HomeMy WebLinkAboutCarmel Clay Plan Commission Public Hearing 4.19.94 Linkside Transcript LINKSIDE TRANSCRIPT
PUBLIC HEARING
APRIL 19, 1994
Jay Dorman: Item 5i. Commission to consider Docket No. 5-94 P.P., a Primary plat (cluster)
application for a subdivision named Linkside.
Jay Dorman: Did Jim step out of the room? Probably needs a break. Do we want to take a
break? Do we need to make a motion, second and vote on that? No? You're all adjourned. See
you back here in 10 minutes. (President's Call!)
Jay Dorman: Under Old Business, item 5i. Commission to consider Docket No. 5-94 P.P., a
Primary Plat (Cluster) application for a subdivision named Linkside. The primary plat consists
of 334 lots on 139 acres of land located east of Shelbourne Road and approximately one half
mile north of 96th Street. Site is zoned R-1 and S-1. Filed by Davis Development Co. Mr.
Nelson?
Jim Nelson: Members of the Commission, the vote on the primary plat for Linkside was
continued to this date at the request of Davis Development at the last meeting, it being evident
to us that certain members of the Commission favored additional time; this additional time did
give Davis the opportunity to determine what, if any, further refinements to the plat were possible
to address the collective concerns of certain neighbors, being mindful that the plat that was on
file at the last meeting is on file today, meets all the development standards of the subdivision
control ordinance, the zoning ordinance, and the comprehensive plan. Jay, I believe it was at
maybe your suggestion, we initiated a meeting with the Department of Community Development,
specifically Dave Cunningham, to attempt to identify and evaluate what changes might be
appropriate to our plan. Chris White will later discuss those changes with you. I believe,
Jeanne, it was at your suggestion we reviewed the video tape of Randal Arendt which is in the
Department of Community Development. We were very, very surprised when we found most
of the things that Mr. Arendt suggested to be to our liking and representative of concepts which
we would whole-heartedly support. We also reviewed a number of articles that Mr. Arendt has
written, however, our belief is, that is to at least the video tape, that basically his comments were
directed to Plan Commission Members who have the responsibility for drafting the ordinances
that would be necessary to implement his policies and guidelines. If we were to adopt his
policies and guidelines in Carmel, there would be numerous changes required to the zoning
ordinances, but we did review the tape and found it very interesting, and very candidly, we would
encourage the Plan Commission to proceed along many of the lines that he suggested. I did
copy,just as a courtesy for all of you, and Jay, you can hand them out, these are excerpts from
some of the articles that we read that were published by Mr. Arendt. We found them very
interesting and I think you will too. In fact, Mr. Rick Davis said to me today, if there were a
way to get Mr. Arendt to Carmel for a one or two day seminar, we would be really happy to
participate in the defrayal of some of those costs; he is an outstanding planner and that's some
of his work product. We did make some refinements to the primary plat. We made some
1
changes, principally those are further evidence of Davis' willingness to go beyond what is
required and principally those changes pertain to basically an increase in the perimeter areas
adjacent to the existing houses. Very briefly, Chris will explain to you the changes that were
made to the plat for Linkside. Chris?
Chris White: Thanks, Jim. Before I go through the proposed changes, I just want to emphasize
two things: All the changes that we are proposing to this plan comply with the subdivision
regulations, they comply with the zoning ordinances and no additional variances from those
regulations are required for these changes. The changes have been made in addition to numerous
changes that we have made to this plan from its inception. We met, starting clear back in
October or November with all of the surrounding homeowners groups,having incorporated many
of their suggestions into the plan and revised that plan before even filing that with the Plan
Commission and having that heard at your February hearing. The changes again that we have
made to this plan have been primarily directed towards increasing the buffer areas between some
of the existing subdivisions surrounding this community and also in an effort to try and preserve
some more wooded, existing wooded area within the subdivision. In more detail, what those
changes include: In the southeast portion of the site in what we call The Manors, we have
redistributed some of the lots in this area to some internal common areas to move those internal
open spaces to the buffer area located in this location. That buffer area has increased from a
minimum of 30 feet previously to 110 feet at this location and even expands out to 180 feet at
this location adjacent to the existing house closest to our north property line. Along the western
boundary, that buffer area is approximately 70 feet adjacent to the Greentree subdivision located
here. In the northeast corner of the site, we have reconfigured the land plan in this location to
again increase the buffer area adjacent to the Towne Lake subdivision in our east property line
located here. Previously, the land plan had a large landscaped island adjacent to the main drive
here which has been eliminated, and also a cul-de-sac in this area which has also been eliminated
along with three of our "Estate Series" lots in this area. That has been in an effort to preserve
an existing wooded area located here in the site; that wooded area is approximately two acres in
size. The buffer area again, between Towne Lake and these lots is approximately 70 feet; 100
feet located here; 250 feet here, down to 90 feet, 130 feet; so it is a very wide buffer area located
here. In that wooded area, we have stated that we would incorporate some mulched walking
paths, and a picnic area within that area for the benefit of all residents of the Association to
utilize that existing wooded area. Along the north property line, the buffers range from 50 feet
to 80 feet. Adjacent to Huntersfield Subdivision, that area is all presently wooded and would be
preserved. Along Shelbourne Road, in the are we call "The Villages," which is located here, we
have tried to further expand the buffer area between Ahsbrooke Subdivision and The Villages
area. We have redistributed some of the common area, buffer area, adjacent to the golf course
to the Shelbourne side of that, those lots, increasing the buffer area from what was previously
a minimum of 20 feet to a minimum of 45 feet. Farther south, that buffer extends to 70 feet, 50
feet, on down to about 130 feet farther down here. In addition to that, we have eliminated a lot
directly at the entrance onto Shelbourne from one of The Village Series lots at that location to
better improve the buffer and sight visibility into the site from the Ashbrooke entrance. In
addition, we have committed to increase the landscaping south of the entrance adjacent to the
Ashbrooke subdivision. That is basically the summary of the changes we have made. It includes
2
the elimination of four lots and basically redistributing a portion of the common areas internal
to the site to the perimeter of the site to further buffer the existing homes surrounding this
community. Now I'll turn it back over to Jim.
Jim Nelson: Thank you Chris. Well, I guess we're back where we were last meeting. Again,
our plat meets the ordinance. Davis is not pleased with the fact that we do not have the support
of all the neighbors, but we do feel that we have done our best so, we ask for your consideration.
Thank you very much.
Jay Dorman: Thank you, Mr. Nelson. This development is a closed, the public hearing portion
of this is closed; therefore it is incumbent upon us to perform some sort of action at this
particular meeting. I would entertain comments, questions, further questions by members of the
Planning Commission. Mr. Houck?
Ron Houck: Is there a report, or need for a report from the Chairman of the Subdivision
Committee regarding any concerns that they had or unresolved issues?
Paul Spranger: Well, as you know, this was....in subdivision was a long and arduous review.
Several of the issues that were brought up have been addressed in all fairness to this applicant.
The....I believe that the Jim is right in characterizing that the adjacent neighborhood
association, the neighbors, still have some major questions with the project. I would perhaps
characterize this as a project that is meeting ordinance but not necessarily, certainly, in the spirit
of what we would like to see in Cluster options. The golf course amenity does add to the
project, without a doubt, but the....I guess the summary is, it's going to be a difficult decision for
everybody tonight.
Jay Dorman: Further comments by members of the commission? Mrs. Reid?
Jeanne Reid: I have a question. Since the public hearing is closed and since some things have
changed since our last sitting here, we didn't get the subdivision minutes until just today, I didn't
anyway in my mail, but my question is: "We didn't hear this in subdivision, did you, the last one
in April?"
Paul Spranger: No, it was the previous Subdivision Committee.
Jeanne Reid: So, do we have any feedback at all from the public is my question on the changes.
I was hoping the subdivision would have that for us, but I realize you all didn't hear it, so
Jay Dorman: At the last zoning...Plan Commission meeting, the petitioner requested that this
item be tabled and also was willing to sit down again with the Dept. of Community Development
and see if any changes could be made with the stipulation, perhaps you may have even
commented on this, that it wouldn't necessarily have to go back through the Subdivision process
again but would come back before this body for further action. So, if you're recommending that
we open it up...are you recommending that we open it up for public comment?
3
Jeanne Reid: Inaudible
Ramona Hancock: Microphone, please.
Jeanne Reid: I said I'm seeking some feedback on the neighboring areas and on the changes that
have been made. I feel I need that for decision making. I'm sorry.
Ron Houck: I think it's relevant too, since the plan has changed, not markedly, but it has
changed I assume in an attempt to address Plan Commission and community concerns that we
at least have an update in some regard as to how much more, if any, palatable this project is as
redesigned.
Jay Dorman: Do you have something specific that we could consider?
Ron Houck: Well, does the....was there a key or focal person representing the public who could
basically address...or do you know the extent of the continued concern?
Jim Nelson: We did not speak with any members of any neighborhood group; we simply met
with Dave Cunningham for the purpose of attempting to make those refinements that we were
able to make which we felt may provide the most, direct benefit.
Jeanne Reid: Mr could we ask Mr. Cunningham, then? Mr Cunningham, did you have
some...any review at all from neighboring areas on the new changes and can you give us any help
here or feedback?
Dave Cunningham: There were suggestions that were garnished from Plan Commission
members; there were issues that were outlayed at the end of the last meeting. Those were the
items that we went into the discussion with Davis and tried to address. It is my understanding
that this is probably the first time the public has seen it unless the petitioner has met with them
before--I don't believe that's been done--so there has not been specific addresses to individual
members of the public, no. We garnished their items from the last meeting.
Jeanne Reid: Could you summarize for us, since you had those outstanding issues that you went
into the discussion with, could you summarize for us any still outstanding issues for lack of our
remembering from the last meeting?
Jim Nelson: Jeanne, if I could step in and do that. It was obvious at the public hearing and at
the subdivision committee that the neighbors were concerned about density; they were concerned
about traffic; and the neighbors were concerned about home values. Those were the three
primary issues. We believe we've met the requirements on all of those issues, but we're willing
to step back and look at this again to see if we could further redefine or refine our plan to
provide for greater perimeter buffering, and that's what we did.
Jay Dorman: Let me talk out loud here for a second. We can vote on this this evening, perhaps;
4
we can, it sounds like there's a willingness on the part of the petitioner to take some sort of
further discussion, I'm not sure I understand....
Jim Nelson: Not at all! We've done....we were ready for a vote last month, and there was a
motion to table and it didn't pass and I thought it would just make good, common sense to ask
that it be tabled for a month, and I did that on my own. We expected a vote last month and we
wanted a vote last month. We would ask for a vote tonight. We've been here
Jay Dorman: Further comments or questions from the Commission?
Sue Dillon: I have a question. Now, I missed the public hearing on this and I have a question
about this. It appears that we have a lot of buffer area in the back that is now a light yellow-
green and it says that 22.9 % of the project is in open space. Does that include all of this buffer
area in the backyards, I mean behind the lots? Is that included in the 22 or is that only in the
three amenity areas?
Jim Nelson: No, that includes all of the required buffer yards.
Sue Dillon: OK So, in other words by reducing your lot sizes, you've met the 22%, I mean, by
virtue of being able to cluster or meet the smaller lot sizes, you've met the 20% of common area.
I just question if that really meets the spirit of the Cluster Ordinance.
Jim Nelson: Well, I think we need to ask for
Sue Dillon: Because, you know, clustering traditionally around the United States is to preserve
an amenity that is possibly not developable, and could not be part of lots I only see two....I see
an amenity area and I see a picnic area and now a little bit of woods here, but I don't know what
those total up to. It seems to me that those are the true amenities.
Jay Dorman: Sue, the project has gone through several reviews by the Dept. of Community
Development; I have to defer to our professional staff that they have measured, surveyed, and
come up with the appropriate percentage as it is outlined in our present Cluster Ordinance, and
that it meets those requirements. That's not to say that you may have your own personal view
of whether or not it meets the Spirit of that particular ordinance, but from a standpoint of
percentages outlined, I would defer that the Staff has done that.
Sue Dillon: I'm sure is does tally up, my question is as to the spirit.
Jim Nelson: Well, I think it's only fair to comment, to address that briefly, Sue. Paul, I believe
this was mentioned at the Subdivision Committee where we handed out copies of the cluster
option and there is not in Ordinance Z-201 any percentage requirement on open space. There
is none. That was in the proposed amendment to the Cluster Option that was never adopted, and
I
5
Sue Dillon: How many years ago was it that Jeff Davis was saying that this Cluster Ordinance
was a lousy ordinance? How long is it going to take us to do something...how many years, to
do something about this ordinance?
Jay Dorman: Stay tuned again, until the end of the meeting.
Ron Houck: Mr. Chairman?
Jay Dorman: Mr. Houck:
Ron Houck: I have a question regarding, apparently there were concerns about some of the lots
bordering, and so the buffer spaces were increased according to what Mr. White said. I guess
I have a question on the area labeled "The Estates." The northern boundary of that appears to
have very little buffering against the lots in...to the....what's the neighborhood to the north?
Annally Downs.
Jim Nelson: It has...Annally Downs is required to have none to us; but we are required to have
20 feet to them, and we have provided....are you talking about this area here?
Ron Houck: Yes, it is
Jim Nelson: That is not Annally Downs. Annally Downs is here.
Ron Houck: OK
Jim Nelson: This is undeveloped real estate in here and this is Towne Lakes here.
Ron Houck: OK So, currently it's not abutting any homes on the north or east of what's called
"The Estates," is that whole pocket there The Estates?
Jim Nelson: Right, in here in this corner.
Ron Houck: What's the...well the arrow points down to The Estates....is that that corner there?
Jim Nelson: No, this is The Manor Series in here...
Ron Houck: No, north.
Jim Nelson: Yes, this is....The Estate Section starts here and proceeds into all of this.
Ron Houck: OK If you look at where the arrow is that says "The Estates," am I correct in
assuming there are no homes currently where the arrow is north or east of that proposed area?
Jim Nelson: Chris, could you put up the aerial. There are no homes there. We can put up the
6
aerial though. No, there are no homes.
Ron Houck: I was just curious (end tape 2 side B)
Jim Nelson: none in here, this is Towne Lakes and of available, I'm going to guess 26 lots,
4 or 5 have been built on. Annally Downs exists here and then Huntersfield is here and it is in
the process of being developed but no homes exist today. So, really, most of our nearest
neighbors are internal to us and I think that's the reason why we focused our perimeter buffering
even though "internal to us," in this area.
Ron Houck: Thank you.
Jay Dorman: I'll entertain further comments or motions.
Ron Houck: I'll call for the question.
Jay Dorman: Mr. Cremeans, you have a comment?
David Cremeans: Mr. Chairman, if I might. We do a lot of debating about whether our role is
ministerial or whether we actually have any power on this Commission. Paragraph 33-11 of the
Zoning Ordinance states: "Included in the review and approval of the Cluster Housing
Development shall be the compatibility of said Cluster Housing Development with adjacent land
uses." I think I just heard Mr. Nelson say that most of the neighbors were inside the donut that's
been developed and I don't see, since there are no other houses around there, I don't see how this
development meets that particular section of the Zoning Ordinance.
Jay Dorman: I don't know how to comment on that. I'll ask Mr. Nelson if you wish to comment
on that.
David Cremeans: I'll redirect to you, Mr. Nelson.
Jim Nelson: I believe that that provision basically is illegal, I mean, if you (public erupts in
laughter) no, if you want....you asked for my opinion and I'm going to give it to you. I believe
it illegal; the ordinance introduces into an administrative and ministerial project..process, a
subjective standard and in this process of a primary plat, it is to be judged by only objective
standards found in the ordinance capable of interpretation by reasonable people, and that's my
belief. I don't like to stand up here and say: "Provisions of your zoning ordinance are illegal,"
but you asked and that's my thoughts.
David Cremeans: Mr. Dorman?
Jay Dorman: Yes, Mr. Cremeans?
David Cremeans: If I may sir. Paragraph 33-12 states that "Where the requirements of this
7
section differ from requirements in other sections, that these provisions shall control." So, it
looks like they reiterated what they said in 33-11.
Jim Nelson: I have no further comment.
Jay Dorman: Mr. Moore, do you wish to comment?
Max Moore: I was just going to ask Mr. Byers what his comments were on this.
Gordon Byers: Mine are real simple, that the petition is in compliance with the objective criteria.
I interpret that differently than anybody. I don't dispute it may be a vague ordinance, but I think
that means, adjacent land uses to me means residential as it relates to residential; residential as
it relates to commercial; residential as it relates to step up--step down, those types of things. I
think it's badly drafted, and to be honest with you, if we had to go to Court, there's no standard
to it; it's not objective, it's subjective; it's vague; the Court would probably say: "Mr. Byers,
explain what that means," and I couldn't do it. Therefore, it just sort of fades away, so I think
you've got a Cluster Ordinance that has no percentages, and the spirit of the laws don't comply.
Ifs our responsibility, not just this body but the City-Council, to draft them to where it's not the
spirit that we're focusing on, it's what it says, and if it's vague or badly drafted, it's going to be
construed against us. I think Sue missed this, my point to you is, and not commenting on the
merits of this instance, but if you don't like this, repeal it and draft a new one. It's taken a long
time, but that's the simple way to deal with it. But it doesn't affect this project. It doesn't affect
a lot of the other projects we've approved over the last three or four years.
Jay Dorman: Let me make some comment. At the last public hearing after this item was tabled,
I felt badly because the petitioner had no objective means to evaluate what in God's name they
were supposed to do. So, I took it upon myself to take a bottle of white-out and a photocopier,
and I photocopies their plot plan and whited out and made my recommendations, not trying to
take the job of the Dept. of Community Development on because I need that like I need a whole
in the head, but to make what I felt were reasonable changes to give them something specific to
evaluate, toss out, whatever. Some of those have been incorporated into here; there are some
things in particular, and very specifically that I'm still not happy about as it relates to the three
cul-de-sacs in The Manors area, it just doesn't turn me on--that's a very personal opinion and that
only. But overall, this project does have some very good potential. I'll go on record that if I was
a....if I had the opportunity, I'd invest in this thing because I think it's going to be a sellout, but
I also have the concern of the community that surrounds it and I still have some problems with
it. One change that I could make or recommend this evening, but it won't, I don't think, satisfy
the residents around the area or inside of the project, might be that in particular on Shelbourne
Road, the ordinance states, I believe, that there has to be 20 foot buffer internal. So, if you look
at The Villages area, the petitioner has done the best job they could to create the 20 foot buffer
area internal to where the golf course is and if you follow that around the north side of the
development all the way over to The Manors, there's that light green, 20 foot strip. Well, is it
going to solve anything if we say why don't we create a variance and slam/dunk that this evening
and pull everything in from the adjacent areas to make it more...compact it more toward the
8
center of the golf course--does that do anything by giving more buffer to the peripheral area, does
it provide any additional value? I question that. That's the only other change that I can see that
would not impact the economic value that the project is supposed to result in as identified by the
profit and loss statement/return on the investment that the developer has a right to make. My
ideas are suggestions only; I'm not the developer, I'm not the Department of Community
Development, but the developer has had no specific, concrete suggestions that would entice them
to make further changes. I don't have any other comment; I think we ought to vote on this and
I ask for a motion to vote on this and I'd ask for a second at this point in time.
Ron Houck: I'll call for the question.
Jay Dorman: I would ask for someone to make that motion.
Barbara Myers: So moved.
Jay Dorman: Is there a second?
Ron Houck: second
Jay Dorman, OK, let's complete our Findings of Fact. Mr. Byers, could I ask you as legal
counsel to perform the count on these?
Gordon Byers: Certainly.
Gordon Byers: OK The vote is a no action vote. The vote is 6 in favor, 6 against, with one
abstaining. It would take eight votes in either direction for official action, so it would be no
action, so it will automatically come back for the May hearing for a vote.
Jay Dorman: I'll stick my neck out again, or my chin. I think that's a darn good vote if that
does anything for us to perhaps get some citizen input, should the developer be willing to do that.
I guess we'll see it, vote on it again in May.
Gordon Byers: Here is....let me think out loud. Yes, it's got to have eight votes one way or the
other for any official type of action, so it will have to come back automatically if the hearing can
be re-docketed.
Ron Houck: Is that the case, or is it the case of a no recommendation?
Gordon Byers: This is not a rezone, it's a plat with a cluster, so it takes, you're at the complete
jurisdiction of this, so...
End.
9