Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDepartment Report 03-19-13 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT March 14, 2013 1.Docket No. 13010010 DP/ADLS: The Legacy Towns & Flats, Phase II. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for 23 buildings on 6.9 acres, containing attached th dwellings and apartments. The site is located at approximately 7499 E. 146 St., west of River Rd. The site is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger, for J.C. Hart Company, Inc. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for 23 new residential buildings on 6.9 acres. They will also be going through the administrative Secondary Plat process after the DP/ADLS portion is approved by the Plan Commission. The project will have both apartments and attached dwellings or townhomes. This site is bounded by wetland preservation and open space area to the west, south and east. The area immediately northwest of the site is proposed to th be a retail area that will line 146 Street. The area to the far northeast of the site, at the River Road intersection, will be retail in the future. This development is the second phase of residential homes by the Petitioner. The road that borders Phase I, Hopewell Parkway, will be extended into the Phase II area. A new road will be th constructed to enter off 146 Street, and will be a one way (right turn only) into the site. Within the development, there will be mostly one way streets, with a few two way streets near the main entrance intersection. Sidewalks are provided th through the development, with connection into the site from 146 Street at two locations. Pedestrian crossings are delineated with stained concrete to help bring attention to them. Street trees are provided throughout the development and views into the wetland preservation area/open space are a priority for the Petitioner. th The Apartments will be located at the north end of the site, immediately adjacent to 146 Street. The townhomes will take up the remaining southern two-thirds of the site. All of the townhomes will have garages for their unit, where only some of the apartments will have garages. The architecture of the different buildings will include stone, brick, and fiber cement board that will be painted in complementary colors. There are four basic types of buildings, with varying numbers of units. All of the buildings will be two stories ranging in height from 28’ – 32’. The design of the site closely matches an early concept/master plan that shows “Future Residential (Mostly Attached).” This was not included as an exhibit in the PUD, but it was used for marketing purposes. The Dept. feels it is important to show the Petitioner is working within the original PUD regulations that were provided for the development, so we can know and understand what the end product will be along the lines of what we thought when it was first proposed. Please view the Petitioner’s information packet for more details. Below are review and discussion comments for the Committee, Petitioner and Department. DP/ADLS: General: 1.Remember to include the Development Plan application’s Findings of Fact sheet in your final information th packets. Will be submitted March 15. 2.Provide the filled out and notarized affidavit of notice of public hearing page of the application. Will be th submitted March 15. th 3.Provide the filled out Notice of Public Hearing page of the application. Will be submitted March 15. 4.Provide the filled out and notarized Public Notice Sign Placement affidavit page of the application. Will th be submitted March 15. 5.Provide a copy of the Official List of Adjacent Property Owners from Hamilton County Auditor’s Office. th Will be submitted March 15. - 1 - Site plan: th 6.The Dept. would prefer to see Building 23 in line with the other buildings that front along 146 St. The Dept. does not believe that the angle significantly alters views into the site or out of the site for drivers th along 146 St. or residents of the building. The Petitioner wishes to leave it as is and not align it with the other buildings. 7.Please add curbing to all parking areas and drive isles, as requested by the Engineer Dept. The Petitioner has added curbs to the north part of the site where the apartments are and on the south portion of the site to the streets. The interior alleys of the south buildings will not be curbed because it is not required by the PUD. 8.The Dept. is not in favor of the layout of buildings 5 and 6. We are concerned with the rear of the building is facing to the front of the other buildings. Would it be possible to reorient these to have side loaded garages? Or perhaps an alley in the back where garages were accessed from? The Petitioner tried many different layouts, but keeping the view of the resident in mind, they feel this is the best design. There is also no other way to have the parking/drive isle area because the fire dept. has requested it be as open as possible for best access. 9.The Fire Dept. has requested an updated emergency vehicle circulation plan. Please provide this rendering to both Captain Chris Ellison and to DOCS. Streets: 10.Drive aisle width in the parking areas are only 20-ft wide, and should probably be 25-ft wide for 2-way traffic. See ZO Chapter 27.05. The Petitioner is trying to limit the amount of pavement in the development. The Fire Dept. is ok with the proposed layout and says it is enough for maneuverability. The Petitioner can change the parking space lengths to 18’ instead of 20’ and reduce the size of the islands as well to try and gain more drive isle space. After some redesign, the Petitioner was able to gain one foot throughout the travel lanes for a total of 21 feet wide. 11.Please confirm the Engineer Dept’s approval of the width of the private streets. The Petitioner has not yet received a response from the Engineer Dept. 12.Since Beallsville Drive is one way going south, the Dept. would like to see the parallel parking switched from the left side to the right side of the street. (The Engineer Dept. agrees with DOCS) Along with this, a sidewalk could then be added as well, all the way along the perimeter of the property. If the Petitioner were to do as the Department has suggested, it would make the fire truck radius tighter as they maneuver throughout the site. The Petitioner does not believe these streets will be heavily trafficked, but still thinks the left side exit will be safer for the driver. The Dept. would still be concerned with persons having to step in grass or mud, instead of onto a sidewalk. 13.The Dept. would prefer the parallel parking on Beallsville Dr. (and Barker Dr.) to be changed to the right side instead of the left side with the one way south configuration as one comes into the development from th 146 street. The Petitioner believes this is ok because it is a one way street. The Dept. is curious if when the future retail is developed on the west side of Beallsville Drive, will there be matching parallel parking on the west side? Bicycle and Pedestrian connectivity: 14.Please show and label the bicycle parking and provide the Bicycle rack design details. See ZO Chapter 27.06. Bicycle parking will be provided between Buildings 21 and 22 for the apartment users. The townhomes and apartments with garages will be expected to store their bicycles within their garages. 15.Proposed Primary Walking Path (Conceptual) shown on exhibit 3 of the PUD, should be added to Beallsville Dr., correct? The Petitioner has added this to the plan and it will be constructed as a part of the future commercial development to the west. - 2 - 16.The Dept. would like to see more sidewalk connectivity between buildings 20 & 21 and 22 & 23, so that persons may walk all the way around the property, without breaks in the sidewalk. The Petitioner is not in favor of this and would like to keep the area as private as possible. This is because there is an outdoor patio for those corner tenants close to the pavement and they would like to discourage people from walking too close to those units. 17.Please add a sidewalk on the edge of the property, where it goes into the wetland preservation area. The Petitioner has informed the Dept. that there is an overall plan for access to the trails that will go through the wetland area. They would like to guide people to these paths, instead of creating an additional one on the immediate outside edge of their development area. 18.Please add sidewalks on the south edge of buildings 20, 21 & 22 and connect it to the front door; the east edge of building 17 and 19; the north edge of building 18; and the east edges of buildings 5 & 6. The Petitioner is not in favor of this in the areas by the apartments because they would like to keep the outdoor area as private as possible. There is a patio for those corner tenants close to the pavement and they would like to discourage people from walking too close to those units. As for buildings 5 and 6, the Petitioner is trying to increase the amount of landscaping on the east edges of the building to help screen the motor court area. The Dept. still believes that safe pedestrian connectivity is important and would like to see the sidewalk in addition to the landscaping. 19.Thank you for calling out the paths across drive isles with stained concrete. The new sidewalk area between buildings 21 and 22, and leading to building 18 – can these accessible ramps be straight instead of angled? 20.Please add sidewalks in the front of buildings 20, 21, 22, and 23 as requested by David Littlejohn, to make sure the front doors are accessible and can actually be used. 21.Please add a stained concrete crosswalk between building 19 and building 1, as requested by David Littlejohn. 22.There is one location between building 18 and 16 where the crosswalk leads into a parking space. Please address this issue. Possibly realign/stripe the parking spaces or paint the curb yellow to show that parking is not allowed in this area, as requested by David Littlejohn. 23.Please provide a pedestrian connection from the on-street parking spaces to the adjacent sidewalks throughout the development, as requested by David Littlejohn. 24.Please provide pedestrian connections to the community’s mailboxes, as requested by David Littlejohn. It also appears that the mailboxes between building 21 and 22 and between building 9 and 10 are accessed by the drive isles. Please reorient these mailboxes to have direct access from the sidewalk, off of the street. 25.Provide a full ADA accessible route from the ADA parking spaces to the building(s), as requested by David Littlejohn. Architecture: 26.Will there be one trash dumpster for the apartments? If so, please provide the dumpster location and the enclosure/ screening details. Also show on the site plan? The Apartments will utilize the existing trash compactor from Phase 1. Those units with garages will be able to have a tote and have the trash company pick it up directly, but the units without garages will have to use the compactor. The Department is concerned that this is not an appropriate solution for the apartments on this property. 27.Building Type 1: a.After discussions with the Petitioner, it was decided that the different planes of the building would be treated with different colors to help break up the monotony of façade elevations. This is not apparent in the new packet. Please provide more detail on the color changes. b.The Dept. is concerned about the design for mirroring in the 4 unit (type 1) building. Could there be different window shapes or sizes used to help differentiate between the two units? Or less - 3 - vertical stones above the windows to help soften the look of the façade? Please explore different options to help make this portion of the building look less “busy”. c.The Dept. is also concerned with the 5 unit Type 1 building (bldg. #19) with two level porch in- between the units, instead of on ends, like other buildings. Do you foresee this as an issue for the tenants? What kind of separation will be between the two units? Will the stone be carried around the edge for an “outdoor” or rustic feel? Or will these be more like 3 season rooms? d.I have noticed the middle unit on the first floor’s laundry room is labeled “porch” instead. Perhaps this could be changed to say Laundry? 28.Building Type 2: a.The Dept. would like to see some sort of accent color to help different architectural elements stand out more. The Petitioner said they will add some tone colors to address the concern. b.Rear elevation: The Dept. is still concerned with the large span of roof facing the street. Is it possible to break it up a bit more or to add dormers similar to the one that is shown? The Petitioner has responded that additional dormers are not possible because of fire wall restrictions between units. The Dept. would still like to see additional suggestions for improving this façade. c.It does not appear that Color Scheme B looks anything like what was submitted in the booklet. Please provide an updated rendering. 29.Building Type 3: The Petitioner has stated they will use a tone on tone treatment for the trim color vs. the siding of this building type. stst a.Front elevation: Can the 1 floor window on the left be at the same height/level with the 1 floor window on the right of the door? b.Rear/Alley elevation: Can brick be added to the middle portion of the building around the door? This would help break up this façade and draw more attention to the entrance. c.Alley elevation: The Dept. would like to see the brick carried across the entire right portion of the building to the left side of the second story covered porch. This would help give a continuous th brick side that is visible from 146 Street. d.The Dept. would like to see an updated color rendering for the siding accent color for this building? It is just hard to visualize where the changes will occur. 30.Building Type 4: a.The Dept. really liked this building design and color choice in the rendering. There was concern over the rear elevation and there being too much vertical white fiber cement board, but after discussions with the Petitioner, the Dept. understands this the most logical way to keep the design continuous. b.The Petitioner did add in windows to the garage, which the Dept. felt helped break up the façade a bit more. c.There is concern that the gray color chosen on the Color Scheme D will not be as bright as the blue color in the renderings. Color schemes: 31.Overall, will you not have variety within each scheme? Looking at the site plan, especially along Beallsville Drive, there will be 6 buildings in a row that are the same colors. The same will happen along th 146 Street with the apartment buildings. Is it possible to add another siding color? Or perhaps switch the trim and siding color on different buildings? a.Scheme A: Please explain the Decorous Amber color. The Dept. is concerned this would not achieve the tone on tone goal. Please show this color on the building rendering. b.Scheme B: looks good. c.Scheme C: Please explain the Stonebriar Yellow siding color. Can you also please change the building rendering to accurately reflect the color choice so we can see what ? - 4 - d.Scheme D: Again, there is concern that the Homburg Gray will not be as bright as the blue shown on the renderings. Maybe there could also be a blue color in this Scheme as a second option? Lighting: (Everything is OK.) Landscaping: 32.For the areas that do not show a curb but are shown green on the illustrated plan, how will the soil be contained? Is this part of the drainage plan for the site, i.e. bioswale or rain garden? Please provide more details on these areas. Yes, it is considered part of the drainage for the site. 33.Please increase the diversity at Bosque Park. 10 MR are shown, maybe add some SR or a couple taller trees for more height; more uniqueness is encouraged. 34.Please replace the TT with Japanese Zelkova’s as they will provide a more upright shape for the tight areas. 35.On Sheet C303, I am not sure what the shrub and tree list are noting as most of these plants are not labeled on the sheet. Please explain and also remove the pin oak, red maple and honey locust and substitute Hackberry or other native species that do better in our soils. 36.On the landscape plan sheet 1 under landscaping notes number 6, please remove the term heading as this term means removing the top or ‘head’ of a limb and is not a desired effect. Trees in parking lots should be pruned by crown raising; to raise the crown above the traffic over time. Trimming for this purpose should not be needed for at least 3-5 years and should not be noted as if it should be done at installation. : The same goes for the remarks on sheet 2, “heading up to 4-5’” is not desired as heading means "pruning off the terminal or "head" growth of a plant, especially a tree. Heading back is a general term, whose subcategories include "topping" and "pollarding." http://landscaping.about.com/cs/lazylandscaping/g/headingback.htm Signage: (Everything is OK.) Supplemental Info: The drawings below are shown to Corner Retail Use: help the Plan Commission see how Fuel & Convenience this proposal relates to early concepts 146 th Street that were shown and approved by the Plan Commission. The Dept. believes the final proposal is actually much better than the preliminary drawings, as it relates to flow within the site and the buildings properly addressing th 146 Street. The project area is marked Future Residential by a yellow rectangle. (Mostly Attached) Department Recommendation: The Department of Community Services recommends the Plan Commission to forward this item to the Wednesday, th Special Studies March 27 Committee meeting for further review and discussion. The drawing to the left is a concept plan showing this area as - 5 - urban residential, surrounded by Open Space. The drawing to the bottom left shows the first concept plan of the - 6 - CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT March 14, 2013 1.TABLED INDEFINITELY - Docket No. 12080004 Z: Springmill Court PUD Rezone. The applicant seeks approval to rezone approximately 15 acres to PUD/Planned Unit Development for multiple-family dwellings, from S-2/Residence. The site is located at 400 W. 96th Street, at the northwest corner of 96th St. & Springmill Rd. Filed by Timothy Ochs of Ice Miller, LLP, on behalf of Sexton Development, LLC. This item remains tabled indefinitely . - 7 - CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT March 14, 2013 1.Docket No. 12120015 ADLS: The Seasons of Carmel (Aramore PUD). The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a 14-building multifamily residential development, comprising of townhomes and apartments. The site is located at 9801 Westfield Blvd. and is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Pittman Partners, Inc. The Applicant is seeking approval to construct a new residential neighborhood. This site has been zoned a PUD since 2006. The original proposal was for 150 townhomes and 70 courthomes (or condos). In 2009, a portion of th the site at the entrance on 99 Street was separated from the Aramore project and developed as a single family home small cottage development, called Inglenook. More recently in 2012, the Applicant came to ask Plan Commission and Council to amend the Aramore PUD once more to allow for a “Manor” style or apartment building, as well as 2 story buildings in addition to 3 story buildings. The current proposal is for 3 Manor style buildings and 11 townhome buildings for a total of 256 residences. This will be comprised of 136 apartments and 88 townhomes. The area to the north, east and south is all single family residential. To the southwest is The Retreat apartment and townhome community, and immediately west is a golf course/driving range. Improvements to the site will include the addition of a left turn lane into the median for south bound traffic on Westfield Blvd., an acel and decel lane for north bound traffic into and out of the site, dedication of right-of-way thth for 99 Street, and right-of-way dedication for 96 Street, where a 10’ path will be constructed for pedestrian connectivity. The Petitioner is also proposing to create the Monon Trail spur on the south end of their property, connecting it all the way to Woodbriar Lane. This will help bring the residents from the east another access point closer to the Monon Trail. However, there is still one missing link across the golf property, which will be most likely be provided at some point in the future when that property is redeveloped. The Applicant also proposes to construct the missing segment of Maple Drive so it may eventually connect from thth 99 Street to 96 Street. However, the neighbors to the south have requested that the connection not be allowed, and to have it blocked off somehow to prevent cut through traffic. The current proposal is to have bollards that are removable for fire trucks to safely navigate the site if necessary. Lastly, another site improvement that the Petitioner will work on is to connect the required path on their property along Westfield th Blvd. north to 99 Street to have greater connectivity in this area. The Dept. is very pleased that the Petitioner is making this effort for the community. Please view the Petitioner’s information packet for more details. Below are review and discussion comments for the Committee, Petitioner and Department. Planning/Zoning Dept. review comments: General: 1.Feel free to bring color/material samples of the building to the Plan Commission meeting. The Petitioner will provide both a large board for the Plan Commission to see as well as a smaller format for the Dept. to include in our file. 2.Please provide digital copies of any revised plans, in addition to paper copies. 3.Please provide copies of your correspondence with the TAC members and their correspondence with you. Site Plan: - 8 - 4.Please provide floor plans for each building type. (We also need this info to make sure each dwelling unit meets the minimum square footage, per PUD 6.4) The Petitioner has stated they will provide this information. 5.Would an upstairs tenant have a way to get to the pond from the back of their unit? No, there is no direct access from the back for upstairs tenant. 6.Are there walk out doors on the ground floor to access the pond? Yes, there are walk out doors for the first floor tenants. Architectural design: 7.Are all the buildings going to be the same colors? With a name like the Seasons, the Dept. imagined different colors that complement each other, but also provide variety. Please expand the color palate. The Petitioner stated that the three different building types will have different colors. The Department still thinks it would be best to have some variety among the townhome buildings. Perhaps different shades of blue or gray would help give the site some complexity and add to the aesthetics. 8.Overall, the Dept. would prefer to see more brick and stone on the buildings and less cement fiber board. 9.The elevations facing Westfield Blvd. and facing the main streets through the development should have more brick and stone on them. These elevations should have minimal cement fiber board. The cement fiber board should be reserved for the rear of the buildings. The Petitioner agreed to revisit the west elevation of the Type B building to remove some, if not all, of the cement fiber board siding that faces Westfield Blvd. The Dept. would also like the Petitioner to revisit the main Manor building, to add more brick and stone to the west elevation. 10.Manor Building A: Please provide more relief in the façade projections and recessions of the main building facing Westfield. It is very one dimensional. Perhaps have the building into 3 or 5 significant architectural sections? The Petitioner did try to add more dimension through slightly different design, however the Dept. believes that more can be done. The main center portion of the building should have more stone or perhaps a combination of stone and brick, to help set it apart from the rest of the building. Right now, the building still seems very long and repetitive. a)Please label all materials on each elevation. b)West elevation: 1.Perhaps removing the horizontal floor divider between the second and third floors and continuing either the vertical or horizontal cement fiber board siding will help the building design flow more, and seem less “choppy”. (This comment applies to all elevations) 2.The Dept. is impressed with the brick detailing around the windows and doors on the first floor. 3.On the site plan, it is hard to tell how far the porte cochere sticks out from the building, and where the support posts will be. Please provide a rendering of this part of the building, showing what it will look like as one travels north or southbound on Westfield Blvd., or as one would drive up to the porte cochere. 4.Please provide a complete rendering of all sides of the Manor Building A on a larger size piece of paper for the Department’s review. 5.The small dormers on the roof appear to be very small and not proportionate to the building. Do these serve as actual windows/skylights into the apartments? Can they be made larger or more of them provided? Or should they be removed altogether? (This comment applies to all elevations) 6.What is the material over the entrance doors to the left and right of the main entrance? It appears to be some kind of metal. Please elaborate on this element, because it does not seem to go with the other materials used on the building. c)North and south elevations: Please provide wrap around brick for each of these elevations, as they will be highly visible from Westfield Blvd. - 9 - d)East (rear) elevation: 1.Please provide a rendering of the back patio area. The way the stairs are shown on the plan vs. the rendering do not quite add up. The Dept. thinks this is a nice feature and it would be helpful to better show the Plan Commission what the space will be like. 2.Please provide more details on the materials that will be used for the main back patio area. 11.Manor Building B: a)Please continue the brick on the first floor all the way around the building. This will help to get more brick facing Westfield Blvd., as well as provide a continual design element. b)Will there be any signage around the garage entrance for these buildings? c)Will there be any identifying signage for the main pedestrian entrances? The two entrances on either side of the building do not stand out as public entrances. 1.Again, what is the material over these doors? 2.Will these be overhangs that project out? How far will they project? It does not show up well on the site plan. d)Please call out all building materials on all elevations of each building. e)Front elevation: 1.It appears that the far ends of the first floor have doors. Will there be concrete pads as people exit here? Is this all part of the garage or a unit? Please explain. 2.As stated for Manor Building A, the building elevations might appear less “busy” if the third floor horizontal divider line was removed and the cement fiber board siding was kept continuous between the upper floors. (This comment applies to all elevations of this building) 3.Perhaps use more stone in the center portion of this elevation to call attention to it. f)Side elevations: 1.Please provide more brick and stone on the elevation that faces Westfield Blvd. 2.In general, the Dept. would like to see brick and stone on every elevation of the building. 3.The end units appear to have bay windows, but only the third floor unit has a roof over it. How will the other two floors roofs look? Will they be flat? Will they have some kind of slope? The Dept. is concerned about water possibly leaking into the units over time. g)Rear elevation: 1.Again, please wrap the brick around the entire first floor elevation. 2.Again, please provide more details about what looks like doors on the ends of the building. Will there be some kind of sidewalk to get to these doors or a concrete landing pad? 3.The Dept. is not in favor of using the same color shake that is on the roof dormers on the elevations of the building. The back elevation shows the same color, but one part of the front elevation shows a different color. 12.Townhome Buildings: a)The previous design had brick on the sides and rear of each building. The new designs have more stone on the back of the building. This is great, but can it be extended the entire length of the building? b)The Dept. would also like to see more stone and/or brick on the sides and front if possible, similar to the earlier designs. c)Please confirm if walk out units will have a concrete landing pad at their door, if there is no sidewalk. d)Please confirm that the second floor walk out patios will have doors to access these. It is not shown on the rendering. e)The Dept. would like to encourage possibly using other colors for the Townhome buildings, perhaps different shades of blue or gray, to make the project a little more diverse. - 10 - 13.What color and material are the railings on the buildings? 14.Please provide PDFs of the renderings so that the Dept. can zoom in and can examine them more closely. Elevations: 15.Please label the roof slopes of all major rooflines on all of the building elevations. 16.Please also show where the water, gas, and electric meters will be located on the site plan and on the buildings and how they will be screened from view or camouflaged. Accessory uses/buildings: 17.Please provide design details for what the pool and its deck with look like, along with photograph examples of what the pool furniture, cabanas, etc. will look like. 18.Garages: a)Please provide more detail about the Garages, including a cut sheet for the new door design. b)Please specify where the garages will be or will possibly be built in the future. c)Please also provide dimensions and correct coloring of the garage buildings. d)Please label the materials on the garage building. e)The Garage drawing given to the Dept. on 3/13/2013 says Type “B”. Are there other types that will also be used? 19.Trash Compactor: f)Please provide dimensions (including height) of the trash compactor. g)Please provide a plan view of the trash compactor, the rendering is somewhat misleading. h)Please provide another view that shows where people actually place the trash into the compactor. th i)Please provide details about the gate for access to the trash compactor from 98 Street 20.Please provide a site plan that shows the location of all the mailboxes. Engineer Dept.: 21.Please submit a copy of the Drainage Calculations. 22.Please verify with the City Engineering Dept. that a traffic impact analysis, nor a traffic study, is required. The Petitioner stated this is not required. Please provide a copy of the letter or email from the Engineer Dept. 23.Prepare an estimated construction cost to comply with the Thoroughfare Plan & Alternative Transportation Plan; contact the Engineering Dept. for more details, at 571-2441. Pedestrian/Bike connectivity: 24.Please provide sidewalk access from the front if the buildings to the path around the pond, as well as to the fronts of buildings. 8-10 on the east side of Maple Drive. Exhibit D of the PUD showed these connections to the path around the pond. The Petitioner revised the plan, but each unit still does not have immediate access to the path. 25.Please change the sidewalk from next to the buildings to go out beyond the edge of the parking. 26.Please change the crushed stone path to a sidewalk. The City prefers all walking paths to be concrete or asphalt. The Petitioner addressed this comment saying that the crushed stone path goes with their overall look and feel of the site, and they do not wish to change the design to concrete or an asphalt path. The Dept.’s concern is that over time, weeds will be able to grow up through it easily, the path will not be maintained, and will eventually disappear as the stones are kicked or washed away. The Dept. is also concerned because not having a solid surface prevents people on bikes, parents with strollers, or people on rollerblades to not be able to use the path around the pond. 27.On sheet C201, it appears as if the Monon Rail Trail Spur and the edge of woods graphic conflict/overlap. Please amend and/or clarify if trees will need to be cut down to make this path. 28.Please provide a concept plan of what the Monon spur crossing will look like crossing Westfield Blvd. - 11 - 29.Please show the bicycle parking location and the bicycle rack details; bike parking standards are in ZO chapter 27.06. Lighting: Ok. Landscaping: 30.Please provide an update on the status of Daren Mindham’s review comments. Signage: 31.The ground sign cannot be located within road right of way. A variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals and Board of Public Works approval will be required. The Petitioner is aware of this and will seek variance approval. 32.The previous “Welcome Center” sign seems to have been replaced with a hanging identification sign under the porte cochere. What will the welcome center sign look like? Will the hours just be posted on the door? 33.It may be beneficial to provide an additional directional sign or two along the north road on the property th to guide those coming in from 98 Street to get to the leasing office. The Dept. would recommend one at the jog where the edge of Bldg. A is and another where the driver would need to turn left to get to the front door of Building A. The Petitioner agreed this may be necessary, and will add these signs in the future if there is a need. 34.It may also be beneficial to have another Monon rail spur sign at the entrance to the trail at Maple Drive. Fire Department comments: 35.Provide an emergency vehicle circulation plan for the project. 36.All Fire Department Connections for automatic sprinkler systems shall be located at a location approved by the fire code official, Section 912 2008 Indiana Fire Code. 37.Provide an additional fire hydrant along Maple Drive across from building 9. 38.Provide operational information for the proposed removable bollards on Maple Drive. Supplemental Info: The drawings below are shown to illustrate the changes of this PUD over time. While the current proposal does not th exactly match the original one, it does stay true to extending and connecting Maple Drive from 99 Street to the current street stub, it has expanded to two main (west-east) streets for circulation throughout the property, and there is still a large lake to deal with drainage for not only this site, but also runoff from the surrounding areas. The project has adapted with the market to propose the highest and best use of the land for the City of Carmel. The intent to provide high quality residential homes is still the first priority for the developer. Department Recommendation: The Department of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Plan Commission forward this item to the th Subdivision Committee Wednesday, March 27 for further review and discussion. - 12 - The drawing to the left is the original site plan for Aramore. The area outlined in yellow is what was broken off in 2009 and developed as Inglenook, a detached single family homes subdivision. That site plan is shown below. The next page shows the current site plan for the rest of the site, for apartments and townhomes, under the name of “The Seasons of Carmel”. This site plan matches the concept plan recently approved last year with the PUD Ordinance Amendment petition. - 13 - This page shows the current site plan for “The Seasons of Carmel”. - 14 -