Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 12-21-21 3. Docket No.PZ-2021-00197 PPA: Reserve at Springmill,Replat Lots 69C-70C. 4. Docket No.PZ-2021-00226 V: UDO Sec.2.06 35 ft.Minimum Front Yard Setback,22 ft. requested 5. Docket No.PZ-2021-00227 V: UDO Sec.2.06 10 ft.Minimum Side Setback/25 ft.Minimum Aggregate, 5 ft. Side Setback/10 ft.Aggregate requested The applicant seeks primary plat amendment approval and 2 variances to reconfigure 2 lots into 6 lots on 2.7 acres. The site is located at 340 Sanner Ct.and is zoned S-2/Residence. Filed by Duane Sharrer of Weihe Engineers, Inc on behalf of Steve Pittman,owner. Petitioner: Steve Pittman,Pittman Partners • With me tonight are Duane Sharrer of Weihe Engineers,and Gary McNutt of Wedgewood Homes • Presented an aerial view of the subject property • I agreed to buy the vacant lots and develop it to exactly like the existing neighborhood. The homeowners participated in a vote of my plans. We received 100%support from the homeowners. • The new blot sizes will be about 40% larger than the existing lot sizes in the neighborhood • We will be extending the existing cul-de-sac to add the additional lots • The setback variance for a 22-ft front yard setback,matches the building setback lines of the existing homes within this neighborhood • We will come back for a future public hearing for the variance on the proposed extended cul-de-sac length Public Comments: None Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • S-2 zoning requires a 35-ft front setback,but this subdivision was originally developed under the Cluster Housing Ordinance which allowed for reduced setbacks(22-ft) • The proposed variances are minor and should not have a negative effect on the surrounding properties • There's a 20-ft platted greenbelt bufferyard that will remain along the north property line • The Urban Forester still needs to review the revised landscape plan • The cul-de-sac length will need a variance and it will be heard at a future public hearing in front of the BZA • Staff recommends this is sent to the Jan.4th Residential Committee with it coming back to the full Plan Commission for a final vote Committee Comments: Nick: Does this need to go to Committee?Is there anything else to discuss? A Motion made by Kirsh and seconded by Rider to suspend the Rules of Procedure in order to vote on this item. Approved 7-0,absent Hill,Potasnik. A Motion made by Zoccola and seconded by Rider to approve PZ-2021-00197 PPA, PZ-2021-00226 V,and PZ- 2021-00227 V contingent upon addressing all TAC comments Approved 7-0,absent Hill,Potasnik. 6. Docket No.PZ-2021-00204 PUD: Flora on Springmill PUD Rezone. The applicant seeks PUD rezone approval to allow a new subdivision consisting of townhomes,duplex homes, and single-family homes. The site is located at 9950 Spring Mill Rd.and is zoned S-2/Residence. Filed by Jim Shinaver and Jon Dobosiewicz of Nelson&Frankenberger on behalf of Pittman Partners and Onyx and East, LLC. Petitioner:Jim Shinaver • Presented a site location map, context plan, site plan, and building types and their location within the site • This development will contain a mix of duplex two-family homes,brownstones, single-family courtyard homes, rooftop deck townhomes,and pitched roof townhomes • We will have tree preservation areas(TPA)designated around our site • A multi-use path will be installed along Spring Mill Road 4 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 12-21-21 • The builder,Onyx and East design their communities based on the location of the site.It results in a very unique community with detailed architectural • Presented elevations and street perspectives, these show the color pallet,building materials,and various views of II the different types of homes • Expected prices for homes will include the following: $300k-$400k for the pitched roof townhomes,$400k-$500k for the rooftop deck townhomes, $500k-550k for the duplex homes, $500k-600k for the brownstones,and $600k- 700k for the single-family courtyard homes. • We have included open space plan,TPA plan,and PUD Ordinance in our info packet • We will continue to work with Staff to address any items before the Residential Committee meeting • We hosted a neighborhood meeting on Dec. 16 for all adjacent property owners Public Comments: Jill Meisenheimer,CCRZ: I live on Spring Mill Road, and I've seen it changed dramatically since I've moved here 16 years ago. Initially it was all zoned single-family residential. I'm concerned for the increased density.They stated they will be preserving 20%of the trees, so there will be 80%tree destruction.I'm concerned with the number of rentals. Who would want to live in this space adjacent to I-465?What's the noise going to be like?Will this redevelopment set a precedent along Spring Mill Road? Rebuttal to Public Comments:Jim Shinaver • All of the proposed homes are for sale. This is not a for-rent community. • There are standards within the PUD that will be reviewed during this rezone process. If approved,we will come back to the Plan Commission for an ADLS review. We will have to abide by the language in the PUD Ordinance. • Onyx and East clearly knows their market and price range.They have the confidence in achieving their sales. Department Report: Rachel Keesling • This proposed PUD seeks a mixed residential neighborhood of single-family homes, duplex homes, and a variety of townhomes • Urban and attached residential • There will be a large natural buffer of Williams Creek to the west and tree preservation area to the north • The PUD allows for 129 dwellings with a minimum of 15%open space,and 20%TPA designed into this site • One entrance is being proposed at the roundabout at Spring Mill Road and Illinois Street. • The Department would like to see more trees be preserved • Staff recommends this is sent to the Jan.4th Residential Committee for further review Committee Comments: Nick: How's the street lighting going to be handled?Why are some of the roads public and some private?Can the pedestrian path go around the detention pond to provide an amenity for the residents?Can you provide 6-ft wide sidewalks?Jim Shinaver: We do have a lighting plan.There's a rationale between the private and public streets. We will discuss these comments in more detail at the Committee meeting. Christine: Once the trees are removed,people will realize how close this is to I-465. Can we preserve more trees?Please present some ways to preserve more trees. Why is there only one entrance?Did the Traffic Engineering review this entrance?Is there a way to help the traffic flow?Jim Shinaver: We did go through the TAC review and we can report their findings at the Committee meeting. We did not receive any concerns from emergency services,fire dept.,and police dept. We can follow up with them again. We can revisit the tree preservation at the Committee. Josh: How will the TPA be noted in the PUD?How will the residents be notified and policed not to encroach in the TPA? I've seen this problem occur before in other communities when residents place fences,fire pits,and other structures with a TPA without them even knowing the rules. Steve Pittman: There was a lawsuit on this property because a logging Icompany came in and deforested this site. It makes sense to preserve as many trees as possible to create a buffer. Brad: What is the ability of INDOT with their existing ROW to potentially expand the ramp from US 31 to I-465 West? If they were to add another lane or two?Will there be enough room for them to do so?With this being a PUD,we can ask for what we want. We need to find ways to preserve more trees. Do we really need sidewalks on both sides of the street so we can save additional trees?There are no design standards to conform to since this is a PUD. Look for opportunities to 5 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 12-21-21 create a mulch or stone walking through the wooded areas. This would help in preserving more trees along the path. Sue: I have concerns for only having one entrance for 129 homes. I would like to see some amenities included, like a water feature in the pond, benches,and a walking path.Can we add more greenspace?Is there a plan for overflow parking? A Motion made by Westermeier and seconded by Rider to send PZ-2021-00204 PUD to the January 4th Residential Committee,with the final vote coming back to the full Plan Commission. Approved 7-0,absent Hill,Potasnik. 7. Docket No.PZ-2021-00205 DP/ADLS: 11335 N.Michigan Rd.Apartments. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a new development with 4 future outlots and an apartment complex(244 units).The site is located at 11335 N.Michigan Road. It is zoned B-3/Business&Residential and is located within the US 421 Overlay zone. Filed by Ryan Wells of REI Real Estate Services,LLC. Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewicz,Nelson&Frankenberger,LLC: • With me tonight are Ryan Wells,director of development for REI,Aaron Hurt,project engineer, Jim Shinaver, and other members of our design team • This site was recently occupied by Altums Landscaping business • REI is the developer and current owner of the site • The existing buildings will be removed to develop 244 units for multi-family residential and 4 future outlots • Presented a site plan • Variance requests will be proposed at the February 2022 BZA meeting • The site is subject to commitments that were established in 1988. The redevelopment of this site requires approval by the Cannel Plan Commission. • We are proposing 10 buildings that will total in 244 units.These buildings will front the internal drive and future detention pond • 378 parking spaces will be provided through garage and surface parking • Access will be from Michigan Road at Bennett Parkway • We are proposing an amenity space that will include a pool and dog park • 3 buildings will be 2-stories,and the remaining 7 buildings will be 3-stories • Presented elevations of 2-story and 3-story buildings. A variance for building height is needed for the 3-story buildings due to their pitched roof design. • Building materials will include masonry and fiber cement siding.No vinyl material will be used. • The landscape plan complies with the Ordinance. The Ordinance requires 15-ft landscaping between a multi- family and Woodhaven subdivision. We will provide a 30-ft landscape along the parking,and 40-51-ft along the north perimeter adjacent to Woodhaven. • We are working with the Urban Forester to include tree preservation and new plantings • We did host a neighborhood meeting in December. 30-40 adjacent neighbors attended. We received multiple letters of concern from the public. • We ask this is sent to the February Pt Committee meeting, instead of the January 4th Committee,to give us more time to prepare and work with Staff and the adjacent neighbors. Public Comments: Terrence Kunstek,Woodhaven: I live directly north of the subject site. Our community was shocked with the proposed redevelopment. We feel the developer is not acting in good faith and is holding information. We have concerns with the setback variance,quality of the architecture,and density of the development. The Altum's 1988 agreement specifically prohibited this exact use,and we ask the Plan Commission to force the commitments of that agreement. We would request that this land to be developed into a Cannel City Park. Catherine Knox,Townes at Weston Pointe: I'm an adjacent neighbor to the south. I'm not opposed to residential redevelopment,just not something this high density.Headlights will come into my home.I don't like the idea of this much parking(lot)next to my home.This site plan was not done in respect to the adjacent neighbors.Will any of the trees along the southern property line be preserved? 6 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 12-21-21