Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 08-20-13- 1 - CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT AUGUST 20, 2013 1. Docket No. 13060022 Z: Horizon Bank Rezone. The applicant seeks approval to rezone 0.32 acres from the Old Meridian/Office Zone to the Old Meridian/Village Zone. The site is located on the east side of Old Meridian Street and west of 1200 Carmel Dr. Filed by Steven Hardin of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. The applicant seeks approval to rezone their southern parcel, comprised of 0.32 acres, from the Old Meridian/Office Zone to the Old Meridian/Village Zone. This is requested in order to have the entire project area built on ground that is one zoning classification. Right now, only the northern parcel is zoned Old Meridian/Village Zone. There are a few differences between the two zoning classifications. The Village zone allows more Retail uses, whereas the Office zone does not allow any. Some similarities are that both allow General Office uses and schools. Both the Village zone and Office zone do not allow for residential uses. (The mixed use buildings along Old Meridian Street that are a part of the Providence at Old Meridian development were originally also zoned PUD in 1999, which is why residential uses exist today. Those front parcels along Old Meridian Street were later rezoned by the City to OM-Village in 2000, along with the City rezoning several other parcels along that stretch of Old Meridian Street. That is the main reason for the land uses discrepancy.) Also of importance, the Village zone allows for a Financial Institution (bank), whereas the Office zone does not allow it. This factor has played a role in how the site has been preliminarily laid out, trying to contain the use to the property where the zoning classification allows it. By expanding the same zoning classification to encompass the entire site, this will help the proposed bank to have the best site plan possible. It will also help with flow and integration into the surrounding uses, which are office to the immediate south and east, a mixed use building to the north with retail on the first floor and residential units above, the Meijer retail facility to the west, and residential apartments to the southwest. In conjunction with this rezone request, a plat vacation was requested at the June 18th Plan Commission meeting to begin the process of combining these two triangular parcels of land. This was Docket No. 13040014 PV, and was approved that same night with a unanimous 11-0 vote. This bank project will be back before you one more time on the September 17th meeting for the public hearing for the Development Plan and ADLS approvals for the architecture, design, lighting, landscaping, signage, parking areas, entrances/exits, etc. The Department is in support of this rezone petition and believes it makes sense to have one zoning classification for the entire developable site. Please view the Petitioner’s Information Packet for more details. Department Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends that the Plan Commission votes to suspend it rules of procedure and votes to send this rezone item to City Council with a favorable recommendation. - 2 - CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT AUGUST 20, 2013 2. Docket No. 13070001 ZW: Ricker's Gas Station Building Base Landscaping Waiver; Legacy PUD Ordinance Z-501-07, Section 19.2. The applicant seeks zoning waiver approval for reduced building base landscaping. The site is located at 7729 E. 146 Street (southwest corner of 146th/River Rd). It is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Joseph Scimia of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. The applicant seeks zoning waiver approval for the relocation of some building base landscaping. As proposed, the south facing building elevation will have some building base landscaping. The west and north sides will have sidewalks immediately adjacent to the building. The east elevation will have asphalt for a drive thru lane. The landscaping that would have been planted at the building’s base/foundation will be relocated to the perimeter of the site. This additional landscaping around the edge of the site will help to increase screening of headlights and enhance the aesthetics of the site. Petitioner, please provide a copy of the landscape plan that specifically shows where all of the building base landscaping will be relocated to. Per the Legacy PUD Ordinance, Outdoor Display and Outdoor Sales are both allowed as accessory uses in the zoning ordinance, which is therefore allowed under the PUD in Section 3 and in Exhibit 14, the Use Table. This opens up a gamut of potential outdoors display and sales. The Department is concerned that with the building base landscaping removed, more outdoor display items might pop up. We would rather see building base landscaping than additional or any outdoor storage/sale items. The Department would like the Petitioner to commit to keeping the site clean, limiting the amount of extra clutter caused by salt bags, ice boxes, propane exchanges, etc. Petitioner, please show on your site plan where outdoor storage and display items might be and show how they will be concealed, or, at least, not be highly visible from the streets. The Department would like the following potential outdoors sales and display types addressed, such as the Blue Rhino propane tank exchange, mulch bags, firewood, soda machines, Redbox DVD rental kiosks, etc. Signage on extra items, such as the gas pumps or ice machines, will be limited to 3 sq. ft. per item, as the City regulates with other gas stations. Also, the Department would like to see the petitioner commit to reducing their percentage of permitted window signage as part of this waiver request, perhaps going from 30% window signage down to 15 or 20 percent. Please view the Petitioner’s Information Packet for more details. Department Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Plan Commission forwards this item to the Sept. 3 Special Studies Committee meeting for further review and discussion, and also so that it joins up with docket no. 13050012 DP/ADLS which is also at the committee review level of the approval process. - 3 - CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT AUGUST 20, 2013 3. TABLED TO SEPT. 17: Docket No. 13060016 DP/ADLS: Point Blank Range & Gun Shop. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for an indoor shooting range and gun shop. The site is located at 969 N. Range Line Rd. It is zoned B-3/Business and lies within the Meridian St.-US 31 Overlay Zone, Carmel Dr.- Range Line Rd. Overlay Zone, and partially in the Special Flood Hazard Area. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger P.C. The Point Blank item is now tabled to the Sept. 17 Plan Commission meeting. - 4 - CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT AUGUST 20, 2013 4. Docket No. 13060023 DP/ADLS: River Road Shops at Legacy. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for 3 multitenant mixed use commercial buildings. The site is located near 7621 E. 146th St., with frontage on River Rd., too. It is zoned PUD/ Planned Unit Development, with a small portion in the Special Flood Hazard Area. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger P.C. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for 3 multitenant mixed use commercial buildings. Right now, ADLS review is only being proposed for the northern building that will sit along 146th Street, and the two other buildings will return for Plan Commission review at a future date. However, the overall Development Plan is being proposed now for buildings placements, site layout, access points, etc. The site will be located west and south of the proposed Ricker’s gas station and convenience store. It will also be located north of the recently approved Harvest Bible Church. West of this subject site is an open space and floodplain area. Please view the Petitioner’s Information Packet for more details. Outstanding Staff Review Comments: General: 1. Remember to include the Development Plan application’s Findings of Fact sheets in your final information packets. 2. Provide the filled out and notarized affidavit of notice of public hearing page of the application. 3. Provide the filled out Notice of Public Hearing page of the application. 4. Provide the filled out and notarized Public Notice Sign Placement affidavit page of the application. 5. Provide a copy of the Official List of Adjacent Property Owners from Hamilton County Auditor’s Office. Site Plan: 6. Trash dumpster location at SEC of the site, along River Rd. might be okay if it is screened with landscaping; the Dept. still needs to discuss/review this. (Perhaps, the dumpster location can be shifted north and be attached to the building that fronts on River Rd. Or, perhaps modify the landscape plan to include some taller shrubs, around/near the dumpster enclosure area, such as arborvitae.) 7. The Dept. would like to see the long rows of parking bumpers removed and replaced with planting islands instead. Thank you for removing the parking bumpers. The Dept. would still like to see additional landscaped islands added to the parking area. Please consult with the City Forester for minimum sizes and dimensions of the islands. 8. The Dept. would like the Petitioner to explore relocating the dumpster for building one, to create a more interesting and lively terminus to the entry drive. We would also be open to moving the building(s) to a more centralized location to “frame” the view at the end of drive. Please see the attached Merchants Pointe PDF. This is an example of how buildings can be oriented around a specific terminus or feature. Thank you for moving the dumpster location. The Dept. would like you to further continue exploring design ideas for the terminus to the entry drive at the western edge of the site. 9. While this site is more vehicle oriented, the Dept. would like to see efforts made to make the site as pedestrian friendly as possible, once the people (and their cars) are there. We would like the Petitioner to explore reworking the building orientations to front along the central drive through the site. Thank you - 5 - for adding the additional sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian connections. The Dept. would like you to further explore making the pedestrian cut-thru through the parking lot more substantial, though. Architecture: See PUD’s Exhibit 10 , Exhibit 10 continued, Exhibit 10 photo examples, and Exhibit 11. 10. Building 1: The Dept. is not in favor of the EIFS-ed in square areas on the upper areas of the building facades. Please amend this architectural feature to be perhaps windows or a stoned-in or bricked-in pattern such as herringbone, basket weave, etc. This area could be a different color brick to call special attention to it, if need be. Thank you for changing the EIFS to cast stone panels, however, the Dept. requests that you to do something unique in those square areas with a pattern or material change. 11. The tan tower elements with the square EFIS areas need to be broken up horizontally. Please provide a base at the minimum. Thank you for updating the building to add a base all the way around. Will a cast stone bullnose watertable course be included similar to on the brick portions of the building? It is hard to tell from the new elevations. Lighting: 12. Please label the wall sconce locations and also provide the design details and/or cut sheets for them. Thank you for adding the wall sconce locations onto the elevations and for providing cut sheets. However, the cut sheet shows SEW10356 and the elevations call out SEW10358. Is this a typo? Also, the cut sheets show three different types of tubes for the lights. Which one will be chosen? Landscaping: 13. Please accommodate more building base landscaping, as spelled out in PUD sections 13.4 and 13.4.D. Please provide an update on the Urban Forester’s approval of these changes. 14. Landscaping needed along south property line, just north of the path. (There are just a few linden trees and turf grass right now...) 15. Need street trees, within the right of way, along River Rd. frontage. Need some additional street trees shown on the plans that would be east of Building 3, close to the entrance to the development. 16. Other requirements were hard to interpret depending on what requirement the landscaping was for; please double check that PUD Sec. 13.5.a and 13.5.b are correctly landscaped as well. Street trees along River Rd will be in the ROW, and then alternately placed trees can then go back along the street side of the buildings and parking areas for the building base plantings and lot perimeter plantings. Please provide an update on the Urban Forester’s approval of these changes. 17. New comment: Please provide adequate building base landscaping along the ROW side (east side) of the building on River Rd per PUD Sec 13.4.E. Updates have been provided and are pending the Urban Forester’s review. 18. New comment: Please provide four shade trees between the parking stalls and River Rd, per 13.5.B. Updates have been provided and are pending the Urban Forester’s review. Signage: 19. The ground sign design will need to more closely match the Legacy PUD signage that was approved with the original PUD. Please see the attached PDF. Thank you for altering the design of the sign. However, it might need a little more work. The Dept. would like to see more of a tower element on the left hand side of the sign, to anchor it and more closely relate to the previously approved sign design. The Dept. would also like to see more height added to the base. Right now it seems very disproportionate to the amount of signage above. Please revise the design. 20. The proposed signage criteria does not match up with what is currently proposed for the main tenant, nor does it follow the new Sign Ordinance regulations for size for wall signs. a. Please delete #3 from the Sign Criteria and replace it with either a reference to the Sign Ordinance or list out that 70% of the Spandrel Panel height and 85% of the Spandrel Panel width is allowed. b. Please delete #4 as the length of the sign should be determined by the Spandrel Panel area, which is confined by architectural elements, not the length of the tenant space. - 6 - 21. Also in the signage criteria, the Dept. would like to see one lighting style specified for this building. In #2, there are references to both internally illuminated letters and back-lit letters. Please choose one lighting style for the building. 22. Please change the West elevation drawings to not show any signage allowed on that façade. It does not face a public street, therefore no signage is allowed. 23. Please change the south elevation to not show signage allowed for the south end cap’s façade. This area does not face a public street, therefore no signage is allowed. We will however, allow for the south elevation- east end cap to have signage facing this way, because that is where the main entrance is for this tenant. It also makes more sense to have all the signage facing the interior parking access with the building as currently proposed. 24. Please note that the north elevation will only be allowed to have signage for those tenants that actually face north. The southern tenants will not be able to have signage facing 146th Street. 25. Please note that only one sign per street frontage is allowed. So if one tenant takes up the area that has both the rectangular signage area and the square signage area, only one may be utilized. Alternative Transportation: 26. Please provide better internal pedestrian paths, circulation and connectivity between the Ricker’s building, two future buildings, and the Church to the south. Thank you for adding the additional sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian connections. The Dept. would like you to further explore making the pedestrian cut-thru through the parking lot more substantial, though. 27. Sidewalks are needed along both sides of the two driveways/streets that enter the site. Thank you for adding the additional sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian connections, but please extend the sidewalk connection all the way across, from west to east, along that main internal drive. 28. The intersection between the two entrances (from 146th and River Rd) looks like it will be very confusing, and possibly dangerous. The two drives intersect with a pedestrian crosswalk and three or four parking spaces straight through the middle of it. It might be better to connect the two landscape islands there to create a T intersection rather than what’s proposed. This would also help with the ability to provide a safe sidewalk connection along the street. Please explore changing this intersection to improve safety and connectivity. 29. Please revise plans to have all sidewalks at 5’ wide, as per the PUD language. Currently they are shown at 4’ wide. Engineer/Road Work: 30. Please verify with the City Engineering Dept. that a traffic study is not required. (A traffic impact analysis is being performed for the access on to 146th Street, and is being performed by the engineer for the Ricker’s project. The County Commissioners have the final say on approving that additional curb cut access point.) 31. Please prepare an estimated construction cost to comply with the Thoroughfare Plan & Alternative Transportation Plan; contact the Engineering Dept. for more details, at 571-2441. This will be provided to the Engineer Dept. 32. The County Commissioners need to approve that proposed access point along 146th Street. Please work with Dave Lucas of the County Highway Dept. on this. The Ricker’s development is currently working with the Hamilton County Highway Dept. for their approval. If this approval is not granted, the development of the River Road shops is intended to move forward, with the entrance being located off of River Road. 33. Please provide a vehicular connection to the Harvest Bible Church site, located just south of and adjacent to this site. Discussions with the owner of the Harvest Bible Church have occureed and it is their desire to not have a connection made between the two developments. There will, however, be a path that runs east-west between the two properties, which will help to provide pedestrian connectivity between the two developments. Floodplain issues: - 7 - 34. There were downstream stormwater hold-ups due to Platinum Properties not getting the offsite work done. What is the status of this? (Please note that the Engineering Dept. will not approve any more construction plans for projects within Legacy until Platinum finalizes their site work for storm water infrastructure.) 35. Can future Building 2 be within the Tunis Gerard Regulation drain and tile system, that 75-ft wide easement? (The petitioner is working with the County to reduce or relocate that easement.) Department Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Plan Commission forwards this item to the September 3 Special Studies Committee meeting for further review and discussion. - 8 - CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT AUGUST 20, 2013 5. Docket No. 13060017 PP: Silvara Primary Plat. 6. Docket No. 13060018 SW: Waiver, SCO Chptr 8.09, sidewalks on both sides of street. 7. Docket No. 13060019 SW: Waiver, SCO Chptr 6.03.24.8, frontage place curbs. 8. Docket No. 13060020 OA: Chptr 14.3, Exhibit E, and Exhibit L (Section 13.2) of PUD Ordinance Z-553-11, total number of access points. 9. Docket No. 13070010 SW: Waiver, SCO Chptr 6.03.25, alley length. The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 360 lots on 266 acres, as well as a PUD Ordinance Amendment request and several Subdivision Control Ordinance waiver requests. The site is located at 11960 Springmill Rd., north of 116th St. It is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development and partially in the Special Flood Hazard Area. Filed by Doug Wagner of Republic Development, LLC, for Silvara Development Company, LLC. The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 360 lots on 266 acres (with a maximum of 422 units overall), as well as a PUD Ordinance Amendment request and several Subdivision Control Ordinance waiver requests. The PUD rezone was brought through in 2011. The PUD ordinance (with exhibits) can be found online at: http://cocdocs.ci.carmel.in.us/weblink/0/fol/595690/Row1.aspx Waiver sought for sidewalks on both sides of street: The Petitioner states that sidewalks are not necessary where lanes and streets, located internally within the development, are one-sided (with homes) or not loaded (with homes) and a sidewalk or trail exists on the opposite side of the street. An example would be on Sheet 3 of the plat, where the street runs along the open space and floodplain areas, and the sidewalk is only on the side of the street that has lots/homes platted on it. The Commission will have to decide if the areas where only one sidewalk on the side of the street is shown makes sense. Waiver sought for frontage place curbs: To go along with the developer’s mantra of low impact design, this waiver is being sought in order to allow for drainage to flow across a frontage place street. It will also reduce the need for tree removal, resulting in more tree preservation. The Commission will have to decide if the areas where they do not show curbs on a frontage place street makes sense. (A frontage place is a permanent public or private way situated parallel to an arterial, a parkway, or a collector street in order to provide access to private lots and to eliminate through traffic.) Ordinance Amendment sought for total number of access points: The petitioner would like to have a total of 4 access points along Springmill Rd. so that the Bridgecreek Area can have a second means of access for any potential emergency responses. Right now, the PUD and its exhibits only allow 3 access points along Spring Mill Rd. Also, as a side note, the Petitioner would like to reduce the number of access points along Clay Center Rd. from 2 access points to only 1. Please note that right now, the City Engineering Dept. is not comfortable with the number of access point along Clay Center Rd. being reduced. The Commission will have to decide if number of access points being changed makes sense for this development. (The Planning Dept. will be relying heavily on the professional opinions of City Engineering Dept., the City Fire Dept., and the City Police Dept. to weigh in on this topic, as it could affect life and safety concerns.) Waiver sought for alley length: This waiver is being sought in order to allow for alley lengths to be increased from 600 feet, up to 730-ft, so, alleys can be 130 feet longer than what the City’s ordinance permits. This should have been originally been a standard added to the PUD ordinance text by the petitioner, so that the proposed site layout could be accommodated for, but it was unintentionally overlooked. The Commission will - 9 - have to decide if slightly longer alley lengths make sense for this development. The Planning Dept. does not see an issue with this waiver request. Please view the Petitioner’s Information Packet for more details. Planning Department’s Outstanding Review Comments: 1. Please provide digital copies of any revised plans. 2. Provide the filled out and notarized affidavit of notice of public hearing page of the application. 3. Provide the filled out Notice of Public Hearing page of the application. 4. Provide the filled out and notarized Public Notice Sign Placement affidavit page of the application. 5. Please provide a draft copy of any neighborhood Covenants & Restrictions. 6. PUD Section 6 and Exhibit L (Section 5): Please double check each lot to make sure they meet all the bulk standards. Perhaps submit a comparison chart of all the lots. (Petitioner stated that a chart will be created showing which lots correspond with each planning area.) 7. Sheet 4 – please add the (text) label for the 25-ft front BSL’s of lots 167 through 178. (The text/label still needs to be added.) 8. Signage: are you proposing any subdivision entry signage at this time? (Please provide more details about the signage location, dimensions, lighting, etc. This includes both the Neighborhood Markers and the Entry Wall Sign. ) 9. PUD Section 11.5.E – please provide a copy of that commitment. 10. PUD Section 14.2.A – Road improvement commitment/contribution. Has this been done yet? 11. Sheet 7 – The phrase “Community Center” is on the plans near the Private Drive…what does that mean? (Please provide more details about the Community Area, its layout, its architecture, etc.) 12. PUD Exhibit E: Connectivity. Please show a pedestrian connection at Suffolk Ln., in Claybridge at Springmill Subdivision, through the currently-proposed Lot 252. Are there any other connections needed that have been missed? (The Dept. needs documents or meeting minutes to show that the northern property owners requested that the pedestrian connection to Suffolk Lane not be made and that the Petitioner committed to this at a public hearing. Also, the Approved PUD connectivity plan you show in your info packet is not correct, as it does not show the proposed conceptual pedestrian connection (in the Estates P1 West) to Suffolk Ln., within Claybridge at Springmill Subdivision.) 13. A 40-ft street cross section is not shown on the plans. Please add. (Petitioner stated that they will do this, but it is still not shown on the plans.) 14. Sheets 8-9: there is a 40-ft right of way shown on the plans. Is this permitted through the PUD or through the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Plan? Is it to be considered a Residential Lane street classification? (The only design requirement that they do not meet is the sidewalk on both sides, which they could accommodate if they reduce the street width to 20-ft…) 15. Sidewalks must be at least 5-ft wide. Please amend the plans, especially the Paseo Area Landscape Detail. (The Paseo Street detail in the packets still shows a 4-ft wide sidewalk in the 50-ft right of way cross section at the top of the page, even thought it was amended to be 5-ft wide in the actual detailed sketch.) 16. Two access points needed/requested along Clay Center Rd., per the City Engineer. (We have a note that Doug Wagner, petitioner, is trying to set up a meeting with the City Engineer.) 17. Southernmost access point along Springmill Rd.: the City Engineer would like to see some modifications. (We have a note that Doug Wagner, petitioner, is trying to set up a meeting with the City Engineer.) - 10 - 18. Sheet 10 or Sheet 11 – please connect the sidewalk to the trail, perhaps by running a connection along the east side of Lot 118, near BMP 30, (within that common area, and not on or through the lot). 19. There needs to be some text placed on the plat that will reference which lots are in what Planning Area, as well as referencing the Bulk and Density Standards for each Planning Area (as PUD Section 6.1 was amended with PUD Exhibit L.) (Petitioner stated that a chart will be created showing which lots correspond with each planning area.) 20. The City Forestry Dept. is concerned about the street trees along Springmill Rd. and Clay Center Rd., and when and how those will get installed. An idea was proposed that that there could be a condition and commitment of approval that those street trees would be installed at a later date, when those streets are widened/improved. Please respond to this idea. 21. Petitioner, please provide updates on whether or not all other City Forestry Dept. issues have been resolved. (The Dept. understands that the perimeter landscaping credit evaluation has occurred, and that the City Forester has stamped it approved.) 22. Alternative Transportation Systems Coordinator comments: A. Please include all paths and sidewalks that are not within right-of-way in an easement. B. Please indicate ADA compliant handicap ramps and crosswalks at all pedestrian crossings. C. Please provide a document showing how the proposed path and sidewalk plan complies with the Exhibit E: Connectivity Plan from Silvara’s PUD. D. Section 10.5 Bicycle Parking of the Silvara PUD states, “Bicycle Parking shall comply with Chapter 27.06 of the Zoning Ordinance. In the Village Neighborhood, covered parking areas (e.g. garages, bicycle lockers) shall count towards the required number of bicycle parking spaces. A minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) of the required number of bicycle parking spaces within the Village Neighborhood shall be covered.” Please show how the proposal complies with this requirement. 23. Signage: Please provide more details on entry monument signage, in particular, lighting, construction, size, height, etc. The Dept. would also like to see more info on any accessory signage throughout the neighborhood, if applicable. 24. Engineering Dept. approval status: (Please provide an update on this.) Dept. Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Plan Commission forwards this item to the Sept. 3 Subdivision Committee meeting for further review and discussion. - 11 - CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT AUGUST 20, 2013 10. Docket No. 13070013 SW: Village of WestClay, Section 10010-E, Waiver. The applicant seeks a waiver from Subdivision Control Ordinance Section 6.03.16 for tangents on reverse curves on streets. The site is located 2555 W. 131st St. (Main St.), but the subject street segment is located right across the street from 2545 W. 126th St. The site is zoned S-2/ Residence- ROSO. Filed by Matt Lohmeyer of Pulte Homes of Indiana, LLC. The applicant seeks a waiver from Subdivision Control Ordinance Section 6.03.16 for tangents on reverse curves on streets. The location of this proposed street alignment is right across the street of, and just north of, 2545 W. 126th Street. Per the Subdivision Control Ordinance (SCO), it states the tangent between reversed curves should be 100 feet, per the current road right of way width. However, this section of street for Village of WestClay Section 10010- E has an amended width that was agreed to by Pulte and the City to change the street right of way to 60-ft wide. This change, in essence, changes the curves, tangents and centerline configurations, thus the petitioner cannot meet the tangents of 100-ft in this particular stretch of road. The Subdivision Control Ordinance (SCO) Section 6.03.16 states: “Between reversed curves on streets, there shall be a tangent of not less than one hundred (100) feet on streets with a right-of-way greater than fifty (50) feet. The minimum tangent shall be fifty (50) feet on streets with a right-of-way of fifty (50) feet or less and that are 1250 feet or more in length from intersection to intersection or from intersection to the center point of the circle terminating a cul-de-sac or cul-de-loop. There shall be no minimum tangent on streets with a right-of-way of fifty (50) feet or less and that are less than 1250 feet in length.” The Department believes that the proposed layout of this subdivision meets the overall City policy of vehicular and pedestrian connectivity. This subdivision (Section 10010) will be connected north to south from 126th Street to 131st Street, as well as east to west tying into the West Village Townhomes of the Village of WestClay. If this tangent waiver was not approved, the alternative configuration would affect the drainage facility (pond) that is already installed, as well as interfere with having sidewalks on both sides of the entrance street. As proposed, the entrance drive and sidewalks fulfill the requirements of the Thoroughfare Plan for a road connection at this location, between 126th Street and 131st Street. The Petitioner has agreed to work with both the Engineering Department, as well as concerned neighbors, to reach a solution that works for all. The Planning Department is in support of this petition. (Please also see correspondence relating to this petition, which was mailed out with your Dept. Reports.) Please view the Petitioner’s Information Packet for more details. Department Recommendation: Only after all comments/concerns are addressed, then the Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Plan Commission votes to suspend its rules of procedure and votes to approve this item this evening.