HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlan Commission Meeting 2-15-94 LINKSIDE 2-15-94
DAVIS DEVELOPMENT
NOTE: THIS TRANSCRIPT PICKS UP MID-SENTENCE IN JIM NELSON'S
PRESENTATION TO THE PLAN COMMISSION ON FEBRUARY 15, 1994.
JIM NELSON: ....near the intersection of West 96th Street and Shelbourne Road. The real estate
consists of the remaining, undeveloped land lying adjacent to the perimeter boundaries of the 18
hole golf course known as Twin Lakes, formerly Greentree. Davis Development is presenting
for your review, as announced in the Agenda, its plan and primary plat providing for the
development of the real estate for a residential subdivision to be known as "Linkside." Our
presentation this evening will include the review of several exhibits, all of which have been set
forth in the informational booklet which is gray in color and denominated"Linkside" on the front.
The first exhibit will be an aerial photograph of the area lying to identify the locational attributes
of the real estate; the second will be an overlay of the recommended land use map under the
Comprehensive Plan Up-date of 1991; the third will be a colored rendering of the plat; the fourth,
a colored rendering of the site emphasizing the part of the real estate that has been reserved
within the plat for open space and amenity and recreational areas. The next exhibit will be a
colored rendering of that primary recreational area; the next, a colored rendering of the proposed
entrance signage; and then a series of photographs depicting the types of homes that will be built
within Linkside.
Jim Nelson: First, as to the locational attributes of the real estate. The photograph that is
displayed provides a view of the southernmost part of western Clay Township lying northeast of
the intersection of west 96th Street and Shelbourne Road. The area shown includes both land
in Marion and Hamilton Counties, 96th Street being the dividing line, thus the land north
is 96th is here, the land north being in Hamilton County and the land south being in Marion
County. This area contains a wide variety of land uses; in fact, it is a most diverse mix. The
area contains business and commercial, high and low intensity residential, and open space and
recreational areas, the primary one being, of course, the Twin Lakes Golf Course. As we move
north and east of the intersection of 96th and Shelbourne which is located here, we find the
Heritage Baptist Church which is located on the immediate corner. As we move farther east, we
see the Twin Lakes Golf Course which is located here with the Clubhouse facility being in this
area. South of the golf course and immediately north of 96th Street are two residential areas
which were developed in the late sixties and early seventies, Greentree A and B, and then
Greentree Three. Wrapping the golf course to the east, to the north, and to the west is the real
estate to be known as "Linkside." As a point of interest, this parcel of real estate and the golf
course were, for many years, under common ownership until the recent acquisition of the golf
course by Ken Brown, the former manager of the Indianapolis Athletic Club, and others. Being
familiar with the locations of the real estate and its perimeter boundaries, we are next going to
discuss the Comprehensive Plan and existing zoning. First as to existing zoning. Chris, could
you just put that up, the aerial back up, thank you. First, as to existing zoning. Today, the
parcel of real estate has two residential zoning classifications, S-1 and R-1. The S-1 area is 31
1
•
acres in size and is that easternmost part of the real estate that lies adjacent to 96th Street. As
we move north, northwest, and west into the remaining 101 acres, that parcel is zoned R-1; so
we have S-1 as to the 38 acres located here, and R-1 as to the remaining 101 acres. Under the
Cluster Option, the maximum density for development under both the S-1 and R-1 areas have
been pre-established. In the S-1 area under Cluster, the maximum density is 2.4 units per acre;
under R-1, the maximum density is 3.5 units per acre.
Jim Nelson: Now as to the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan Update of 1991
included, as you know, a recommended land use map for the entirety of Clay Township. The
land use map provides for the division of Clay Township into a series of recommended land uses
ranging from high to low intensity residential with a wide variety of business and industrial uses.
We are going to display on the screen the recommended land use map for this part of Clay
Township to show the compatibility of our proposed development plan with the Comprehensive
Plan. Displayed on the screen is the recommended land use for this part of Clay Township;
Meridian is on the east, Michigan Road or 421 is on the west, 96th Street is on the south, and
this map goes slightly beyond 126th Street to the north. The portion of this exhibit that is
colored in lighter green or if you were looking at the, a true copy of the recommended land use
map, it would be bright yellow, this represents the part of Clay Township that is recommended
to be developed lower intensity residential. As you can see, it is the part of this Township that
lies beyond the 421 area. Near 421 or Michigan Road, we find two colors; we find purple which
denominates a recommended land use of regional commercial, as we move farther east, we see
the color red; that color denominates a recommended land use of local commercial. Near the
intersection of 96th and Shelbourne, we find two new colors, green and brown. The green under
the Comprehensive Plan talks about open space or recreational uses, obviously this is the area
where Twin Lakes Golf Course exists today. Linkside is shown outlined in red and it lays over
the color brown, here and here, and lies around the perimeter of the green area. What does
brown mean? Brown talks about a recommended land use of moderate intensity residential which
contemplates a density of 2 to 4 units per acre. The primary plat that we will be presenting this
evening is in compliance with the, not only the zoning S-1 and R-1, but also the recommended
land use of medium density or moderate intensity residential under the Comprehensive Plan.
Our plan to be presented provides for an overall density of 2.4 units per acre. The next exhibit
is the primary plat. This plan did not just occur, it is the culmination of many hours of meetings
with nearby property owners, it has been revised on several occasions both at the instance of
certain comments made from the neighbors as well as comments from the Department of
Community Development. This exhibit identifies the 139 acre parcel of real estate and provides
for its development around the perimeter of the golf course. The golf course is not part of the
land being platted, but is shown in order to show the orientation of Linkside with the golf course.
Linkside will have three primary entrances: one from 96th Street, two from Shelbourne Road.
We will also have additional points of access which constitute connections to existing street stubs
as well as stubs to adjacent and undeveloped real estate. With respect to the existing stubs: to
the north there are two streets that were stubbed into this real estate from the residential
community known as Annally Downs; in additional there is a third wherein right-of-way has been
platted but a street has not been built. We are providing stubs, which is a requirement, as you
know, into both of the existing streets as well as into the platted right-of-way. Now with
2
connections to future, undeveloped land, we have provided one to the north which is to the
residential area to be known as Huntersfield, we have provided for a stub into Towne Lakes, and
we have provided for two stubs along the one here and one here. As we enter Linkside from
96th Street, this being the area colored in dark green, we enter an area that is 39.2 acres in size,
it will have 92 single family lots, the average lot size in this area will be 12,895 square feet, it
will contain the Manor series of homes. These are homes, these are all detached single family
homes located on individually platted lots, they will exist within a price range of $120,000 to
$160,000. Also within this area, we have provided for a single retention pond. It is also the
location of our primary retention pond and the primary recreational area, which is the area here,
which will be available and accessible to all residents of Linkside. Within this area, we will have
a Clubhouse, swimming pool, and tennis courts. As we move north and west into the area that
is colored in yellow on the drawing, this area is 66.3 acres in size and will contain 133 single
family home sites with the average lot size being 10,373 square feet; this will contain the Estate
Series of homes and those will be homes that will exist within a price range of $160, to
$200,000. As we approach the part of Linkside lying nearest and adjacent to Shelbourne Road,
we move into an area that is 33.5 acres in size, it will contain 109 lots with the average lot size
being 6,745 square feet. This will contain the Village Series of homes which are homes that
exist within a price range of$120, to $160,000. With respect to drainage, storm water retention
will be provided both on site and by way of the lakes that will be constructed on the golf course
in con...for....pursuant to an agreement with Twin Lakes. In addition to accommodating our
storm water drainage, it will also, in our opinion, make Twin Lakes a more playable golf course.
A number of off-site roadway improvements are being made; they are not depicted on this
exhibit, but they are very, very important. First is the installation of acceleration and deceleration
lanes on the north side of 96th Street at our entrance. We are also providing acceleration and
deceleration lanes on Shelbourne Road. There is a widening of 96th Street at its intersection with
Shelbourne Road which will provide for center turn lanes in both the east and west directions.
Also improvements are being made to Shelbourne Road; Shelbourne Road is being provided with
a 12 foot driving lane the entire length of our property from our south to our north property line.
In addition, Shelbourne Road is being resurfaced from our north property line south to 96th Street
in accordance with an agreement that we have reached with the Hamilton County Highway
Department.
Jim Nelson: I mentioned on-site recreational opportunities and open space--those are specifically
identified on our next drawing. This is a black and white rendering of the primary plat and it
contains areas that are designated in green; these are the areas that are being reserved throughout
the development for open space and recreation, and in fact constitute approximately 30.3 acres
of the available 139 acres, or 21.8%. The next exhibit is the entrance wall. This is the type of
treatment that will be typical at all of the entrances into Linkside. Our next series of photographs
is a representation of a type of home that will be built in Linkside. Davis Development is not
only the owner and developer of this parcel of real estate, but it is also anticipated that they will
be the exclusive homebuilder within this area. Chris showed you the Estate Series, this is the
Manor Series, and the last would be a typical of the Village Series.
3
Jim Nelson: In summary, we have presented our plat to the Technical Advisory Committee and
it is my understanding that all comments have been addressed. With respect to roadway
improvements, we meet the requirements established by the Hamilton County Highway
Department which has exclusive jurisdiction over the roadway system, our plat is in compliance
with the underlying zoning, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Subdivision Control Ordinance.
Following public comment, Chris and I are available to answer any questions. Thank you.
Jay Dorman: Thank you, Mr. Nelson. There are several people that came late to the meeting,
so feel free to take your coat off if you want, there's a hanger outside, and make yourself
comfortable. I think we have a few chairs left in the front. Since there are a number of people
that I sense want to speak this evening, I would like to review for you our Rules of Procedure.
First, as Mr. Nelson has done, the petitioner shall first present facts and arguments in support of
the case. Comments from organized groups, committees and individuals regarding the merits of
the case will then follow. Comments from those in opposition will be heard first, and then those
with favorable comments will also have a chance to speak. Following comments against and for,
then the petitioner will have some time for rebuttal. The Rules of Procedure also dictate that an
item be limited to 50 minutes time in total. Mr. Nelson was right on time, taking 20 minutes by
the Petitioner, that allows basically 30 minutes, unfortunately, for public comment. It would be
helpful to us, in order to enable as many of you who wish to speak for or against this project,
if any of you are representing an organized group, we would ask that perhaps you come up first
and if you can keep your comments to around five minutes, that would be great. For those of you
who are individuals, it would be very, very helpful if you would do the best of your ability to
limit your speech, discussion to approximately two minutes and not be redundant and repeat any
remarks that may have preceded you, we would appreciate thatSo, with that said, is there any
other discussion that the Planning Commissioners would like to have at this time? So, if we
could call the first person who is speaking against the project As you come up to the podium,
we would ask you to state your name and there should be a pad of paper there as well where you
can write your name and address. Excuse me, push that button, the microphone that I can
control from here is not working this evening.
Robert F. Wiley: My name is Bob Wiley and I live on Greentree Drive, and obviously I am
against it. I have some petitions here with approximately 50 signatures of people in the area that
are against the development effort. I have lived there, my wife and I and kids, a little over 20
years and I think we have been favorable to development taking place in the neighborhood. I
think we are all reasonable people and recognize that that's a part of progress, but I think we
have to say that this is just really kind of surprising. I think the main reason we are upset with
it is due to the high density of the housing. Our lot is perhaps one of the larger lots, but
nevertheless it's almost three-quarters of an acre, and that figures out in my math about 43,000
square feet, and the lots in the southeast corner, which I think are about the medium size lots,
average 12,894 and that makes our lot almost three times the size of the lots that would be going
in, you know, around us, and I guess we just feel that it's a first class Golf Course and we feel
like....we see no reason why there can't be a development effort that takes place that is
commensurate with the rest of the neighborhood and the golf course. I guess that's it.
4
Jay Dorman: Thank you very much. Could I ask those that will be speaking against this
particular project to hold your applause until everybody is done, perhaps.
Alan Klineman: Mr. Chairman?
Jay Dorman: Yes, Mr. Klineman?
Alan Klineman: He stated that he had a petition, did he want to leave that with the Commission?
Jay Dorman: Is the petition left at the podium? If we could...Ramona, introduce that into the
public record, we would appreciate it. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this particular
project? Yes, Sir? If you could If you would be kind enough to state your name and address
and then write that on the pad of paper, we would appreciate it.
Larry Eaton: OK. My name is Larry Eaton and I live at 10100 Shelbourne Road. I just have
a question. You talked about retention ponds on the west side of the project, where I live there
is a great deal of water that stands over there and it drains over on me. Are they still going to
run it over on me? That's the only question I have.
Jay Dorman: Where do you live in relation to the project? Mr. Nelson can address that.
Larry Eaton: I live exactly one half mile north of 96th and a half mile south of 106th, and
there's a lot of water that lays there and I just wondered where it's all going to go. It wasn't very
clear. Pardon me?
Jay Dorman: That will be addressed in the opportunity for rebuttal. Thank you very much. Is
there anyone else who wishes to speak against the project, Yes Sir, if you would be kind enough
to come to the podium, state your name, address, and as well write your name on the pad of
paper.
Greg Sawyers: Yes, My name is Greg Sawyers and I live at 3707 Carwinion Way in the
Ashbrooke Subdivision, and with me is George Land who is one of my neighbors. We have a
petition also with 45 signatures of our neighbors who oppose this subdivsion. The main reason,
in speaking with my neighbors, the main reason we oppose this subdivision, once again is
because of the density issue. We feel that our addition as well as the five other existing additions
that are currently connected with the Linkside Development as proposed, we have an average
density of a little less than 1.7, (repeat) we have an average density of a little less than 1.7 and
the Davis Linkside Development is at 2.4. In looking at them, if you look at the Village Section,
the Manor Section, and the Estate Section, the three styles of homes that they said, if you break
down their acreage, there are 109 homes on 33 acres that's going to be in direct relationship with
the Ashbrooke and Spring Arbor Subdivisions, that's got a 3.25 density ratio for that section of
the addition, and when they came and talked to us, they said they were going to have three basic
different styles, or sections, so when we looked at the community, we wanted to see how that
was going to impact us. So the Ashbrooke and the Spring Arbor Additions have direct
5
connection to that. When you look at the Manor Section which is in the southeast corner, when
you break that down, there's 92 lots on 39 acres at a little over 2.35 density in comparison to the
Greentree Subdivision which has direct connection, you have a 1.79 and a 1.4 ratio and when you
look at the Towne Lakes, the Annally Downs, and the proposed future development of
Huntersfield, they have a little less than a 1.4 average in density. The Estate Section which is
connected to that has a 2.01 and, I guess the main concern that most of my neighbors have is that
when you look at their overall layout and the Spring Arbor addition when it was proposed, it was
proposed based on that it was a transitional neighborhood going from commercial into a
residential area and that is why it was allowed to go in at a 2.1 ratio. When you look at the
Linkside Development, it is not a transitional neighborhood, it's an integral neighborhood in
connection with all the existing neighborhoods and the future development of Huntersfield and
the density ratio of 2.4 broken down into more detail showing each section shows that it does
not meet the Cluster Development Ordinance in respect to compatibility with the existing
neighborhood which is in the opening Docket for the proposed, or the purpose and intent of
Cluster Development, and that's....I guess the main reason that we're opposed to the density is that
when you look at the....George, could you put the other slide back up? When you look at the
density ratios and you look at the lots, the five existing and one future development, when you
add the total lots that all those developments have and the density ratios, we have, not including
Huntersfield which has not been developed at this point, there's less than 300 or there's 311 lots
total in all those neighborhoods, and when you look at Linkside, that's more than double the
amount of lots that currently exist, so the impact and the density that addition's going to have on
the traffic, the schools, and just the overall infrastructure of the area is going to be, it will have
a negative impact and will not be conducive to the existing neighborhoods. So, I would like to
give you our petition, and I've got copies of those slides for all of you.
Jay Dorman: Thank you very much. If you could step to the podium
Jeanne Reid: May I ask a question? I have tried to figure out which is the density for Greentree
Section
Greg Sawyers: Greentree Section I and II has a density, that's the section, I believe it's the
farthest east, the Greentree Section to the east of....it's the one that's actually connected to
the...yeah, and then the one, of the two sections there is one to the east and one to the west; the
one to the east is section I and II, excuse me, A and B, and three is the one to the West in
Greentree Section. You're welcome. Thank you.
George Land: I'm George Land,I live in Ashbrooke. The approximation of my house is actually
just north of Linkside. When they showed you a map with a row of trees going, and you've got
the Linkside Development and the one just north of that, my house...when I walk out my back
yard, and looking at the trees, I'm going to look at them. The fair market value of my house is
somewhere between $260, to $280,000. I have lived in Carmel for two months. I moved to
Carmel for three reasons: school system; quality of life; and property value. My lot is one-half
acre and what I'm hearing tonight is that besides the density issue that we talked about and all,
is that the homes across from me in reasonable proximation and lot sizes 6,000 square feet and
6
120, 130 thousand (dollars), I ask you, if you'd just moved to Carmel and lived there for two
months---I fought this when I was in Pike Township, but what's this going to do to the property
value of my house; so I ask you, I think it's only fair that you look at this whole program and
say "what's reasonable here?" That's all I have to say.
Jay Dorman: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition to the project? The person
in the middle with the sweater, if you could come...state your name and address, and write it on
the paper that would be great.
Daniel L. Rimstedt: My name is Daniel L. Rimstedt and I live at 3106 Towne Drive in the
Towne Lake Subdivision. My house, my wife's and my house, is immediately adjacent to the
northeast corner of this proposed development. Our lot is just under one acre in size and we built
our house there approximately two years ago. The density issue is of deep concern to us and the
issue of the impact on property values. When we chose our lot to build our house on, we chose
it with the knowledge, and after we researched it with our real estate agent, that the zoning
surrounding our house on the undeveloped land was zoned such that it was either R-1 or S-1 and
no development of this type would be developed on those areas with that type of zoning. I
believe that a Cluster Development of this type will severely impact our property values and this
is a very personal plea from my wife and myself because we have significant amount of our
savings that we put into our home, and it's one of the main reasons that we chose the Towne
Lake Subdivision, because we felt that that was a very nice Subdivision, it had a very nice size,
and a Development of this type would be detrimental to us personally.
Jay Dorman: Thank you very much. There's two gentlemen in the back, if one of you wants to
come forward, state your name and address and provide your comments for us.
Gilbert Spear: Hi, my name is Gilbert Spear and I live at 2630 West 96th Street which, on the
map that they showed on the screen, is the small indentation on the west end, the southwest end
from 96th Street,just a little small section in there. According to the presentation this evening,
evidently many of these people in the golf club area were notified of this and questioned,
possibly, is what I'm inferring, about this type of Development and I was, my wife and I were
personally never questioned or asked or asked our opinion about what was going on with this
type of development. I'm curious to know the impact on myself, as a property owner, and the
people that are with me in the golf club area, additional expenses not only property value but the
possible extra expenses that we will incur if this development goes through for water, sewage,
power lines, streets, environmental impact that we don;'t even know about yet. I was curious to
ask that question, I don't know if it can be answered tonight right now, although I would like for
it to be answered to me right now, and just not being notified other than just by a letter, certified
letter, was kind of disappointing when I found out that evidently some other people were
canvassed for their opinions on this. I own six acres in that area, it's the original farmhouse in
that area, and I'm concerned about taxes. I'm a school teacher, I don't make a lot of money but
I love my job. I bought that house because it was an old house that I could fix up and we can
live and I'm afraid that possibility may be slipping away with this development coming in, I'm
now sure, it's kind of an unsure thing for me. I would like to have some more information on
7
it. I would also like for all those that are against this development to please stand right now if
you would please I don't know any of these people, I just moved in in June and....thank you
very much folks.
Andy Thomas: My name is Andy Thomas and I live at 3202 West 96th Street. Could I ask one
of the Davis representatives to put one of their slide displays back on the screen? the color one?
I think it might have been the first one, I think it was the plat....thank you. My wife and I, we
have two children and we're at 3202 West 96th which is right near the entrance to the Greentree,
right near the entrance to the Greentree Estates. We built the house four and one-half years ago.
I gotta be honest with you, my kids probably would like it because of Halloween, obviously you
get to go shopping a lot more houses, but
Jim Nelson: Don't ask me to do that again!
Andy Thomas: I won't. My house isn't depicted but as you can see on the..next to the 33 acres
as Greentree, is that Greentree that winds back, it must be, Greentree makes a large "S" curve
and going back in the neighborhood, you can see a fairly significant difference between the
proposed lots and the current number of houses as they have lightly sketched in where the houses
are and the driveways. I think you can see a pretty obvious disparity between the differences in
lot sizes. Also, when I was looking at that thing, I was also looking at how they were adjoining
the adjacent property and what I'm seeing is a lot of foliage, a lot of trees, a lot of bushes
growing up right against all the property lines and I guess I would hide that Subdivision too
behind a lot of things to camouflage it from the adjacent neighborhoods. So, it's pretty obvious
that they realize there is a pretty big disparity between the adjacent lots so they build up, I mean,
you might as well put up fences I guess, that's basically what we're doing here with all the
landscaping is we're basically camouflaging this Subdivision and we're putting it right into the
middle of the gentleman of Ashbrooke put together a very good presentation on the type of lot
densities...my knee just broke a shelf, off the record....but you can see that what they have done
is they've built a lot of lots there and I'm against it, having just bought a home there in the last
four and one-half years. I also think that they realize it's right in the middle of neighborhoods
that don't have that level of density and I think approving it would be a bad mistake and an
injustice to everyone who has lived there for 20 years and the gentleman who just moved in two
months ago. I mean, I would just go crazy if I was him, and I think you need to reject this thing
and let's start over and get all the neighborhoods involved and if Davis wants to build some nice
homes, I've seen some good homes from that Company, and I think we could all come to terms
and help them decide on what would be right for that property. I mean, we don't want to see
them not be in business--they've been in business in this community for a long time, and I know
they build great homes, but I think this is the wrong place to build the type of home that they
are proposing for this lot.
Jay Dorman: In the interest of time, could I see a show of hands of those who wish to speak in
opposition to the project who have not had an opportunity to do so? Five, why don't we keep
proceeding. Yes, Sir. If you could come to the podium, state your name, address, and put that
on the pad of paper, that would be great.
8
John Allen: My name is John Allen, 2620 West 96th. I have with me a representative of the
Osborne family who lives next door, we each have five acres. I've been there ten years, they've
been thirty-five years. When I got our permits, I did a lot of discussion with them and was told
that we would never have multiple family housing, which is what one side of this project is, in
our area. Now, they put pictures up and the pictures showed clearly the single houses, but when
they put the pictures of the multiple family housing up, it didn't show what the whole thing
looked like, it was cropped so that it only looked like a single house, but it isn't, and it is high
density housing, it is not anything like is in Hamilton County in our area; we already have such
a density problem that when we try to pull out on 96th Street, there are times of day you can't
hardly get out there--it is a hazard just to pull out on 96th Street. I live the length of a football
field and a half from the stop sign down there and many times a day the traffic is lined up clear
past my house to that stop sign, we've got kids in school--the schools are crowded. I understand
the single houses that they have and I can see that that would be acceptable, but when they start
putting in this row housing and the pictures don't look like it really looks, and it's a fire hazard.
If they have....if a fire gets in one it can sweep through all of it. So, it just compounds a lot of
problems that we have in our area and it also devalues some...I've got a four bedroom house but
there's a lot of houses in the area that cost a lot more than mine, and if I had the kind of
investment that they've got in the houses in that area and I saw something like this coming in,
I would be petrified. We're not ready for it; we don't have the roads, we don't have the schools,
we don't have anything and they don't offer to do it. Thank you.
Jay Dorman: Next person? Would you like to come on up?
Doug Gee: My name is Doug Gee and I live at 3742 Carwinion Way in the Ashbrooke
Subdivision. I don't know, obviously you have a tough job; you have to balance between the
wants and the needs of developers and the people that live in the Community. As far as I can see,
and when they initially asked for public comment or to come and see what kind of subdivision
they were bringing, I was at the very first meeting and I know Mr. Nelson has said that they put
together this subdivision, or these subdivisions based upon communication with the communities
in the area, and we at the very beginning told them that we were very concerned about especially
the homes as this gentleman mentioned earlier that are real close to each other, and those homes
are going to be directly across from homes that are very expensive homes and I can see where
people are real concerned. So you have to balance between the developer and us, and
I...sometimes I think if you look at other communities and maybe see what kind of mistakes they
may be making, and I don't know if you saw on the news, one of the local news programs this
last week about Fishers and some of the problems they're having. They questioned people like
you who are running, or trying to make sure that Fishers is a well-developed community and the
jist of the program was that they had not done a good job. Fishers is bustin' at the straps, exactly
because of these types of developments and I can say that that program or news article didn't
surprise me at all when I saw it because two years ago, I moved to this area; I looked at Fishers,
I looked at two communities real closely: Fishers and Carmel. They were drastically different.
I obviously live in Carmel. Fishers had developments very much like this where homes, smaller
homes are right on top of large, expensive homes, and when you have that, you bring in a lot of
people in a tight area and the density is just unreasonable. So, it causes a lot of problems for
9
the roads, the schools, and they are experiencing over (end side A of tape)
Jay Dorman: Step to the podium please.
Sandra Lichte: My name is Sandra Lichte and I live in Annally Downs, 3107 Annally Drive.
Our home backs up to this addition. our back yard is right next to the addition. Of course, we
have the same feeling about the density. For one thing, if you have three hundred and thirty
some homes on this property, you are going to have probably over 700 cars. Most people have
two cars per family now. Secondly, you are going to have school problems. Another concern of
mine is, as far as I know, in that area there is only one Fire Department which is at Shelbourne
and 116th Street. That's a problem. Also Police protection--there's not enough. There's hardly
anybody out there in our area for police protection. You don't get the Carmel police, you have
to call the Sheriff. Another thing, it is my understanding that when property is developed, it
should be developed to the highest and best use. I do not consider this the highest and best use.
This is around a golf course, it should be homes that would be at least no less than half acre lots,
three quarter acres. It's beautiful land, why ruin it with putting all these cluster homes on there
and all these other homes right next to each other. I don't understand why a developer would
want to spoil this beautiful ground around the golf course and I guess that's about all I have to
say. One other thing, I would like to ask what is the...what are your bordering this with, it looks
like some kind of shrub or something. Is it mounds of dirt or shrubbery, or what is it?
Jay Dorman: They will answer that in their
Sandra Lichte: Well one reason I'm interested in that is because we have a problem, a water
problem out there. If there are mounds, if these mounds of dirt that we see all over Carmel are
put behind our property and the property next door on both sides, it's going to cause a bigger
problem because that water will not drain off.
Jay Dorman: We'll entertain another, two more comments in opposition and then we'll ask for
those who are in favor of this particular project to speak, and then Mr. Nelson will have time for
a rebuttal. Then the Commission will ask some questions as well. For the information of those
of you, I would assume many of you who are not in favor of this project, the procedure is that
it will go to a sub-committee for further study, questions for the developer, so there is additional
time for your input and concerns as well. The subdivision committee is open to the public as
well.
Jude Majors: Thank you. My name is Jude Majors and I recently moved into the Ashbrooke
residential area at 3742 Trewitham Lane. I moved from Pike Township and I moved from an
area very similar to the one being proposed. I want to vote against it because I moved to the
Carmel area for a quality of life issue and the property value of my home. I feel very threatened
by the fact of what would be built immediately across the street on Shelbourne. The other
significant issue that has already been spoken of but I simply want to reinforce it, is the cost of
the infrastructure around this construction. I don't believe the area is ready for it. Traffic is
already somewhat of an issue on Shelbourne and 96th Street and I feel it would be a great
10
disservice to the citizens in that part of the Carmel area to have this construction done.. Thank
you.
(Jim Kaufman) Good Evening. I didn't come with the intention of talking tonight but taking
some notes and seeing the material that's been supplied and put up here, I felt like I needed to
say some things.
Jay Dorman: Would you be kind enough to state your name and address for the record.
Jim Kaufman: No problem. I'm Jim Kaufman, I live at 9805 Greentree which is just inside the
western edge of the southeastern lot there. I'm concerned with the density. My particular
property right there shows that I'm already encroaching on their property. I looked at their
drawings and there's two properties in my block alone that 14 of their properties will back up
against. I'm very concerned that I look out the back of my property and have to look at the back
of seven other houses. I'm concerned with several things. I'm very familiar with the area; I walk
it constantly, but these drawings are not a true depiction of things as they stand or will stand. The
whole Greentree Subdivision A, B, and Greentree Three need to be included in there for you to
get the proper significance or the full significance of the lay of the land. They addressed the
street, this acceleration and deceleration, there's not enough space from where the road exits onto
96th Street to accelerate or decelerate and you're doing so at a....on a downward grade. The
intersection of Shelbourne is an accident looking for a place to happen. Let me look at my notes
here. The significance of this higher density is lessened just in the fact that without these added
drawings of how it really is now, and what jamming that boxed area and all the way around the
golf course that so many of these people really and truly love, I've yet....I've been to several of
the meetings, I've always signed my name and made a point of...made my presence known. I've
asked for and received no comment about or any guarantees that Davis intends to finish the rear
of their homes any better than the examples that they referred us to in each of the meetings that
they've had. They asked us to go look at some of their examples. I have and I find the backs
of these homes nothing like I want to look out the back of my house and see. And then,just as
a passing comment and not in any way inflammatory, but right where my property is, it's not the
only access to that southeastern block there. Just the other day, the good neighbor policy that
the Davis people eluded to was violated; they drove across my property, ran down a bush, and
told my wife that was the only way they could get onto the property. And that's not going to
happen. If that's the kind of neighbors we've got, I can do without that. Thank you.
Jay Dorman: Thank you, Mr. Kaufman. We'll enter....
David Cremeans: Could I ask him a question?
Jay Dorman: Yes, Dave, go ahead.
David Cremeans: Jim, I want to make sure I understood you. You said that there....in the back
of your house there will be seven houses built. Is that what you said? Seven properties?
11
Jim Kaufman: If you take the southern to the northern property line....
David Cremeans: From your existing lot there will be seven new houses...
Jim Kaufman: Yes, facing the eastern property line there will be seven different properties.
David Cremeans: Thank you, I just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly.
Jim Kaufman? Inaudible. (Apparently pointing out his property and surrounding area on the
overhead without benefit of microphone.
Jay Dorman: Thank you, Mr. Kaufman. We'll entertain one more comment. The gentleman in
the front row. Let's see how time permits. There will be additional opportunity for input at
subdivision as well. Sir, if you could state your name and address, that would be great.
Tom Williams: Good Evening. My name is Tom Williams and I live at 3203 Dogwood Lane
in the Greentree or one of those Greentree areas, I'm not sure whether it's A, B, or Three, but I
think it's B. I'm just going to be very brief and sum up some of the comments that were made
this evening. I think the Commission has a tough decision ahead of it; it always does in these
situations where people want to take property and they want to develop property they have
possession or control of, and then there are other people that question the use that they want to
make of that property or question the way in which it is to be developed. I would hope that the
Commission would take into consideration the overwhelming opposition by the existing neighbors
to this particular project. There's a lot of people here tonight. There's a lot of things going on
that people would rather be doing than to be here, but they have shown up because of their
concern about this particular development. You've heard the concerns expressed revolving
basically around questions of density, impact on land values, property values of their existing
investments, and you've heard concerns about the impact on infrastructure. Those are all
legitimate concerns with a project of this nature. As has been pointed out, this project is going
to double the number of homes in a particular given area and as the last gentleman pointed
out,there is tremendous disparity in regard to density. We feel that the developer has largely
ignored the characteristics of the current neighborhoods that will be bounded by and around this
particular development. We don't think that the neighbors in the area presently are opposed to
developing this property. I mean it's been stated that development is expected and it's going to
in an area...in a growing part of the metropolitan Indianapolis area. But we do feel that the
development should be consistent with the existing neighborhood. This project clearly is not.
We do not feel that increasing the density of the land use in and around our existing
neighborhoods is the right thing to do; it's not the proper way to go. It's not the answer to
developing this property and maintaining any kind of consistency. There's other land in this part
of the City that if the developer wants to acquire the property and develop a lower density or
excuse me, a higher density project, they can do that. They don't have to do that on these parcels
of property. We ask that the developer be a good neighbor with us. We ask the developer to
go back to the drawing board and come up with a plan that is more consistent with what we
already have invested in that particular part of the town. Mr. Chairman, members of the
12
Commission, I appreciate this opportunity. We're ha
opportunity to come
and appear before you this evening and please take into y tcons de ationhat we havethis that the people that are
there do not like this project for a number of very good, very sound reasons.
Jay Dorman: Thank you, sir. Is it possible that you have something completely different that has
not been said by any can you keep it go ahead.
John Allen: I'm John Allen. I was chairman of building and grounds at Heritage Baptist Church
which is at the corner of 96th and Shelbourne. They mentioned that they were going to improve
Shelboume--I personally negotiated a lease with the telephone company which put cables along
there and they also have a buried station in there and on the other side of the road, you have a
cemetery. I know that they have good intentions of improving that road, but I wanted to call to
your attention some very big problems with that, OK?
Jay Dorman: Thank you very much. At this point in time, due to the you can leave it
there We would ask for anyone who wishes o speak in favor of this project, please raise their
hand and come forward, Sir?
Ken Brown: Did you ever feel like the Lone Ranger, ladies and gentlemen? Good, I've got
white bullets. My name is Ken Brown and I'm president of Twin Lakes Golf Club. I'm here to
represent the owners of approximately 120 acres that this proposed development is going to
surround. During the last 8 1/2 years that we have owned Twin Lakes Golf Club, we have seen
several developers come in with various plans for development of the property around Twin
Lakes Golf Club. It is our understanding that this development that is proposed is under the
authorized density for that property. We feel by far it's the best project that we've looked during
the 8 1/2 years. For that reason, we are in favor of the project. Thank you.
Jay Dorman: At this point in time, the public hearing will be closed, this portion of it, and we
will ask for rebuttal from the petitioner. Mr. Nelson?
Jim Nelson: Thank you. Rather than referring to this as rebuttal, it probably is intended to
simply be an answer to some of the specific questions that were asked and in fact a very brief
answer. Mr. Larry Eaton talked about our drainage plan. First of all, our drainage plan has been
presented to the Technical Advisory Committee and has been found acceptable, specifically as
to Mr. Eaton's question, beginning at Shelbourne Road and running eastward, basically our storm
water drainage system runs from west to east and to the series of retention ponds that are shown
here and ultimately into a pipe under 96th Street at this point. There are several existing
drainage problems in the area today. It is our belief that our drainage system will improve the
existing conditions. Sandy Lichte asked about what's around the perimeter of this property. The
Cluster Option requires that there be a 20 foot perimeter green belt; as it relates to this property,
it's both interior and exterior. It's around the entire perimeter of the property as well as within
and adjacent to the golf course. Around the perimeter property, basically there are existing stands
of trees; our 20 foot green belt constitutes a landscaped area or preservation area within which
area the existing trees will be preserved. I think there was one very, very important
13
misunderstanding, and if I contributed to that I apologize. All homes to be built in Linkside are
single family detached homes on individually platted lots. While the Cluster option permits
attached units, our plan does not provide for them. I respect the right of the members of the
public to express their opinions and thoughts regarding a development, but I think it's very
important that we also, and maybe they realize, the reason that we're here this evening. We're
here to plat a parcel of real estate that is zoned for the proposed use, whose proposed use is in
compliance with the Comprehensive plan and whose proposed plan is in strict compliance with
the subdivision control ordinance. We are not here requesting a rezone of the real estate; we are
not here requesting a land use variance; we are here requesting
of land that is zoned S-1 and R-1. We talked about density. We talked about the Comprehensive
Plan recommending two to four units per acre; ours is 2.4. We talked about the density permitted
under the Cluster Option being 2.4 in S-1 and 3.5 in R-1. That's what the law entitles us to have.
What we have provided is very simply this: we have provided for 2.4 which is basically the
density permitted if all of it were developed Cluster under S-1, not R-1. We have basically
disregarded the 3.5 and have limited it to the maximum density allowable under the Cluster,
assuming the entirety of the development were zoned S-1 today. Thank you for your time.
Jay Dorman: Mr. Nelson? Do members of the Planning Commission have questions of Mr.
Nelson or of Staff. Mrs. Reid?
Jeanne Reid: I'm....having listened to the public and being sensitive to their concerns, Pm a little
disappointed in this development in the sense that when we all looked at that Merriam Report
that we valued so highly over a year ago, one of the things that I think came out of that was the
idea of consistency from neighborhood to neighborhood, and one of the ideas that came up at that
time which seemed to me to work well in situations like this was a gradual, working in from one
kind of housing, one size of property, and if you take that piece of land, to work yourself back
in, perhaps put your higher density in the middle of this development and be sensitive to the
areas around by making the lot sizes larger, to be more compatible with the neighborhood.
Certainly this is probably one of the most unique developments that we've ever come across, in
front of us, in the sense that it is already built up around, pretty much surrounded, by already
defined neighborhoods of particular sizes and even though each neighborhood is a little varied
in its size, I don't see any working here of trying to blend in smoothly with a neighborhood that's
immediately adjacent to you. That was something we as a Plan Commission certainly thought
was a very valuable way of developing in Carmel that would make everybody compatible,
working together, and make Carmel look good. To have this drastic changing certainly doesn't
feed into that kind of plan that we all hope to see in Carmel. The other problem that I have is
when we use this Cluster Option that we have, my understanding of the use of the Cluster Option
was to be creative with the land that was there. In the pictures, perhaps I'm wrong, but in the
aerial views that I see, I see a lot of nice, treed areas; when I look at the actual development and
site plan, I don't see those areas left, I see them built upon or at least plotted, and wondered what
are we saving, what is our reason here for using the Cluster Option? Cluster was to be creative;
to take something that exists on the land and save it, preserve it, build a few more houses maybe
to the left or to the right of a large lotted tree area, you know, we all could maybe buy that a
little more if we were preserving some nice, visual looks, some lake maybe that was there....I
14
don't see that here. On the map I see what I think are tree areas, but I don't seem them being
preserved, I see them plotted right over, so I guess I'm asking what is the creativity here and the
actual reason we're going for the Cluster Option?
Jay Dorman: Thank you, if you could hold your applause until the end....Mr. Cremeans?
David Cremeans: Thank you Mr. President. Jeanne, I agree with everything you said, I think it
makes a lot of sense. My concern is the density of the project. I think we've touched briefly on
the traffic; I also live very close to this area, I live on Greentree Drive, and my personal
experience is that at 7:30 in the morning, traffic today is from Shelbourne Road to Michigan
Road and to add 3150 trips which is the number in the traffic study, I would assume that that line
would get one or two cars longer. In the evening, at 5:00 when you come westbound, I'm sorry
eastbound on 96th Street to Towne Road, the traffic is backed up from what is currently the
entrance into Greentree estates from Towne Road to that entrance. Again, those 3150 cars or
3150 trips would impact the traffic. So, I have all the concerns that Jeanne has plus the traffic
thing is totally untenable.
Jay Dorman: Any other comments from members of the Commission?
Staff? Does staff have any open comments or concerns? Alan?
Alan Klineman: Just a couple quick questions, Jim. Do you know what the school is for his
area? Is it Carmel Elementary. Orchard Park, OK. Does anybody know the capacity at the
present time of Orchard Park School? I'm getting answers but not from you, Mr. Nelson--from
the assembled group! You said that you were going to make some improvements to 96th and
Shelbourne, but I just never heard the nature of those improvements, and if I'm supposed to keep
asking, what's the time for the buildout of this proposed project do you estimate? and whether
ftl
there's passing blisters on the other side of 96th Street and Shelbourne Road where you have
accesses?
Jay Dorman: Other comments by members of the planning Commission? Mr. Nelson?
Jim Nelson: Chris, What do you anticipate the buildout to be? Four years? Four years. With
respect to the roadway improvements, we are proposing the installation of acceleration and
deceleration lanes on the north side of 96th at the entrance to Linkside together with a passing
blister on the south side of 96th Street, specifically at the intersection, we are widening the
intersection of 96th and Shelbourne to provide for center turn lanes in both the east and the west
direction; that has been recommended in the past; we are stepping forward and committing to do
that. With respect to Shelbourne Road, on the....
Alan Klineman: Shelbourne Road will not be widened but 96th Street will.
Jim Nelson: No, No, now as to Shelbourne Road: At the intersection of 96th and Shelbourne,
we are providing for center turn lanes in both the east and west direction, so that would be a
widening of 96th Street. Now, on Shelbourne Road, as far as the east side, we are widening the
15
east, the lane on the east side to 12 feet in width providing for a three foot shoulder and in
addition resurfacing the west one-half from our north property line all the way down to 96th
Street. Those are the roadway improvements that are contemplated.
Jay Dorman: Mr. Houck:
Ron Houck: I'd like a clarification of that last statement. On Shelbourne Road it's widening 12
feet or widening to 12 feet.
Jim Nelson: Widening to 12 feet.
Ron Houck: In other words, the current lane width is less than 12, it's 9 feet or...
Jim Nelson: It's nine, nine to ten.
Ron Houck: So you're adding three foot of pavement and a three foot shoulder; so, same number
of lanes,
Jim Nelson: Yes.
Ron Houck So, same number of lanes, just wider lanes.
Jim Nelson: That's correct.
Ron Houck: The other thing, on the stub streets to the north, there are, I guess, on the part that
extends farthest north, there are two stubs provided into, is it Annally Downs?
Jim Nelson: Yes.
Ron Houck: Then did I hear you mention about right-of-way but there's no matching street?
Jim Nelson: Yes, you did. Those are shown here. Two existing streets extend southward into
this real estate; one is here, one is here. We are providing as required a connection to both of
those streets. There is a platted right of way that extends north to south in Annally Downs
approximately here, however,the roadway has not been installed. We are providing a connection
to that.
? Member of the public making comments.(Inaudible)
Ron Houck: Mr. Chairman, the public hearing's been closed!
Jay Dorman: Thank you. If you could be kind enough to hold your comments while the
Commission finishes its questioning. Once again, this will eventually go before a subdivision
committee and that is open to the public as well. Mr. Hock?
16
Ron Houck: In regard to the part that....the two stubs mate to existing streets within Annally
Downs? and on the third, there is a platted right of way that you're dedicating to match?
Jim Nelson: No, that we are stubbing to match.
Ron Houck: OK Is that anticipated by the County to be connected?
Jim Nelson: No. It is just simply required.
Ron Houck: How far into Annally Downs does the, I guess, is it dedicated right of way?
Jim Nelson: It is my understanding that it is shown on the plat; and thus it would be dedicated.
Ron Houck: OK. How far into the subdivision? Does that extend to an existing road in Annally
Downs?
Jim Nelson: Chris, do you know how far that....one lot? One lot depth.
Ron Houck: Currently, it runs between existing homes, is that correct? What's the distance
between those stubs? I guess there are three stubs there in Annally Downs, is that correct?
Jim Nelson: Chris, do you have a guess on that? Between each one? About 300 feet on each
one.
Ron Houck: And the stub that goes in to the west of that goes into, what is it, you described it
as undeveloped property.
Jim Nelson: No, that is a stub into Huntersfield....
Ron Houck: But currently undeveloped?
Jim Nelson: Well,the primary and secondary plat have been approved, and it's my understanding
that development will soon commence.
Ron Houck: OK . For the number of lots that you have planned, does the traffic analysis
support that number of ingress/egress points?
Jim Nelson: You mean, does it require it?
Ron Houck: No, but I mean, I assume this was developed in conjunction with a recommendation
by your traffic planner in support of how many points of ingress/egress to have.
Jim Nelson: I don't think that's I don't believe that's correct, Mr. Hock. The reason for our
17
connections, both to existing stubs and to undeveloped real estate is because it's required by
Subdivision Control Ordinance and we wanted to present a plat that did not require any
variances.
Jay Dorman: Are there any other comments by members of the Commission? Mrs. Clark?
Sharon Clark: You've just discussed the improvements, could you tell us again about the
Shelbourne/96th Street intersection? How many lanes will be available each way? It sounds to
me as if that intersection is already stressed, and I'm curious about the total lanes.
Jim Nelson: Chris, do you want to help out?
Chris White: At the intersection, we would be widening 96th Street either partly on the north
and partly on the south, or totally one side or the other to provide for a center turn lane so that
there would be a total of three lanes: one going east as a through lane, one going west as a
through lane, the center lane would be opposing turn lanes at the intersection for
eastbound/westbound traffic making a turn.
Sharon Clark: And what kind of stacking ability is there for that turn lane? How wide...how far
back is it going to allow cars to stack?
Chris White: The final design on that would comply with the traffic study requirements; I don't
have an exact length....
Sharon Clark: And Shelbourne is only going to have one lane north and one lane south?
Chris White: That's correct.
Jay Dorman: Any other comments by members of the Commission or comments from Staff at
this time? Mrs. Reid?
Jeanne Reid: I had a question also about the intersection and improvements. In reading your
recommendations and conclusions on what needed to be done with the roads, there is always the
word in there "cooperation with the County" and I was wondering how much are your doing?
Do you have a commitment from the County yet to I mean, are you looking for funding from
them to do this improvement, are you taking on this improvement totally, how much of this
improvement are you taking on because it does say in cooperation with the County, so I was, you
know, trying to understand how much you're responsible for and what the County has committed
to.
Jim Nelson: The....The County has approved the roadway improvements which I have explained.
There will be a sharing in this respect, and to my knowledge, only in this respect: We shall add
one inch of surface to the entire width of Shelbourne Road from our north property line to 96th
Street. The County has agreed to provide the wedging and leveling of the existing Shelbourne
18
Road prior to Davis adding the proposed asphalt surface; so the County has agreed to do that.
The County has also agreed to re-locate the existing
of
Shelbourne Road which are presently located within the ountyRight-of-Way. That would make
that a County project, so their participation is two-fold: to remove the poles, and the wedging
and leveling of Shelbourne prior to the topcoat of asphalt; everything else is at our expense.
Jay Dorman: Mr. Najjar:
Salim Najjar: Mr. Nelson, what about 96th Street? What is the County's involvement in 96th
Street? None?
Jim Nelson: Well, No, not as far as payment, we pay for that.
Jay Dorman: Mrs. Clark?
Sharon Clark: I'm sorry, I forgot to ask about the passing blisters on Shelbourne.
Jim Nelson: Chris, aren't those inaudible
Sharon Clark: So they are not needed?
Jim Nelson: Exactly.
Jay Dorman: Any other comments by members of the Commission? There are three, excuse me,
four pieces of correspondence; there are two petitions that, Ramona, if you could enter into the
public record; a letter to Jim Nelson from Chris White, a memorandum dated January 12, 1994,
as well as a letter that we received in our packet from a Dr. Robert Topp. If you could include
those in the public record, that would be good. And, excuse me, there is one more that we
received, it's from a Joseph Alfonso on Elm Drive in Carmel. At this point in time, I would
entertain a motion by a member of the Commission for the next step in the process Dave, did
you want to ....?
Dave Cunningham: This officially does not require a motion; the next step for this would be to
refer it to Subdivision Committee on March first. We'll meet, depending on the size of the
crowd, we may meet in this room, and that would be the first Tuesday in March.
Jay Dorman: I would probably recommend that you meet in this particular room. It may be an
appropriate time for me to review some of our procedures for approval or denial on a particular
project, and Mr. Hock referred to those in the last session; it's section 5.1.7 in this particularly
large, blue book that all of you should have, and I don't want to take any more time and read
those, but I will ask the Department to perhaps photocopy those and get those to you and have
you interpret those as you see fit as you review this project or any other projects. Thank you.
End.
19