Dept Report 06-29-06 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE
DEPARTMENT REPORT
June 29, 2006
7. Docket No. 06050001 Z: Legacy /East Carmel PUD Rezone
The applicant seeks to rezone 509.234 acres from S -1 to Planned Unit Development for
the purpose of creating a primarily residential, mixed -use development.
The site is located north of 126 Street, south of 146 Street, and on either side of River
Road. Filed by Steve Pittman and Paul Rioux of Pittman Properties.
The applicant is requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development to allow the construction of
a mixed -use development comprised of single family detached and attached, multi family, retail,
and commercial uses. The project is a new development on the property commonly referred to as
the Earlham property. Please refer to the draft ordinance, proposed site plan, and supporting
materials submitted with the packet mailing for full details.
The public hearing for this item was held at the June 20 Plan Commission meeting, and left
open. Concerns included density, increase of traffic, quality of the multi family housing, and a
desire to see more pocket parks and usable open space for each district.
This proposal is for the rezone of the property. As proposed this rezone will act as the entire
Development Plan and Primary Plat for the project. Non residential buildings will return for
ADLS review (a non public hearing petition), and residential uses will require administrative
Secondary Plat review. All future detail plans will be held to the regulations of this proposed
PUD ordinance.
The Department of Engineering is still in the process of identifying their concerns, requirements,
and suggestions.
The petitioner will be submitting some site and design alterations at this committee meeting.
Staff has provided the following list of initial comments to the petitioner
1. Two and three -story raised apartment buildings /flats (condos, most likely) can draw
inspiration from those in the Old Northside, Meridian Kessler, etc. They blend almost
seamlessly with the single family and two family houses.
2. A mix of housing sizes and types should be spread amongst the blocks. We would like to
see some apartments and attached units in smaller scale in other parts of the development
(as opposed to having all apartments in large structures in one specific area).
3. The area with the 90' single- family lots is almost completely isolated from the rest of the
development. It needs to be fully integrated, with streets and walkways, with the rest of
the site. A couple of walkways and a stub or two would do it. The exercise trail misses a
few obvious connection points, and additional connections can be added between houses
throughout the development by adding 15' easements. Is it possible to locate these more
"family friendly" lots closer to the school along the southern border?
4. The elevations need refinement. The houses shown in Exhibit H seem to follow most
closely the theme of the development. These designs should be codified in the next
version of the PUD. Exhibits I and J are good too.
5. It would be nice to see more mid century and earlier type commercial buildings rather
than the hip- roofed one -story brick office buildings. For this type of development, single
story non residential uses do not seem to fit the overall intent or design.
6. In general, the development statement indicates a mid century and earlier, traditional
neighborhood theme, however, the site design and particularly the architecture do not
bear this out. The development needs more thematic cohesion if it is to function as an
overall neighborhood, rather than a cluster of adjacent subdivisions.
7. The assorted Mixed -Use districts are not truly mixed -use. They provide for a limited set
of uses within discrete boundaries adjacent to other uses. True mixed -use districts
provide for a mix, including residential. These districts should integrate uses more.
8. Anything with a drive through or drive -up window is not neighborhood scale.
Neighborhood scale implies walkability, while drive -up /through windows draw people
passing through the area and contribute nothing to the intention of creating a
neighborhood. Drive throughs should be eliminated or restricted only to the outer edges
and if permitted should be executed in a responsible manner.
9. Lot dimensions are easier to read if they're sorted by individual districts, rather than by
individual setback requirements. Please provide a chart.
10. Minimum square footage requirements are huge. Reducing them will allow for a wider
variety of architecture and price points.
11. Granny flats should be allowed as accessory dwellings.
12. Multi family and attached residential architecture should also require ADLS, not just
commercial /office buildings.
13. The PUD needs to incorporate detailed written architectural standards, not just
elevations.
14. Trails should be a minimum of 8', not 6', except perhaps where they run through
residential areas /easements. 8' is generally considered the minimum for a multiuse trail.
15. "Pedestrian Corridor" is not defined. Is it a greenway, a trail, an easement to access open
area, or a sidewalk?
16. On- street parking should not be counted towards the sum total parking requirement. A
percentage, as in Old Town, would be better.
17. Anything that is proposed to be marketed to "active adults" should incorporate at least the
basic elements of Universal Design.
Staff recommends that this item be continued to the August 1 Special Studies Committee
Meeting for further discussion.
Page 1 of 1
1
DeVore, Laura B
From: Griffin, Matt L
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 7:17 PM
To: Blaine Paul (E- mail); Brad Schneider; Charlie Frankenberger (E- mail); D Pellom; DeVore, Laura B;
dlorenze; greg ewing; jim anderson; Jim Shinaver (E- mail); Jon Isaacs (E- mail); kevin roberts; Larry
Kemper (E- mail); mary solada; Nick Churchill (E- mail); Paul Reis (E- mail); Roger Kilmer (E- mail);
Steve Granner (E- mail); Steve Pittman (E -mail)
Subject: Deparment Reports for the June 29th Committee Meetings
Given the upcoming holiday (as you all well know) the Committee Meetings were moved up to this Thursday. As
such our reports are late in terms of distribution (but my schedule does not permit getting them done earlier than
what is typically the deadline for reports). I have attached them to this email, and will distribute hard copies at the
meeting tomorrow. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions or comments.
Matthew L. Griffin, AICP
Planning Administrator
Department of Community Services
City of Carmel
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
phone: 317.571.2417
fax: 317.571.2426
email: mgriffin @carmel.in.gov
6/29/2006