Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 08-20-19 10. Docket No. 19070005 V: UDO Section 2.06 Troy Estates—Min. 100 ft.Lot Width,90 ft. requested. 11. Docket No. 19070006 V: UDO Section 2.06 Min. 10 ft.side yard setback,5 ft. requested. The applicant seeks 2 additional variances(in addition to the previously filed rezone,primary plat,and variance) for a new subdivision consisting of 39 lots on 23.3 acres.The site is located at 4100 W. 141s`St. The site is currently zoned S-1/Residential with a proposed change to S-2/Residential. Filed by Nelson&Frankenberger, LLC on behalf of Lennar Homes of Indiana. 12. Docket No. 19050020 Z: Rezone S-1/Residential to S-2/Residential (Old Business) 13. Docket No. 19050021 PP: Troy Estates Subdivision (Old Business) 14. Docket No. 19050022 V: UDO Section 2.06 Min.35 ft.front yard setback,25 ft. requested (Old Business) The applicant seeks rezone,primary plat,and a variance for a new subdivision consisting of 39 lots on 23.3 acres. The site is located at 4100 W. 141st St. The site is currently zoned S-1/Residential with a proposed change to S- 2/Residential. Filed by Nelson&Frankenberger, LLC on behalf of Lennar Homes of Indiana. Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewicz • Presented aerial location map and site plan • Tab 5 includes updated elevations and actual pictures of our home product • Tab 7 includes our commitments that were discussed and decided on by Staff and the Residential Committee • Our variance requests are for a 90' lot width and 5' side yard setback which is consistent with neighboring subdivisions to the north and east • We are asking for a favorable recommendation to City Council for our rezone request Public Comments: Adam Finney,Longridge Estates: I expected this area to be developed.There's no need for variances or rezoning to develop this area.I don't know anyone who wants to buy a$450k house with 5' side yard setbacks. Can you clarify the commitments?I ask you not to approve this and the variances. IDee Fox, West Carmel: I oppose this rezone. It's not necessary. We are getting a lot of large houses on small lots. There's not a demand for this type of housing. This is not complementary to the surrounding neighbors. It takes more than just being residential to be compatible. They can't do what they want to do if they don't have their variances approved. Rebuttal to Public Comments: Jon Dobosiewicz • In 2007-2008 the City eliminated the ROSO provisions. All of the surrounding subdivisions were developed with the ROSO provisions which allowed 6' between homes. We are asking for 5' side yards(10' between homes.) • On average,there will be 30' between homes with the side load garages • Standards are higher than what was implemented back then • Staff has asked us to go a different route with a rezone request,and not ask for a PUD Department Report: Alexia Lopez: • The redesign allows them to meet our requirements for open space and better street connectivity • They will still maintain an aggregate side yard setback of 25' as the garages will be side loaded garages • They will provide a sidewalk around the pond • The Committee did not require the sidewalk from the front door to the street • The landscape plan is still being reviewed by the Urban Forester • We recommend approval of the primary plat and the variances conditioned upon the rezone approval by City Council and approval of the landscape plan by the Urban Forester • We recommend you send the rezone to the City Council with a favorable recommendation Committee Comments: IBrad: Since the Chair of the Residential Committee is not present,who would like to give the report from the last Residential Committee? Nick: There's nothing to add. But I would like to see Lots 1, 8,9,29,39 to be considered as a corner lot. The sides of these lots are adjacent to common area and visible from the street. I would like to see Lot 28 to have three sided enhanced architecture added to it. Jon Dobosiewicz: We did discuss this in Committee. It's listed in the commitments. We made architecture enhancements and updated the landscape for those corner lots. I believe what 13 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 8-20-19 you asked for is included. Brad: Referring to the architecture commitment listed under 3b. What's the height requirement for the four-sided masonry wainscoting? Does it have to come up to the sill of the first floor windows? Jon Dobosiewicz: There's not a minimum height specified in the commitments. Alexia: It doesn't have a specific height but it states up to the sill of the lowest window. Jon Dobosiewicz: We can specify this under Section 1.A2 the height can be defined by the height on the front elevation. Nick: Can we get a commitment for the landscaping on the lots I mentioned?Since they are not considered a corner lot, but you will see the sides of the house. Jon Dobosiewicz: Are you asking, "Will we apply the additional landscape requirements to Lot 1?" Nick: Lots 1, 8, 39,and 9 and on lot 28 the rear should be landscaped since it faces the park. Jon Dobosiewicz: We can add additional foundation plantings to lots 1, 8,9,39,and 28. A Motion made by Josh and seconded by Laura to suspend the Rules of Procedure to vote on Docket No. 19070005 V and 19070006 V. Approved 7-0,absent Westermeier,Kegley A Motion made by Nick and seconded by Laura to approve Docket Nos. 19070005-6 V, 19050020 Z, 19050021 PP, and 19070022 V. Approved 6-1,Potasnik,absent Westermeier,Kegley Old Business: 1. Docket No. 19050013 DP/ADLS: Napleton Kia of Carmel. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a new auto dealership on 3.74 acres. The building will be 24,351 sq. ft.,about 28'tall,and will have 201 parking spaces provided.The site is located on 96th Street and east of Randall Drive(with access from Randall Drive). The site is zoned B3/Business and is not located within any overlay zone. Filed by Jim Shinaver and Jon Dobosiewicz of Nelson&Frankenberger on behalf of Napleton of Cannel Imports,LLC dba Napleton Kia of Carmel. Petitioner: Jim Shinaver • We received unanimous favorable recommendation from the Commercial Committee • Presented aerial location map, building elevations, and a site plan, access will only be provided off of Randall • All roof-top mechanicals will be screened from view • The Conditions of approval that were suggested are final Engineering approval of offsite mitigation plans,work with Staff on the final location of sidewalk connection to 96th Street,and provide additional tree protection along the creek Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • Off-site mitigation is very important for this site. We will not issue building permits until the off-site mitigation is completed. The south end of King of Glory church(106th&Keystone)will contain the off-site mitigation • We recommend you approve this with the conditions listed by the Petitioner Committee Comments: Brad: Where's the site of the dumpster enclosure. Jim Shinaver: Northeast of the site. Tab 5 includes the details. Brad: Where's the location of the"No Test Driving Sign"? Jim Shinaver: The petitioner has agreed to include one by the exit of the access drive, shown in Tab 8. Josh: Is this sign in compliance? Jim Shinaver: Staff is in support of it. A Motion made by Josh and seconded by Alan to approve Docket No. 19050013 DP/ADLS. Approved 7-0,Absent Westermeier,Kegley Meeting adjourned at 10:56 p.m. c5e 5 ------------ J Shesta Plan Commission Secretary rad Grabow President 14 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 8-20-19