Pulte Homes’ representative presented revised plans Dec. 2 to the Carmel Plan Commission Committee seeking a planned‑unit‑development (PUD) rezoning for townhomes at 220 West 106th Street.

Rex Grama, speaking for Pulte Homes, said the site is a roughly 4.44‑acre, triangular parcel at the northeast corner of 106th and Illinois Street constrained by a legal drain and several easements. Grama told the committee the concept shows five buildings of predominately 2–3‑story townhomes and that the current concept on the screen lists 27 units on the site plan, while the docket summary referenced 28 townhomes.

The applicant presented several specific commitments they plan to add to the PUD ordinance text. On tree preservation, Grama said the site contains about 0.85 acres of tree cover and the green‑highlighted preservation area on the exhibit is roughly 0.5 acres (about 26% of the site); the applicant offered to commit to a minimum 20% tree preservation in the PUD while trying to reach the 26% shown on the plan. On materials, Grama said the applicant will add language requiring each building to include at least one unit with three floors of masonry material and at least one unit with two floors to mirror the submitted elevations.

Commissioners focused substantial discussion on streetscape and drainage. The applicant’s cross‑section calls for a 24‑foot travel width with an inverted crown (center‑line drainage) to preserve narrow pavement, 6‑foot tree lawns, and sidewalks on both sides. Multiple commissioners objected to the inverted crown and to the prospect of a private street that could later require city conversion or maintenance, urging the applicant to return with alternatives or to commit to building the road to Carmel standards. Grama said the inverted crown was a space‑saving response that allowed the dual sidewalks and tree lawns but agreed to explore additional options.

Buffering along the north property line adjacent to the Forte building was another recurring issue. Grama said Pulte had met with Forte (represented in correspondence by Angie Stevenson) and described three contingency plans: plant required buffer trees within the applicant’s limited planting area if engineering allows; coordinate with Forte to plant trees on Forte property; or, if trees are infeasible, install a masonry or privacy fence. Commissioners and staff asked for clearer, dimensioned exhibits showing precisely where planting or fencing would sit relative to the sanitary and drainage easements.

The committee also questioned architectural details such as dormer windows, which Grama said are decorative: the dormer openings sit over attic/truss space and are not habitable or accessible from unit interiors. Commissioners suggested alternatives to blacked‑out dormer glazing (louvers, decorative film or built‑out dormers) and requested the applicant provide clearer elevation exhibits when the item returns.

Parking, rental policy and other PUD text items drew staff requests. The applicant said the plan provides two enclosed spaces in each garage plus driveway space and depicts 10 guest parking spaces; staff and commissioners asked the PUD to explicitly state the parking commitment, and the applicant agreed to add text guaranteeing the shown guest spaces. A commissioner pointed out the PUD currently contains a short‑term rental ban but lacks a long‑term rental cap; commissioners asked the applicant to include streamlined language referencing Carmel’s rental ordinance and to consider an owner‑occupancy percentage cap.

City staff (active transportation) asked the PUD to require bike parking that meets the city’s UDO standards; staff recommended continuing the item so the applicant could revise PUD text and exhibits and resolve outstanding technical items.

Grama said the team will provide more detailed blow‑ups and engineering clarifications (drainage profile, planting dimensions, rear elevations and noise‑mitigation data) at the next appearance. The committee confirmed the item will return on Tuesday, Jan. 6, so staff and the applicant can address the requested PUD language and exhibits.

What happens next: the applicant will update PUD ordinance text to memorialize masonry minimums, parking and bike‑parking commitments, tree‑preservation percentages, and rental language; the committee asked for better exhibits showing buffer options along the north property line and clearer engineering details for drainage and street cross‑sections. Staff recommended continuing the item to the Jan. 6 committee meeting to allow those changes.