HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Subdivision 06-04-131
1
1
City of Carmel
Carmel Plan Commission
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
June 4, 2013 Meeting
LOCATION: CAUCUS ROOMS, 2°d 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 item:
Committee Members present: John Adams, Acting Chairman, Ephraim Wilfong, Joshua Kirsh, Joshua
Kirsh and Nick Kestner
Department members present: Adrienne Keeling, Daren Mindham, and Lisa Stewart
1. Docket No. 13030009 OA: Commercial Landscape Ordinance.
The applicant seeks to amend Chapter 7: Open Space Standards for Major Subdivisions of the
Subdivision Control Ordinance and to amend Chapter 3: Definitions, Chapter 14: B -3 /Business
District, Chapter 17: B -6 /Business District, Chapter 18: B -7 /Business District, Chapter 19: B-
8 /Business District, Chapter 20A: I -1 /Industrial District, Chapter 20B: M- 1/Manufacturing District,
Chapter 20D: M -3 /Manufacturing Park District, Chapter 20E: C -1 /City Center District, Chapter 20F:
C -2 /Old Town District, Chapter 20G: OM /Old Meridian District, Chapter 23A: Keystone Parkway
Corridor Overlay Zone, Chapter 23B: US Highway 31 Corridor Overlay Zone, Chapter 23C: US
Highway 421 — Michigan Road Corridor Overlay Zone, Chapter 23D: Old Town District Overlay
Zone, Chapter 23E: Home Place District Overlay Zone, Chapter 23F: Carmel Drive — Range Line
Road Overlay Zone, Chapter 23G: West 116th Street Overlay Zone, Chapter 23H: Monon Greenway
Overlay Zone, Chapter 24: Development Plan and Architectural Design, Exterior Lighting,
Landscaping & Signage Regulations, and Chapter 26: Additional Height, Yard, Lot Area and
Buffering Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of updating and consolidating
Commercial Landscape Requirements. Filed by the Carmel Dept. of Community Services on behalf
of the Carmel Plan Commission.
Adrienne Keeling presented for the Department.
1. The packet sent out based on information from previous meeting. Yellow highlights reflect
language that is new to the zoning ordinance. Grey highlights indicate language that is existing
but changing from the current standard. Also added the requirement of at least one application of
an innovative landscaping design in reference to the sign ordinance visual guide.
2. Other items from last month's meeting include electrical box screening designs. Discussion has
been initiated with Duke Energy as to what the best design standards for a site might be. Whether
or not a list of standards will affect the landscape ordinance is yet to be determined.
3. Changes also reflect reference to the sign ordinance visual guide where it specifically addresses
tree and sign conflicts.
Committee Discussion
• Line 92 paragraph B: when trees are isolated from other lawn and green areas by sidewalk strives
or other impervious surfaces — does this mean when a tree is in parking lot? Example could be an
area where there are multiple landscaped beds but there are sidewalks crossing between them so
structural soils are used to connect the beds so the tree roots can still intertwine from bed to bed
even though there are sidewalks crossing between the beds.
• The Plan Commission is listed in the section regarding soil volume replacement technology in
the document because the plan commission is the final authority in respect to DP and ADLS.
• Committee member questioned whether it would be advantageous to stately require soil volume
replacement technology rather than suggest there is an alternative if a proposal does not meet the
requirement. Making the requirements too stringent could deter developers from employing
methods that could be modified to meet the provisions of a requirement.
•- - Stip.ulationslor shade trees include having a planting area such as a parking lot stall of grass area
that is at least 15 ft long, 8 ft wide and 3 ft deep. Need soil volume to improve growth conditions
for plantings.
• Committee member questioned whether property owners have the right to trim conifer trees to
manage coverage over time? Inner limbs could become needle -less if the tree is trirnmed
improperly, eventually leading to death of the tree. Eliminating the bottom limbs of the conifer
tree would be a better solution to clear sidewalks etc.
• Question regarding paragraph C and if the language concerning irrigation systems is consistent
with the existing ordinance language - is there too much detail in regards to compliance
standards. Also, does a developer have to acquire a permit to install an irrigation system — no
building permit or utilities permit required unless it the proposed system interferes with
something else. This section appears within the zoning ordinance because it pertains to watering
the required landscape.
• The zoning ordinance is township wide, and development standards are township wide. City code
does not apply to the entire township. It is beneficial to incorporate the irrigation language in the
zoning ordinance to ensure the landscaping required by the zoning ordinance is managed
effectively.
• Compliance language for irrigation systems reads that residential owners wanting to install
personal irrigation systems are subject to different standards than commercial developers who are
recommended to hire a certified designer to design the irrigation system in accordance with the
ordinance specifications. Sue Maki, not present, is requested to address concerns about the
irrigation section.
• On line 262 it states that the required amount of shade trees has been increased in the edited
version of the document. New language states 10 trees total are required per every 100 ft, so 1
tree every 10 ft.
• On page 8, line 336: When an existing parking lot is expanded or improved to increase the
number of parking spaces by more than 35% the property owner should be required to comply
with "this section" of the landscape ordinance — "this section" refers to the parking lot interior
plantings section. Requirements deter a property owner from just paving a lot and not
incorporating interior and perimeter plantings. The language makes sure that a property owner
complies with the current standards and does eliminate any green spaces.
2
1
1
1
• In cases of something being expanded or approved, the developer would already have a DP or
ADLS on file, which cannot be amended without a plan commission approval. Stated in Chapter
24 of the zoning ordinance. In regards to the new ordinance language, if a developer is proposing
an expansion less than 35% than a developer does not have to comply with the regulations, if a
proposal is over than 35% than compliance is required.
• Under the innovative section it reads that porous surfaces such as pavers, concrete, and asphalt
total at least 200 ft in an area. Question: could this apply to the percentage of parking spaces in a
lot expansion? Requiring pervious pavers as a certain portion of the percentage of parking spaces
could result in reduced maintenance costs in addition to other benefits. Suggestion that language
might state that property owners propositioning a parking lot expansion be required to increase
the pervious area by a certain percentage or number of square feet based on the proposed
percentage of additional spaces. Whether or not the figure should remain 35% or be changed to
25% or another figure is based on the reasoning that 35% is the trigger for waivers, which is why
that particular number was selected.
• Committee member questioned about an instance of a property owner proposing to double-a
parking lot in size and whether or not the landscaping requirements apply-to the original parking
lot as well as the new lot. If the new landscape ordinance was in effect, it would be required
under the new parking lot language. It is thought that the ordinance would apply to the entire
parking lot which wouldn't necessarily require changes to the original lot but may require
implementing more techniques in the newly, expanded lot compensate for any lack of
landscaping in the original lot. Unification of an original parking lot and an expanded lot is of
concern. Existing conditions should be addressed in the requirements for new facilities. Solution
might be to require property owners to integrate the original parking lot with the new lot by
utilizing some of the functions stated in the ordinance. Potential issues might arise when trying to
retrofit landscaping requirements for an existing site. If a property owner is required to retrofit an
existing parking lot, adding landscaped islands might result in a loss of parking spaces or
requiring perimeter landscaping that wasn't there before might affect storm water specifications.
Based on this, requiring property owners to retrofit the landscaping on an original lot would not
be feasible.
• On page 9, the Keystone Parkway Overlay Zone is addressed, specifically the required 30 ft.
Greenbelt. This landscaped greenbelt will be required beginning from the street right of way.
Within that 30 ft greenbelt is where the required plantings will be. This standard applies to the
Michigan Road Overlay Zone. The greenbelt will supersede any permitted buffer yard
requirements to promote more visibility to commercial properties in these overlay zones.
Whether or not the requirements apply to churches has yet to be determined.
• Pages 12 and 13, including the section concerning innovative landscape design, will be discussed
at next month's meeting. Also, the process for determining the percentages of required
techniques, such as pervious surfaces and rain gardens, will be discussed at the next meeting.
Requiring a certain percentage is effective for addressing issues of water quality, not so much
issues concerning the volume of storm water runoff.
• Concerns regarding trees being planted under a utility line and whether or not it should be
allowed and /or if certain types of trees should be planted rather than others. If the majority of a
site's perimeter has utility lines over it should the property owner still be required to comply with
the commercial landscape ordinance based on the thought that once a tree reaches a certain
height it will be trimmed to deflect any potential harm on the utility line. In past, similar
situations ornamental trees have been required. There will be an option for the property owner to
plant a different type of tree than stated in the landscape ordinance. In support of this, on line 159
it reads that trees and shrubs should be carefully selected and properly planted and should deter
from interfering with above ground and underground utilities.
o The July Committee meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 26`h
Meeting adjourned.
Approved by:
Oth.,
John Adams, Acting Chairman
4
Transcribed by:
Claire Bowers, Planning/Zoning Intern
1