HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Sub 09-06-05City of Carmel
CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE AGENDA
Minutes
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
LOCATION: CAUCUS ROOMS
CARMEL CITY HALL
ONE CIVIC SQUARE
CARMEL, IN 46032
TIME:
6:00 P.M.
DOORS OPEN AT 5:30 P.M.
Those present:
Representing the Committee:
Dan Dutcher
Kevin Heber
Rick Ripma
Susan Westermeier
Representing the Department:
Angie Conn
Of Counsel:
John Molitor
The Subdivision Committee will meet to consider the following items:
®
05060038 PP Amend and 05060039 SP: Little Farms Addition, Lots 31-33 (Replat
of)
The applicant seeks approval to replat 9 lots on 2.25 acres:
The site is located at the northwest comer of Ethel Street and West 104th Street.
The site is zoned R-3/Residence within the Home Place Overlay.
Filed by Chris Badger of Badger Engineering & Associates.
Representing the Petitioner: Michael Mergell with R. G. Thomas Consulting, Inc. and Chadi
Srour with Badger Engineering & Associates.
Representing the Public: One Anonymous Resident
The Petitioner presented revised plans to the Committee with a presentation about the changes to
the plans and the request of the petitioner. Petitioner said that Mr. Robinson--a neighbor of the
Page 1
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
September 6, 2005
Carmel Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
property--was a remonstrator at the last meeting and had expressed concern about setback issues
on the property along Ethel. The petitioner said he had a meeting with him earlier that day and,
as a result of that meeting, the petitioner would like to make a commitment to 50 percent brick
along the Eastern portions of the building as a buffer or an architectural feature.
Rick Ripma wanted to clarify what sides the petitioner was talking about.
Petitioner (in response) said he was talking about all three sides or just the sides facing the street.
He noted that the other sides are accessible by 104th Street or Turner and that the only areas that
won't see brick are the areas that face each other or go back to back. The petitioner commented
that he thinks it would be adequate because on the landscaping plan it shows that the petitioner
has planned to preserve quite a few of the mature trees on the site. The petitioner noted that they
have another piece of ground near the site that is already zoned and ready to go and that they will
be pulling building permits on it this week. The petitioner commented that he thinks that what
they are trying to do with the property and with the addition of the brick commitments, as well as
the tree preservation, the value of the property will be enhanced beyond what is already there.
Rick Ripma called for comments from the public. Petitioner noted that in his aforementioned
meeting with Mr. Robinson, Mr. Robinson had expressed some concern about where the
petitioner would tap the water, but the petitioner wanted to note for the record that this issue had
been resolved with the water company.
An Anonymous resident commented that he was favorable about the project. He said he had
changed 180 degrees in light of the fact that the petitioner was .making a commitment to put brick
on that end. He noted that he feels that the brick makes it a little higher quality looking home/'or
his to face into since his is brick facing that way. He does think it would be an asset to the
neighborhood and does think the development would help him and others in the area. The
anonymous resident commented that he felt that most of newer development going up in Home
Place helps and he thinks the project is good and he supports it 100%.
The petitioner also pointed out that the current drainage on the site isn't very good and that the
proposed development would really help resolve a lot of those current issues also.
Rick Ripma called for cotmnents from staff. Angie Conn said that the petitioner had addressed
all of the concerns that the staff had, so the department was recommending that the committee
forward this back to the full Plan Commission.
Rick Ripma called for comments, questions, and concerns from Committee members. Dan
Dutcher asked how the petitioner intended to limit access to the designated fire lane and whether
there would be bollards placed.
The Petitioner (in response) said it would be a heavily landscaped area, but that they would have
to leave it open because its actual purpose is for access by a fire truck. He said that the area will
seem as though it is a grassy path, that it will be planted on and that trees will be in close
proximity. He noted that some people might cut through the area but that because of its location
Page 2
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CA1CMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
September 6, 2005
Carmel Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
it was not really conducive to saving time. The petitioner noted that most people would be
cutting through the "marketed 10th lot" for access to the Monon. He said they would be getting
an easement on that lot for their people to cut through. He said that they found that people in the
area were discouraged by the idea that they had to go all the way up106th
to Street or further
south to access the Monon. He said a lot of people do use the Monon. The petitioner, referring
to the designated fire lane again, said that the petitioner is not viewing it as a common trail, but
he said it would appear as a landscaped flat berm. There are no gates, so it will be easy access
for the Fire Department and there will also be do not enter signs.
Susan Westermeier asked who was responsible for the maintenance of that area.
The petitioner responded that they would probably set something up with all the homeowners in
the subdivision. They noted that they are trying to avoid doing an HVR on this project, but that
they may have to come up with some sort of maintenance agreement for it.
Dan Dutcher asked if this was an issue that could be addresses in the Secondary Plat stage of the
filing.
Angie Conn responded that this is actually both the Primary Plat and Secondary Plat stage, so if
the Committee members had concerns they needed to be addressed now.
Susan Westermeier stated that this is still a gray area and it is important that this area stays clean
and maintained.
The Petitioner responded that he would answer the question by committing to some sort of small
budget that is split yearly amongst all twenty of the homeowners to maintain that area as far as
mowing is necessary.
Susan Westermeier clarified by stating that there was no Homeowner's Association.
The Petitioner responded by saying that there was no Homeowner's Association because the
developer was trying to keep the monthly costs down. He pointed out that the price range of the
homes had gone up as a result of the homes being built on crawl spaces to avoid soil issues. So,
they were attempting to keep some of those secondary costs down, however, an area this small he
thought would take less than three hundred dollars per year to maintain.
Rick Ripma pointed out that if the petitioner intended to put a path on the other lot to access the
Monon, then maintenance would be required for that path as well.
The petitioner said that there would be no maintenance required on the path to the Monon
because they have no been granted access at that point. He said they are going to have an
easement in that area and that most of the path is going to be driveway all the way down with
some sort of marked or brick lined path. He noted that that particular building sits sideways, so
they had to make sure that the driveway accommodates not only the first drive, but also the
second drive. Then, after that, the plan was to lay some mulch right up to the Park's property
Page 3
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
September 6, 2005
Carmel Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
line. The Petitioner said that they had spoken with Parks and that while they are in favor of
putting an access there, they are a little ways away from making a decision on how to access it.
The petitioner pointed out that they want to access it and that they are going to create everything
they need to so the access is there. Petitioner reminded that Committee that they are prohibited
from going to the Monon and removing shrubs. He noted that the lot has been a vacant lot in the
past and that a natural path has formed where the normal neighborhood flows through there and
goes over. The petitioner expressed desire to create a situation where people can cut through the
trees.
Rick Ripma asked if the fronts of the buildings were going to be brick.
The Petitioner responded that the fronts of the homes were going to be 50% brick.
Rick Ripma asked if the brick was a commitment that they were making.
The Petitioner responded that he was unsure if that commitment had been made in the past, but
he said that since the plan tonight showed that, then they could certainly make that commitment
tonight. The petitioner also clarified for the Committee that every home would have 50'21, brick
and also that the entire side along Ethel would have 50% brick as well.
Rick Ripma asked if the homes were single story homes or two-story.
The Petitioner responded that the homes were going to be two-story.
Rick Ripma asked if the petitioner was looking at a single story wrap.
The petitioner pointed out that it depended upon the building.
Rick Ripma asked about the price range of the homes.
The Petitioner said that the current sign on the property states that the homes start in the $160's,
but noted that the first two homes went for $205,000 and $203,000.
Rick Ripma clarified that that amount was per half.
Rick Ripma wanted to know the probable square footage of the homes.
The Petitioner said they would be '1400-1600 square feet depending upon the options chosen and
also he noted that some might have patios or screening around patios.
Susan Westermeier commented that there was a person concerned at the last meeting about the
alley going along their property. She noted that this had obviously been taken care of, but she
still expressed concern about the maintenance of that paved area.
Page 4
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
September 6, 2005
Carmel Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
The Petitioner responded that the area is geoblock, so it will appear as grass not paved. He noted
that if someone were to walk on it, it may feel little firmer than the normal soil, but it was not
going to look like a driveway.
Kevin Heber asked how the Fire Department would know the location of the geoblock material.
The Petitioner said that they have been given a copy of the plans.
Kevin Heber asked whether they mapped it or not.
The Petitioner responded that the Fire Department must map it because when they presented the
Fire Department with the plans, they were familiar with the material and even were in favor of it.
Rick Ripma noted that the Fire Department had used the material in another community and that
the Fire Department was concerned about the maintenance of a road. He stated that his opinion
was that they were going to get a lot better maintenance on a road than they are going to get on a
path. He stated that mowing it every once in a while was not sufficient and that it would have to
be maintained. He also said it was probably a cost savings for the petitioner to put in the
geoblock material rather than having to build a road.
The Petitioner responded that the cost savings wasn't really significant.
The Anonymous Resident stated that he thought the developer should let the two homes adjacent
to the designated fire lane carry a contract upon purchase to maintain the property, thus involving
two homeowners rather than twenty.
Susan Westermeier commented that then the homeowner' s would be mowing the property but
couldn't build anything on it.
The Petitioner pointed out that it would be the same thing as any other easement along a
property. They would need regular access, so the homeowner wouldn't be able to put a fence on
it.
Rick Ripma asked if there was a new landscape plan.
Susan Westermeier said that there had been some concern about pine trees being taken down.
The Petitioner responded that the trees in concern were on adjoining property and that he
couldn't take down trees that weren't on his property, thus the issue had been resolved. He said
all the trees being torn down were on the petitioner' s property.
The Petitioner handed out updated landscaping plans. There was discussion regarding which
trees were being taken down and which ones were 'being added.
Page 5
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
September 6, 2005
Carmel Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
The Anonymous Resident expressed to the committee satisfaction with the number of mature
trees preserved to date with what was planned.
Rick Ripma noted in the Department Report that the Staff wanted more explanation on drainage.
He said he realized that that was a big issue because of the current drainage situation, so he
wanted to know what was being done about drainage.
The Petitioner responded that a lot of people were having problems because this property wasn't
draining. He said that what they are proposing is that the entire property will have 36-inch pipe.
He commented that 18-inch pipe was all that was required but that they decided to use the
oversized pipe. The petitioner further explained how water drains throughout and off the site.
Rick Ripma wanted to know if the City had verified the drainage calculations.
Angie Conn responded that they had submitted drainage calculations and that everyone is okay
with them.
The Petitioner noted that an easement has been secured on the adjacent vacant lot for access t the
Monon and he also noted that they are seeking to purchase that particular property to add to this
project.
Dan Dutcher made formal motion to forward docket number 05060038 PP Amend and docket
number 05060039 SP Little Farms Additions back to the full Plan Commission with a
recommendation for approval with the following conditions:
1.) A commitment to fifty percent brick along the East side, which is the Ethel frontage.
2.) Fifty percent brick frontage for all of the buildings.
3.) A commitment to the Department's satisfaction regarding the maintenance of the fire
lane--to be determined by the developer to the Department's satisfaction.
Susan Westermeier seconded the motion.
The vote was taken and the results were 4-0 with a favorable recommendation to the full Plan
Commission with the conditions presented.
Susan Westermeier asked that, for the Plan Commission meeting, the petitioner bring and present
a more formulated plan with regards to the maintenance of the fire lane as well as updated
versions of the plans for the Plan Commission members.
2,
Docket No. 05060043 PP: Laurel Ridge
The applicant seeks approval to plat 17 lots on 47.12 acres with the following
Subdivision Waivers:
Docket No. 05060044 SW: 6.03.04 - Connectivity
To seek relief from providing stub streets to adjoining properties.
Docket No. 05060045 SW: 8.09.02- Alternative Transportation
Page 6
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
September 6, 2005
Carmel Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
To seek relief from providing a pedestrian path along Ditch Road.
Docket No. 05060046 SW: 6.03.19 - Access to Arterials, Parkways, and Collectors
To seek relief from houses fronting collector streets/200 foot required separation from
collector streets.
Docket No. 05060047 SW: 6.03.22- Acceleration/Deceleration, and Passing Lanes
To seek relief from providing acceleration/deceleration and passing lanes.
Docket No. 05060048 SW: 8.09.02- Private Streets
To allow the construction of private streets serving the entire subdivision.
Docket No. 05060049 SW: 8.09.02 - Cul de Sac Length
To allow cul de sacs to exceed 600 feet in length.
Docket No. 05060050 SW: 6.02.01 - Subdivision in Floodway/Plain
To allow subdivision of land within the floodway and floodplain.
The site is located at the SE comer of Ditch Road and W. 106th Street and is zoned
S 1/Residential.
Filed by Joseph Calderon of JBC 1, LLC for JB Cohen
Representing the Petitioner: Joseph Calderon of Bose, McKinney & Evans, Jeff Cohen of JB
Cohen Realty Corp., Mark Zukerman of Mark Zukerman & Associates, Inc., Lance Ferrell of
Banning Engineering, and Andie Metzel.
Joe Calderon presented an introduction to the project. He said the petitioner had made some
changes to the plan, but noted that the layout had stayed the same. One of the primary changes
he pointed out was that the petitioner had taken the ten toot walking path from the proposed.
roundabout at 106th and Ditch and moved .it to the south end of the project's roundabout. He
noted that this path wasn't there before. He said that the petitioner still had some concerns
because of the'culvert, existing ditch, topography, and existing trees that are south of the entry.
He noted that the petitioner has made strides to provide alternative transportation and that they
never did have a problem on 106th Street. Mr. Calderon said that one comment from the
Planning and Zoning Department at TAC was that if the petitioner was unable to do the path now
or take the path south of the entryway, they might be able to contribute dollars for future
construction instead. Mr. Calderon said that the petitioner would be amenable to that scenario if
the committee would find that acceptable. But Mr. Calderon also pointed out that the petitioner
was also willing to put in what the plans showed now, also. He noted that the path may lead to
nowhere for quite some time.
There was some discussion about future roundabout construction and how that would affect path
design and construction.
Joe Calderon told the committee members that the petitioner was requesting relief from stub
street requirements. He said that because of the site, there is really no opportunity to create
connectivity and staff agreed with that. He noted that Staff did mention in their report that there
might be opportunity to stub to the South, but he said the aerial photo indicates otherwise. He
said that, based on the aerial photo, lots 13 and 14--which would be a potential place to stub
south--run right into another lot in Laurel Wood that has been platted. But, he said the bigger
issue is that the creek flow runs from our property off of Ditch and angles back to the East at a
Page 7
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
September 6, 2005
Carmel Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
point where the only place theoretically to run a stub street would be to the West of that creek.
This presents a problem because the area is a common area and potentially a problem area to
place a stub street because of the proximity to Ditch Road. Joe Calderon said that the petitioner
feels that the docket number still merits a waiver.
Mark Zukerman said that because of the watershed and topography of that areamif a road were
to be placed through there--the stub street would have to be placed on a bridge because a culvert
just wouldn't work.
Joe Calderon noted that they had already discussed the walkway.
Joe Calderon introduced the waiver request for docket number 05060046 SW. He said the
petitioner ad no access proposed on 106th Street and one access point proposed on Ditch. He said
the petitioner tried to create something, given the very low density of this project, which would
also meet with the intent of the City's frontage place ordinance. He said he doesn't think there is
any need to run a frontage road on either 106th Street or Ditch Road to accommodate traffic as
the petitioner is only going to have one access point. He stated that the petitioner had done some
things, however, to further comply with the standard outlined in the frontage place ordinance.
Mr. Calderon said the petitioners have placed a common area along both of those boundaries
including non-access easements. He stated that this was an alternative way of dealing with the
frontage place requirements. He noted that they put minimum 40-foot common area strips
running along all of 106th Street and the segment between the entry point and the proposed
roundabout at 106th Street and Ditch, as well as a 2-foot non-access easement. He pointed out
that the common area gets much larger and the setbacks will be rather significant south of the
entry at the creek.
The petitioner presented a landscaping plan board and pointed out the various landscaping
easements, common areas, and planting areas.
The petitioner noted that only three lots front on 106th Street, but that landscaping is significant
on the perimeter. The petitioner is proposing to preserve a number of the existing trees and to
work the wall and other architectural features within those because the mature existing trees, they
feel, are very valuable. The petitioner noted that they feel that they are ahead of the game with
regards to buffering.
Mark Zukerman, representing the petitioner, added that any tree that' s in the clearing limits of
the new right of way and of the enlarged ponds that can be transplanted on site would be
transplanted by the petitioner.
Joe Calderon noted that the petitioner had onsite meetings with the county surveyor last week to
talk about drainage within the site. He noted that the Landscaping plans would likely be tweaked
to reflect the results of those meetings. The petitioner said they would submit any updates to
Scott Brewer and he noted that Scott Brewer already had plans that were submitted on August
10, 2005. The petitioner noted that they have not yet received feedback from Scott Brewer on
those plans submitted, but they wanted to make it clear that they were happy to deal with his
comments and even meet him on site if needed. The petitioner noted that they had significant
Page 8
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CAR~fEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
September 6, 2005
Carmel Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
landscape plans drawn up in response to the TAC meeting and comments for Steve from
Department Staff. Joe Calderon noted that the petitioner was happy to stipulate that any approval
be contingent upon Scott's approval of the landscape plans.
Mr. Calderon referred to drawings in the packets, which were smaller colorized versions of the
landscaping treatment for the entryway on Ditch. He noted that at the Plan Commission meeting
they made the point that the turn around was designed to accommodate vehicles, which may
make a mistake turn, so that people aren't stuck and creating a situation where they have to back
out into Ditch Road. Mr. Calderon added that with the landscaping the petitioner feels it will
provide a very nice aesthetic feature.
Mr. Calderon noted that the next three docket numbers--05060047, 05060048, and 05060049--
all relate to transportation requirements. He stated that the staff report said that the proposed
community fell under Hamilton County road jurisdiction and that the petitioner would need to go
to Hamilton County to obtain variances for the same things they were seeking relief from as
as the City of Carmel ordinances were concerned. Mr. Calderon said that while the petitioner is
certainly prepared to obtain those variances from Hamilton County, they had not filed anything
yet because they were waiting to see what the timeline might be as tar as annexing the property in
and Mr. Calderon stated that he understood that it was very close to being decided but that the
annexation was likely to be pushed off for a few years.
Mr. Calderon said that the petitioner's justification for seeking these variances has a lot to do
with the density the petitioner has chosen for the project. Under the zoning classification of the
property, Mr. Calderon pointed out that the petitioner was entitled to do more units and more lots
than what they are proposing. He noted that they had seventeen lots spread over forty acres and
that they would be marketed as large estate-type lots. Mr. Calderon noted that the petitioner has
proposed larger and wider lots than exist in Laurel Wood and he said that larger lots are typically
found in conjunction with cul-de-sac streets. He said the petitioner doesn't think that they are
creating a traffic hazard or an access problem for any fire, police or sheriff, or any other
personnel that need to get back there. He noted that the Plan Commission had discussed the
actual length of the cul-de-sacs being relatively minor in terms of the number of feet beyond the
600 permitted. He said that as far as the acceleration and deceleration lanes, he felt those were
better addressed in terms of dealing with the County at this point.
Mr. Calderon pointed out that the petitioner mentioned at the Full Plan Commission hearing that
the street construction of the proposed development would meet the more stringent in terms of
pavement width, so that if they needed to be dedicated at some point in the future, they could be
without having to be torn up. So, he said, they will meet the construction standards, they are just
going to be treated as private streets. He noted that their private declaration of covenants and
restrictions would include mandatory assessments that would include money for the maintenance
and repair of those streets.
Mr. Calderon said the final docket number, 05060050,dealt with construction in a flood plain.
He said that it is not the petitioner's intent to do building within the floodplain. He noted that
one of the commissioners at the full Plan Commission hearing had asked to see proposed
Page 9
O NE C IVI C SQUARE CARMEL, IND L~_NA 46032 317 / 571 - 2417
September 6, 2005
Camel Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
building footprints in that area. Mr. Calderon referred to a plan in the committee packet showing
proposed building footprints on lots 14,15,16, and 17.
Lance Ferrell of Banning Engineering noted that there was a forty-foot drop in elevation from
where the homes would be built to where the water is.
Mr. Calderon said the last open note was that one commissioner had requested information about
drainage calculations. He asked Lance Ferrell to explain to the committee about the existing
drainage, how it flows, what the County Surveyor has asked the petitioner to do, and what the
petitioner's plan actually does.
Lance explained that they had a meeting of the site with Greg Hoyes from the County Surveyor' s
office, a Hydraulic specialist from Banning Engineering, and another man who specializes in
creek embankments and erosion. Lance described the drainage flow and watershed within the
site. He noted that the petitioners planned to over detain on this site to help the watershed in the
entire area.
Joe Calderon resented material samples for the proposed wall as well as a photo taken from a
magazine article that further illustrates the proposed character of the community. Discussion
ensued with regards to the length and design of the wall. Mr. Calderon noted that the petitioner
wants the landscaping in the creek 'bed area to be a park-like setting. He said the entry signage
would be placed within the entry monumentation and wall. He noted that the petitioner did not
have a proposed sign drawn up and that they still had no elevations of the homes because of the
size. Mr. Calderon asked Jeff Cohen of JB Cohen Realty Corp. to discuss the covenants and
restrictions for the subdivision and also to give the minimum square footage.
Mr. Cohen said the homes were going to be about 5,000 square feet above ground. He noted that
3,300 of that would be on the main level. He said that would be about 10% larger than the
homes in Laurel Wood, which has about 4,500 sq. ft. above ground. He said they found that it
would be very difficult to give a rendering of what a home might look like because of the size.
He noted that there wouldn't be any homes close to the road, but that there would be 3-6 layers of
landscaping in between the home and road. He said someone driving by on 106th street might see
the backyard of lot six from the road, but that there was going to be forty feet of common area
between the road and lot six.
Rick Ripma noted that there was no one from the public at the meeting to speak about this
project. He called for the comments from Staff.
Angie Conn said that the department was not in support of the waiver from connectivity, but
noted that, as the petitioner had stated, the department recognized that there were some physical
barriers. She said the department would like to see some sort of commitment about brick wrap
on the sides of homes facing the street. She said the specs showed four-foot sidewalks and she
noted that the ordinance specifies five-foot concrete sidewalks.
Mr. Calderon clarified that Angie Conn was referring to the internal sidewalks.
Page 10
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
September 6, 2005
Carmel Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
Angie Conn responded, "yes".
Angie Conn continued by noting that, at the last Plan Commission meeting, there was some
discussion about the pathways from Laurel Wood. She said that the Department had discovered
that those pathways were actually removed by the Homeowner's Association and that the issue is
being addressed by Code Enforcement. She said that the plan was approved with the path there,
so it will have to be put back. Angie Conn said that the Department recommends that the
committee forward this to the full Plan Commission and also that the committee specify which
waivers they are in support of and which ones they are not in support of.
Rick Ripma then opened the floor for Committee Members questions, comments, and concerns.
Dan Dutcher asked the petitioner to look at the possibility of extending the pathway down in to
the common area as a means of working the path around the wall.
Discussion ensued regarding the feasibility of taking the path into the common area or leaving
the path along the perimeter and whether the petitioner should just escrow or endow funds for the
construction of the path or whether the petitioner should just go ahead and install the path.
The petitioners expressed concern about taking the path into the common area considering the
severity of grade changes that take place in that area. The petitioners said they didn't see a
purpose for taking the path down and back up the hill and said they felt it would be safer and
more user-friendly to keep the path along the perimeter.
Dan Dutcher said keeping the path along the perimeter was fine, but that it required a little more
creativity as to whether or not the path remained outside the wall or inside the wall and he said he
felt that taking the path into the common area would really be a positive.
Mark Zukerman said that they would go ahead and build the path, since the Plan Commission
would have no way of earmarking funds for future path construction, but he asked if it was
possible to get some latitude with regards to the ten foot sidewalk width requirement on that one
run. He said that they would likely need to narrow it to six along the creek bed area, but then
could potentially taper it back out at the corner.
Dan Dutcher responded that he felt that could be a good compromise and that he would be
willing to defer that to the Department to come up with what they felt an appropriate width
determined.
Mark Zukerman mentioned to the committee members that he felt that this was a great
compromise and that he was very pleased and appreciative that they could work it out this way.
Dan Dutcher asked if the acceleration/deceleration issue was a feasibility issue. He said that it
seems that even a limited lane could be a helpful thing given that anytime someone is slowing to
turn there is always the possibility of being hit from behind.
Page 11
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARM-F,L, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
September 6, 2005
Carmel Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
Angie Conn added that she doesn't know if even a bump out or passing blister is possible, but
noted that it is Hamilton County's jurisdiction, so it is hard for the City to recommend
improvements.
Dan Dutcher clarified that it was the County's jurisdiction, but that the City of Carmel had
jurisdiction over the waiver.
Angie Conn responded, "yes".
Rick Ripma added that at times the City has chosen to not add acceleration and deceleration
lanes for the purpose of slowing traffic in that area. He noted that eventually traffic would be
slowed when the construction of the roundabout is completed.
Dan Dutcher said that his final concern was with the entryway. He presented information
regarding the requests for gated entryways that have come through the Plan Commission in the
last year and a half. He said in iFebruary 2004, the Chateau de Moulin request seemed to carry
the collective decision of the Plan Commission to set a little more rigorous review standard with
regards to gate requests. He said. he considers this to be a landmark case with regards to gated
entries. He noted that in the minutes, it specifically refers to that case as creating standards for
review. He said that he had also looked into the Gate request cases that had been brought before
the Plan Commission since then. He said the Chateau de Moulin project was in February of 2004
and it consisted of six lots on about ten acres and he noted that it was approved by the Plan
Commission. He pointed out Pine Creek that came before the Plan Commission and was also
approved. He said it consisted of four lots on 10.25 acres. He noted that both of those cases are
very limited in terms of number of lots and in terms of the number of acres that are coming into
play. He also said that West Clay Colony is still an active project and that it is very comparable
to this request. He said West Cl'tahY Colony consisted of 23 lots on 40 acres and that it was located
on the corner of Hoover and 106 Street. He noted that the West Clay Colony request also has
the stub waiver. Dan Dutcher noted that he felt that approving a gate request on this project
would take the Plan Commission beyond the precedence of the past gate requests that have been
approved. He said that--going back to the ordinance--it says that gates are not allowed and, so
he his looking for a special or specific circumstance that would warrant allowing a waiver and he
said he just doesn't see that.
Mark Zukerman asked if Mr. Dutcher was basing his opinion on density. He noted that the
density of their project is lower than both of the past gate requests that Mr. Dutcher mentioned.
Mr. Calderon noted that he feels that each piece of real estate has its own uniqueness and
character and that using previous cases as precedence to determine feasibility on current projects
may not always work because of the individual nature of each piece of real estate. Besides the
matter of density, Mr. Calderon said there was the issue of Laurel Wood. Because this proposed
subdivision backs up to Laurel Wood, he said that Laurel Wood wants this proposed community
to be gated. He noted that the proposed Laurel Ridge's neighbors on Ditch have gates. He said it
would fit in with what is there. He said that the petitioners felt and wanted the Committee and
Plan Commission to see that if there was a place that was appropriate for a gated community then
Page 12
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
September 6, 2005
Carmel Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
it would be the one that they have proposed and are trying to create. He noted that they were
trying to take the things they had learned about safety from the Chateau de Moulin project and
implemented those here in this current project, which is why the entry has been deliberately
designed with the circle drive.
Mark Zukerman noted that a lot of the people working on this project had also been involved in
the Chateau de Moulin project. He said that they tried to improve the gate request and tried to
create a grander entryway this time.
Mr. Dutcher responded that it seems to him that there would be something fundamentally
different about gating 47 acres instead of jut ten. He said looking at the neighbors in the area,
there are gates there. Mr. Dutcher said that he worries about the domino affect.
Rick Ripma said he doesn't think you can make a decision on whether or not to allow gates
based on acreage. He said he thinks that when you get into the price range of home that these
homes will be in, he said it makes perfect sense to him to put gates up. He said his opinion is
that in this price range, he sees a legitimate reason to have a gate. He said to him acreage doesn't
matter with regards to this decision. He said the things that matter to him when making this
decision is what type of community it is and what type of homes they are going to build.
Susan Westermeier said the question is where you draw the line and what you do about the next
request that comes in for a gated community when the homes may not be as large or as "nice". It
can get to be sort of an elitist thing.
Dan Dutcher said he would never vote for a policy that said "above a certain price level, we're
going to allow gates", but he said that, if in fact that was how they were going to be making the
decisions, then he said the Plan Commission should deal with it that way and run it through the
policy process. He said that the reality is that if that is how they are going to apply the rule, then
the Commission needs to be more direct about it.
Susan Westermeier said that this issue had been gray every single time and she said she doesn
think that it is fair to penalize one group of people because there isn't anything on the books.
She noted that her concern was always public safety and school buses. She said that she just
doesn't like gated because she doesn't feel people can get in and out of the subdivision that
easily.
Mr. Calderon noted that all of the public agencies have been involved in the design process of
this proposed subdivision. He also said that they had placed a school bus waiting shelter at the
beginning of the neighborhood to ease some of the inconvenience on the school buses. He said
that he thought that they had satisfied all of those agencies.
Kevin Heber said that he thought that it wouldn't necessarily be apparent to someo.ne driving by
that there was even a gate at all.
Page 13
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDL~_NA 46032 317/571-2417
September 6, 2005
Carmel Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
Discussion ensued with regards to specific design standards that the petitioners had implemented
and the how the gate and wall would flow in relation to the roads.
Rick Ripma suggested that they go through the waivers one at a time starting with the
Connectivity waiver.
Susan Westermeier asked Angie Conn to clarify why staff was not supportive of the waiver.
Angie Conn responded that the Department likes to promote connectivity for children, but that
the Department also recognized that there were some logistic issues with connecting.
Dan Dutcher said that he felt that the path along Ditch would at least address some of the
concern.
Discussion ensued about surrounding neighborhoods, parcels, and homeowners.
Mark Zukerman said that the petitioner was committed to doing the path construction along
Ditch and they would reach out to staff to determine the appropriate path widths.
Rick Ripma asked for comments regarding the Alternative Transportation waiver.
Joe Calderon said that was pulled off because of the commitments of the petitioner to do the path
construction along Ditch.
Rick Ripma called for comments regarding the access to arterials, parkways, and collectors
waiver.
Dan Dutcher said in the past when the Commission has granted a waiver from that ordinance,
they have set forth certain design standards for those lots.
Rick Ripma said that the Plan Commission would like to see--on the lots most affected, 5,6,and
7--a masonry wrap on the sides facing the street. He said the Plan Commission would also like
to see a drawing from the street of what will be seen in that 200 feet. He said that the
Commission wants to see what it will look like from the road in. He noted that in the past, they
have required masonry sides, chimneys that don't go on the outside of the home, additional
landscaping. Mr. Ripma also asked for a better-defined landscaping plan.
Dan Dutcher said he would like to see some sort of commitment to additional landscaping in the
rear yards of the homes. The Committee members agreed that at least two additional trees in the
rear yards of the homes in addition to the landscaped buffer yard would be an appropriate
commitment. Rick Ripma asked for the petitioner to make a commitment to add at least two
trees to the rear yards of lots 17, 5,6, and 7 in response to the waiver.
Rick Ripma called for comments on the acceleration/deceleration, and passing lanes waiver.
Page 14
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CAICMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
September 6, 2005
Carmel Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
Dan Dutcher said he would like to see it. With the roundabout coming in, it didn't seem to be as
compelling...
Susan Westermeier commented that the roundabout would probably be long time away.
Dan Dutcher asked if there might be some limited bubbling that the petitioner could do directly
near the entrance until the roundabout was put into place.
Rick Ripma said that he thinks that the slow down would happen better out of a deceleration
lane. He commented that if the committee was concerned about getting people out of the
neighborhood and back out onto Ditch at a more appropriate speed, then he suggested that they
do a small acceleration lane, so that the residents wouldn't have to just pull directly out into
traffic onto Ditch Road.
Lance commented that traffic engineers warned him that people don't always use the lanes and
bubbles for their intended purposes.
Mark Zuckerman said the petitioners would look at the addition of a small acceleration lane on
the North side of the entrance.
Susan Westermeier requested that the petitioners definitely do a small acceleration lane and look
at what they could do as far as a deceleration lane is concerned.
Mark Zuckerman said that they would look at both.
Kevin Heber pointed out that the speed limit in there is 35 .mph.
Rick Ripma called for comments on the private streets waiver request and clarified that the big
issue with the private streets waiver was the gates and that the issue really came down to access
and how the committee members felt about gates.
Rick Ripma called for comments or questions on the cul-de-sac length waiver.
There were no comments or questions.
Rick Ripma called for comments or questions on the subdivision in floodway/plain waiver.
Dan Dutcher made formal motion to forward docket numbers 05060043 Laurel Ridge, 05060044
Connectivity waiver with an expectation that the petitioner will work with the department to
determine and appropriate accommodation for the path that runs south of the entrance of the
subdivision, 05060047 waiver for passing, acceleration and deceleration lanes with an
expectation that the department will work with the petitioner on a limited acceleration lane,
05060049 Cul-de-Sac length waiver, and 05060050 Subdivision in Floodway/Plain waiver, and
05060046 Access to Arterials, Parkways, and Collectors with the condition that--for lots
1,17,5,6, and 7--appropriate landscaping, minimum addition of two trees per rear yard, and
Page 15
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
September 6, 2005
Carmel Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
masonry wrap on the sides of each of those homes will be made, and to send 05060045 ATP
waiver with the conditions that the waiver was not be approved to waive the entire path, but
rather that the path be built, but that there be opportunity for accommodation for a waiver up to
the 10 foot standard as appropriate on the south portion of the path between the entrance and the
southern end of the property along Ditch Road back to the full Plan Commission with a
recommendation for approval.
Susan Westermeier seconded the motion.
The vote was taken and the results were 4-0 with a favorable recommendation to be sent to the
full Plan Commission.
Susan Westermeier made formal motion to forward docket number 05060048 Private Streets
waiver back to the full Plan Commission with a recommendation for approval.
Rick Ripma seconded the motion.
The vote was taken and there were two in favor and two opposed. (Opposed-Dutcher, Heber).
Docket number 05060048 Private Streets waiver, will be forwarded back to the full Plan
Commission with no recommendation.
e
Docket No. 05060051 PP: The Retreat of West Clay Primary Plat
The applicant seeks approval of 32 lots on 23.49 acres:
The site is located near the NE corner of Little Eagle Creek Ave and W. 141 st St. and is
zoned S 1/Residential
Filed by Jim Shinaver of Nelson and Frankenberger for Centex Homes.
Present for the Petitioner: Jim Shinaver with Nelson and Frankenberger, Sean Sullivan and
Jon Isaacs with Centex Homes, and Dennis Olmstead with Stoeppelwerth & Associates.
Present from the Public: Paul and Susan Cluxton, 141st Street residents, and Todd Winger, a
141 st Street resident.
Jim Shinaver presented an overview of the project and a brief history of the public hearings to
date. He noted that they are seeking Primary Plat approval pursuant to the City of Carmel ROSO
standards. He said the expected price range of the homes was anticipated to be between
$300,000 and $450,000. He noted that there were three common area ponds located in different
locations. Jim Shinaver discussed two items of concern from the staff report. He said he first
item was that the staff wanted them to work with Carmel Engineering regarding the entryway
boulevard and particularly the median treatment. He noted that the petitioners had received an
email from Nick Redden of the Department of Engineering stating that the Department of
Engineering could give approval on the median islands as long as they had a minimum of twelve
feet of pavement on both sides, were platted as part of the Right of Way and not common areas,
and as long as anything planted in the islands was maintained by the Homeowner' s Association.
Page 16
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CAtLMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
September 6, 2005
Carmel Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
Rick Ripma opened the floor for public comments favorable.
There were no comments.
Rick Ripma, then, opened the floor to public comments unfavorable.
Paul Cluxton, resident of 4502 West 141st Street, made the comments that his home is located
really close to the entryway off of 141 st Street and that they were hoping that the Plan
Commission would support more buffering for the fact that their house is so close to the people
coming in and out.
Todd Winget, resident of 141 1 1 Little Eagle Creek Avenue, made the comments that they would
also like to see more buffering between the pond and their property. He noted that they have a
dog kennel that is just across from_ the pond and he said that they were hoping for some more
plantings to cut down on some of the noise nuisance.
Rick Ripma, then, called for comments from the Department Staff.
Angie Conn said that staff was very pleased to see that the project was submitted with no waivers
or variances and she said the department recommended that the Committee forward this to the
full Plan Commission.
Rick Ripma called for questions from the Committee.
Dan Dutcher said that he appreciated the path in the western common area, but he wanted to
know if there were any thoughts on putting one in the eastern common area.
Sean Sullivan said they were putting their sitting area there, but in their meetings with the
neighbors to the east, they would like to limit the need for people to come close to their property
line, so he noted that they were not putting it in the east in order to be conscious to those
neighbors and their request.
Dan Dutcher noted that at the Plan Commission hearing there was some discussion about moving
ponds around or combining ponds and he wanted to know if the petitioner had looked into that at
all.
Jim Shinaver said that the site was so small and the drainage options available didn't really lend
the site too much flexibility in the way of moving ponds.
Dennis Olmstead added that because of how the bottom of a dry detention basin has to slope, you
can only use about half of that area and because of this particular project draining in three
different directions, he said hey were going to have to have three fairly large dry detention basins
to accommodate and because of the way that they slope, he said it would have been difficult to
pipe it back to the outlet which is going to the west. He said that he agreed with Jim's
Page 17
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
September 6, 2005
Carmel Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
assessment that the site didn't really lend itself and it really didn't work well with any other
design.
Susan Westermeier asked the petitioner what they could do to provide additional buffering. She
said that the kennel was a legitimate concern.
Todd Winget said that his dogs were used to living next to a cornfield and he said that he wasn't
sure how the dogs would react when they were next to a subdivision. He said they were kind of
hoping that the petitioners could put a berm in with some plantings on top beyond the pond to
help block the potential noise.
Sean Sullivan said that 'the petitioner's concern with putting in a berm was that the installation
process of the berm might put the lives of the mature trees on the Winget's property in jeopardy.
He said that they want to maintain those trees. He noted that they were trying to relocate
plantings to that area to accommodate the neighbors and the kennel.
Jim Shinaver said that as far as the number of required plantings, the petitioner has met those
requirements. He said that there is always the concern that, if you put too many plantings in the
same are, they won't thrive if the trees don't have room. to mature out.
Discussion ensued regarding specific trees on the Winget's property and the possibility of
mounding at some point along the property line.
Jim Shinaver commented that the petitioner has relocated some plantings to accommodate the
neighbors, but noted that the reality is that the .landscaping plan complies with the landscaping
requirements in the ordinance. He said that the petitioner is somewhat limited in the planting
that they can do because several of the planting areas are very narrow.
Dan Dutcher asked if it was possible for the petitioner to provide some plantings on the
neighboring property owner's property to provide more buffering.
Jim Shinaver asked the staff and Committee if the petitioner could get credit for an onsite
planting at an offsite location.
Dennis Olmstead asked Mr. Winget if his property drained to the North. He noted that in the
contours, it looked as if there was a low spot that came right towards the petitioner' s property.
He said that if that were the case, berming across that area would actually prevent Mr. Winget' s
property from draining properly and may actually cause water to collect along the property line.
Discussion ensued regarding the drainage and contours of Mr. Winget's property.
Dennis Olmstead pointed out that the petitioner's did not want to create a situation that was
worse for Mr. Winget.
Page 18
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
September 6, 2005
Carmel Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
Jim Shinaver said that it looked as if the zoning ordinance did not specifically prohibit a
petitioner from getting credit for relocating an onsite tree based upon the required landscaping
counts to an offsite location as long as it is providing a common buffering. He said that he thinks
that what is important to his petitioner is to be able to get credit for those plantings. He said that
if it was agreeable to Centex Homes, the petitioner could work with Department staff to establish
what plantings of the onsite inventory could be relocated to those offsite locations to provide
some additional screenings.
Susan Cluxton asked for clarification as to the changes in the landscape plan near the border of
their property and asked if there would be room to relocate plantings in their property with the
existing maple tree that is already there.
Discussion ensued about the specific tree species and calipers within the window along the
Cluxton's property line.
Susan Cluxton said that they were looking for the landscaping to block the view from their porch
to the traffic entering the subdivision.
Jon Isaacs said they' had proposed to put a row of white pines a long the property line. He said
that there was a hole between some of the white pines and another tree and, so that's where 'they
put three Colorado spruces.
Discussion continued regarding the Winget property drainage.
Jim Shinaver pointed out that berms are not always the best solution because sometimes they can
have an adverse affect that one may not anticipate.
Dan Dutcher said that because the developers are not really asking for any waivers and because
what they have proposed really complies with the ordinance, that the Committee probably has a
limited ability to really force them to take any specific accommodations very far in any direction.
Dan Dutcher said that the full Plan Commission needs a revised version of the landscape plan
and he suggested that--prior to the completion of that revised landscaping plan--the petitioner
meet with the neighbors to discuss any additional appropriate accommodations. He noted that
those accommodations would fall into two categories, additional plantings and/or additional
berming. He also noted that an additional site inspection might be required to discuss and
determine the feasibility of adding berming.
Dan Dutcher made formal motion to forward Docket number 05060051 PP back to the tull Plan
Commission with a recommendation for approval, with the conditions that the developer produce
a revised landscape plan, that the landscape plan not only meet approval from Carmel Urban
Forester, Scott Brewer, but also reflect additional accommodations for the neighbors that reflect
additional plantings and/or some sort of berming.
Susan Westermeier seconded the motion.
Page 19
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARA/IEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
September 6, 2005
Carmel Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Agenda
The vote was taken and the results were 4-0 for a favorable recommendation to be sent to the full
Plan Commission with the conditions presented.
Rick Ripma adjourned the meeting at 8:44p.m.
Page 20
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417