Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 12-20-11G\A! OF CA g41, �n C it y of awe /NDIANP CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2011 Council Chambers, Second Floor Carmel City Hall Once Civic Square Carmel IN 46032 6:00 PM Members Present: John Adams, Jay Dorman, Brad Grabow, Judy Hagan, Steve Lawson, Alan Potasnik, Kevin "Woody" Rider, Steve Stromquist, Susan Westermeier, Ephraim Wilfong Members Absent: Nick Kestner DOCS Staff Present: Director Michael Hollibaugh, Planner Angie Conn; Legal Counsel John Molitor Also Present: Ramona Hancock, Plan Commission Secretary The minutes of the November 18, 2011 meeting were approved as submitted. Legal Counsel Report, John Molitor: The Lewis Garage has been significantly decreased in size and now conforms to the City Ordinances; the matter has now come to a successful conclusion. Regarding the matter of Justus Homes VS The Kensington Place Neighborhood, the matter is pending before Judge Campbell in Noblesville; Justus Homes and the Plan Commission have filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of jurisdictional issues. Something should be heard from the judge within 30 days. Dept Report, Angie Conn: Emails from Jill Meisenheimer and Bob Chreist have been distributed to the Commission members relating to The Bridges HealthSouth Hospital Item 2 under Old Business. G. Reports, Announcements Department Concerns 1. The Commission needs to affirm/deny City Council's amendment to Docket No. 11070010 OA: Carmel Dr- Range Line Road Overlay Ordinance Amendment (Ordinance Z- 551 -11). John Molitor, Legal Counsel, spoke to this item which was discussed at last month's meeting: The City Council amended the proposed change to the Carmel Drive/Range Line Road Ordinance. The Commission recommended that the Sunset Provision be deleted from the Ordinance. The Sunset Provision would have expired at the end of this month; the Plan Commission recommended that it be deleted entirely. The City Council wanted to give it one more year and then decide whether or not changes should be made to the Ordinance before making it permanent. The Sunset date is now December 31, 2012. John Molitor recommended that the Plan Commission proceed to a vote on the amendment this evening, otherwise, it becomes law without Plan Commission approval Motion: Judy Hagan "To approve Docket No. 11070010 OA, Council's amendment to Carmel Drive/Range Line Road Overlay Ordinance Amendment (Ordinance Z -551 -1 l) seconded by Alan Potasnik, approved 10 -0. 2. Update on City Council's approval of Ordinance Z- 553 -11, Silvara PUD (Docket No. 11050013 Z). John Molitor, Legal Counsel, up -dated the Commission on the Silvara PUD that was recently approved by City Council except for a fairly lengthy set of "conditions." Legal Counsel recommended that in order for the Staff to clean up its zoning code, the Certification should be conformed to the original PUD Ordinance to include all of the conditions which the City Council has now approved. The changes made by Council would be inserted into the PUD text. Motion: Jay Dorman "To approve the City Council conditions that were added to the Rezone Ordinance Z -553- 11 that were added by the City Council to allow the Dept of Community Services to combine and publish one, consistent set of documents related to the Silvara PUD;" Approved 7 in favor, 3 opposed (Grabow, Hagan, and Potasnik.) Public Hearings 'FABLED TO JAN. 18 Docket No. 11070022 Z: CoCo Commons PUD Rezone 146 /Towne. r 1n 2. Docket No. 11100022 DP /ADLS: Gramercy PUD (Mohawk Hills Redevelopment). The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a multifamily apartments mfill and renovation project on 116.4 acres The site is located at approximately 751 E. 126 Street, at the southwest corner of 126 St. and Keystone Pkwy. The site is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Matthew Griffin of Buckingham Companies Motion: Woody Rider "To suspend the Rules of Procedure and allow additional time for input from members of the public;" seconded by Sue Westermeier, approved 10 -0. Present for Petitioner: Tim Ochs, attorney with Ice Miller, One American Square, Indianapolis 46282. Also present- Matt Griffin, Project Manager, Buckingham Companies. 941 Pennsylvania Street, Indianapolis, 46204 Overview, 1 im Ochs: Proposal is for Development Plan and ADLS approval Gramercy PUD was approved 2006 Gramercy PUD was approved and adopted with a full set of commitments Gramercy is required by law to comply with the requirements of the PUD which control uses. densities, other important issues including access points Current proposal complies with requirements of the Gramercy PUD Much of what is submitted is different from the original PUD application What is proposed for construction does comply with the PUD Ordinance, even if what is constructed is significantly less than could be built All prior commitments are still in place No changes are being proposed to the PUD Overview, Matt Griffin. Mohawk Hills Apts was built in early 1970's and contains 570 units on 116 acres Mohawk Hills Apts has only one access point on 126'" Street across from Enclave Drive Proposal would include 4 Neighborhoods with a total of 1,350 units (400 renovated, 950 new) Each Neighborhood would have its own image, identity, amenity center, pool playground 2 Construction would start June 2012 Plans include 3 access points as required by the PUD (126` Street, Carmel Drive, Keystone Parkway) First Neighborhood is Gramercy Commons all new development and at the core of the property Gramercy Commons would contain maximum 4 -story buildings urban, loft style living The other neighborhoods are a mix of renovated units and new buildings that would help re- establish them as current, modern, convenient, and would serve current as well as future residents. Gramercy Crossing Neighborhood the most visible from Keystone Parkway and will be up -dated to make the bldgs seem timeless more modern complete renovation of the interior A new, in -=fill building will be added to the Gramercy Crossing Neighborhood, 2 or 3 stories, compatible with the existing bldgs The Mills at Gramercy —this area was originally built as a townhome, centric apartment community The Mills will look more like brownstones, more timeless in architecture, interiors renovated; the new bldgs would be more traditional, garden style apartments with balconies and outdoor access from first floor The Ponds at Gramercy is the fourth neighborhood,; the buildings will not be completely demolished, but will be brought up to a 99% new standard completely up -dated and brought back to a current state of operation Lastly, townhomes will be introduced into the project initially for rent, designed to eventually be for sale /owner occupied Each neighborhood will have some townhomes, primarily townhomes focus on the new main street thru Gramercy The PUD requires a minimum of 50 single family, detached homes within the community In 2006, it was imagined that the homes would be adjacent to single family, detached homes would face each other, no backs or fronts; the homes likely will not have access onto Auman Drive but would be accessed by alley behind the row of homes,& connect to the new thoroughfare Buckingham does not build single family homes will be working with third parties to facilitate construction execution of the single family, detached homes There is a piece of residual land, approx 26 acres, that must be developed under the PUD Ordinance comply with the PUD restrictions guidelines At this time, nothing is proposed for the residual 26 acres Points of Access: Main Entry: 126` Street, opposite aligning with Ash Drive Keystone Parkway, right in/right out Carmel Drive, through The Fountains (owned by Buckingham) Current entrance on 126' across from the Enclave would be down played signage removed, boulevard entry field removed the access would only be a secondary access point PUD identifies new streets to be installed as part of the project Future main north/south street to be installed would connect two, new access points All streets would include street parking, sidewalks, trees planting beds Required east/west entry will be the boulevard entry from Keystone Engineering would like to see the east/west entry continued parallel with 126` Street and possibly connect with Auman Drive at some future date Signage for the PUD is extremely detailed and will be followed per the PUD design standards Project is basically residential signage needs not what they were 5 years ago when PUD was approved Signage: Per PUD Design Developmental Standards District Identification Sign on Keystone Development Entry Signage Neighborhood Entry Signage Amenity Leasing Space Signage 3 Proposed Plan includes Green Space Parks o Linear Parks Buffer Area 2 -Acre Centralized Park Potential Neighborhood (Pocket) Parks Each Neighborhood will have its own pool green space PUD requires 12% Open Space Commitment Tree Preservation Plan to be provided with a lot of trees on site being preserved Bike Plan is also required by the PUD includes a north/south route east/west route PUD also requires the development to be built to Carmel standards adding pedestrian paths and bike lanes to rights -of -way along 126 Street Auman Drive Way finding Signage will be done for the bike path as well as bike parking one space per 5 dwelling units (approx 270 spaces based on 1350 dwelling units) Density maximum for the PUD was 2100 new units proposal this evening is for 1350 total units which includes the existing units on site Approved PUD allows a maximum of 5 stories in the core with commitments in all other area; the proposal is for a maximum of 4 stories and fully complies with all commitments PUD Use is approved for Retail, Office, Residential, Institutional current proposal is for Residential Only Height: o Will comply with PUD Commitments 0 2, 3, 4 stories only o Clock Tower Element Construction to start in June 2012 New Units available 12 -15 months after start of construction Potential completion 2 -3 yrs after start of construction Public Remonstrance/Favorable: Dan Dawson, President, Eden Village Homeowners Assoc all residents of Eden Village in favor of the proposal and are hoping for an early start Organized Remonstrance, Unfavorable: Dan McQuinn, 1024 East Auman Drive, representing the Auman/Newark Neighborhoods. To say that this proposal is NOT the same PUD the Auman residents were involved with is a major under statement. Most, if not all, the buildings were to be demolished. The line of one story, single family homes to be built along Auman and 126 Street –there are a lot of things not presented to the public in their open house —the brick facades are in question it could be hardy plank, vinyl siding, or a different brick what is shown is only a rendering. At the Open House, nothing was ever mentioned about townhomes. The vacant ground to the north was explained as single family homes and that the developer was looking for a builder to build them. In looking thru the proposal, this area is designed for townhomes, not single family homes, and possibly senior housing or convalescent facility with a proposed opening into Auman Drive; the traffic will be a nightmare for the Auman residents. There is a problem getting timely information from Buckingham. Mr. McQuinn would not support sending this item to Committee on January 3` there should be more opportunity for public input. This area is still a TIF District, with 1350 apartments, approximately 5 to 6 thousand people (children included) and will quadruple the residents in this area above existing. With the upgrades, will the residents be able to afford this housing? We would like more details provided. The traffic still has not been addressed. Mr. McQuinn asked that the Commission members compare the original PUD with the current proposal. Mr. McQuinn also requested that this item be tabled to the January 18 meeting and continue the public hearing process. General Public Comments/Unfavorable: Jeanine Cambs, 1007 Golfview Drive, Apt B, Mohawk Hills... finishing the first year of a two -year lease 4 term, loves living there, despite the fact that it is aging and all the negatives. As a single, professional woman, a teacher in the Carmel Clay Schools for over 30 years, this is one of the few places that is affordable to live that is safe, beautiful, and well -located. With the much needed improvements, the fear is that she will be asked to move and on a limited budget, will not be able to afford the housing. Ms. Cambs agreed with Mr. McQuinn that the residents have not been well informed. Moving again is not only an emotional issue, it is an economic issue. Inez Hayes, 1049 -B Mohawk Hills Drive, a 7 -year resident and thoroughly enjoys Mohawk Hill. Ms. Hayes totally agreed with Mr. Dawson's comments. Ms. Hayes asked if the Commission had done a community survey as to what percentage of newly developed units in Carmel are not occupied. Ms. Hayes also expressed concern about having to move at difficult, economic times. Will there be an incentive to existing tenants to stay or re- locate within the development? Certainly there could be better communication on the time line for development —so far, communication has been short notice and rumor. Pat Truelove, 730 West Auman Drive, resident since 1966 and has been in on the Buckingham Plan since 2006 when the residents fought the rezone. Glad to see that the number of apartment units have been down sized. M ajor concern is traffic, and impact on the schools, particularly Carmel Elementary. At inception, the area residents were told that the development was for empty nesters, and up -ward, mobile, young people, no children. What kind of noise will there be? Peggy Parker, 1007 Apartment G, Mohawk Hills Drive, agreed with most everything said by previous speakers. Ms. Parker has 18 months remaining on her lease and was told that her building will be torn down. We were also told that the first part of the plan was three new buildings being built close to the pond, and we could possibly move there or one of the building being renovated. Questions regarding rent structure for comparable square footage were met with vague responses. A lot of the residents are middle income and caught in difficult situations; this is our home. The residents of Mohawk would like to be considered as people people who are stuck in the middle. Emily Worth, 1011 Indian Trails, Mohawk Hills. Would like more detailed price structure for those of us who are going to asked to re- locate what will price points be? If we can't afford it, we won't be able to stay. Carmel is getting a bad reputation for pricing middle -class people out of the City. Please consider the ridiculously -priced townhomes that already exist as well as retail space. No retail plans were shown this evening, but Ms. Worth had heard there was going to be retail, and if that is true, could details be shared with the residents? Aaron Barker, 819 West Auman Drive, 10 year resident; was involved in the initial discussions regarding this project in 2006. Glad to see this is scaled down as a smaller development. The residents would like to see the PUD re- submitted and reconsidered as the smaller version seen this evening. The new plan should be brought before a broader, public review. Meetings around the holidays are very in- convenient for a lot of people. We would like to have the development looked at with the same vigor and attention it was given in the past so that nothing is missed or slips through. Also, the access point onto Keystone with the round -about lane needs to be reviewed it is not clear how that would work without a major re- design. General Comments/Unfavorable: Tina Niklosy, 851 Indian Trails, wanted to reiterate that the new price point would probably make the housing un- affordable for a lot of the residents. Ms. Niklosky has an autistic son in a good Carmel program, but if they are moved around and cannot find suitable, price -point housing, it would work against her family because it is so expensive to live in this City. The plan looks beautiful on paper, but it looks scary to people who can't necessarily afford to live in the area. Apparently, what would be built would not be equivalent to what we have now and we would have to be either down -sized or re- located we would be able to move back to "our apartment" after renovations? Would we be expected to stay where we were, even if it wasn't a good fit? There are a lot of concerns and unanswered questions. Curtis Biddle, 755 Mohawk Hill Drive. There are a few things that seem extremely clear about this plan. 1) It will be crowded —it is crowding out all green space from the living areas which will affect pets and 5 pet owners 2) There has already been sudden destruction of flower /fruit- bearing trees, and it does seem odd to talk about saving trees now. 3) We are currently at 97% capacity a huge number of people will be leaving the area middle -class to lower class working communities in this area are full about 57% of the residents who will be displaced will not find anything near the center of Carmel 4) Traffic will be pretty intense Karen Carter, 918 East Auman Drive. The original plan included a taking of 15 feet from her yard for sidewalks sewage—still in limbo. What is the future for the other side of East Auman Drive which is Mohawk/City property. How far back does this project go? Would not like a 3 -story building across from her house when she gets 90% sunlight, and would not want to "pass the salt" to her neighbor —have not had a neighbor for 17 years, and will now be getting thousands of them. Change is good, but it must be done in such gesture of goodness effective design. This development has obviously had massive changes since it was originally approved. We need to go back to the board and just start over. Public Hearing Closed. Petitioner's Rebuttal, Matt Grim: Notes have been made of the comments, and a unified response will be made. However, the presentation of the plan did NOT show retail, and currently there is not retail provided in these buildings. For point of clarification, at the open house, it was stated that the PUD had been approved, but certainly we are in the development phase and the development design process must go thru the City of Cannel and that approval has not been granted. Department Comments, Angie Conn: DOCS received a complete set of plans on December 9, 2011 The petitioner has been asked to provide an itemized list to compare the proposal this evening with what was initially approved in the PUD in 2006 Each building has different materials and colors, and the petitioner is to compare the proposal with the Gramercy PUD design development standards this will help Plan Commission as well as the Staff The Dept recommends this item either be sent to January 3` Subdivision Committee or tabled to the full Commission meeting of January 18, 2012 This development is still a work in progress we are still waiting for additional information Comments Questions from Commission Members: When will a price point structure be available? (Time -line unknown at this point) Need more detail, more information regarding original proposal, current proposal, and comparison between the two Would like to see this continued to the January 18, 2012 meeting and maybe sub committee following Would like more time allotted for public comments, in view of the holidays Overall bike plan is it too late to capture a connection on the southern end, closer to Carmel Drive? Is it still necessary to establish an easement for sidewalks /sewage in the back yard of some of the Auman residents? The building is coming down where the road is going thru to Carmel Drive? (Yes) What will occur with storm water drainage? (Petitioner has had meetings with John Duffy at Utilities the petitioner will be feeding into the system on the southeast corner crossing Keystone with both storm sewer the petitioner will work with Utilities on upgrading their system so that it can accommodate what Gramercy will send them. Mr. Duffy's response was that his system is sized to accommodate the units being shown in this proposal) Is the Staff (Dept) ready to compare the Gramercy PUD as approved with what is being presented this evening based on information available at this time? (Yes, the Dept can probably do that with the information packets, but it is hard to do with the size (11 X 17.) The Dept would like a larger set of plans for review to compare with the original PUD that was approve and what is being proposed this evening) Again, would like to see this continued to the January 18, 2012 meeting 6 Concern with moving people within the development, cost of moving people, etc. Would like a comprehensive plan of the moves this is what is intended, this is what the residents can expect, etc. nail it down for the residents Landscape Greenspace would also like a comprehensive plan before proceeding forward At Committee level, perspective renderings from the exterior of the project would be appreciated what does one see when driving across 126 i Street from Keystone, what does an Auman Drive resident see as they look at this development from the exterior? Would like additional attention given to the ends of many of the buildings how many have windows, gable vents, etc that would break up the expanse of solid space of the building Request clarification of the cupolas whether there will be lighting in or of the cupolas a nice design element that brings some unity throughout the project Request further details on the parking space in order to verify adequate parking section by section, not just adequacy in terms of the overall development also same comment with respect to greenspace to verify that it is distributed equitably throughout each section of the development, not just in its entirety Clarification the south entrance is shown running through Fountains Plaza it is unclear whether or not there is any re- development work that would result in the demolition of the old Brighthouse Cable building and clarification as to whether or not that is a part of this petition (No, it is not a part of this petition that portion will return with its own DP /ADLS —it is not part of the Gramercy PUD zoning. There would likely be some demolition on that site, but at this time, it is uncertain. It is known that we do want to go through this site with the new right -of -way, and that is one iteration that would work for Engineering and for us to get the right -of -way accommodated in a safe manner.) Signage Plan: We see locations for signage in the plans, but not the signs themselves Interior Landscape Details show mostly the perimeters or buffer yards for each of the sections but not the internal areas The two main boulevards: the east/west drive connecting from Keystone, and the main north/south drive have a great deal of perpendicular parking with the trees pushed off to the very edge of the asphalt and it would be nice to have some "landscape peninsulas" to bring the trees more towards the center of the roadways to break up the parking areas The missing pieces of the submittal in relation to the amount of time for review, given its complexity, would warrant tabling This submission is a rapid departure from the original it is upsetting that the residents cannot get timely information a flyer on Monday for a meeting on Tuesday is not timely information Is this still a TIF area? (Yes, at present, but it is being looked into) Anything known about the retail? (At this time, there is NO retail as part of the request) More detail is needed on the renovation because it is so different from the original PUD proposal Need more than a "cheat- sheet" for comparison of the differences between original and current proposal Would like to see a clearly defined outline of the changes Concern regarding construction sequencing how many entrances will be open during construction (Not yet determined. A temporary entrance may be requested off of 126` Street farther west than The Enclave alignment and come in with a temporary street to the core to mobilize the construction effort. We would not want to have construction traffic mingling with resident traffic nor would we want to pour all that onto the current, existing cut. There may be an option with a temporary street coming from the south or a temporary on 126 i Street that would go away once the new, permanent cut goes in.) Major concern is Keystone Parkway and the on and off ramps at 126"' Street and at Carmel Drive. How would you squeeze anything else in there? (The petitioner states they are working with the traffic engineer on this issue there would be substantial improvement along the Keystone front probably the right in -right out would not happen directly into the flow of traffic there would probably be some sort of additional ane built on the Gramercy site, a weave lane, to accommodate the transition) Motion: Sue Westermeier "To re -open the public hearing to allow for additional public comments, and 7 CONTINUE Docket No. 11100022 DP /ADLS, Gramercy PUD (Mohawk Hills Redevelopment) to the January 18, 2012 meeting;" seconded by John Adams, approved 10 -0 The petitioner concurred with continuing this Docket. I. Old Business Docket No. 11070019 CA: The Woods at Lions Creek Commitment Amendment. The applicant seeks approval to amend the commitments for this development. The site is located near 13700 West Rd., and is zoned S- 1/Residential. Filed by Steven Hardin of Baker Daniels, L•LP on behalf of Pulte Homes of Indiana, LLC. Present for Petitioner: Steve Hardin, Baker Daniels, 600 East 96 Street, Carmel. Overview: October public hearing Committee review in November Committee vote was 5 -0 positive recommendation Committee Report, Steve Stromquist: Plan originally approved in 2007 Changes to plan include design downsizing Committee voted a 5 -0 favorable consideration Motion: Sue Westermeier "To approve Docket No. 11070019 CA, The Woods at Lions Creek Commitment Amendment;" seconded by Woody Rider, approved 10 -0. 2. Docket No. 11080018 DP /ADLS: The Bridges PUD HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a rehabilitation facility/hospital on 6.5 acres. The site is located at approximately 11405 Spring Mill Rd. and is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Elizabeth Liles Mann of HealthSouth. Present for Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewicz, Land Use Professional with Nelson Frankenberger. Also Present: Charlie Frankenberger, Nelson Frankenberger, and other members of the development team. Overview: HealthSouth located within The Bridges PUD Public Hearing held November 15, 2011 Special Studies Committee reviewed on December 6, 2011 The Special Studies Committee voted 5 -0 for favorable recommendation to Plan Commission Committee reviewed the following" Enhanced landscaping with a 2 f1. sculpted mound between the southeastern parking area Illinois St Several pathway connections now exist between the building, Illinois St, adjoining drives Sidewalks added at the southern entry drive on Illinois St southwest site entrance Pedestrian access is provided and one can circle the bldg on the proposed walks as proposed as part of the Health -South construction plan Committee was provided with photographic examples of how the ponds have been addressed to mitigate problems associated with geese the plan has been revised to incorporate this type of landscaping treatment Comnuttee also reviewed a written explanation of the landscape design along with photographic E. examples reflecting the overall prairie style character Site landscaping, including revisions, is in full compliance has rec'd approval from Urban Forester HealthSouth plans fully comply with the requirements of the PUD Petitioner respectfully requests DP /ADLS approval Committee Report, Steve Stromquist: Open area to the southeast of the property would like further clarification No vehicular entrance/exit from HealthSouth to the south now or in the future? Commission Connnent/Concerns: Concern regarding pedestrian connection to 111 Street along Illinois from the Rehab Hospital There may be nothing built on the southeast corner, but we want to preserve a connection Response, Jon Dobosiewicz: One of the three entrances off Illinois Street that will ultimately be constructed in The Bridges. The area is off the HealthSouth site plan. The design of the entryway will be submitted to the Plan Commission for its review at a future date the architectural treatment in the way of the bridge elements and how the sidewalk interfaces that and the landscaping at that particular entrance along with signage. The sidewalk connects to the HealthSouth site and it is likely that the segment of walk will not be in the exact location depicted it will adjust and come south. Those plans have not yet been fully developed and the petitioner will return to Plan Commission when they are and an amendment will be sought to the current configuration it is shown like that today because it conforms. There is no vehicular access from HealthSouth to the south. Once Illinois Street is completed, the entryway will be connected to Illinois Street and provide access. It is the area in the south and the future extension of the driveway that is not fully known at this time; that is why the sidewalk is not shown along that segment of driveway because it may meander in a different pattern than illustrated. Recommendation: That the Plan Commission approve the Development Plan subject to the installation of a sidewalk —a 10 foot asphalt path between the HealthSouth property, along Illinois Street, to 11T Street, within 12 months of the occupancy of the facility. If the connection is not installed, the petitioner will ask the City for an extension of two periods, up to a total of two years, 6 months each. If the installation has not occurred by that time, the Petitioner will return to Plan Commission and ask for indulgence on either an extension or some accommodation of a plan of action. Motion: Woody Rider, "To approve Docket No. 11080018 DP /ADLS, The Bridges PUD, HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital, subject to installation of a sidewalk, actually a 10 foot asphalt path, between the Health South property and 11T Street, along Illinois Street, within 12 months of issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the facility; if not, the petitioner is to ask the City (DOGS) for an extension of two periods, in 60 months increments, up to a total of two years, and if installation of the walk has not occurred by that time, the petitioner will return to the Plan Commission with a request for indulgence or extension until such time as a determination for installation can be made;" seconded by Sue Westermeier, approved 10 -0. 3. FABLED TO JAN. 18 Docket No. 10110012 DP /ADLS: Legacy PUD Turkey Hill Minit Market. deei gft stem, e ash and also seeks the fellewing z ippreyah 4. TABLED TO JAN. 18 Docket No. 10110013 ZW: Section 9.02, Legacy PUD ordinance 2- 501-07, maximum 15-ft front yard building setback. The ofte is leeated at 7729 E. 14 V 1 4t---� Ffakenberge� 0 J. New Business None K. Adjournment 7:50 PM 4 monancock, Secretary Jay Dorman, President 10