD ordinance.
55. Change the S -1 zoning development standards on the bottom of the primary plat to
show what is proposed with the PUD ordinance, instead.
Response: The requested change has been made.
Page 9 of 11
11'‘')'1.�d
D E V E L O P M E N T
7378 N 550 E, Lebanon, Indiana 46052, phone (317) 721 -8279
Hadley Grove PUD Development Standards Comparison
December 3, 2012
Standard
S -1 District
Hadley Grove PUD
Maximum height
35'
35'
Minimum lot area
15,000 s.f.
11,050 s.f.
Minimum front yard setback
40'
25'
Minimum side yard setback
10'
5'
Minimum aggregate side yard setback
30'
20'
Minimum rear yard setback
20'
20'
Minimum lot frontage on street
50'
50'
Minimum lot width at building line
120'
85'
Maximum lot coverage
35%
45%
Minimum ground floor area one -story dwelling
1,000 s.f.
None
Minimum ground floor area two -story dwelling
800 s.f.
None
Minimum building size
None
2,200 s.f.
Bufferyard type required adjacent to public ROW
D
D
Minimum bufferyard width rear
25'
20' with berm
Minimum # of shade trees per 100 I.f. increment
5
5
Minimum # of ornamental trees per 100 I.f.
5
5
Minimum # of shrubs per 100 I.f. increment
27
27
Bufferyard type required not adjacent to public ROW
B
B
Minimum bufferyard width rear
10'
10'
Minimum # of shade trees per 100 I.f. increment
3
3
Minimum # of ornamental trees per 100 I.f.
3
3
Minimum # of shrubs per 100 I.f. increment
15
15
Minimum open space requirement
15%
35%
Maximum density
1.0
1.26
Page 10 of 11
Page 11 of 11