HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Sub 06-05-01
The petitioner agreed to either write a check for the cost of the trees, or arrange through
an approved nursery to plant them. Rather than having a tree survey done for the entire
site, the petitioner agreed to identify the trees that would be saved.
I
Questions and Concerns:
ATM's that may be extemal--the unit would be free standing and lighting would be self-
contained and vandalism proof The Committee's concern is one of visual pollution.
This will be seen at full Commission under ADLS review.
Charlie Frankenberger said the petition for annexation has been filed, but the public
hearing has not yet occurred. W QuId like to have public hearing on July 16 before the
City Council with 20 days public notice. Adoption of annexation ordinance would be
September 3rd, effective 67 days--probably the middle of November.
Laurence Lillig said the provision was included in the event the County did not want to
vacate the plat--when it is annexed, it no longer becomes a County issue, but a City
Council issue. The vacation procedure will probably be complete before annexation is
completed.
There was discussion regarding cell towers and antennae. It was determined that this is a
non-issue item for the Plan Commission, covered in the City's Ordinance on Cell Towers
and would be an issue for the Board of Zoning Appeals.
I
Location of separate accessory structures was discussed. Ideally, trash refuse structures
would be located closest to the interstate to allow for minimal noise.
The petitioner is planning to do a tree inventory of the site. The landscape plan was
reviewed by Scott Brewer, Urban Forester, and comments and reforestation
recommendations were made at Technical Advisory Committee.
Subdividing the property was discussed. If a subdivision were to occur, the common
areas could be under 4 acres in size, and this was determined to be a non-issue.
Lighting is to be shoebox, typical down lighting--recessed pole, the same as Parkwood--
held to the same foot candle. Caveat to the petitioner on light spillage at the north right-
of-way line of East 96th Street and along the east boundary lines; there is less concern
about abutting businesses, the main concern is abutting residential.
Side Note: Ron Houck said the ATAPCO building has extreme light illumination and
wondered if that was what the Plan Commission had approved. Laurence said he would
check into the situation.
Signage: Two wall signs for each building, consistent with the number of public street I
frontages, 1-465 and 96th Street.
s:\PlanCommission\Minutes\Subdivision Committee Minutes\SubdivisionCommittee200 ljun 2
Definitions were discussed. Substitution of building materials coming under the
Department Director's approval was an issue. The concern is that the CommissiQn is
relinquishing their control of materials, either building or landscape species, and under
the ADLS process, this should have approval by the full Commission. It was determined
that if the change were 10%, it would be OK; if it were a substantial alteration, it would
require full Plan Commission review and was determined not to be an issue.
Charlie Frankenberger undertook to make the requested changes in the PUD and get them
to the Committee by Friday, June 8th.
Ron Houck said the discussions have been completed as far as compatibility issues and
the language of the ordinance.
Norma Meighen recommended Docket No. 25-01 Z, College Hills PUD for approval,
seconded by John Sharpe. Recommended for Approval 5-0.
Item 3. Docket No. 32-01 PP; Woods of Williams Creek Subdivision
The petitioner seeks approval to plat a 73-10t subdivision on 74.78 acres. The site
is located on the northwest comer of West 136th Street and Spring Mill Road.
The site is zoned S-l/Residence.
The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waivers:
32-01 aSW SCO 6.2.1 Suitability of Land
Filed by David Barnes of Weihe Engineering for Williams Creek Woods LLC
Dave Barnes of Weihe Engineering; Michael Walsh for Williams Creek Woods; Matt
Brown of A & F Engineering in attendance.
Issue: Tree preservation and nature conservancy areas.
The covenants and restrictions were reviewed. Ron Houck commented that common
areas become the financial burden of every property owner to maintain; those that have
no interest in a common area wind up paying for a benefit they do not wish to receive.
The basic issue in this subdivision different than any other is that the covenants and
restrictions exist, enforcement is an issue in any subdivision. Ifwe are struggling with
this, it is certain the homeowners will be struggling with this too.
Kent Ward of the County Surveyor's office required certain work to be'done along the
edge of the creek to improve water flow. Because this was an old farm, there are a few
structures buried that would be an attractive nuisance to a child. The petitioner would
like to reserve the right, during the development process, to tear out any foundations,
silos, whatever is there. The covenants have been expanded to try to address the process.
The Ordinance is designed to prevent damage from flood to the homes and other
structures, and preservation of the Creek bed for future drainage purposes. The petitioner
has limited what the homeowners can do in certain areas and per the City's request and
out of economic self-interest, the petitioner has limited what the people can do with their
back yards in the covenants.
s: \Plan Commission \Minutes \Subdivision Committee Minutes \SubdivisionCommittee2 001 jun
3
Laurence Lillig suggested the petitioner look at the City's Fence Ordinance and amend
their restrictions so they are consistent with what the City would require or cross
reference their restrictions with the City's Fence Ordinance.
John Sharpe noted that the petitioner has the ability to make unilateral changes to the
covenants prior to the sale of the lot. Mike Walsh explained the reasoning--ifthere were a
major change between the time the plat is approved and the sale of the lots.
Laurence Lillig said that normally, the Department gets the first draft of covenants and
restrictions at the primary and secondary plat level. Any amendments thereafter by either
the developer or the Homeowners Association are not required to be filed with the
Department.
John Sharpe felt that the Suitability of Land is an issue and the covenants affect the
suitability.
The petitioner responded that there are legal definitions in the restrictions as to what can
and cannot be done within the Department of Natural Resources definition of a floodway.
The floodway encompasses the entire area described in the nature conservation zone,
specifically aimed at trees, but in the DNR description of a floodway, there is essentially
the same wording other than the reference to trees.
Concern: Building within a flood plain. The petitioner says the actual slab of the
basement can be elevated two feet above the lOa-year flood level as defined by DNR.
All construction would have to maintain a certain elevation. Livable space must be two
feet above floodway elevation, including the basement. Buckhorn and Cheswick also
platted lots into the floodway along this same Creek; building pads are in the flood plain,
not in the floodway. Kings Mill at 106th and Towne Road also have the same situation;
this is not a new concept.
Also an Issue: Alternative entrances. The primary entrance is off Springmill, provides
for accel/decellanes, and is across from Springmill Crossing. The secondary entrance is
off Coldwater Drive, stubbing into the existing neighborhood of Buckhorn, and utilizes
the existing and previously approved Buckhorn Subdivision Street, Willliams Creek.
Letters of support have been received from Carmel Police and Fire & Safety. An
Alternative entrance was explored, should Coldwater Drive stubstreet not be available.
Any entrance along 136th Street was ruled out due to the Hamilton County Highway
Dept.'s future expectations of round-a bouts, easements, pipelines, and the close proximity
of the Fire Station. An easement through the adjacent land was requested for
ingress/egress; this request was rejected due to safety concerns. The last alternative was
an ingress/egress point at 141 st Street; this did not meet the traffic requirements and was
not considered a necessity by A & F Engineering.
s: \PlanCommission \Minutes \S ubdivision Committee Minutes \SubdivisionCommittee2 001 j un
4
Ron Houck said the consideration was to eliminate the stub at 141 st and Springmill. The
farther south the entrance is on Springmill Road, the more accessible it is to the people in
the southern part of the subdivision and fire and emergency vehicles.
Comments from members of the public:
Gibb Spawn, Buckhorn Subdivision, said the fire station in Westfield shares an entrance
with the Post Office, Police Department. Mr. Spawn asked if there were a way the
entrance to the fire station could be shared.
Ron Houck responded that the letter received from the Fire Department said their plans
are finalized, construction is under way, and they are unwilling to share a drive.
Paul Bray, Homeowners Association of Buckhorn, commented the obvious suggestion is
moving the entrance farther south. Another concern is foot traffic in connection with the
school and vehicle traffic that creates a safety hazard. Locating an entrance just north of
the Creek and another entrance for safety off 141 st means that the response time from the
fire department doubles. Directing vehicular traffic through Buckhorn does not seem to
be a viable solution. Currently, the traffic backs up in the AM peak hours, also cut
through traffic, and will continue to do so until the roundabout is built.
Art Baxter, Buckhorn Homeowners Association, said the solution would be to put an
entrance on Springmill farther south than proposed, and also an entrance off of 141 st
Street. There will be a lot of traffic to the school through Buckhorn.
Steve Brokauf, Buckhorn Homeowners Association, was concerned with the number of
children in the area, especially those immediately surrounding the stub street. For
persons in Ponds West, Cheswick, and Buckhorn Estates, there seems to be a lack of
concern with safety and speed. Construction traffic has also increased.
Ron Houck asked the Department if it would create a problem if the entrance were not
aligned with Ponds West. Given the concerns and construction, Buckhorn Estates
probably exacerbated the situation. If there were an entrance off 141 st Street, near the
western boundary, and one at the originally proposed location, it would seem to address
all concerns, including safety, and would eliminate the necessity for the stub street.
Laurence Lillig responded that it may not create a problem, but would be less impact if
the entrance were aligned. Mike Walsh said that would ignore the comments from the
Police and Fire Department; they indicated they preferred neighborhoods to be linked.
John Sharpe read from the Fire Dept.'s letter that referred to only one entrance into the
development. It looks as if the Fire Dept. understood that if the Buckhorn Estates were
cut off, there would only be one entrance--that is not the case--there would still be two
entrances.
s: \PlanCommis sion \Minutes \Subdi vis ion Committee Minutes \SubdivisionCommittee2 001 jun
5