HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 09-15-92 r .
Plan Commission Meeting September 15, 1992
Plan Commission meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by Ron Houck, President. Board
Members present were: Jay Dorman, Sue Dillon, Paul Spranger, Dick Klar, James Quinn, Jeanne
Reid, Hank Blackwell, Salim Najar, and Henrietta Lamb.
Staff Members present: Mike Hollibaugh, Terry Jones, David Cunningham, Rick Brandau, and
Steve Brown, City Attorney.
Docket No. 23-92-A P.P. an amended primary plat application (cluster option) for Spring Arbor
(The Montgomery Property) Subdivision. The petitioner is amending the previously filed petition
(23-92-P.P.) to include the following Subdivision Regulation variances: 6.3.5, Extending exciting
dedicated street adjacent to property; and 6.3.7, cul-de-sac length exceeding 600 feet, filed by the
Estridge Group.
Jim Nelson, representing the Estridge Development Company, Inc., made the presentation
regarding the primary plat for the 30 acre parcel of real estate on She!borne Road between North
Augusta residential subdivision on the south and the Ashbrook Subdivision on the north. The
plan as presented provided for the creation of a 64 lot subdivision to be known as Spring Arbor,
and provided for three points of ingress and egress to Spring Arbor. One was from Sheibome
Road, a second was by way of a connection with an existing street stub in the Ashbrook
Subdivision, and the third was a connection with the existing right of way in the North Augusta
Subdivision. Several members of the public had expressed opposition to the street connection
with North Augusta. The reason for the connection was because it was required by the
Subdivison Control Ordinance, the Hamilton County Highway Dept., and strongly suggested by
the Department of Community Development. The primary plat was redesigned and the major
change is that the street located nearest the west property line which formerly extended southward
in connection with North Augusta has been terminated by a cul-de-sac. The change resulted in
no increase in the number of lots; however, the change did result in the necessity of two
variances from the Subdivision Control Ordinance.
Mr. Nelson stated that two variances are required. It is approximately 928 feet from the street
intersection to the end of the cul-de-sac. The Subdivision Control Ordinance provides that a cul-
de-sac shall not exceed 600 feet in length, so our first request is for a cul-de-sac which exceeds
600 feet in length.
Secondly, the Subdivision Control Ordinance requires that when streets are stubbed into your
property, that in fact you must connect with those street stubs. A second variance is to refrain
from being required to connect with the North Augusta Subdivision. This is a subject matter of
item I.1. under Old Business. If item 1. is to be voted on this evening, a suspension of the rules
would be required to act on these variances prior to acting on the primary plat which is the
subject matter under old business.
Members of the public:
Cindy Sinclair, 3726 West 98th Street, representing the North Augusta neighborhood, asked the
Plan Commission to please vote in favor of extending the cul-de-sac rather than extending the
Street into North Augusta.
Ed Matizewski, 3745 Andrack Court in Ashbrook, adjacent to Spring Arbor, stated his concern
regarding original commitment of the Committee and the green belt or buffer area. It is not clear
whether the buffer is included in the lots or whether it is separate from the lots or what the buffer
actually entails, be it landscaping, fences, or fount of some kind separating all end cluster housing
in the area or surrounding that area.
Randy Shoals, 3796 Shelborne Court, expressed concern about the original commitment made
by George Sweet that there would be no cluster housing, only S-2. At the time we brought up
the importance of going from S-1 to S-2, that someone would take advantage of the fact and do
cluster housing; two years later now, someone is trying to take advantage of that. The other
thing that was promised was to look at turn lanes at Shelborne Road at 96th Street and 106th
Street for the proposed complex.
Pat Matizewski, 3745 Andrack Court, Ashbrook. I am still against Spring Arbor development
going in directly behind my property. I cannot believe the Commission would so easily vote to
change that commitment that was made in good faith, in fact I believe that was the final deciding
factor that allowed the rezoning to take place. What has changed in three years? A new item
brought up at the Plat Comittee meeting was that the creek would be dammed. That will
probably help our North Augusta neighbors, but does anyone know what that will do to the pond
in Ashbrook? I would appreciate any concern you would give us.
Laura Fair, 3766 Pendrack Court, Ashbrook. My request would be that you honor your original
zoning commitment for no cluster housing in that area.
Public hearing closed.
Jim Nelson responded that the public hearing concerned two variances from the Subdivision
Control Ordinance. Mr. Nelson stated he felt the other comments that were made by the public
were simply restatements of matters that have been heard not only at the public hearing in July
but at two subcommittee meetings, especially the last subcommittee when the committee
considered all of those issues.
Ron Houck asked if there were planned turn lanes for 96th and 106th Street intersections and to
clarify the buffer, whether that was included or separate from the lots, and what effect drainage
will have from the controlling of flow through the creek.
2
or
Jim Nelson responded that he was not aware of any commitment regarding the installation of turn
lanes as it relates to the residential development of this parcel of land. There were some
discussions regarding proposed roadway improvements to 106th and the intersection of 96th and
Shelborne, and I believe those responsibilities have been assumed by Mr. Sweet. With respect
to the landscape buffer, we have provided for a 30 foot green belt along the north property line
that is within the lots. With respect to the "damming" of the creek, the water will be controlled
with respect to its flow. As far as a dam that you would normally visualize a dam, that is not the
manner in which it will be treated.
Steve Bourquein, MSE Corporation, engineers, stated that in regard to the drainage issue, Jim
Nelson was correct in stating that during a design storm that we were required to conceptually
design to, we will be outletting water at a rate agreed to by the master plan that was prepared
for Crooked Creek. We did a very detailed study for the County Surveyor with regard to the
drainage issue. Kent Ward, County Surveyor, has agreed with our drainage analysis. It will not,
however, improve drainage in the Ashbrook area, since we are lying downstream from Ashbrook
and as such, none of our drainage drains onto Ashbrook, rather we accept drainage from their
area.
Jim Quinn requested that Jim Nelson give the public an explanation that would be more
understandable in respect to promises that were apparently made on this project.
Jim Nelson responded that the 30 acre parcel of real estate was part of a re-zone request that
included the land to the north which is known as Ashbrook, as well as the land to the west and
which is adjacent to State Road 421 and known as Hamilton Business Park. In conjunction with
that re-zone request, certain commitments were made regarding the real portion of that real estate
that was to be developed for residential use. Basically the commitment was that the cluster
option would not be utilized for the 100 acres that is shown here which includes our 30 acre
parcel. Since that time, George Sweet, developer of Ashbrook, did not proceed to purchase our
30 acre parcel of land; therefore he was not able to utilize our site for storm water retention
purposes and also unable to create the two lakes for storm water retention. Thus, he had to
handle all the storm water retention on his site. When that occurred, it not longer became
necessary for the two lakes to be created. As a result, we felt it was beneficial that the portion
of this site which is wooded and where the two lakes would be, would be in the best interest of
the public if in fact these were retained as natural areas. The total acreage of that is
approximately 5 acres. We do not believe that we are going back on any commitments made in
1989, we are simply requesting the right to amend these commitments in order to provide for our
development plan which we believe is superior in that it permits us to preserve this 5 acre natural
area. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan update has been finalized and it does contemplate that
this area is part of an area that is designated moderate intensity residential, which contemplates
a recommended density of 2 to 4 units per acre--ours is right at the lower end of that scale.
When commitments became permissible under the Indiana Code, the Statute contemplated that
from time to time commitments could be changed and should be changed and in fact, provision
was made for that in enabling legislation. In fact, the commitments that were executed in 1989
3
state that the commitments may be modified by decision of the Plan Commission following a
public hearing pursuant to its rules of procedure. I do believe that the commitments that were
made in 1989 are binding, however we believe there has been a change of circumstance that
permits us to provide what we believe is a much nicer development.
Commitments only go with the land if they say they do, and these commitments did state that.
The then owner of the real estate, which was Today, Inc., was not a signatory to these
commitments but there was no question in anyone's mind that the commitments included this 30
acre parcel of land.
Mike Hollibaugh, Dept. of Community Development Staff, stated that the turn lanes at 96th and
106th Streets were originally part of the re-zone and were recommended for installation on
Shelborne Road. At some point, with the construction of the residential and commercial
developments, it was foreseen that traffic would be increased to the extent that an additional right
turn lane at the intersections of 96th and Shelborne and 106th and Shelborne would be required.
This was a recommendation of the traffic study for the re-zone and it was not specified who
would install or when they would be installed, but merely recommended that they be installed.
At the request of Ron Houck, Mike Hollibaugh agreed to look into whether or not the petitioner
agreed to incur the expense.
In response to Mr. Matizewski's concern about the green belt, Mr. Nelson stated that the
petitioner committed to prepare a tree survey and a tree preservation plan at an estimated cost
of $10,000. It will be done before the committee acts on the secondary plat.
Mike Hollibaugh expressed staffs concern regarding the stub extension (or non-extension). It
is staffs opinion that the extension is more beneficial. Traffic will intensiy on all those streets
as a result of development, it's just a matter of degree how it's spread out. With the additional
extension of North Augusta, you allow the traffic in that area a different lane or different way
to travel in or out, which will lighten the load throughout the area. We feel very strongly that
the stub sould be extended and would like the Commission to deny the variances tonight.
Jim Quinn moved that the rules be suspended to act on Docket No. 23-92 P.P.A which is the
application for subdivision variances only, seconded by Barbara Myers. Mr. Blackwell abstained,
Mr. Klar and Ms. Reid voted nay, ten votes are required for an affirmative, Motion Denied. The
Commission will hear this matter next month.
Jim Nelson requested that Item 1.I be tabled.
Docket No. 30-92 P.P. (replat), a primary plat (replat) application for Walnut Creek Woods,
consisting of 24 lots on 31.74 acres of land located on the north side of 106th Street
approximately 1500 feet east of Shelborne Road. The site is zoned S-1 residence district.
Petitioner requests approval to replat the existing 24 lot subdivision to allow private streets and
eliminate the existing stub and second entrance to the adjacent property (recently approved
Stonehenge Subdivision). The petitioner is also requesting the following Subdivision Regulation
4
pr
variances: 6.3.4, construction will not conform to street layout standards; 6.3.7, cul-de-sac length
exceeding 600 feet; 6.3.21, two entrances required for subdivision with more than fifteen lots;
and 8.1, required improvements per developer.
The petitioner has also filed the Secondary replat and is seeking simultaneous approval of the
Primary and Secondary replats - Docket No. for the Secondary replat is 31-92 S.P., filed by Mike
Verble.
E. Davis Coots, 255 East Carmel Drive, Carmel, representing the homeowner's association of
Walnut Creek Woods, and Dave Sexton, an engineer, presented the plat amendment for Walnut
Creek Woods. This is an amendment to the plat that was approved in 1987 and has been
constructed with reference to the modification of a street that was approved and constructed as
a result of that initial approval. Walnut Creek Woods has its entrance off of 106th Street on the
south and is a 24 lot subdivision. It is anticipated that the buildout will entail 15 single family
residences.
What we are asking the Plan Commission to do is permit the amendment of our plat to allow us
to cul-de-sac Walnut Creek Woods North Drive. To require another entrance to Stonehenge via
Walnut Creek Woods North Drive merely adds another entrnce off of 106th Street and we don't
think it advances the purpose of the Ordinance to have two entrances within 500 feet of one
another, one servicing Walnut Creek Woods Subdivison and the other to be built will access
Stonehenge. Stonehenge was originally designed with one entrance and approved, and we don't
see the necessity of linking these two short cross streets to make the subdivisions connect. When
we presented our plans to Police, Fire, County Sheriff, and various technical advisory people, the
County Sheriff was unconcerned about separating the subdivisions, and permitted us to construct
the cul-de-sac. The Carmel Police Dept. initially reported to you that good planning necessitated
the connection as well as public safety. Subsequent to that and after the plans were redrawn by
Mr. Sexton, the Carmel Police Dept., although it does not exercise jurisdiction in this area, did
concur that the proposal we are presenting made sense, it met their safety requirements, and that
the connection, in their judgment, was not mandated. In order to do that, we met with the Dept.
and various members of public safety to design an enlarged cul-de-sac to what is presently there.
In order to meet County standards, although the streets will become private, the County requests
that the radius of the cul-de-sac meet its requirements for vehicular mobility.
We have redesigned the cul-de-sac to increase its size in the form of a teardrop, by an easement
on the lot immediately to the north, and will provide the necessary size for fire engines, school
buses, emergency vehicles to turn around. Further, to accommodate public safety, we are
proposing, and Mr. Quillan who has been before you representing Stonehenge, agrees that Walnut
Creek Woods will install and maintain at its expense, a temporary or permanent emergency
crossover in the form of paving brick that will permit the support of safety equipment but will
not be an attraction to traffic crossing over between the two streets. In addition to the paving
brick, we will construct sidewalk, pedestrian and bicycle access across this area to encourage
inter-action among subdivisions, if that is indeed a desired purpose of the ordinance. The
developmental standards variances that we seek are fairly self-explanatory if we are permitted to
5
cul-de-sac this street versus making the connection. The 6.3.4 construction will not conform to
the street layout and standards, and obviously that is why we are seeking that development
standards variance. The cul-de-sac will exceed 600 feet and thus the necessity of that variance.
We have drafted and are ready to enter on behalf of the homeowners of Walnut Creek, a
commitment to install and maintain the cul-de-sac on each end and the emergency path and
landscaping plan in between the two cul-de-sacs.
Terry Quillman with Smith, Quillman and Assoc., 7301 East 90th Street, representing the
property owner, Bernard Sadowski, and the developer, Howard Young. We are supportive either
way the Commission elects to go with this. We do have a couople of concerns: if the cul-de-
sacs are installed, is there some kind of variance that I would have to be coming back to because
I've got one entrance? We are trying to work with our primary plat and as long as there is not
a reopening or clouding of our petition, we're trying to work with them as best we can.
Public hearing closed.
Mike Holllibaugh stated that variances would be required for Smith Quillman somewhere along
the line.
Mr. Coots stated that Mr. Verble, on behalf of Walnut Creek, had advised him that if necessary,
they would agree to undertake the expense and the application process on behalf of Stonehenge
to apply for those variances if the concept of permitting two cul-de-sacs of Stonehenge and
Walnut Creek were to occur, and a singular entrance for Stonehen\ge on 106th Street, until
adjacent properties are developed.
Mike Hollibaugh said that contrary to Mr. Coots' statement, the fire and police department
originally believed the plan was OK and once they realized the relationship of Walnut Creek with
Stonehenge, they felt strongly that the stub should be extended. The Hamilton County Highway
Dept. issued their report and they also wished the road to be extended. The Staff believes that
the stub should be extended as originally apoproved and would request that the Plan Commission
suspend the rules tonight and deny all the variance requests.
Steve Brown said that at Mr. Quinn's request, he had looked at a Construction Agreement but
that Mike Verble was not a part to that agreement as developer but only as it pertained to the
homeowner's association.
Mr. Quinn moved to suspend the rules and act on Docket No. 30-92-PP and 31-92SP, amended
primary plat, secondary plat for Walnut Creek Woods, seconded by Mr. Dorman. Motion failed.
Mr. Quinn again moved to suspend the rules only and act on Docket No. 30-92PP and 31-92SP
for the amended primary plat secondary plat for Walnut Creek Woods, to be acted on this
evening; said motion was seconded by Salim Najjar, unanimously approved.
6
Dick Klar moved to approve Docket No. 30-92PP and 31-92SP; seconded by Mr. Blackwell.
There was some confusion in the original motion to aopprove the dockets and this was corrected
through the following procedure: Mr. Blackwell withdrew his second, and Mr. Klar withdrew his
motion.
Dick Klar moved to approve the variances as listed; seconded by Mr. Blackwell. Findings of
Fact: With regard to 6.3.4, street will not extend into Stonehenge, the vote was one for approval,
nine opposed. With regard to variance 6.3.7, North Walnut Creek Drive cul-de-sac to exceed 600
feet, the vote was one for approval, nine opposed.
Docket No. 32-92 P.P., a primary plat (cluster option) application for Millbrook. The primary
plat (cluster option) consists of 120 lots on 63.0 acres of land located on the south side of 106th
Street just east of Keystone Avenue. Site is zoned S-2 residential development. The petitioner
is also requesting the following Subdivision Regulation variances: 6.3.6, Required right of way
(50') to be reduced to 40' (lots 24-111); 6.3.20, To allow private streets (lots 112-120; and 6.3.21,
Two entrances required for subdivision with more than fifteen lots (lots 24-111). Filed by Paul
Rioux for Estridge Development Corp. and C.P. Morgan Co., Inc.
Public Hearing:
Ted Summer, 1824 Hamilton Lane, Vice President of Jordan/Woodlands Homeowner's
Association. Of major concern is the amount of traffic coming off Keystone west on 106th and
traffic coming out of Jordan Woods. I would like to see a 4-way stop at intersection of new
subdivision, Jordan Road, and 106th Street. I am also concerned about trees, we would like to
see some reasonable size trees along the road and trees 3 inches or greater in diameter put in a
systematic manner in front of these lots.
Barbara Beckerman, 10415 Chester Drive, Holiday Hills and Dales. I would like to focus my
comments to the north end of the proposed project. I have concerns and objections to the
layout of the community. By the time the roads are cut out and utilities put in and all the rights
of way are established, it will be hardly recognizable as a woods. IO think there would be a far
more creative design that woudl allow for much more preservation of the environment and the
woods that it encompasses. First and foremost, I would love to see larger lots and fewer homes.
I too would be supportive of any variances that would reduce the required width of the streets
and rights of way.
Mr. Quinn commended the developers for seeking input from the neighbors and asked the Plan
Commission 's consideration of a motion to continue the public hearing into the next meeting of
the Plan Commission. Motion was secxonded by Paul Spranger. unanimously approved.
There was a lengthy discussion as to whether or not this project should be viewed as three
independent developments inside of one or as one subdivision with three separate sections, and
interconnecting between particular sections within a subdivison to comply with ordinance. The
7
4114
fact that there are co-developers and not one single developer of the project was of no particular
consequence, it was filed as one subdivision. Terry Jones volunteered to review and see if there
has been another instance where a subdivision that has a whole section in and of itself doesn't
have an entrance into the rest of the subdivision.
Paul Claire of Schneider Engineering stated that at present they are proposing to provide passing
blisters on the opposite sides of each entrance onto 99th Street.
Ron Houck asked for an opinion from Staff on the advisability of interconnecting what they have
referred to as The Grove with The Villages. We constantly face an issue of interconnection of
subdivisions and I think a lot of this is one of image. The developer has expressed an interest
in reconfiguring at least one section of this development. I would like to challenge the staff and
petitioner to work together to see if a redesign could be accommodated in this section to facilitate
connection of these two areas.
Paul Estridge, Jr., 15119 Stars Pride, Carmel, Indiana, offered the following comments: What
we have before us is an opportunity in Carmel to bring a balance of different types of housing
to the Carmel market. This plan would harmoniously allow homes that are substantially more
expensive to be located right next to affordable houses, a concept that has heretofore been
rejected in Carmel, and interconnecting is not deemed preferable. We are trying to demonstrate
how this can happen within a planned community. If the Plan Commission community holds a
hard line on these ordinances, we are going to destroy the kind of opportunity that the developers
are trying to bring in creating an opportunity for parks, recreational areas, and affordable housing
along with $250,000 housing. We have a balance of affordability with very nice homes. This
is an opportunity for the community to see how this can be done.
This Docket will be heard next Tuesday, October 6, at Subdivision meeting.
Item 4H Commission to Consider Docket No. 35-92PP Primary Plat applications for Williams
Creek Pointe. Petitioner requests approval to plat a 166 lot subdivison for single family
residential development.Petitioner is also requesting the following subdivision regulation variance
6.3.22, eliminate required passing blister on the north side of 146th Street, filed by James J.
Nelson for Dart Development Corp.
Jim Nelson representing Dart Development, Inc., and its presidernt, David Freiberger, presented
a primary plat providing for the development of a single family subdivision to be known as
Williams Creek Pointe. Under the Comprehensive Plan, Williams Creek Pointe is within an area
that is designated for low density residential or 1.5 units per acre. There are some trees on the
perimeter, the focal point being the area along Williams Creek and the Osborne legal drain which
runs north and south through the property.
The Plat provided for a primary entrance off of Springmill Road, dual lane and landscaped, and
for a secondary entrance from 146th Street. Future access in the form of two street stubs along
the west property line has been provided. Street trees will be planted on each lot, sidewalks will
8
be installed on both sides of interior streets as well as along the abutting roadways of 146th,
141st, and Springmill Road. Seven lakes are planned for on-site water retention as well as
aesthetics. A small recreational area has been provided in the southeast corner of the property,
as well as a nature trail along Williams Creek that will be available to the residents, their guests
and invitees, and accessible by a bridge that will cross Williams Creek and connect both the east
and west side.
146th Street is planned to be a major parkway in the future and the petitioner agrees to dedicate
a 75 foot half right of way so that if the neighbor to the north were to do the same, there would
be 150' of available right of way with respect to the future. With respect to 141st Street, a 40'
half right of way will be provided. Springmill Road is a 45' half right of way. The petitioner
will make improvements to 141st and 146th per the requirements of the Hamilton County
Highway Department. The petitioner will resurface Springmill Road from a point 100 feet north
of the north property line to a point 50' south of the south property line, so that along the east
property line, the petitioner will be repaving the entirety of Springmill Road.
Mr. Nelson stated that they have a single request for a variance to eliminate the current
requirement of installing a passing blister on the north side of 146th Street, keeping in mind that
this is the secondary entrance, and also keeping in mind that some day, if the parkway were to
become a reality, the passing blister would be completely eliminated.
Concerns raised:
Dwayne McDavitt, 947 West 146th Street, Westfield. Adjacent property owners did not receive
notice of public hearing. Of prime concern is drainage. There is a 16 inch tile that runs through
McDavitt's property and empties into Williams Creek along the east of the property. The tile is
broken down and in very poor condition. .
Judy Hagan, 10946 Springmill Lane, stated that she was not in opposition to the project but was
concerned about the type of buffer to be used and the fact that children would not be able to
walk to the new school that will be only one-half block away
Public heaering closed.
Dave Freiberger addressed Dr. McDavitt's concerns about the broken field tile. Kent Ward,
County Surveyor, said that the Williams Creek project would be dredged in the next year and
one-half from 136th Street to where it begins in the Weestfield area.
Ron Houck asked staff if there was any coordination of projects in another district, i.e. Westfield
zoning district, in regard to the half right of way easement on 146th Street. Staff replied that
they relied predominantly on the County's thoroughfare plan and the interconnection and verbal
communication with their jurisdiction. We do notify each other of Comprehensive Plan, updates
and that kind of thing.
9
Sharon Clark offered that this fall, the County is undertaking a new thoroughfare plan, and
perhaps this will be a place that we can communicate and work together.
Ron Houck stated that there should be some inter-agency communication at the directrion of the
Department to start that process. Rick Brandau agreed to initiate same.
Docket No. 23-92 P.P. will be heard at Subcommittee on Tuesday, October 6, 1992.
Here followed a discussion regarding the amendment of the S-1 Ordinance. Steve Brown stated
that we are required to give notice of the public hearing 30 days prior, but a copy of the
ordinance we intend to have a hearing on should be on file in the office by the weekend.
Mr. Brown stated that he had drafted the S-1 Ordinance based on density according to his
interpretation. This is an overlay ordinance so as not to affect other S-1 areas and defines a
boundary from the center line of Springmill Road and to the west, 146th Street being the north
boundary down to the Marion County line of the southern boundary.
Section 5.5.2 states that the underlying requirement that the average gross density be no greater
than 1.0 lots per acre but may attain a level up to 1.5 lots when in accordance with the following
requirements, based on Dwight Merrim's report and what he suggested. That underlying concept
would hold true against unplatted and undeveloped land.
Section 5.5.3, we're saying that this overlay supplements or enhances all other requirements of
the S-1 district and we say that all those remaining requirements must be met in all cases. The
way this is written, you still have to achieve an average of 1.5 overall, so in effect, you're
probably never going to get to the minimum requirements of S-1. That is the basic premise, the
way the guideline would be, the way the ordinance would require it and if a developer brought
a plat in that fit with that, you would be looking at it in the context of approving it in ministerial
fashion.
Mr. Brown stated that Section 5.5.4 is something that probably would not have to be in this
ordinance. It kind of fosters facilitating open space around perimeters where possible if
topographical features warrant and keeping the same perimeter abutting requirements in mind,
maybe even combining open space with lots or just having open space. I went ahead and
included it because it was suggested by others as an ability to be flexible, but I didn't want to
include it just as a matter of right because I felt it had potential for manipulation from the
standpoint of ending up with strips around the perimeter and what gets built in the middle was
exactly what was desired in the first place, and you've gotten around the intent of the Ordinance.
I don't think you want to have that in there without being by variance. We need to define
abutting.
Ron Houck stated that the points he would like to see addressed are from a perimeter inward
approach with density. We are trying to match development density and the capacity of
infrastructure as well as quality of life and a number of other things to get fit with this ordinance.
10
The infrastructure that exists in Clay Township will not even support a buildout scenario of 1 unit
per acre, assuming all land is developd. If our intent is to allow development above 1 unit per
acre, I think we have to be careful as to how much we give away. The intent should be to point
people in the one direction and under certain circumstances allow a little more.
Steve Brown recommended that the Executive Committee, together with Staff, over the course
of the next 30 days, dig into this to refine it, and that once the Commission came up with a
formula, it would be the standard to the extent that everyone would be treated on the same
standard. The more your let subjectivity special permits into this evaluation process, you will
run more risk of legal situations.
Ron Houck expressed concern that the developer community needs to know and understand
coming in what is expected, and they can only do that if there are policies and standards.
It was decided to schedule a special committee meeting for next Tuesday at 7:00 PM in order
to discuss the S-1 Ordinance.
Mr. Quinn moved for adjournment, seconded by Sharon Clark, unanimously approved.
Ron Houck, President Ramona Hancock, Secretary
11