HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Subdivision 03-27-13 (April Mtg)City of Carmel
Carmel Plan Commission
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 Meeting
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.)
The Subdivision Committee will meet to consider the following items:
1. Docket No. 12120015 ADLS: The Seasons of Carmel (Aramore PUD).
The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a I4- 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.
a. Providing all of the correspondents with TAC members; has been addressed.
b. Architectural comments:
i. Are all of the buildings going to be the same color? The department had imagined
different colors that compliment each other (each building to be a different color or
to alternate buildings), but also will provide a variety to expand the color pallet.
Response: 3 building types will be in different colors and will perhaps have some
variety among the town home buildings to provide some complexity to add to the
aesthetics of the area.
ii. "Contemporary rustic feel with an Indiana twist ". Colors are a natural earth tone
pallet with blues and grays.
iii. Applicant is concerned that adding too much tan will take away from the
resort/destination feeling of The Seasons of Carmel.
iv. 5 -C: Since plan commission meeting, applicant has added a lot of stone and brick.
I. Front of primary Manor Building — question as to the composition of one
area shown filled in; however, it will be heavy open rustic air timber frame
similar to a Montana look.
2. All of the fiber boards have been replaced with stone.
v. Concerns remain over Manor Building A (long building upfront by Westfield)
being such a long and expansive building.
vi. Conflict over trash compacter regarding the plan view and the elevations needs to
match (item 9).
1. Response: Plan view is a mirror image of the elevations.
vii. Site landscape plan for the mailboxes (site plan) —front 3 buildings and mailboxes
will be in the buildings in a common mailbox area. Townhome buildings will have
ONE CIVIC SQUARE
Page 1 of 4
CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 - 571 -2417
March 27, 2013 Meeting Minutes
Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee
several common area access points for people.
viii. Pedestrian/bike connectivity —the department still prefers concrete or asphalt
pathways around the pond, but it is left up to the committee. Sidewalks hug the
buildings, but if someone would be walking around the townhomes they would be
in the street. Department asks that applicant pulls all sidewalks out to the street.
1. In front of buildings, there will be a 10 foot multi- purpose path and a 10
foot multi- purpose path connecting from Westfield Blvd. into Chesterton.
There will be 5 foot sidewalks on both sides of Maple and people will have
access to the sidewalks to get to Maple around the buildings as well as
paths surrounding the pond.
2. Sidewalks wrap around and feed into 1 -car and 2 -car garages.
3. Intent for landscaping surrounding the pond is meant to have a very rustic
feel. Mirroring Village of West Clay's crushed limestone. Area for people
to walk and sit; therefore, everything is asphalt or concrete except for this
area.
a. Committee states that they often seek nice wide paths that are easily
accessible for bikes, strollers, rollerblades, etc.; however, believe
that it will be nice to have a softer landscape around the pond. The
crushed limestone allows the water to permeate into the ground and
reflects light nicely (brighter than an asphalt) to make it nice that
everything in the development is not asphalt.
b. Must be ADA accessible and the 53 grade crushed limestone is not
generally suited for that use.
ix. Committee request to bring prospective balcony up to emphasize dimensions;
maybe even a street level perspective.
x. Building 3— additional garage blocks building from street to make it look like an
add -on. Committee request to take it out.
Items to be addressed with staff:
xi. Side and rear elevations of the garage structures.
xii. Adding bike parking around the pool and in front of the main entrance to Manor
Building.
xiii. Pedestrian striping on Maple where the gravel path reaches it to the west.
xiv. Adding bollards to keep cars off the multi - purpose path on 98th Street in 4
locations.
Sent to Plan Commission
ONE CIVIC SQUARE
Page 2 of 4
CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 - 571 -2417
March 27, 2013 Meeting Minutes
Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee
2. Docket No. 13010013 OA: PUD Requirements Ordinance Amendment.
The applicant seeks to amend Chapter 3: Definitions and Chapter 31: General Provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of modifying the definitions, procedures, and development
requirements for new Planned Unit Development district ordinances (PUDs). Filed by the Carmel
Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission.
a. HOA registry.
a. Needs more discussion.
b. Considering pro's and con's of references vs. duplicating texts.
c. Identifying and removing subjective text.
a. Eliminated the requirement of a construction phasing plan, the performance
guarantee language, time limits on PUDs, and regarding project modifications any
references to a hearing examiner.
d. 3 -year sunset provision —after the expiration of 3 years of no activity as defined, the
department would conduct a review of the PUD ordinance language and then present the
report to the plan commission and city council; however, the ability to amend the PUD
already exists.
e. Adding in 4.a line 49 -51, hanging the need for a PUD vehicle as opposed to a rezone to one
of the off the shelf zoning districts on a need that is triggered by unusual physical configured
"site conditions." It may be excessively restrictive. It could be off -site conditions on
adjoining properties.
a. Line 47- it says to consider in the decision criteria; it is not required criteria.
i. Believing that the PUD is a checklist where all of the boxes have to be
checked or the PUD is inappropriate. That is a misinterpretation. There are a
handful of considerations to which we should give some degree of
consideration towards.
ii. Better clarity around the "reasonable regard" language needs to be
reexamined.
f. Line 100 -103: If the PUD language is silent or does not specifically address a development
standard, then SCO and other zoning ordinances govern.
a. If it doesn't address the development standard, how do we know the SCO is
applicable?
b. If not specifically addressed in a PUD, we resort to the zoning ordinance.
i. If they want specific landscape, sign, etc. standards; be sure to state it in your
PUD.
g. Line 129 -131: Issue of public notice and homeowners associations who should be informed.
a. To rewrite the language-
s, 20° line —in addition, the petitioner rather than "should ", it should be "must"
ii. Next line — instead of document "any" additional public outreach efforts, it
should be "all"
iii. After the word document, insert "at that hearing"
iv. Revised sentence should read, "In addition, the petitioner must document at
that hearing all additional public outreach efforts for the proposal..."
h. Line 157 -158: regarding commitments, if the PUD goes on to the council and the council
negotiates less stringent commitments than committee... let the council relax the
ONE CIVIC SQUARE
Page 3 of 4
CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 -571 -2417
March 27, 2013 Meeting Minutes
Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee
commitment and allow the project to move forward.
Language from staff report points out that we don't want to have duplicate language. If
intent is to incorporate the exact standards from the original zoning ordinance, they should
not copy and paste, but instead state "same as S -1 landscape requirements" to ensure all
documents are kept up to date.
Sent to Plan Commission with a positive recommendation
Transcrib d by
L(29
ONE CIVIC SQUARE
Brad Grabow Ch person
Pile: SURD 2013 -0327 Wed..doc
Page 4 of 4
CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 -571 -2417