Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Subdivision 01-02-13City of Carmel Carmel Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Meeting Wednesday, January 2, 2013 LOCATION: CAUCUS ROOMS, 2nd FLR CARMEL CITY HALL ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, IN 46032 TIME: 6:00 P.M. (DOORS OPEN AT 5:30 P.M.) Committee Members Present: John Adams, Ephraim Wilfong, Josh Kirsh, Nick Kestner and Brad Grabow The Committee members re- elected Brad Grabow to serve as Chairperson of the Committee. Present for the Department: Angie Conn, Alexia Donahue Wold and Lisa Stewart Attorney: John Molitor The Subdivision Committee will met to consider the following items. 1. Transferred to Jan. 15 Plan Commission meeting agenda: Docket No. 12120013 ADLS Amend: Holiday Inn changeover Section 1, Lot 5i1). The applicant seeks approval for exterior building facade changes and signagc changes. The site is located at 9797 N. Michigan Rd. and is zoned 8 6/ Business, within the US 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by Jared Kemp of VJA Construction, LLC. 2. Docket No. 12100017 Z: Hadley Grove PUD Rezone (with Primary Plat). The applicant seeks approval to rezone 30 acres to PUD /Planned Unit Development, for 38 homes, and also seeks primary plat approval. The site is located at 2424 W. 131" St. (the NWC of Towne Rd. & 131" St.) and is zoned S -1/ Residence. Filed by Bryan Stumpf of l 1`h Street Development, LLC for M/I Homes of Indiana LP. The Committee and Petitioner undertook a review of the PUD. The following indicate • The Petitioner stated that the aerial of the site shows need for PUD, you can see the existing pond in SE corner as well as woods. One thing about the site is what we can do to save these resources. The Petitioner stated that they will be creative with lot sizes that are equal to what is around this site, both to the North and West. They will protect the trees and ponds, and have worked with a land planner that was sensitive to this. On the North are side lines are drawn for Lakes of Town Rd 3 that was approved last year. Our base lot size is 85 x 130 which is equivalent to the West. Most lots directly abut open space or is across the street from open space. For few lots that weren't on open space we have actually made these lots 100 ft wide. They are 1 January 2, 2013 Meeting Agenda Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee looking at how to create value and save the resources. Looking at the Development Standards of the S1 district which is what this property is currently zoned versus what is in the PUD. When approaching this PUD we opted to use the Lakes at Town Rd 3 as the basis. Overall we are following quite a few of the S 1 standards. The ones that we vary from really deal with.the lot size and the setbacks If lot is smaller the setbacks need to be smaller. Rather than the 15% open space required we are identifying a minimum of 35% open space. The other spot we differ is in the ground floor area. The S1 District has a 1000 sq ft for minimum wound floor area for a one story building and 800 sq ft for a two story dwelling. We don't break it down by floor but identified that we have a minimum building size of 2200 sq ft. We are exceeding that standard in terms of sq footage of homes. • The following represents December 18 public hearing comments: The grass roots organization is in full support of rezone. • Reviewing the PUD criteria as it relates to prior Special Studies: Section 4.2 Pie shaped lots versus rectangular lots. You will see our frontage requirements with the same minimum lot fringe on the street and we are narrower at the building line. Wanted to make sure frontage was low number to accommodate the cul -de -sac lots. Actually it will be the setback lines not street frontage. The rezone is being done simultaneously with the primary plat so this is the primary plat. As far as adjusting the PUD to reflect those different sizes that is not necessary. Side yard setbacks for buildings will be a 5ft side with a 20 ft aggregate. Put AC units on wide setback or back of house since side load garages. • Garage types and designs. All are side - loaded and will remain side -load as long as requirements stay as proposed. If you don't like 20 ft and needs to be 30 then we would need to go to front load garages. If going to be 100% side load is there any language in ordinance that we should have concerns with. The Petitioner states they prefer side load because better it creates a better street scene and most will be brick or stone and typically a window. We will remove all language that addresses front load garages and will identify all garages to be side loading. • Letter F — the 40% garage text relating to the PUD running in front of garage is going to be more than 40% of width of the linear footage, that now goes away. • Section 4.3 D: Gas chimneys: Direct vent fireplaces are not required to have chimneys but if they do they can't be shuttur style or cantilever style chimneys. If Direct vent, there will be no chimney on house. We are targeting the active adult, empty nester buyer who are looking for clean option with fireplace. o Angie Conn will send a picture showing what she is looking for. No cantilever but not sure how to design it to come out of back of house. There will be cement sides at bottom. • Section 4.3 F: Roof line: The 12" overhang will drop down to 8" overhang where there is brick applied. We will add that by doing the minimum pitch of 6 -12 the primer roof pitch will be 6 -12 2 1 January 2, 2013 Meeting Agenda Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee or more instead of just 50% plus one. • Fences: Common style is set by HOA. But what's not permitted is chain link or coated chain link fences. o Committee Concern: In certain areas we would like to see developers put up some kind of standard fence. Back of houses can be seen from road and they are ugly with no landscaping. If someone puts up board fence and next person puts up vinyl, we don't want to leave it to homeowner to decide. • Visibility: there are woods here so seeing backs of homes from Towne Rd shouldn't be issue. • Landscaping — there is a 20 ft landscape buffer we are putting berm in here. Landscape plan is packed, a really dense planning with a berm to obscure view. We have a berm alongside Main Street to separate the road and pond and that berm screens that. Homeowners on pond might want yard to open and not blocked. We can't extend berm because of swale and tree line. We don't want to cut down trees. Chase, CVS and Primrose are to South so maybe desire to screen against businesses. There is not.a single lot that backs up to a road so there is a big setback that breaks up the space. Makes sense to stipulate in the homeowner covenant to pick a standard fence type and make that a part of the primary plat or the PUD itself so we know that where fences are going in they will be all same. May have to be fence restrictions on lots on ponds and common area: We will call it along the water and common area the max height is 4 foot. There is no common area so fence will be responsibility of property owner. We are on same page with fences. • J and K: Demonstrates need for PUD to follow standard Si. This is a PUD because of density, lot size, etc. Alternative would be if didn't do PUD they would stick with the S 1 District then they would come in a variance of the BZA for every single item. Looking at all at once maybe BZA would then grant them all these different variances. With the PUD it has to be legislative so it has to go thru the whole council to get the PUD. PUD's are harder because of manageability. This seems like it should be more of a rezone like an S -2. Well the big reason is the density. There are things that are put in PUD's then all of a sudden its long term and not playing off the same as the rest of the community, and we try to avoid that. With some PUD's there are omissions as well and when you say wherever this ordinance language is silent the underlying S -1 applies, then that does a lot to alleviate that risk. Anytime we do PUD's there are complexities of making sure that nothing slips thru the cracks. We want to make sure that if we take that risk going the PUD route that it's a justifiable risk. We will try to find the over sights as we go, but want to make sure we are not taking a riskier approach unnecessarily. We are doing a primary plat as part of the rezone. This is only 38 lots and will build out quickly. • Item 6: Request made that front porch be a minimum of 4 ft deep and staff requested 8 ft. We have identified to change it to 6ft. Petitioner did not want to go beyond the 6' 'A feet. Porch is good feature of house but is also in good proportions with the house. If make it larger the roof pitch won't work. We are fine with 6 ft depth 3 ft of storm door swing out and another 3 ft to step back to open door. Width, my concern would be not wanting to have a 6x6 front porch 3 January 2,2013 Meeting Agenda Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee which is essentially a stoop, but can you stipulate the square footage? #7 addresses °that. o Angie: there is some give and take so we are now leaving it up to the BZA. Not standard in our ordinance but we do have those residential guidelines that have been adopted so still a guide. So entry way shall be covered with a minimum of 16 sq ft to provide shelter at front door. • #8 6.61 Ordinance says we have street trees that are on the parkway and two trees that are on the front yard if there is not sufficient area in front for two trees then one of the required trees may be required in the side yard as approved by urban forester. The side yards are not wide enough so would like to see them planted in the back yard. With side load garages there is a 20 ft combined side yard so will be f ft on one side and 15 ft on other. The tree in front has to be a shade tree, one on side doesn't have to be. • #9 Width for the right of way: The standard local street shows a 30 ft road back of curb to back of curb. A 4 ft planting strip a 5 ft walk and a 1 ft between the edge of the sidewalk and the edge of the right of way. Agreed at TAC is that we have a slightly narrower road to provide that wider planting strip. Engineering said no that it has to be a 30 ft road Now 10 ft front back of curb to edge of the right of way achieved by what we agreed at TAC which was basically shift,that 1 ft between the edge of the 5 ft walk and the edge of the right of way over so 5 ft planting strip between the back of the curb and the walk and then a 5 ft walk. That's what we agreed to at the TAC meeting. Then we will have the trees planted in the planting strip. Angie: We are moving towards a wider planting strip for vitality. We are agreeing with the 5 ft planting strip. This will be documented in the site plan and the necessary language will be added to include the side walk. • #10 Connectivity: We have one entrance into the community. We were asked to look at a secondary entrance. We think it would be too close and inviting a lot of problems. We have kept it to the one entrance. This isn't that big of a site to have connection (pedestrian bike or walk way) and if we tried we would lose a lot of trees. There is only a small portion on the back of the lots that doesn't have an edge or border that is accessible. What I don't want to do is get into the wetlands. Regarding the connection we can provide a walk connection between 32 and 33. The big amenity here is the existing pond. Whether we do something that brings people out to the pond where they can have access to it, this is the spot to do it. Putting down crushed gravel or mulch would disturb the wetlands. Our plans are to put a gazebo in. • We have one entrance into the community. We were asked to look at a secondary entrance. We think it would be too close and inviting a lot of problems. We have kept it to the one entrance. This isn't that big of a site to have connection (pedestrian bike or walk way) and if we tried we would lose a lot of trees. There is only a small portion on the back of the lots that doesn't have an edge or border that is accessible. What I don't want to do is get into the wetlands. Regarding the connection we can provide a walk connection between 32 and 33. The big amenity here is the existing pond. Whether we do something that brings people out to the pond where they can have access to it, this is the spot to do it. Putting down crushed gravel or mulch would disturb the wetlands. Our plans are to put a gazebo in. 4 1 1 January 2,2013 Meeting Agenda Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee • Part of issue with being a PUD is that you have a vast portion of this site that is extremely expensive to develop because it is .a wetland and getting everything moved over is easier financially? No that is.not correct. The wetland's location is issue and protecting the trees is what shaped the land plan, not the wetlands. • 11 Landscape Easement: Separate from the 20 ft wide drainage and utility easement. Yes. Yes. Question is whether the landscape easement and drainage and utility easement overlap, the answer is no. The primary plat currently shows that if there is a structure in the ground like a pipe to convey water, then it needs a 30 ft easement. What's happening now is that the 6 ft subsurface drain to make sure the water doesn't stay on the swale is now to be considered a structure so they are now saying we need a 30 ft easement. This seems to be overkill for a swale. Well now we have to have a 30 ft drainage easement plus the 10 ft landscape easement which is now a 40 ft easement in the back of these lots. We either have to keep the landscape easement and drainage easements exclusive and have a 10 ft and 20 ft or we have a 30ft drainage easement with a 10 ft landscape easement on the edge of it. We believe 20 ft is ample for the rear swale. Engineering might change it to 30 ft easement with 10 ft of it being landscaping. • 12 Extending buffer: . Some lots are higher at the side of the west. There is an elevation difference and existing trees. We have extended the tree line but we didn't see a need to put a buffer between our pond and their pond. The lots on pond we didn't feel necessary to buffer. The other buffer difference was the common area. The neighboring subdivision has a large buffer area and we have the common are almost 2 acres of open space so we thought we didn't need the same level of buffering. You will see from the landscape plans that there is heavy buffering along Towne Rd. Along the Southwest side between the pond and the road on that berm, just put a handful of trees so not just a grassy hill. • Existing path that we will extend so a 6 ft concrete walk between normal walk along the street and put in easement. On primary plat we will update to show easements and identify if either concrete or asphalt. • Section 6.5: We want ordinance text to stand on own. • # 13 70 ft path: Proposed 50 ft half right of way and additional bump out. The improvements that are made out there today must follow what the thorough plan is identifying in terms of the width where the pathway is to be built. We don't think that the extra 20 ft is necessary it would also have an impact on the pond location and lot configuration. All improvements in terms of the final build out all fit within that 50 ft half right of way. We had issue with property to the left, our right of way will match theirs. • Curb radius: Still questions and issues for engineering that need resolved. • Primary plat revision: would require amending the ordinance. The potential for some significant issues raised by engineering — we would like to see this come back in a month with a clean draft 5 January 2, 2013 Meeting Agenda Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee that we can all be comfortable with. • Question about lighting. You can have street lighting, pole lighting or house lighting. All the houses will have 2 garage lights on photo cells dawn to dusk. They are side load garages but we don't want yard lights. So do you want stoop light or street light? Maybe we can add one to the side of the garage (front of house) facing the street. We will put a third light and turn it around the corner. Put it in HOA that they can't disconnect any lights and they have to have them on. • Exhibit 3: Strike language EMI can modify • Street scapes: We are going to predestine the left side or the right side, what side the garages are so we can make sure the engineer doesn't put a fire hydrant on the one.side because if we have to flip house, it's not going to work because we won't have enough distances between the houses. Add the left and right predestination to exhibit 3. • Hadley Grove: Indiana code 3674 Adapts the Hadley Grove ordinance as an amendment to the zone map — all prior ordinances or parts thereof in inconsistent with any provision of this Hadley Grove Ordinance are here by inapplicable. Part about all prior ordinances — we don't want those to be inapplicable if they speak to something that the ordinance is silent on. We need to strike #2, #3 and #4. • Sec 1.1 essentially said absent development plan filing within 2 years ofinactment of this ordinance, then this ordinance goes away and the zoning reverts to the preexisting. The state law says minimum is 3. You are looking for a.time frame between the adoption of the PUD and the filing of the primary plat. We don't think you should do this, we haven't, adopted any.of this it is all part of our 4 month PUD discussion. We are going to take this out and retract the suggestion. • Controlling Developer: Definition for Controlling Developer from pg 3 EMI can delegate its role as controlling developer to each individual owner of parcels. So 3 dozen homeowners could become co- controlling developers? Is that right? Is the dept. OK that there could be multiple controlling developers that would have to gather together if any issues? If we had to pursue an enforcement action? If it's a development standard developed by committee we would have to pursue each of them individually depending on their structure. The way I read this, each individual of parcels within the real estate comprises the committee of individual owners who act as the controlling developer. This definition seems very wordy. First sentence should be sufficient. We need to go into details of how a transfer happens. • Front load garage: Take definition out — yes • Accessory buildings and usage: Sufficient guidance there? — yes • 4.4 Garages: Put word otherwise between elevation and occupied. NO possibility of fence instead of windows in the front elevation of garages it will always be windows. 6 January 2, 2013 Meeting Agenda Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee • 5.3: Stipulate a percentage that will be TPA (tree preservation area) • There is some word changing, a lengthy conversation with engineering and some feedback from Duren that still needs to happen. We need something more concrete to go over next month. We will keep it simple and clean next review. 1 Brad Grabow Transcribed by: Chairperson Joslyn Kass 7 File: SUBD - 2013- 0102.doc