HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 01-08-08
CARMEL PlIAN COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
DEPARTMENT REPORT
January 8, 2008
2-6. Docket No. 07100032 PP: Woodhall
The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 9 lots on 11.58 acres. Also, subdivision
waivers requested are:
Docket No. 07100033 SW seo 6.03.20 private street
Docket No. 07100034 SW seo 6.()3.03 & 6.04.04 stub streets to adjacent parcels
Docket No. 07100035 SW seo 6 ,(13.07 cul+de-sac length exceeds 600.ft
Docket No. 07100036 SW seo 6.03.26.4 gate location - no a bus pickup area
The site is located on 106lh St. east of Towne Rd. and is zoned S-I/Residence.
Filed by Joe Calderon of Bose McKinney & Evans, LLP.
The petitioner seeks primary plat and subdivision waiver approval requests for a residential subdivision of
9 lots on 1\.58 acres, which is a density of 0.78 units per acre. This subdi vision is exempt from the
requirements of the Open Space Ordinance within Chapter & of the Subdivision Cc;}lrol Ordinance, slnce
its density is less than 0.85 u/ac.
This subdivision is proposed to be gated, and meets all of the gate criteria presented in the Subdivision_ --
Control Ordinance Chapter 6.03.26, except the requirement tc provide a school bus pick -up area. The
petitioner states that this development vviH most likely be an empty-nester community where chi Idren will
not be living or using a school bus. The gated entry does utilize a turn around area,
Si nee the subdivision is proposed to be gated, the petitioner has requested a subdivision wai ver to bave
private streets.
This subdivision will have one entry and will have a cul-de-sac of 1,220 feet in length. The ordinance
requires a cul-de-sac length of 600-ft or less. Since this subdivision utilizes a cu\-de.sac, it does not fulfill
the requirement of providing stub streets to adjacent parcels, and so another subdi vision waiver approval
request is being sought The layout of \Vindemere Subdivision to the east of this site does not allow for a
street connection. However, some discussion should occur about future potential connections to parcels to
the west.
On November 26, two development standards variances were approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals
for the following:
_ A 30' front yard setback was requested/approved; a 40' Front Yarel Setback is required; and
_ A 20' Aggregate side yard was requested/approved; a 30' Aggregate Side Yard is required.
DOCS concerns/comments:
I. The City Forester, Scott Brewer, needs an engll1eered landscape plan that shows easements and
building setback lines on the plan. He also needs the numher of plantings per specie noted on the
plan, as well as a tree preservation plan.
2. Page 25 of the Woodhall Covenants has a typo; under Ditches & Swales, it says "plat material",
when it should say "plant material".
3. Provide and update on the approval status of the County Highway Department. The Highway
Department will be comfortable with the landscape island within the road right of way of the cui
de sac if the petitioner can provide confirmation that Carmel Fire and Schools do not have any
problems with the lane width and size of the cui de sac.
4. Provide an update on the County Surveyor's Office approval status. At the T AC meeting, there
was some concern about driveway encroachments in to easements. Also, there should not be
plantings within the drainage easements that run along the residential lots.
5. Will the petitioner utilize any of the Draft Residential Architectural Design Standards?
6 Please provide 4-sided building elevations with materials labeled.
7. Please provide the committee with a rendering showing veh icular turnaround in the cui de sac,
especially with a full size moving truck and/or full size fire truck.
8. Please provide greater details about the fence & gate, slIch as height, materials, etc, and show
how it complies with chapter 6.03.26- Gates of the subdivision control ordinance.
9. Please demonstrate if/how the road curvature meets Subdivision Control Ordinance's Chapters
6.0315 and 6.03.16.
10. The petitioner should explain how the option of street connections to adjacent parcels for future
connectivity was explored, if at all.
11, Discuss the sidewalk location along lOe" Street and the creek location and how they interact.
The Dept of Community Services recommends these items be discussed and then continued to tbe
February 5 committee meeting, to allow time to resolve all out'itaading issues. (Or, if the committee
is comfortable with the petitions, the item can be forwarded to the Thursday, January 24 Plan
Commission meeting.)
- ~-
---
,/