Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Subdivision Committee 06-11-91 SUBDIVISION-COMIV 1TrEE MINUTES June 11, 1991 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Hank Blackwell, Henrietta Lamb, Caroline Bainbridge, Tom Welch STAFF PRESENT: Dave Cunningham Mr. Blackwell called the subdivision committee meeting to order and introduced the first item. Item 1. Docket No. 23-91 PP-Waterston Primary Plat Petitioners present: Jim Nelson, George Sweet, Richard Henderson, Dave Sexton, Tom Ford, Ila Badger Mr. Nelson located the proposed plat by referencing an area photograph of the plat area and adjoining properties. Mr. Nelson then described the three sections, to be known as Windpointe, Bayhill, Stonewick of the development and their styles and types of housing propsed for the three sections. Mr. Nelson described the entrances for the project: one on 116th, one on Gray Road, one on 126th and two stubs to the east for future development. He then pointed out that a community center will be centrally located within the project and that the petitioner will be returning for Special Use approval from the Carmel\Clay Board of Zoning Appeals, at a later date. Mr. Nelson described the. pedestrian access and variance that is being requested. The petitioner will be providing sidewalks on all areas of the project that abut the adjoining street on the perimeter of the project and will be installing sidewalks along all interior streets, except for one area (approx. 1100') along the western property line, where Gray Road abuts the property and an interior sidewalk would be duplicating the exterior sidewalk at that point. There will be no lots platted between the western side of the interior road and Gray Road. The petitioner will be installing a pedestrian pathway within the development to allow access for residents to the lake and other amenity areas. Mr. Blackwell asked how these areas are to be maintain and described on the plat? Mr. Sweet stated that they will be common areas for the entirety of the project and will be maintained by the Homeowners Association, similar to the entrance signage and perimeter landscaping. Mr. Sweet further described the walking path system and the concept behind it. Mr. Nelson described the roadway improvements that the petitioner will be doing as a part of this development; they are as follows: - 116th Street - dedicate 50' half ROW, and specific roadway improvements Page 2 Subdivision Committee Minutes June 11, 1991 per plans on file with DOCD - Gray Road - dedicate a 40' half ROW - 126th Street - dedicate a 40' half ROW, and at the point that the development is 50% built out will install an additional lane to the south side of street - to allow a center turning lane be marked for left turn movements - In addition all entrances will be dual lanes with center landscape islands - conceptual renderings were shown. Mr. Nelson stated that the petitioner had appeared before TAC and distributed a letter for their engineer stating the applicable responses to each TAC listed items. Mr. Nelson then referred to the concern brought up at the Public Hearing from Mr. Kendall, on the possibility of the petitioner training the emergency response departments of the City in water related incidents. He stated that Mr. Sweet had met with Fire Chief Couts and that they would be working and assisting the Fire Dept. with water rescue training programs. Mrs. Bainbridge asked if the petitioner was willing to make improvements at 126th and Gray Road. Mr. Nelson stated that he felt a majority of the traffic problem in the area will be corrected when the intersection of 116th and Gray Road is realigned. He further stated when the project is 50% built out the petitioner will be installing a third lane to 126th Street to allow the marking for a center "suicide" left turn lane. Mr. Nelson then asked Tom Ford to address the possibility of a traffic signal at 126th and Gray Road. Mr. Ford stated that at this time the stop signs are all that are warranted and should be a sufficient until the time of 50% build out of the development, the additional lane improvement would adequately handle the increased traffic flow. He has been in contact with the City Engineer and does know that 126th and Gray Road is one of many intersections within the City that is being studied for signalization. Mr. Blackwell asked who typically pays for the signalization of a intersection. Mr. Ford stated typically if the signal is at the entrances of a development, the developers are typically responsible for the cost of installation; however, when the signal is at the intersection of two public roads, the governmental bodies who control those roads are responsible. Mr. Blackwell asked if the development will be built all at once or in phases. Page 4 Subdivision Committee Minutes June 11, 1991 , Item 2. Docket No. 24-91 PP -Primary Plat for Williamson Run-Section 6 Petitioners present: Mark Boyce, Richard Henderson, Dave Sexton Mr. Boyce presented and located the plat for Williamson Run, Section Six to the committee and stated that all the TAC concerns had been addressed and distributed a letter responding to those concerns. Mr. Boyce indicated that this section would follow the same guidelines and covenants of the previously approved Williamson Run sections. Mr. Boyce further explained the future development of the project to the south once the creek is bridged. Mr. Blackwell asked if there were any other questions from the committee, if not he would entertain a motion to approve. Motion: To approve Docket No. 24-91 PP, Primary Plat application for Williamson Run, Section 6 as submitted. Henrietta Lamb Second: Caroline Bainbridge Action: Approved, 4-0 Item 3. Docket No. 25-91 SP, Secondary Plat for Ashbrooke.Section 1 Petitioners present: George Sweet, Richard Henderson, Dave Sexton Mr. Sweet presented the final design and secondary plat for Ashbrooke, section 1 to the committee. Mr. Sweet indicated that his plat was previously named Carwinion. Mr. Sweet stated that this is the final design and construction drawing submittal. They have appeared before TAc and have been and will continue to work with the ii County and staff during the development of this project. Mr. Sweet presented signage and landscaping plans for the development and was not sure if the committee could approve these tonight or if he had to return at a later date. Staff indicated that at the time of the primary plat similar conceptual drawings were presented and that these were simply refinements of those, therefore the petitioner could receive final approval from the committee on landscaping and signage tonight. Page 3 Subdivision Committee Minutes June 11, 1991 Mr. Sweet stated that all three entrances will be developed at the same time and each of the three individual areas will be phased, due to the fact each area will be for different segments of the market. Mrs. Lamb asked the approx. depth of the ponds. Mr. Sweet stated that the ponds will range between 8' and 15' deep. Mr. Nelson explained to the committee the change in the commitment from the rezone approval, and the reasoning behind the change. Mr. Tom Kendall then asked to be recognized and asked that the project be delayed until the entrance intersections and their alignments were further studied for exact design and engineering. The petitioner indicated that the intersection center lines will be aligned, as stated at the public hearing they have agreed to study the geometric of the entrance intersections prior to secondary platting stage and construction drawing development. Mr. Sweet further stated that the primary plat stage by State statute is a conceptual filing of plans to indicate the general concepts of the proposed development and that the project as submitted does meet those criteria and the Carmel\Clay Subdivision Regulations for a primary plat filing. In addition the statute states that at the time of the secondary platting all roads, lots and engineering will need to be done and construction drawings developed. Once those plans are developed they will be submitted and reviewed by the Technical bodies of the Plan Commission, the staff and ultimately this committee of the Plan Commission, who by procedure has right of final approval of those plans. Mr. Sweet did say that they are aware of the problem and would be investigating possible solutions to this as indicated at the public hearing. Mr. Blackwell asked if there were any other questions from the committee; if not he would entertain a motion to approve. Motion: To approve Docket No. 23-91 PP, Primary Plat application for Waterstone as submitted, with the variance for the elimination of sidewalk in the area previously described and with the change in commitments. Caroline Bainbridge Second: Henrietta Lamb Action: Approved, 4-0 Page 5 Subdivision Committee Minutes June 11, 1991 Motion: To approve a Docket No. 25-91 SP for Ashbrooke, section 1 as submitted. Caroline Bainbridge Second: Henrietta Lamb Action: Approved, 4-0 AMMMOOM FOR: SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE DATE: BY: STAFF COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: � �e /L C PETITIONERS PRESENT: 51"L 4. 3e-41P-\. y.,\• A motion was made by and seconded by ac, to P DE!Y Docket No. Z-5-4/ 15P for /4404,- with the following specific items needing to be addressed: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. SPECIAL COMMENTS YES NO DATE 5/2/90 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN