HomeMy WebLinkAboutCarmel clay Plan Commission 5.17.94 Linkside Transcript LINKSIDE TRANSCRIPT
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
MAY 17, 1994
Jay Dorman: Under Old Business, the Commission to consider Docket 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: Thank you. Members of the Plan Commission, for your record, I am Jim Nelson
and I represent the applicant, Davis Development. You will recall from your last meeting that
the vote on the primary plat for the residential community to be known as "Linkside" was
presented for vote, and the vote was 6 to 6. Following the conclusion of that meeting, we again
focused possibly on one more change, specifically to that part of our development that lay nearest
Shelbourne Road. We in fact prepared a revision to that part of our development; we presented
it to the Technical Advisory Committee; we left the Technical Advisory Committee believing that
our proposed modification was acceptable to them and I believe each of you received from the
Department of Community Development a copy of our plan for that area. We had hoped to be
able to present to you this evening a revision, but today, we received a letter from Les Locke of
the Hamilton County Highway Department and I believe, Mr. Dorman, you also received a copy
of that letter, strongly opposing this latest change and in fact suggesting that the plat be approved
as it was originally presented. We support that change, however, with the opinion of the
Hamilton County Highway Department being what it is, I think we must tell you that we no
longer may offer that modification to you for consideration and therefore would ask that a new
vote be taken on our primary plat as it is now on file, and as it is in form and substance the same
as it was at your last meeting. With that, that concludes our comments.
Jay Dorman: Thank you Mr. Nelson. Are there any questions from members of the Planning
Commission or discussion items? Mrs. Reid?
Jeanne Reid: Having just recently seen the letter since we sat down here from Les Locke and
reading through it, I was a little bit disappointed with the last sentence in the letter. I don't know
if all of you have had a chance to read it, but what Mr. Locke does address is the safety factors
on not having a connecting road within Linkside for buses, emergency vehicles, cars and
whatever; so he's talking about safety of roads and I understand that, perhaps the new proposed
plan didn't meet those safety factors, I don't think, however, because Mr. Locke at the end of
his letter proposes that we approve the original one just because it met the requirements means
that that's something we need to do. I would like to remind the Subdivision....I mean the Plan
Commission that there were a lot of problems that we had with that original plat that were not
just dealing with roads, so, I think that needs to be considered and not just this letter.
Jay Dorman: Are there other comments by the Commission?
1
David Cremeans: Mr. President, I think all of us have received several letters which pointed out
some of the concerns that the neighbors had. We have the traffic issue which is a huge issue,
we have several concerns about the way the project was laid out; I think we listened tonight and
the new Cluster Ordinance is going to address, or hope it will address, putting the more dense
areas on the inside of a Cluster development instead of on the outside as this development has
proposed. So really, what they have done is wrap the larger lots with the smaller lots. I really
don't...I really think that this project to a head this Commission's feelings on Cluster Ordinances
and I think it behooves us to do our due diligence to make sure we do the right thing by the
Community.
Jay Dorman: Any other comments by members of the Commission?...Discussion? Mr. Moore?
Max Moore: Mr. Cunningham, were all, or did you get a copy of all these letters?
David Cunningham: The Department,through Ramona, received the majority of those, when you
say all of those, we did receive the majority of them, I'm assuming that we received them all
but I'm not sure.
Max Moore: Well, some of us got threatened in this letter!
Gordon Byers: Yes, let me address that....I
Max Moore: I'm just wondering, I've been threatened before, but not on the Plan Commission.
Gordon Byers: Here's what I would say about those threats, I'd just ignore them. I think people
sometimes, and I think most of you that have been here have received pros and cons, and threats
before. I think that people, in the emotion of trying to articulate points somehow think that if
they threaten you with a lawsuit, that that gets your attention and I think it probably works in
the opposite fashion. There's no substance of you being responsible for any type of damages or
anything; you're not exposed to that as members, so I think you can all rest assured that you're
not exposed, and vote however you think...what you think is appropriate and don't worry about
repercussions one way or the other.
Jay Dorman: Mr. Byers, I have a question. Let's say for some reason that we take a vote and
again we come to no conclusion; what is the next step, does this thing go on in perpetuity
or...what happens?
Gordon Byers: Well, I think it's going to take a majority vote, one way or the other, for
affirmative or negative. There are some...there have been some cases in Indiana that are not on
point, but where no decisions could be made, one way or the other, and that was more in the
instance of an advisory opinion where you try to move it on---it's kind of in limbo on an advisory
opinion, there's some cases there. But I think you've just got to make a decision to get all the
members here and get everybody to vote and come up with a majority one way or the other. But,
in theory, it's your discretion to approve it just like it would be for a plat, and it's going to take
2
a majority vote before there's any official action one way or the other, and of course, the flip side
is that if the petitioner feels....the petitioner feels he has certain recourse if he thinks it's improper
or not in conformance with the Ordinance, etc., etc. But, the simple answer is that it can go on
until you get a majority.
Jay Dorman: David, (Cunningham) I have a question, once again making an assumption that for
some reason there is no definitive response or vote from us this evening, would that prevent the
petitioner, if they wanted to pursue their last change which Mr. Locke was not an advocate of,
but make some modifications to that to try and gain his acceptance, is that still an option that
would be open to the petitioner?
David Cunningham: (Barely audible) No.
Jay Dorman: Any other discussion? If not, Mr. Cremeans?
David Cremeans: I have one more comment if I may. o The Cluster Housing Ordinance, and I
guess I feel down deep that where this really fails is in the first paragraph of the housing
ordinance, paragraph 33.0.1 Purpose and Intent, I won't read the whole thing but the last
sentence: "With regard to compatibility with the surrounding uses and neighborhoods, through
ingenuity and originality within the total subdivision in the individual site design, by the
preservation of open spaces for aesthetic and recreational purposes, and by varying the character
of the residential dwellings." I don't think that this proposal comes anywhere near or close to
meeting 33.0 .1. Thank you.
Jay Dorman: If you would complete your findings of fact and forward those to the center. If
you'll pass them forward I'll have Mr. Byers perform the official count.
Gordon Byers: Mr. President, to report back, the vote was 8 against and 5 in favor, so it would
fail by majority.
Jay Dorman: Mr. Nelson, do you have any comments?
Jim Nelson: No.
Jay Dorman: On to the next Agenda item
3