HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlan Commission Subdivision Meeting 03-01-94 LINKSIDE TRANSCRIPT
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION COMMITTTEE
MARCH 01, 1994
Docket No. 5-94 P.P., a Primary Plat (cluster) application for a subdivision named Linkside.
Jim Nelson: Members of the Committee, for your official record, I am Jim Nelson and I
represent the developer, Davis Development, L.P. To my left is Chris White, Chris is president
of Davis Development Corp. and also is a registered engineer. Chris will assist in our
presentation this evening. One clarification, I believe it was mentioned, I thought I heard, in the
Agenda that this was Springmill Road--this is located on Shelbourne, Shelbourne and 96th Street.
Paul Spranger: OK, we stand corrected on our Agenda tonight, it does say Springmill Road and
it stands corrected.
Jim Nelson: Thank you very much. As you announced, Davis Development is presenting for
your review this evening, a Primary Plat for a new residential community in the southwestern
most part of Clay Township to be known as "Linkside." Our presentation this evening will
address first the locational attributes of the real estate, its current zoning, and its recommended
land use under the Comprehensive Plan; second, we will review the development plan for
Linkside as represented by the Primary Plat; third, we will review together the homes to be
located in Linkside as to size, architectural design, and style; fourth, we will review the proposed
roadway improvements that will accompany the development of Linkside; and fifth, we will
address or give our response to certain statements that were made at the Public Hearing regarding
our Primary Plat request. Prior to review of the development plan for Linkside, I thought it
might be important to clarify two matters which I felt were a source of misunderstanding at the
public hearing on the primary plat: The first is that it should be very clear to all that all homes
to be constructed on Linkside will be single family, detached homes on individually platted lots.
Our development plan does not contemplate attached, single family homes--all will be single
family, detached homes. Secondly, Davis Development is not before this Commission seeking
a rezone of the real estate, it is not before this Plan Commission seeking a variance from the
Subdivision Control Ordinance permitting different development standards for the real estate.
We are only before the Plan Commission seeking Primary Plat for a residential subdivision
pursuant to the development standards of the zoning ordinance and the Subdivision Control
Ordinance, a right that is granted to us by law. In this regard, our charge is to present to the
Commission a Primary Plat that is in strict compliance with the Subdivision Control Ordinance
and the Zoning Ordinance; we will do that, seek.
Jim Nelson: Our attention is first directed to the real estate; I'll get some locational attributes,
its current zoning, and the recommended land use for you under the Comprehensive Plan. The
photograph that is displayed on the easel, it is also the same photograph that was in the
introductory section of your informational booklet, provides an aerial view of the southern most
1
part of Clay Township lying near the intersection of east or west 96th Street and Shelbourne
Road. Chris will point this out as we go through it. The perimeter boundaries of the 139 acre
parcel of real estate are outlined in yellow on the aerial photograph and is shown with respect
to perimeter boundaries. The west boundary line of the real estate is Shelbourne Road, the
southern most boundary of the real estate is 96th Street, and basically the 139 acre parcel of real
estate simply wraps around to the west, the north, to the east, an 18 hole golf course known as
Twin Lakes Golf Course which was established, I believe, in the mid 1960's. It was mentioned
at the Public Hearing that until recently, the Golf Course and the 139 acre parcel of real estate
were under common ownership until the recent purchase of the golf course by Ken Brown and
others. Ken was the former manager of the Indianapolis Athletic Club. With respect to the
zoning and the Comprehensive Plan, these two documents are very, very important when we are
considering land use matters of the Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision Control Ordinance which
are often viewed as one, are extremely important when we are talking about the platting of real
estate.
Jim Nelson: First, about the Zoning Ordinance and how this parcel of real estate is zoned today--
there are two classificaitons, S-1 and R-1. The part that is zoned S-1 is the square shaped parcel
that is 38 acres is size and located adjacent to west 96th Street, that's 38 acres. The balance of
the 139 acres or 101 remaining acres which Chris is outlining for you here is zoned R-1. When
we talk about density, density under the Cluster Option has been established by the Zoning
Ordinance and so under S-1, the maximum density for the S-1 part of this development is 2.4
units per acre. The maximum density for the R-1 portion which is the remaining 101 acres, is
3.5 units per acre. This will become important for later discussion. That's the way the property
is zoned today, S-1, R-1, each as to a part.
Jim Nelson: Now the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan Update of 1991
recommends for this parcel of real estate medium density residential use. That contemplates a
density of 2 to 4 units per acre. We're not talking about high density or low density, but medium
density residential development somewhere between 2 to 4 units per acre. I believe this
recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan for medium density residential is well-founded when
we consider the surrounding land uses in this area. I think I mentioned at the Public Hearing that
the surrounding land uses are very, very, very diverse. Let's look first at Marion County. 96th
Street obviously is the dividing line between Marion and Hamilton County, but as we look on
the south side of West 96th Street into Marion County, we find high density residential
development just across the street from a part of Linkside. We also find commercial uses: office,
retail, etc., on the south side of 96th Street. As we move north of 96th Street into Hamilton
County and of course within Clay Township, the uses nearest Linkside are residential. There is
Greentree A and B which have been in existence for a number of years, and then the other part
of Greentree known as Greentree Three. To our north is the proposed development known as
Huntersfield which will soon commence, and farther east, Annally Downs. But as we approach
the corner of 96th and Shelbourne, we find a church, and then farther, we enter into an area just
on the west side of Shelbourne that is within the U.S. 421 Overlay Zone--right there--it's the L-
shaped part of the overlay zone that takes in that area. We all know what the purpose of the
overlay zone is; it's to promote and encourage high quality business type or commercial
2
development. Even though that is small lot residential today, the recommended land use under
the Comprehensive Plan is business as established by the 421 Overlay Zone. As we get nearer
421, even though it is not shown on the map, we enter into some recommended land uses of
higher intensity, commercial and business. So, my point is that when the drafters of the
Comprehensive Plan, and I suspect the drafters of the Zoning Ordinance, contemplated S-1, R-1,
and moderate intensity residential use for this land, they considered what the diverse uses were
in the area--low intensity residential, high intensity residential, low intensity commercial, high
intensity commercial--it's all there, all there near the intersection of 96th and Shelbourne Road.
I think it's also noteworthy to mention the fact that a major purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and
the Comprehensive Plan, one of the primary purposes of both of the very, very important
documents, is notice. Notice to the owners of real estate as to what they can do with their real
estate and notice as to what will be required of them. It is also notice to others who have
property around that property--notice to them as to what they might expect to happen to their real
estate in question. I say that because I felt that certain people at the public hearing expressed
surprise at the fact that this property was zoned R-1 and S-1; it has been zoned R-1 and S-1 for
a long, long time.
Jim Nelson: The plat that we are going to present to you is in substantial compliance with all
ordinances of Carmel. It provides for a substantially lesser number of lots than are permitted
today under S-1 and R-1. We are providing for an overall density of 2.4 units per acre. Our
plan for Linkside is presented as the next exhibit. This is, in actuality, a rendering of the Primary
Plat and it identifies the area around Twin Lakes golf course that is to be developed for the
residential community to be known as Linkside. The area to be known as Linkside is
distinguished on this drawing by three colors: the darker green, the yellow, and the lighter
brown. In order to show the orientation of Linkside to the golf course, we did include on our
drawing a picture of the golf course or a drawing of the golf course to show the orientation of
Linkside. It should be clearly understood that the Golf Course is not part of our Primary Plat
request, the only part that is subject to our request is the land lying around the outer perimeters
to the west, the east, and to the north. We've also shown in white the existence of some houses
there, you can see it down there. We did that to show very clearly to you those homes that are
nearest Linkside and how they are situated with respect to Linkside and to the golf course. The
part that Chris is showing to you there is a part of Greentree A and B, Greentree Three which
is located farther west, we touched the very tip of it down here in the corner, and of course then
on the north we have Annally Downs and since we knew what Huntersfield was going to be, we
simply showed the lot layout along there. Now, as you look to the east and look around our
eastern boundary you don't see any platted lots; there's a reason for that, none exists; it's
undeveloped real estate. So our nearest residential neighbors are shown here on this drawing not
only in relation to us but in relation to the golf course.
Jim Nelson: Let's talk about access to our development from perimeter roadways, we are going
to have three. We are going to have one from 96th Street, and we are proposing two from
Shelbourne Road in the locations and at those points where Chris is identifying. We have
additional points of access existing in future. As we begin at the north, we are providing a street
stub into Huntersfield so that when it is developed in the future (it likewise had the same
3
requirement) the connection will exist between Huntersfield and Linkside. As we move further
east, we see Annally Downs. We are proposing three stubs into Annally Downs: two to existing
streets that were stubbed into us, and the third to a platted right of way. Now, why are we doing
that? We are required to do that under the ordinance. As we move to our eastern most
boundary, we are providing three stubs along our east property line into real estate that remains
undeveloped today but when it is developed, a connection will be made between Linkside and
that future development (Towne Lakes.) As we take a tour through Linkside, we begin at 96th
Street, and enter an area zoned S-1, shaded in darker green, it is 39.2 acres in size, in actuality,
and it will contain 92 single family homesites. The average lot size in this area will be 12,895
square feet and contain the Manor Series of homes which you will later have the opportunity to
review. This is also an area where we will have a single retention facility that will not only
serve amenity purposes or aesthetic purposes, but also for storm water drainage purposes. This
area also includes a substantial recreational area that will be available to the residents of
Linkside; that recreational area will include a swimming pool, a clubhouse, tennis courts, and the
opportunity for other recreational activities. As we move north and northwest from this area, we
move into the remaining 101 acres, a part of which is colored in yellow. This area is 66.3 acres
in size and will contain 133 lots, with the average lot size being 10373 square feet. This area
which extends over and down Shelbourne Road slightly will contain the Estate Series of homes
and will also have a picnic area (Chris pointing out) that extends really down into the golf
course. It's an area where residents will be able to walk to, sit and enjoy a picnic as well as
possibly observe golf activity on the golf course. As we move further south along Shelbourne
Road, we move into an area that is 33.5 acres in size and will contain the Village Series of
homes and within this area, the lot size, the average lot size will be 6,745 square feet. There is
one very important, with respect to lot size, and that is to the lots to our north and slightly to the
east (Chris White pointing out) the ones that are adjacent to Huntersfield, Annally Downs and
Towne Lakes, see the lots there? All those lots exceed 12,000 square feet in size. We did that
so they would be compatible with their nearest residential neighbor to the north and to the east.
One of the requirements of the cluster option is that we have a 20 foot perimeter greenbelt--we
have that. In fact, we have that on all sides. We have it along Shelbourne Road, we have it
north along Huntersfield and Annally Downs, and down southward along our eastern most
property line. We also under the ordinance were required to have what I would refer to as on
the interior, inside, Chris, we can point that out, because we don't own the golf course, we are
required to have it also within the interior of our development. This 20 foot greenbelt is not just
a 20 foot greenbelt. It's primary purpose on the perimeter is to retain the existing trees. In
several areas, areas that we have viewed as "key areas," we have substantially expanded the
width of that 20 foot greenbelt. Chris is, for example, in the corner, in that northwest corner,
down south near 96th Street where we have the lake on 96th Street, then northward where we
have the lake, and then in this area as we move closer to Greentree A and B, in some areas this
20 foot greenbelt has been expanded to 100 foot in depth. One of the benefits of the cluster
option is that it permits a developer the flexibility that is needed in order to create open space.
We've all talked for a long time about open space; our open space is 30.3% of the land or 22%
of the land, 30.3 acres of the land. I'd like to refer to a couple pockets of that open space,
obviously it is the recreational area located here, it is the picnic area located there and there, and
then there are pockets of open space scattered throughout the entire development of Linkside.
4
Jim Nelson: With respect to drainage, we have reached an agreement with the golf course which
contemplates that we will create on the golf course certain retention facilities I believe today only
two lakes exist on the golf course. As you can see from this drawing, four lakes appear. Those
are lakes that will be constructed by Davis through an agreement with the golf course and that
will accommodate our onsite storm water retention. We talked briefly at the Public Hearing
about roadway improvements. Our next drawing identifies those roadway improvements. We
believe that the roadway improvements go far beyond those that are required by the ordinance
or those that are needed to serve Linkside. Very briefly, as you might expect, at our 96th Street
entrance, we are providing for an accel/decel lane and we are providing for a passing blister--that
would be expected of us. As we look at Shelbourne Road and our two entrances from
Shelbourne, we are providing accel-decel lanes there as would be expected. Passing blisters are
not required, inasmuch as these points of ingress and egress aligned with entrances to Ashbrooke,
and Spring Arbor, are accross the street.
Jim Nelson: With respect to Shelbourne Road, here's what is being proposed: on the north
bound lane of Shelbourne Road, we, at our sole cost and expense are widening that roadway.
We are widening the north bound lane by approximately 3 feet of pavement and plus providing
a 3 foot chip and seal shoulder; that is for the distance adjacent to our property line north and
south. Beginning with the property line, our north property line and running down to the
intersection, we are providing an additional coat of surface on the entire roadway known as
Shelbourne Road. We are also making improvement to the intersection, and I must confess that
roadway improvements have been needed here for quite a period of time. Davis is stepping
forward and agreeing to make those improvements. What are we doing? We are widening the
intersection as it exists north of 96th Street and with respect to 96th Street, we are widening it
by providing an additional lane which will serve as a turn lane at the intersection. We believe
those improvements to be substantial.
Jim Nelson: What type of homes are contemplated for Linkside? Three types of homes will
exist: the Estate Series; the Manor Series; and the Village Series. Again, as you will see, all
homes are single family detached homes. We will begin with the Estate Series. The photographs
contained on this exhibit represent a typical front elevation of many style of Davis Homes that
exist for them within what they describe as the Estate Series, beginning with the Kensington
model in the upper lefthand corner and proceeding down to the very last in the righthand corner.
The homes within this Estate Series, and Chris, it's nice that we have that other exhibit up there,
the Estate Series is going to go in the yellow area, right there. The homes in the Estate Series
with respect to size are 1687 square feet all the way up to 2705 square feet with an anticipated
price of$160, to $200,000. The next is the Manor Series. The Manor Series will be in that area
closest to 96th Street, right there. These homes, the typical elevation of these homes, is described
on this next exhibit. Again, they are single family, detached homes with a minimum square
footage of 1500 to 2,350 square feet with a price range of $120, to $160,000. The next is the
Village Series. This series of homes will be located nearest and adjacent to Shelbourne Road,
they will have a minimum square footage of 1500 to 2300 square feet and will also be in a price
range of $120, to $160,000. There is a provision in the zoning ordinance for minimum size
homes; ours exceed that requirement substantially. I believe in S-1 the minimum ground floor
5
is 1,000 (square feet); in R-1 the minimum ground floor is 1,100 square feet; ours exceed those
requirements substantially. I think we have to admit that or acknowledge that the homes you
have seen are not homes that are found today in Bridlebourne, Winterwood or Laurelwood; they
are not. There are just a lot of people who cannot afford or choose not to have a home like that.
We believe the homes that we have shown you are homes that Davis is proud of, are homes that
are of an architectural design and style, size, and building materials that are compatible with the
homes in the area and will provide the future residents of Linkside with a comfortable living
environment.
Jim Nelson: A few comments about the public hearing. It is always nice to be able to remind
people that there were some people who appeared at public hearing in support of this request,
one was Ken Brown. Ken is the manager and owner of the Twin Lakes Golf Course; in fact, the
golf course is probably the largest single property owner in the area. Ken also I believe stated
that over the years, he had seen many proposals come forth for this parcel of real estate, many
he did not like, but he had reviewed this and found it to be most acceptable. We also received
a letter from I believe a Mr. Irons, Michael Irons. Michael is a nearby property owner located
adjacent to 96th Street, in fact, our property wraps him on all three sides. Mr. Irons provided
a letter in support of this request. There were three issues that were raised at the public hearing
which we will address very briefly: density, price, and traffic. All these three we have heard
before and more often than not, however, not in the context of a Primary Plat but in the context
of a rezone request because it is there that those issues have relevance and meaning. With
respect to density, our belief is that density is an issue only if the ordinance is not being met.
We not only meet but we exceed the ordinance. We talked about S-1 density being established
at 2.4, and R-1, 3.5. The overall density of Linkside is 2.4 units per acre. That is as though the
R-1 classification on the 101 acres is being ignored and we were developing the entire project
under S-1 Cluster. That's the result. We talked about, it was talked about at public hearing about
prices of homes; the price of these homes are less than the price of some of the other homes in
the area. Personally, I do not view the price of homes to be relevant at platting request. The
only thing that is relevant is size, and size is established by the ordinance; we meet and far
exceed the ordinance. With respect to traffic, one certainly cannot ignore that the by-product of
additional homes in an area is/are additional cars. The solution to traffic and the impact on the
abutting roadways very honestly is found in the ordinances and the requirements establish the
developers under these situations. We have met the ordinance with respect to roadway
improvements and in fact we have gone beyond those required of us and have improved
Shelbourne Road and the intersection at Shelbourne and 96th Street. Tom Ford is available this
evening to answer any questions, technical questions that you might have regarding the traffic
report which was provided to you.
Jim Nelson: I believe, in summary, that we are proud of this development plan; this is a parcel
of land that has remained undeveloped many, many years and we believe our plan is consistent
with the area, the ordinances, and the Comprehensive Plan, and we thank you.
Paul Spranger: Thank you very much. I think given the fact that we have so many people here
tonight that have an interest in this project, the chair would like to move that we give 15 minutes
6
to those persons who would like to speak in favor of this project, and 15 minutes to those who
oppose this project. If, we would like to have you organize in terms of who would like to be
spokesman for the board, each side, if you would. While this is not an open hearing tonight, I
think it would be relevant to hear from those people who would like to speak to this isue. At
this time, if there would be those who would like to speak in favor of this project come forward,
identify themselves, and address the Sub-committee at this time.
Jim Skinner: My name is Jim Skinner and I very quickly hasten to add that since 1971 I have
been affiliated with the owners of this property. I'm not here to debate the density or the traffic
or any of this stuff. I'm here for personally my own benefit, but if I had to pick for or against,
I would be "for" the project, primarily because it has enhanced the area by the fact that Marvin
Pike and the Clay Regional Waste District brought the sewers down Shelbourne Road. I
developed the third section as you have seen it on the map; this was done back in the '70's. At
that time, there was such a percolation problem, it ran between 55 and 60 minutes per inch, and
we have a high concentration, or we did have (I'm no longer there) high concentration of Miami
and Brookston Clay in there, and it has a very poor percolation table and when we installed the
third section there, it was done so with septics and wells and various kinds of heat. As a result
of this, there's problems there with septic systems as there is in Section A and B, in fact on
Greentree Drive, if you drive down there some day, there's water that comes out from underneath
onto the streets and just almost a continual flow, that goes down and back into the 38 acres
square that you have seen in the back. My only concern is this: in 1976 I had Ault Witsig come
out and take what's called a 35 core sample of that soil and it was found to be unusable for septic
systems at that time. It was my pleasure when I saw the sewers coming down Shelbourne Road.
My only reason for standing here is that I live just west of the Clubhouse and just south of what
is now known as the Practice Range. The practice range would be developed into housing and
I would probably be closer that anybody else in this room to the construction that's going to go
on there. There is a 5 foot pipeline that runs behind, gas pipeline, that runs behind my house.
Just one time this year, we were red-tagged because of gas leaking out of the farm tap which
exists there. Back in '76 we found that the ground was no use, it had to be with sewers. I have
been with that which Jim has indicated two or three of the people that come in with the
anticipation of developing that ground and because of the soil and a lot of conditions there, it just
did not exist. My only hope is, and the reason I'm for it, is that when they develop this ground,
and I would add one other thing, I have pastored a church on 111 Street between Meridian and
College for the last ten years--these gentlemen, I have no connection with Davis Homes, I have
no connection with the owners of these properties period--but I do know that the area that they
put in between 106th and 111th which is Lexington Farms, was an asset or an enhancement to
the neighborhood around that area. I really believe with all my heart that when this is all put
in and all these properties are in place in conjunction with what you fellows do, I think it will
be an enhancement to our area also. But the only thing I would hope as a result of all of this
development is that sewer, water, and gas would be brought to us as a result of their construction;
and there may be some objection to later on tying into the sewers by the people--that's up to the
people that live there; but I just hope we have the opportunity to hook into sewers, and in their
area we have oil, we have gas, we have bottled gas, we have all kinds of heating, electric and
whatever, and the Gas Company as I am told will bring down the gas, the water company, I
7
know, would bring down the water, and the sewers, if they are brought and put into place would
certainly be better than we have now. I didn't come here to pick a fight, and have nothing to
gain from this, I just felt that for a long time since '76 I have sat there and watched that thing
with objections for different reasons, and as a result of this, this might be the thing that would
make our area a better area totally than what we've got. Thank you.
Paul Spranger: Thank you very much. Anyone else like to come forward and speak on behalf
of this project?
Mike Irons: I just want to speak because I think I was mis-spoken--it was stated that I support
this project. I own that property and we have come to an agreement where in order to protect
ourselves we said we would not speak out against this development, but for them to have said
that I support it is not exactly true. I did agree that I would not come over here to protest, so
I don't mean to do that, but I think that when that was stated, it was not appropriate. I do own
that property there and we have reached agreement, and it wasn't easy, but that was part of the
deal. I don't think it was said that I would not protest it, but not that I would support it.
Paul Spranger: For the record, would you re-state your name, please?
Mike Irons: Mike Irons and I own property on 96th Street and it was stated earlier that I offered
my support.
Paul Spranger: Thank you. Anyone else like to come forward in favor of this project? Seeing
none, we would like to solicit those comments from those that are opposed to this project. If you
have homeowners association or some way to organize your comments and not necessarily a
repeat of the other night, I would appreciate it.
Greg Sawyers: My name is Greg Sawyers and I live at 3707 Carwinion Way in Ashbrooke, and
I spoke for a little while at the meeting the other night and I won't try to repeat a lot of what I
said although it's obvious that Jim came up and spoke a lot about what he had talked about the
other night. I was taking some notes in the meeting, I spoke fairly early on and my questions
to the Davis people is in their traffic study, did they include, just for my own purpose, I guess,
in their traffic study I want to know if they included the Huntersridge and Stonehedge
Developments which are both future developments that are going to be coming on line relatively
soon and the traffic flow studies that Huntersridge has 58 lots and the Stonehedge Development
which is, it's not on their map, I've got a map here if you don't mind me putting it up. If you
look at, on 106th Street back in this area, there are 108 lots on this development and I just
wanted to make sure that this was brought out--I'm not sure if those were included in their traffic
studies, so that was a question that I had for Davis Homes. I'd also like to say that prior to
living in Ashbrooke, I lived in a Davis Home for four years, I was the one who had the home
built, and I see a totally different scenario coming up. If you look in my graphic at the bottom
where Ashbrooke is, I had a tendency to take the Linkside development and break it up into three
sections you'd be walking through. If you look at the overall density of 2.4 it's a little deceiving
and if you look at the Villages section, the pockets of common ground which is supposed to add
8
aesthetics to the area, you won't find any pockets of common ground other than the area that
surrounds the development, the 20 foot landscape easement; those homes are going to be in the
Villages Section which directly impacts my home--I live right on Shelboume Road off of
Shelbourne Road right on the corner, on their map I would be right in the entrance that's going
to connect Ashbrooke to their Linkside Development, I live on the south side of that street and
my neighbor who is here also that lives right behind me, our houses butt up to theirs, there will
be 11 of their homes backing up to ours and their homes are basically going to be on 50 X 110
lots at a density ratio of 3.2 homes per acre, that's going to roughly mean that they'll be five feet
from the side of the house to the property line. I'm six foot tall, if I laid next to one of their
homes, I'd be in someone else's property, so there's not going to be a lot of area for common
ground, not a lot of area for aesthetics and beauty, it's just going to be a lot of houses and they're
not going to be multi-family developments, but they are the next best thing to being there, so
they're going to be put pretty close together. In the Linkside Estate Section, those are nice
homes, they're nice big homes, I don't have a lot of problem with that although I still think the
lots are too small. When you go over to the Linkside Manor Section, the 2.35 density ratio on
that section is a little deceiving because they have a lot of common ground in that area for
recreational center which is also required by the ordinance; they make it sound like they are
doing that out of the goodness of their heart, but they are required to put that in as you well
know. When you look at that section, the houses are basically the same as the ones in the Estate
Section, the only reason the density is so much smaller is because the area itself is going to have
a lot of common ground in it, so I think they were a little deceiving in that. I think that my main
impact, or my main problem with this development is that even though density is not an issue
we can beg here, it is an impact when you consider that the ordinance itself that they are asking
you to plot this ground under, the Cluster Ordinance, which I think they are having a gross mis-
use of the Cluster Ordinance here with respect to the fact that the ordinance itself is set up for
a purpose and intent, and when I mean purpose and intent for the compatibility with the existing
neighborhood, this is not compatible with the neighborhoods as you look around. The density
issue is an issue of compatibility, they are not staying consistent with what is existing now. So,
they also, in the purpose and intent of the ordinance, they are supposed to use unique and vary
structures,they'll have four or five home designs, maybe even eight in some sections,they'll build
those and replicate them, 109 homes with four or five different designs, they'll be replicated at
least five times in that section, in the Villages Section, I know, I used to live in a Davis
Development, two or three houses down there's my house again; two or three houses down,
there's my house again. They are varied, one's blue, one's pink, one's beige; so I think you need
to keep that in mind, they're not really staying to the letter of the law of the plotting ordinance
that they are plotting this ground under. It's not compatible, they're not doing anything different
or unique, the houses are similar to ours because we built our house with sticks and bricks,
they're going to build their house with sticks and very few bricks, but they are going to use that,
but from that point on, there's a wide difference. I think I've taken a lot of time, probably more
than I should, because I think they got a little more than 15 minutes to talk; I want to say a lot
more, but I think there's a lot more people here that have a lot more they want to say.
Paul Spranger: Thank you very much.
9
Greg Sawyers: Just keep those things in mind please.
Paul Spranger: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition to the project?
Dan Rimstedt: My name is Dan Rimstedt and I live at 3106 Towne Drive and I would like to
clarify that my subdivision is immediately east of this Linkside proposal. I live in Towne Lake.
My house is immediately adjacent to this property. There will be at least two, maybe three lots
that will be adjacent to my lot. My lot size is in excess of 36,000 square feet; the lots that will
be adjacent to it, Mr. Nelson said approximately the largest is 12,000 square feet so you could
put three lots on my lot; he neglected to mention, or he claimed that, or suggested that the area
to the east is an undeveloped area, it is not an undeveloped area, I live there. Also, I would like
to make one comment about the Cluster Option and I've talked to other City Planners. Just today
I spoke with a City Planner that's from Canton, Michigan where they also had a Cluster Option
and they, I spoke with him in depth and they considered it a cluster loophole, that they had a real
problem with developers coming in and using the cluster option as a loophole in the ordinance
in order to just make more money for themselves, irregardless of the communities around them,
and what they ended up doing was they had to establish a moratorium on the Cluster Option until
they could amend the ordinance to prevent just this sort of thing happening. I have written a
letter to the commission that gives the gentleman's name that I spoke with today and his
telephone number in case the commission would like to speak with him and find out how they
prevented this problem from continuing in their community. Could I give it to you?
Paul Spranger: Yes, please. We still have about seven minutes remaining, is there anyone else
who would like to come forward? First, please state your name and address.
Dotta Watsky: My name is Dotta Watsky and I live at 3742 Trewitham Lane in the Ashbrooke
Development. First of all, I am feeling very strongly that Davis & Associates have fairly
snubbed their nose to the concerns of the citizens that were expressed in the last meeting. I feel
a lot of issues were brought up that simply were not addressed, but that their particular position
was simply re-stated against the backdrop of what they are technically allowed by the ordinance.
One of the things I am concerned about is the compatibility with the homes. In that particular
picture that was shown over there, if you remember where Ashbrooke is located, my home is on
a lot that is 17,000 square feet, it is 100 X 171 so it is actually 17,100 square feet. To have that
home across the road from us, and I don't believe my home is any different from the rest of the
homes, to have that home across the street from us puts about three or three and one-half homes
in relation to my lot, and that would certainly not be what I would call compatible. I don't see
that Davis is going to change; I think you stand up here and you represent us, we are the ones
that have to stay, Davis will come and go, and I hope you represent us well. Thank you.
Paul Spranger: Thank you very much. I think we have time for one last spokesman. If a
spokesperson would like to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record.
Tom Williams: Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Tom Williams, I live at 3203 Dogwood
Lane, Greentree Section. I will be brief. You've heard testimony this evening by Mr. Andrews
10
and others about the character of the property that is in question, talking about both the existing
neighborhood and the proposed neighborhood; I am speaking in opposition to this particular
proposal because of the fact that it quite honestly deviates from the character of the existing
neighborhod to a considerable extent. You've seen the slide projected on the screen that showed
what the average density for the exsiting neighborhood is and what the proposed neighborhood
will be. We feel that this project is just not appropriate for the area that is presently under
consideration. The neighbors are not objecting to development of this land, I mean, development
is inevitable and we understand that and we recognize that. We object to this particular project
because of the fact that it does deviate so much from the character of the existing neighborhood.
The homes that are there now are, for the most part, individually designed homes, they are not
cookie cutter. We saw some designs presented at the full commission meeting the other night;
they are nice looking, they are obviously smaller than our homes that we presently have there,
their lots are significantly smaller, the variety of design wasn't too extensive, even from the ones
that we saw projected on the screen at the Commission meeting, you could see that they are
basically the same structures with minor variations with regard to architectural design. That is
not what we, as neighbors, would prefer to have. We would like to maintain the current
character that we have. If Mr. Davis and his people want to develop that property, come in with
a different design that maintains or extends what we already have. If it is their desire to develop
a higher density neighborhood, there is land elsewhere in the County they can go to; they don't
have to develop that particular parcel. This evening, you have heard from one person that had
enough gumption to come before you and plead in favor of this particular project. There are a
number of people here that are opposed to it. We could probably go beyond the time limit you
have established to hear future testimony, but I don't think it is necessary. We all have basically
the same gripes and the same notions with regard to this particular project. We just don't feel
that it is a good idea. The one proponent from our neighborhood that spoke to you a few
minutes ago said that one of the things he was concerned about was infrastructure development;
he felt that this project would bring sewers, water, and gas into the neighborhood. It doesn't take
this project to do it; anybody that's going to be developing that project is going to be bringing
in those utilities and that infrastructure is going to be developed. It's not that we're solely
dependent upon Davis to do this; anybody that's going to be coming in there will be bringing
those improvements to the neighborhood. There's no question we do need those improvements
but we don't have to rely on Davis to do that. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before your
sub-committee this evening and if you happen to have any questions that I might be able to
answer, I'll be glad to attempt.
Paul Spranger: Thank you very much. That actually concludes our time. If you could summarize
in one minute, we'll permit that.
Judy Hagan: For the record, my name is Judy Hagan, my address is 10946 Spring Mill Lane.
I'm here to speak in regard to the S-1 issue. Part of this ground falls within the low density
residential area on the Comprehensive Plan Map that is zoned S-1 and the Comprehensive Plan
says quite clearly that where that designation falls, the overall density should not be greater than
one and one-half units per acre. I realize the petitioner does have the option to use the Cluster
and that is a case again of where the tail is wagging the dog; we all know that that Cluster
11
Ordinance has been in trouble for a number of years and needs to be revamped if not revoked
all together. According to the original schedule that you all had, this should have been done in
December; that was on the original list that started out in the fall about when our ordinances were
going to be revised. Because we have not been able to stick to that schedule, we now have this
mess and these petitioners who are going to be affected by this. I also object very strongly to
the notion that the only way you can have land or a yard in this community is if you live in
Winterwood or Bridlebourne; I don't think that that ought to happen and I think we can do
something about that, I don't think that's an argument. As far as the Comprehensive Plan Map,
this map is not site specific as many of you know who were around when it was composed. It
is a general guideline and it does show some residential transition from the Michigan Road
corridor; however I would say that that has already happened on the west side of Shelbourne
Road and what we're seeing now is a build-up of density east of Shelbourne Road which is sort
of going in the wrong direction. In the end, this comes down to the judgment on your part. I
do understand that technically the petitioner has an argument, but again,you are here to represent
the Community. If you don't have some say in it, there's really no point in going through a
public hearing; they can just go in and get it checked off at the Staff office and nobody needs
to bother with any input at all.
Paul Spranger: Thank you.
Greg Sawyer?: 'Scuse me, I just had this copy of stuff I put up for you all. I also had a petition
of signatures.
Paul Spranger: That's fine, please bring it forward. Thank you very much. That will conclude
our informal, not open, public hearing. What I would like to do at this time is, Mr. Nelson, if
you would like to come forward and perhaps answer some questions. If you would like to
address some of those issues and questions that were brought forward by those who were
opposed, feel free to do so.
Jim Nelson: Thank you. Very briefly, specifically as to questions that were raised. Mr. Sawyer
raised a question about the traffic report: "Was, in fact, Huntersridge and Stonehedge included
in our traffic report?" The answer to that question is Huntersfield proposed 58 lots was included,
Stonehedge proposed 108 lots was not, however the traffic impact analysis did include a 2 1/2%
annual growth rate for the area. So we believe that, indirectly, Stonehedge is within, is included.
The rest of the comments that I heard were basically expressions of opinion; obviously those
opinions are different than ours and there is no reason for me to take your time to again re-visit
the issue. I do think it's unfortunate that when we have a plat that meets the law, and that is our
only burden is to present to the Plan Commisison a plat that is in compliance with the
Subdivision Control Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance; if we meet it,my understanding is that
we are entitled to our approval and I hope that the public understands this and the fact that
platting issues are different than zoning issues, that if we meet the ordinance, that is our burden,
that is our charge--we have done that. The ordinances don't establish the minimum or the
maximum; the ordinances establish the law that we are all to live by. I'm sort of reminded of
the Internal Revenue Code, being near April 15th: if it meets requirements A, B, C, and D, I get
12
a tax deduction; if I meet A, B, and C, but I don't meet D, I don't get a tax deduction. I think
it's that clear--I don't think any of these residents if they didn't meet all four requirements would,
in fact take that tax deduction. What I think is unfortunate is that you are being asked to not
follow the law as it is applied to this parcel of real estate. I don't believe that that is fair.
Jim Nelson: With respect to Judy Hagan's comments, we all know that if the Comprehensive
Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, which I believe in this case are compatible, but if in fact they
were not, if we have the Comp Plan saying one thing, it's a guide, it's a road map, as Judy said,
it's a guide and we have something else being said by the zoning ordinances, which one controls?
There's no question about that, the zoning does. So let's just look at the zoning on this--forget
the Comprehensive Plan and whether this is in or out the lower intensity or whether it's colored
red, yellow, brown, or green; the zoning controls. Under the zoning ordinance, the owner of this
land, whomever it be, whether it be Davis or whomelse, is entitled to build on this parcel of real
estate 445 homes, 2.4, 3.5, 138 acres, 101 acres. We have 334 or 111 less than is possible. We
have not only reduced the number of home sites that are possible under the Ordinance, I think
we have incorporated many community oriented attributes. But in closing, it's the law that we
are bound by. We are bound by it, we are required to follow it in our development plan. I think
others should be required to follow it too and I believe it unfair that you be asked not to follow
it or apply it to this real estate. Those are our comments. Thanks, and I'm available for any
questions.
Paul Spranger: Thank you, Mr. Nelson. Any questions at this time from the Committee?
Dave Cremeans: Jim, can I ask a couple of questions?
Jim Nelson: Certainly.
Dave Cremeans: I guess I'm confused about our function, I'm talking about this Committee, Plan
Commission; if we're not to take a look at these things and--I'm the rookie, I don't know what's
going on here but if this is just supposed to go to the Technical Committee and be approved, why
are we here tonight?
Jim Nelson: Well, I appreciate your asking that question, and I hope that my answer is not
overbearing, I don't intend it that way. I would never want someone to stand before me and say
that "you must do this." That is not the way you get things done. But in Indiana, the function
of a Plan Commission, as I best understand it, and I believe it has been described to the members
of the Plan Commission in an opinion letter from prior legal counsel over the past three years.
I believe it is the right or role duty and responsibility of the Plan Commission which is described
in Indiana Law as a ministerial, non-discretionary act, the role of the Plan Commission is to
review the plat to determine if the plat, as presented, meets the development standards of the
Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Control Ordinance, and if it does, I believe in good faith, that
then the plat is entitled to approval. It is non-discretionary once the standards are met. There
is even further requirements in Indiana Law current cases, several have come down over the past
six months; not only is that the law, but it also says that the standards must be definitive,
13
concrete, consistent, predictable, capable of interpretation by a reasonable man, so basically it is
that the applicant must present to the Plan Commission proof that he has complied with the
development standards, the definitive development standards; and if that is it, then it is a non-
discretionary function of the Plan Commission. Now that really needs to be compared to
something, because one says, well, if it's non-discretionary, then what in the world am I doing
on the Plan Commission? Well, the Plan Commission does other things: it decides whether or
not variances should be granted from the subdivision control ordinances; those are obviously
discretionary. Some functions that it performs with respect to ADLS and site development plan
review are somewhat discretionary, I say somewhat. The Plan Commission is an advisory body
as it pertains to changes in the text of the Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan specifically
changes the Zone Map or Rezones, it is advisory to the legislative body and in that capacity, it
is certainly discretionary. Unless it is that the Plan Commission in acting denies an owner of any
beneficial use of his land, it is discretionary. So, some functions that the Plan Commission
performs, from my perspective, are discretionary, some are not. I will agree with you, Mr.
Cremeans, that when the State Legislature required public notice to adjoining residents on a
platting hearing, I personally think that that is misleading to those people because they believe
that what they say is important as far as their opinion. Technically, if you meet the ordinance,
you are entitled to the approval. What is important is if they were to come forward and explain
why it is, in fact, we do not meet the ordinance. You asked why are we here and why is it a
public hearing and I share some of your feelings, but that is my understanding of the role of a
Plan Commission in a primary plat proceeding.
Salim Najjar: Just Primary?
Jay Dorman: I have something I would like to address relative to that because I have perhaps
a different view, but I don't want to
Jim Nelson: Then I will end, since Jay indicated he might have a different opinion and I would
say that your own attorney has, over the past year and one-half, has had his opinions regarding
this and my best recollections are that they are similar to mine. I will also say that throughout
the United States, the law is different. There are some states that have adopted a very liberal
approach to the platting process, there are others who have adopted a very stringent or strict
approach to the platting process and I believe Indiana to be one of those, but that's just my
opinion. Thank you.
Paul Spranger: Would you stay just a minutes longer, Salim has a question.
Salim Najjar: Mr. Nelson,I think you made a strong argument that this complies with the zoning
ordinances, complies with the subdivision control ordinance, and complies with the
Comprehensive Plan. I would like to discuss the Comprehensive Plan one bit further if I may.
If I'm not mistaken, the Comprehensive Plan shows 96th Street as a four way, or a four lane
street, is that correct?
Paul Spranger: Staff?
14
•
Dave Cunningham: Ultimately.
Salim Najjar: And I guess my question is, as Plan Commissioners, how do we see to it that 96th
Street gets developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, because to me, it tells me that
if this subdivision, this development, contributes to an enormous traffic problem on 96th Street
and 96th Street needs to be a four lane road, then how do we, as Plan Commissioners, make sure
that 96th Street gets to be a four lane road so that it does not, or at least it relieves the traffic
problems.
Jim Nelson: I think that's a very good question. I think the response to that is presently under
discussion in a case before the Supreme Court of the United States at this time called "The Dolan
Case." The Dolan Case is trying to define what is in fact permissible for a municipality to
request of a developer when he is platting a residential community or developing real estate. I
believe that if 96th Street were to become a four lane road, that the benefits conferred on the
community by that, by the existence of a four lane road, extend far beyond our property. Since
those benefits do extend far beyond our property, I view that the expansion or widening of 96th
Street to be the function of government, very honestly, and I believe it is the...at least since this
is a county roadway today, that it is the County Commisioners that are responsible for seeing that
this roadway is widened. I personally, Mr. Najjar, do not see developers being the source of
municipal finance. I believe they should pay their fair share, I believe if they come into a
community and have a certain impact, that it is only responsible of them that they do something
to mitigate that impact, but to say that a major improvement like a four lane widening of 96th
Street should fall on the shoulders of a single developer, I don't believe that...
Salim Najjar: and I agree with you, Mr. Nelson. I am not suggesting that the developer in
this case should do that, however, it does present a dilemma to us as Plan Commissioners to
approve developments such as these, ignoring the fact that 96th Street does need to be four lanes,
and I guess....how do we get from here to there? What does it take on the part of the County
Engineers, or County Commissioners, or what have you. We are kind of frustrated in our role
in that it seems to me we would be irresponsible to continue to approve these developments just
on a prayer that one of these days, these roads will become developed.
Jim Nelson: I certainly understand that. One thing that I would like to see and I think would be
very beneficial, if there were probably a closer working relationship between the City and the
County, I think that is extremely important and I think that must happen in order to make the
improvements this community needs, and I acknowledge that those improvements are needed.
I think it's unusual that this Plan Commission is in a different position than many others, you
have jurisdiction not only of the City of Carmel, but you have jurisdiction over the Township.
Within the City, its the City of Carmel that controls the roadway infrastructure; outside in the
Township, it's the County. It is confusing, I think, very candidly, because of the multi-
jurisdictional issue, that maybe not much does get done as it should. I believe it to be, though,
a responsibility of government to the extent that the appropriate pressure can be borne and the
priorities established or changed; that's probably the way it occurs. I wish I had a better answer.
15
A
Salim Najjar: Thank you.
Paul Spranger: Thank you, Mr. Nelson. The Chair would like to recognize Jay Dorman.
Jay Dorman: Jim, excuse me, I want to make a public apology for jumping up and interrupting
your train of thought, I didn't want to take any priorities with my position. Dave, also excuse
me because these comments were not intended to come forward this evening. I wanted to get
them before our Executive Committee; Mrs. Myers, you're a member of that, and Mr. Spranger,
but I probably lost a few more hairs on my head and maybe a couple more hours of sleep than
I would have liked to, therefore I would like to relate to you some of my feelings about what is
our purpose here. I will do that to the best of my ability with my limited expertise also. I
wanted to have Ramona....unfortunately her husband passed away and she was kind enough to
come in and get the unofficial minutes out to you this evening, and I think that's duty well above
and beyond the call of duty, hopefully you have had time to read those minutes, but I had asked
her earlier to get those unofficial minutes to you because I didn't think there would be time
enough to receive them so you could have a chance to read them, so hopefully you had a chance
so far this evening to glance through them. I appreciate, I'm sure you do as well, Jim Nelson's
opening remarks which covered the development, this particular development's compliance and
the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan. I personally have a great deal of respect for many
individuals that I have come across in my life and with my limited interaction with Jim, I have
a great deal of respect for his professionalism and the time that he takes to prepare very well
when he comes before us, he does an excellent job. But I feel it is incumbent upon me at this
time to deliver my version of our obligations as members of the Carmel Planning Commission
and I will refer again to something you have heard me say once or twice before, which is Section
5.1.7 which is titled "Approval or Disapproval of the Preliminary Plat." This is one of our
ordinances. Our obligation, as someone may have stated already, is to all the residents of
Carmel, and our review must take into consideration many factors, lots of different things. It is
a difficult job and I feel somewhat relieved that I am an ex-officio member of your group this
evening and can sit back as an observer. It is interesting to be on this side of the podium. They
take into account not just the density or the compliance, whether it's a 20 foot perimeter greenbelt
or density of 2.4 units per acre; those are very quantitative and very specific, but there is also
room for subjective interpretation, I am somewhat sorry or glad to say. Subjective interpretation
or non-quantitative information is certainly within your review powers, contrary perhaps to other
legal opinions that you have heard, but this is based upon some legal research that I've done, and
done by someone who is very knowledgeable of planning law in the City of Indianapolis, Marion
County. Section 5.1.7, if you'll entertain me some more, I'm almost done....let me read this to
you once again: "In determining whether an application for approval should be granted, the
Commission shall consider generally if the plat provides for: 1) coordination of subdivision
streets with existing and planned streets or highways; 2) coordination with and extension of
facilities included in the master plan; 3) establishment of minimum width, depth, and area of lots
within the projected subdivision; 4) distribution of population and traffic in a manner tending to
create conditions favorable to health, safety, convenience, and the harmonious development of
the City or County; and 5) fair allocations of areas for streets, parks, schools, public and semi-
public buildings, homes, utilities, business, and industry; and 6) other relevant factors." Other
16
relevant factors concern me quite a bit and I wanted to get the opinion of the Executive
Committee before I went down a path that may be considered not favorable by the members of
the Executive Committee or perhaps other members of the Commission, because while I am
sensitive to public input, I am also sensitive to making sure that during my one year tenure, I
have developed the right leadership within our Carmel Planning Commission to take over after
I am done with a very short one year term which will be over before I can blink, so that if that
is an opinion and philosophy that you wish to carry on after I give up my reign as president, then
perhaps you can do, but developing a close, working relationship with the Department as Paul,
you and I discussed the other night, the County as well as the School Board, are certainly things
that we should be doing. Other relevant factors: I interpret that, have drafted an amendment to
that particular ordinance which would read something like: "and other relevant factors including
but not limited to the review of traffic studies, and traffic analysis which identify potentially
negative impacts where the levels of service fall below a level of_, (I left that blank because
that's something we need to discuss, probably level C) or where necessary improvements are
required as identified by the Department of Community Development or the County Highway
Department." "These may include up-grading or widening of roadways, the need for traffic
signalization, intersection improvements, the installation of passing blisters, the need for
sidewalks, bikeways, and perhaps highway beautification." This is just one idea to quantify
something that might be termed as a subjective interpretation of our review powers. For $500.00
I can have a legal opinion drafted by one of the leading planning and zoning attorneys in the City
of Indianapolis which will basically state that if you interpret and wish to interpret anything, and
you can term it "other relevant factors," that is certainly well within your jurisdiction and I would
not come before you if I did not receive that assurance that that opinion could be drafted. I am
not a lawyer, I'm a businessman, I'm a salesman, and I'm here just to present some facts, and I
believe that I stand on fairly firm ground coming before you this evening. My timing is not the
best in the world and I apologize for that,but I think it's important for me to get this on the table.
What are your actions? If you want more information as a group, whether it's this committee or
the other committees that we have, ASK for that information. If you don't feel comfortable with
a traffic implication or a traffic analysis,you are certainly within your power to ask us to procure
the professional services of another firm to give us an independent study of what you feel might
be a traffic impact. You may approve or disapprove plats, you may return those to the Planning
Commission with no decision, or even table those for information for further study. Those are
all things that are available to you. I personally didn't know whether to get up and stand up in
favor of this project or opposed to this project. It has many, many good benefits. From an
economic standpoint, I think it's going to sell out overnight, I think it's going to be very popular.
It's going to have the amenities of the golf course. But my purpose of comments this evening are
to let you know that sometimes saying "no," sometimes being perceived as delaying a project,
those are difficult things, especially when you see a group that is professional, from Indianapolis
like the Davis Development team, a fantastic company, or Jim Nelson who has presented before
us on many occasions, it's difficult to do that and I have those problems too and I empathize with
some of your positions that we have on these various committees,but you have to set those aside.
This is definitely a good project; I believe it does take definite liberties with the Cluster
Ordinance. I feel that it will enhance the value of the surrounding area, but you have to make
your own decisions. If you feel there is some subjective interpretation, this is contrary to what
17
Jim's belief in the laws are and he has a lot more experience than I do, I'll give him credit for
that, but I can back up my comments with a professional opinion as well. You have to do what
you feel is best and I wanted to voice my opinion about some of our purposes in our committees
and ask the same question that Dave asked, and I didn't mean to interrupt Jim but thought it
might be an appropriate time to address my comments. If our purpose is, in fact, ministerial,
then perhaps we should go to just one meeting and if it meets most of the obligations and
ordinances as quantitatively defined, let's not slow up development, let's speed up development
and let's not have perhaps two public hearings if everything seems to be in order, but where there
are questions, I think it's within our right, our obligation, to act as responsibly as we can.
Subjective factors, in summary, are well within your jurisdiction of making a decision. Thank
you.
Paul Spranger: Thank you, Jay. For clarification, Jay Dorman is the president of the Plan
Commission for those who are not aware of that; and of course we are as a Plan Commission and
as members of this committee, bound by the ordinance the way it is currently written. For
further clarification, if you haven't derived this, the Subdivision Control Ordinance, as well as
the Cluster Option, are under review and re-write at this time. That process is not complete, Staff
is working overtime on that re-write and other ordinances. So no to confuse the issue, at this
time we are bound by the ordinances as they are currently published. Jay, thank you for your
thoughts. I think we have a....this particular project brings to this Committee as well as to the
Commission a number of issues we have been wrestling with over and over, and we would like
to go further. At this time, I think I would like to continue to entertain questions from the
Committee as well as I see motioning we have comment that wants to come from the opposition.
If the Committee is so inclined, we will give opposition a couple of minutes. Are we approved?
OK Come forward and state your name, please.
Greg Sawyer?: Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, Mr. Cremeans raised a question
of discretion. You heard a very eloquent response from the proponents about the duties and
responsibilities of the Plan Commission and your subcommittee--they're right. Apparently from
what they have said, they have met all the legal requirements for this particular plat. They have
met the letter of the law, but have they met the spirit of the law. That is a question that does
gives you discretion, in fact it places discretion right in your lap, figuratively, as to whether or
not this is an appropriate project for this plat of land. The law says under the Cluster Ordinance
that a project should be compatible with the surounding areas, surrounding uses, and surrounding
neighborhoods. There is where the interpretation comes in...they have interpreted their project
to be within the definition of the current neighborhoods. We are the neighbors that are living
there now, and we disput that. Your commission is organized for the purpose of seeing whether
or not any new projects comply with the laws. Your commission is also organized to listen to
remonstrances and we are here for that purpose. We feel that perhaps under their feelings they
have complied with the letter of the law--we even questioned that. We certainly feel they have
not complied with the spirit of the ordinance and for that reason, we feel you have a right to
reject this project and we pray that you will do so. Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me
to offer this additional point.
18
Paul Spranger: Thank you very much. Let me make one other thing clear, I think, to those in
attendance tonight. As a subcommittee, we are an advisory capacity to the Plan Commission,
so our actions tonight are in fact advisory to the overall Plan Commission. We will not be
approving, giving final approval or disapproval of this project tonight. This is an important part
of the process. Let me open more for questions from the members.
Barbara Myers: I have a question, Mr. Nelson, if you'll put this back up for me, Chris left, didn't
he?
Jim Nelson: I hope he didn't leave!
Barbara Myers: This is the 20 foot greenbelt around here, at the top, about--up there by Annally
Downs and the other area, can you tell me how many feet that actually is?
Chris White: There is 20 feet here, about 70 feet here.
Barbara Myers: Alright, and then this over here is another 20 foot...
Chris White: That's another large common area here and this is 20 feet, this is 50 feet adjacent
to
Barbara Myers: OK, this part up here at the top by Annally Downs that you said is more than
20 feet, how much is that right ....
Chris White: That's approximately 100 feet. This is 130 feet here, this is 50 feet, 50 feet goes
down to the narrow point to 20 feet.
Dave Cremeans: that area right there, I have played this golf course a lot of times, I don't
know if you have or not, that is golf ball heaven right there, is that why you decided not to put
homes right there or why are there no homes there?
Chris White: From the standpoint of access....
Dave Cremeans: I am really concerned about families, especially kids if that's a picnic area, that
is going to be extremely dangerous. Just from my own personal...I happen to hook the ball every
once in a while and I'm there a lot and I'm really nervous about kids playing in that area.
Paul Spranger: I would also second that sentiment, having also played the course.
Salim Najjar: I'm not a golfer or a lawyer, and I still believe it would be irresponsible on the
part of this Plan Commission. our subcommittee as well as the Plan Commission, to ignore 96th
Street, and somehow we need to send a message to the County and the County Engineers. This
may be the first of many battlegrounds perhaps and I really hate to use this project as the guinea
pig, but I'm afraid this message needs to be sent.
19
a.
Paul Spranger: David?
Dave Cunningham: The petitioner has agreed to make roadway improvements as requested by
the County Highway Department. Those improvements are as follows: (at this point, Dave read
from a letter from the County Highway Department dated attached hereto.)
Dave Cremeans: As I said, I'm a rookie and I had to do some studying, I'm sure you have all
read this and I hate to bore you with it, but S-1 says the purpose of this district is to provide for
continued, rural, agricultural activities and to introduce single family residential uses. That's S-1.
Without the Cluster Option, the minimum lot size I think is 18,000 feet. R-1, which is another
piece of this real estate, says the purpose of this district is to provide for low to medium density,
single family residential development on wide frontage lots in urbanized or urbanizing areas. The
Comprehensive Plan Update 1991, looks pretty yellow to me from Township Line Road all the
way to Shelbourne and that's not really what we've got here. I think we're kind of taking it out
of context. It also shows 96th Street as being four lane on this,...on the back of this it says that
in a 20 year improvement plan, 96th Street is not included. So it appears that it is going to
continue to be a two lane road. I'm concerned with the one neighbor, Jim Kauffman, who had
seven houses in his back yard; I think that's terrible and I don't think anybody in this room would
like to have seven houses in their back yard. The traffic study on page two, and I'm reading
from the traffic study that was done for Davis Homes, "Shelbourne Road is a narrow, two lane,
north/south roadway with no defined shoulders." "96th Street is a narrow, crushed stone shoulder
that also exists along 96th Street in this area." "Many businesses and residences are located
along 96th Street." One of the things that Mr. Nelson brought up was that all of the property was
in Marion County. I'd like to submit, sir, very respectfully that we have our plate very full just
trying to take care of this little piece of real estate that we are worrying about and Marion County
is way out of our context and bounds and jurisdiction. The additional number of cars as I studied
it was 3,150 daily trips in and out of this area. That seems like a lot to me and I live there and
you can't get in and out of it as it is today, so 3,150 more is going to be a lot. This analysis
points to the fact that future 96th Street traffic volumes will cause difficulties for anyone wishing
to turn left from 96th Street or turn left onto 96th Street from any drive during peak hours.
That's from this traffic study. In particular, geometric improvements are recommended for 96th
Street at Shelbourne Road, I believe that is 60 feet blisters and I would not consider that
geometric if I understand the term. Thank you.
Paul Spranger: Thank you, Dave. Any other questions from the subcommittee? Dave,
(Cunningham) would you address the subcommittee? In your review of this project, did you have
any problems at the time you issued a Docket number?
Dave Cunningham: At this point, no. For a project to be issued a Docket number,...maybe I
should do some back history first. A project is submitted into our office and a review is
completed for compliance of the Codes; those codes entail Subdivision Regulations and the
Zoning Codes in this case. For the petition to proceed along the avenue of the process for
approval, they would need to meet all those codes as interpreted by this Department. There are
"letter of the law" codes, there are also sections in the code that leave discretion to the Plan
20
Commission. It is our determination, pursuant to the Subdivision Regulations, at the point where
they meet the items in the Subdivision Regulations, we issue them the Docket Number. At that
point, the petition meets the letter of the law, and as we pointed out to you tonight, there is the
letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Our interpretation, our job is to make sure it meets
the letter of the law. This petition meets the letter of the law; it met the letter of the law a month
ago prior to the public hearing when the Docket Number was issued. At this point, we don't
have any outstanding concerns. It has gone through Technical Advisory Committee, which is
made up of members not only of the City of Carmel, Hamilton County Highway Department,
County Surveyor's Department, Utilities Departments in the area, the technical people that will
be involved in the construction end and the development end of this project. They review it for
their items, i.e. the surveyor reviews it for drainage, the highway department for roadway
improvements, the utilities for access to their utilities. They appeared before that Committee, I
believe on three separate occasions, this last time was just last Wednesday at which time there
were no outstanding comments brought forward by the TAC members. So at this time, they meet
both the technical end and the letter end of the law. Are there any other questions.
Inaudible question.
Dave Cunningham: That is not my job. I'll be honest with you, that is your job.
Unknown Member of the Plan Commission: What is your professional opinion?
Dave Cunningham: My professional opinion? I think it has been pointed out to you by the
petitioner's side, I look at things the way I have to look at it, black and white. Black and white,
this could develop into, I believe, it's 450 homes; that's the way I have to do it. I have to look
at that when a rezone comes through. I have to look at the most intense use when it comes
through, so they meet the letter of the law, in fact they are less than the letter of the law, so that
would be my answer to the spirit question.
Paul Spranger: Dave, thank you. Any other questions of Dave from the Committee?
Dave Cremeans: Dave, do you know if 96th Street is in fact someday going to be four lanes?
It is confusing on this
Dave Cunningham: Right, let's get into a little planning theory here. The Comprehensive Plan
as shown there in the colored version is, was presented as the ultimate plan foreseen in 1991 for
the development of the Carmel/Clay area, in general sense. The traffic study that was done along
with that as reflective of that, the front panel, would be the infrastructure system, roads,
specifically, that would be necessary to handle that development at ultimate build-out. The back
panel that you said 20 years projected was a scenario that was foreseen for the development
within that time frame. It is actually section 10, I believe, of the Comprehensive Plan comes up
with three alternative scenarios for the potential development of the Carmel/Clay area in lieu of
the traffic for the area. That presents the one that was deemed the most appropriate or the most
reliable or the most reality driven on the back, the 20 year. Ultimately, yes, 96th Street will be
21
improved. When? I don't have that crystal ball. Seventeen years ago they presented a plan for
a bridge to go over White River at 96th Street, so ultimately, yes, it will be a four lane road.
Paul Spranger: Dave, thank you. More comments?....Questions? Any additional questions of
Mr. Nelson at this time? OK. Seeing none, would any of you like to make a motion at this
time?
Dave Cremeans: I would like to make a motion that we deny this primary plat application for
other relevant factors.
Salim Najjar: I don't believe you can make a motion to deny; I think you have to make a motion
in the positive.
Paul Spranger: Yes, you do have to make a motion to....
Salim Najjar: Correct, Mr. Nelson?
Dave Cremeans: Could I re-state this?
Paul Spranger: You may.
Dave Cremeans: I would like to make a motion that we vote on this primary plat application for
approval.
Paul Spranger: The motion's been made for approval of the primary plat Docket No. 5-94 PP,
do I have a second?
Norma Meighen: I'll make the second.
Paul Spranger: It's been moved and seconded; at this time we will ask for the vote. All those
in favor? (two votes) And those opposed? (David Cremeans, Salim Najjar, and Paul Spranger)
I would like to comment that this is a recommendation to the Plan Commission, this is not a
decision on this project.
Jim Nelson: Thank you for your time and consideration; it's been a long evening. Thank you.
22