Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes SUB 04-09-91'N'Q' "'' SUBDIVISION -COMMITTEE April 9,1991 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.11-91 PP - Windemere Edm= Plat Petitioners present: Jim Nelson, Jim Caito, Dick Carriger, Steve Wilson, Curt Huff, Dennis Olmstead Mr. Nelson presented the plat, he then located the proposed plat by referencing an area photograph of the plat area and adjoining properties. Mr. Nelson then explained proposed variances that are being sought by the petitioners. These variances are as follows; one to allow the length of a cul-de-sac to exceed 600', the plat being proposed includes a cul-de-sac approx. 760' in length located east of the entrance to the plat; the second variance is for the elimination of a stub street to the adjoining vacant property. Mr. Nelson stated that the extension of the cul-de-sac length allows the petitioner to create an elongated lake, that allows a very pleasing and natural view as you enter the subdivision. As possible mitigation to the extending the cul-de-sac the petitioners have increased the radius of the cul-de-sac from 38' to 65' (there is a driving radius of 26' back to back curb with a landscaped island at head of the cul- de-sac), in addition the petitioner increased width of the cul-de-sac street from the min. required 26' to 30'. Mr. Nelson stated that the Carmel Fire Chief, Les Locke - Hamilton County Highway and Carmel\Clay Schools have approved of the plans. The second variance being requested is for a single entrance. Mr. Nelson stated that the theme of this subdivision is to be exclusive and private, additionally the property is rather narrow and elongated, not allowing for two entrances on 106th Street. Mr. Nelson then referred back to the aerial photograph to indicate the development that surrounds this project. He stated that to the east of this project exists the developed Coppergate subdivision, the proposed Ascherwood Manor Subdivision, and the Deerfield Subdivision, all of which were not required to stub to this property as they were platted. To the south of this project is Summerlakes subdivision that is currently being developed; it also was not required to stub to this property. To the west exists several large lot single family tract for estate type residences. Mr. Nelson stated that due to the size and shape of these tracts and the current use, that it is unlikely for any one of these tracts to be subdivided into a eI'- substantial number of lots. Therefore the petitioner does not see any useful purpose of creating a stub to the west for future development, and frankly if a stub was required, the petitioner is not sure which of the properties to the west the stub should be extended to. Mr. Nelson did remind the committee that when a project was approved approx. 18 months ago for this same property, the Plan Commission did approve of the similar variance of the requirement for stubbing to the adjacent property. Mr. Nelson indicated that the plat had been reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee and that those comments have been satisfactorily addressed, and the plans updated to reflect those comments. Mr. Blackwell asked what the land just west of the larger pond and adjacent to the entrance boulevard will be used for. Mr. Nelson stated that are will be a landscaped area to be located along the entire east side of the entrance boulevard. In addition to the landscaping located along the entrance blvd., the petitioners will be constructing a brick wall with wrought iron windows with substantial landscaping along the entire northern property line adjacent to 106th Street. Furthermore the petitioner is proposing to locate one sign, located on the brick wall on the west side of the entrance. The petitioners will also be landscaping within both of the cul-de- sac islands as shown on the landscape plan submitted. Mrs. Lamb asked where the entrance is located with respect to the two rises on 106th Street. Mr. Nelson stated that the entrance has been centrally located to allow the maximum sight distances from the entrance, with respect to either direction on 106th Street. u Mr. Blackwell asked that petitioner explain the locations of driveway entrances on the north side of 106th, with relationship to the entrance. Mr. Huff indicated the closest driveway on the north is located about 200' east of the proposed entrance. Mr. Blackwell asked the petitioners to briefly explain the drainage for this site. Mr. Nelson indicated the existing drainage for the site and then how the drainage will flow after the development has been constructed. Mr. Blackwell asked if the site is going to be served by water and sewer. Mr. Nelson indicated Clay Regional Sewer and Indianapolis Water will serve the site. Mrs. Bainbridge asked if a stub was necessary, where would it be located. Mr. Nelson stated he was not sure, and indicated that two of the property owners had stated that they do not want a stub to their property. , Staff then explained the reasoning behind the staff recommendation and that the recommendation has been the same for the last 3 subdivisions that have asked for the elimination of stubbing to adjacent property. Staff further stated if the Plan Commission is going to be varying this requirement on a regular basis, it may be a section that should be amended in the forthcoming Subdivision Regulations Update. 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. 11-91 PP, Primary Plat application for Windemere as submitted. Tom Welch Second: Henrietta Lamb Action: Approved, 4-0 Item 2. Docket No.12-91 PP - PrimatX and Secondary Plat for Bentley Oaks Petitioners present: Dave Coots, Rex Weiper, Gary Murray Mr. Coots presented the plat for Bentley Oaks to the committee. Mr. Coots located the proposed plat as it relates to the existing roads and subdivisions. He further stated that the TAC comments had been responded to, and that all applicable comments have been reflected in the updated plans to be submitted to the staff this evening. Mr. Coots did indicated that the petitioner is seeking both Primary and Secondary approval from the committee, and that the staff has outlined the proper process for this to be accomplished. Mr. Coots then stated that the staff recommendations are basically in three parts; the first are comments for the record, the second being comments of TAC that have been reflected in the updated plans, and the third being the process for the approvals. Mr. Coots stated that with respect to the TAC comments they could be addressed this evening by the petitioner in the updated plans. The committee asked the staff if it would be possible for them to review the plans and indicate at the Plan Commission meeting on April 16, 1991, if there are any outstanding items. The staff agreed. Mr. Coots then addressed the variances that are being requested, and the reasons for the requests. He indicated the staff was in favor of the reduction of the pavement width from 30' to 26', with the condition that parking be allowed on only one side of the street. Mr. Coots stated that petitioner is willing to record that as a commitment and work with the staff to ensure that request. He then explained the reasoning for the elimination of a stub to the adjacent vacant properties to the committee. The committee and the petitioner discussed the relationship of the adjoining properties and its probable traffic patterns and possible developments for those properties. Staff addressed the committee regarding the staff recommendations and the process for approval of these petitions. Mrs. Lamb asked if the drainage along 136th Street has been addressed with respect to this development. Mr. Murray explained the history of the drainage and the proposed improvement that will be enacted as apart of the development. R 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. 12-91 PP, Primary Plat application for Bentley Oaks subject to the staff recommendations, TAC comments and with the variances as submitted. Henrietta Lamb Second: Carolina Bainbridge Action: Approved, 4-0 Motion: To approve Docket No. 14-91 SP, Secondary Plat application for Bentley Oaks subject to the staff recommendations and subject to the full Plan Commission approval of the primary plat on April 16, 1991. Caroline Bainbridge Second: Henrietta Lamb Action: Approved, 4-0 Item 3. Extension of Secondary Plat Approval for Ascherwood Manor Petitioners present: Steve Granner Mr. Granner addressed the committee with respect to allow a one year extension of the time to record the secondary plat of Ascherwood Manor. Mr. Granner stated that due to factors with the Simon family and current real estate market factors, the petitioner does not foresee developing this -6��ri 42 .0 project with in the next month, but would like to keep options open for another year to develop this project. Motion: To approve a one year extension for Ascherwood Manor per Section 5.1.3 of the Subdivision Regulations. Henrietta Lamb Second: Caroline Bainbridge Action: Approved, 4-0 Item 3. Extension of Secondary Plat Approval for Lake Forest Section 536 & 7 Items 3, 4 & 5 were heard and acted together. Petitioners present: Mark Boyce Mr. Boyce addressed the committee with respect to allow a one year extension of the time to record the secondary plats of Lake Forest 5, 6 & 7. Mr. Boyce stated that due to cost of construction plans the entire development was secondary platted over a year ago and that they are seeking approval for the extension to allow the recording of the plat as soon as possible. Mr. Boyce did reflect six (6) minor modifications to the plats and to the covenants to the committee. Staff indicated that they had reviewed the plats and covenants and had no problems with the adjustments and modifications. Mr. Blackwell asked the staff if any of these changes significantly affect the plats. Staff stated the changes do not affect the plat or the covenants in a substantial manor. Motion: To approve a one year extension for Lake Forest Sections 5, 6 & 7 per Section 5.1.3 of the Subdivision Regulations. Henrietta Lamb Second: Caroline Bainbridge Action: Approved, 4-0