HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Plat COM 10-06-92 Plan Commission, Plat Committee Minutes, October 6, 1992
Meeting was called to order by Hank Blackwell at approximately 7:00 PM.
Committee Members present were: Sue Dillon, Barbara Myers, Jim O'Neal and Ron Houck.
Staff present: Rick Brandau and Mayor Ted Johnson.
Docket No. 44-92 SP, a Secondary Plat application for Avian Glen, Section 4, presented by Chris
White for Davis Development. Property is located on the west side of Hazeldell Road,just south
of the existing Cherrytree Elementary School. The plat includes 15 lots on 8.25 acres for single
family residential development, zoned S-1.
Barbara Myers asked about drainage around the large oak tree when it rained because water
tends to stand at that area. Response from Chris White was that from the cul-de-sac area a
drainage pipe has been extended to alleviate this situation.
Sue Dillon asked about retention ponds and landscaping. Response was made that the natural
amenities would be preserved for the sake of wild life, and additional trees will be added. There
were questions about erosion control, grading, and tree preservation. The response was that it was
all part of the covenants and builder guidelines.
Staff reports that all requirements have been met and the staff recommends approval.
Barbara Myers moved to approve Docket No. 44-92 SP, Secondary Plat for Avian Glen; seconded
by Jim O'Neal, all in favor, motion carried.
Docket No. 23-92-A P.P., an amended primary plat application (cluster option) for Spring Arbor
(The Montgomery Property) Subdivision. The following variances are requested: 6.3.5,
extending existing dedicated street adjacent to property; and, 6.3.7, cul-de-sac length exceeding
600 feet. Filed by The Estridge Group, presented by Jim Nelson.
On September 1st, Estridge Development presented to this committee its primary plat for
residential subdivision to be known as Spring Arbor and located west of and adjacent to
Shelborne Road between 96th Street on the south and 106th Street on the North. We presented
to you our revised primary plat which provided for the elimination of a street connection with
North Augusta Drive and an existing street stub northward. The possible thru street was
eliminated by providing for a cul-de-sac in this area.
The cul-de-sac required two variances, one for the length of the cul-de-sac and the fact that the
variances required no connection to the existing street stub.
1
Ron Houck brought up the fact that there was a staff report issued with some minutes from when
this was originally presented with Mr. Sweet and Brynwick Development. I don't know if you
are prepared to answer questions about that tonight, but as a result of public hearing, there was
a concern about improvements to 96th Street and Shelborne Road. It is Spring Arbor's option
whether they want to discuss this at the next Plan Commission meeting or here, but it will have
to be resolved before the application is voted on.
Jim Nelson replied that he had obtained a copy of the minutes that set forth certain oral
commitments that Mr. Sweet made upon questioning by Sue McMullen on February 6, 1990.
Those commitments, to my knowledge, were never placed in writing and were never included
in a written document that would encumber this 30 acre parcel of real estate, so my feeling is
and I expressed this to Terry Jones today, I did not believe that those commitments with respect
to roadways constituted a commitment that encumbers this land and is binding upon this piece
of property. We are of the opinion that we are making all of the roadway improvements that we
were required to make by letter that we received from Hamilton County Highway Dept. and we
believe that is our obligation with respect to the plat of this 30 acres.
Mayor Johnson stated that he had talked with the attorney at length this afternoon and at this
time, he did not have an answer to it. The feeling of the staff was that these commitments made
at this date are commitments that are carried out or eliminated. They did not bring them up
earlier because they felt like this Board would rule on that in general and it would be your
determination as to whether or not you will allow that to continue the commitments or not
continue the commitments. The issue, they felt, was really between the buyer and the seller but
they do not know the legal position and we were not able to get that position in writing.
Jim Nelson offered that he did ask their traffic consultant to review their impact and the necessity
of those improvements as a result of our development and he is available to discuss that. I do
believe that in Mr. Sweet's comments that were made February 6, 1990, all of them were
conditioned upon the fact that adequate right of way be available and adequate right of way is
not available at Shelborne and 96th or Shelborne and 106th Streets. In addition, I think it should
be mentioned that the roadway improvements contemplated in connection with Hamilton Business
Park are substantial.
The roadway improvements contemplated are substantial. Tom Ford, traffic consultant, gave the
count for traffic at peak AM and PM hours. Projected homes number 64. Currently no additional
right of way is available on 96th Street. At the time the previous study was done, 106th and
Shelborne must have been a two way stop. There was talk of creating another left turn lane so
that thru movements east and west could continue on. That is not the case anymore, it is now
a four way stop and it is analyzed somewhat differently. Right now, both before and after this
project would be in place, the intersection would operate as mostly level service C at the two
peak periods of the day. The intersection improvement previously discussed in regard to 96th
Street and Shelborne Road also speaks of another added travel lane for 96th Street. That could
probably be done right now under the existing conditions. The additional traffic added to it
under this project, however, doesn't change the level of service at the intersection; it does change
2
for southbound during the PM peak from a B to a C, but the overall level of service at the
intersection would not change. Although the improvements at 96th Street area probably needed
today, they are not exacerbated by this project. Currently, there is no right of way available on
the north side of 96th Street to Jim Nelson's knowledge. Staff reports that the key to this project
is an additional right of way.
Sue Dillon expressed concern that verbal commitments were obviously made but yet no one
caught them and they were not recorded and therefore not valid. What do we do about this, the
Plan Commission gives approval and conditions are agreed upon--what do we have to do to make
those conditions hold up?
Ron Houck stated that in the past, the Plan Commission had been very accepting of verbal
commitments that had been made and it has been expressed to me that they were binding upon
the Petitioner. Probably in the future we need to insist that they are reduced to writing to avoid
confusion.
Mayor Johnson offered that the first best way is to get your Ordinances in the right framework
so that you can do those things; the second best way is to get it written and recorded. Staff needs
to get those commitments ahead of time and make sure that they are written down and followed
through on. Not in every case does the staff cover all particular items, there is no checklist to
do on every project because every project is different. We as a plan commission do not have the
authority by law to make those changes in a meeting. The fact is they must be done prior and
offered to the Plan Commission as a means for making a project attractive for approval.
Jim Nelson stated that these suggested roadway improvements were suggested by their traffic
consultant, they were not required by the Department of Community Development or the
Hamilton County Highway Dept., these were our recommendations for roadway improvements
that should be in place at such time as all the commercial is developed and all the residential is
developed. That is the way it was presented. No commitment was made, as I recall, regarding
the timing of those improvements. It was recommended that these improvements be provided
when the Hamilton Business Park and when the Ashbrook Subdivision and this parcel of real
estate were totally built out. That is my recollection.
Ron Houck stated concern not only with this particular situation but ones we will face in the
future where commitments are made either a traffic or thoroughfare plan analysis; to me I think
from a Department standpoint and the Plan Commission's view, I would like to see these things
spelled out. Hopefully we don't run into a lot of these amended development plans, that in a
situation like this in the future there is no doubt about what is going to be done, when it's going
to be done and who the burden of responsibility rests with.
Mayor Johnson offered that part of the problem is that there is another governmental agency
involved and while you can be responsible to yourself, the other things that have to happen, you
cannot force another governmental agency to do those things.
3
Ron Houck suggested that an item be added to the Department's checklist that commitments be
reduced to writing and recorded with the deed, and that approval be granted upon condition that
commitments be recorded with the deed.
Sue Dillon moved that Docket No. 23-92-A P.P., an amended primary plat application (cluster
option) for Spring Arbor, be recommended for approval, seconded by Barbara Myers, motion
unanimously passed.
Docket No. 32-92 P.P., primary plat (cluster option) application for Millbrook. Land is located
on the south side of 106th Street, just West of Keystone Avenue (not east). Site is zoned S-2
residence district. Petitioner is requesting approval to plat a 120 lot subdivision for single family
residential development and the following Subdivision Regulation variances: 6.3.6, Required
Right of way (50') to be reduced to 40' for lots 24 through 111; 6.3.6, Required Street Width
(30') to be reduced to 26' (lots 24 through 111); 6.3.21, and two entrances required for
subdivision with more than 15 lots (lots 24 through 111), be waived. Filed by Paul Rioux for
Estridge Development Corp. and C.P. Morgan Co., Inc., presented by Jim Nelson.
As explained in the Public Hearing, C.P. Morgan Co., Inc. and Estridge Development Corp. have
agreed to purchase from the estate of Ellen Gould a parcel of real estate located north and west
of the intersection of 99th Street and Keystone Ave. for the purpose of creating a single family
residential subdivision under the cluster option to be known as Millbrook. The real estate is
zoned S-2 residential. The development plan that we are presenting this evening for your
consideration provides for 120 single family home sites which equates to a gross density of 1.9
units per acre.
With respect to locational characteristics, the real estate is located adjacent and parallel to
Keystone Avenue and adjacent and parallel to the Sanitary Sewer Lift Station that is visible from
Keystone Avenue as well as the different roadway leading to it from 99th Street. With respect
to the topographical and natural characteristics, a substantial part of the real estate is wooded.
A lake exists on the property today. Carmel Creek meanders south and east through the real
estate. There is a wooded area in the southwest corner which is the location of a large white
wood frame home that has existed since 1865. It is the intention of the developers to retain this
existing home.
The Primary Plat for Millbrook provides for the division of the 63 acres into three distinctive
subdivisions, one to be developed by C.P. Morgan Co., Inc., the other to be developed by
Estridge. I am presenting to you our plat as it was presented at the Public Hearing. Beginning
at the north end, this area will be developed by C.P. Morgan and will be denominated as The
Woods at Millbrook. The area is 11.9 acres in size aad consists of 23 lots. The homes range
in size from 2,000 square feet to 2,500 square feet and in price ranges from $170,000. to
$200,000. The plan as originally filed provided for two points of ingress and egress from 106th
Street to this area. We have provided for storm water retention by way of a lake, which would
be lake common area.
4
As we move south, we move into the area we have denominated as Millbrook Park. It is 18.3
acres in size and is that area adjacent to Carmel Creek. A suggestion was made and we are
looking into the possibility of dedicating this area to the Department of Natural Resources and
classified wildlife habitat. If that is not possible. it will be owned by the homeowner's
association so it will be retained in its natural undeveloped state.
Immediately south of what we have called Millbrook Park, is an area to be developed by Estridge
and known as The Village at Millbrook. That area is 25.8 acres and will contain 88 family
home sites, and be clustered. It will have access from 99th Street by way of a dual lane, divided
and landscaped roadway. The reason the cluster option was selected is because the cluster option
permits us to pull the development in from the outer perimeter of the property and what we
believe to be negative influences and cluster the homes and preserve the wooded areas.
There is another area to be developed by Estridge, and that is the 8 acres which is the location
of the existing home. We are proposing that area have 9 single family homesites, the smallest
being one-half acre in size, the largest being slightly under an acre. We anticipate that homes
in this area will be $150,000. and up. We have provided for access from 99th Street by way of
a single entrance off 99th Street. We are providing for sidewalks adjacent to 106th Street, 99th
Street, and on both sides of all interior streets. We have provided for a landscape plan at the
entrances off the roadways, along the perimeter, and the interior streets.
At the public hearing, we heard several people speak in favor of this project as it was presented.
We have worked with Michelle Spahr, and I believe all of the concerns expressed by her have
been resolved or will be resolved when the covenants are re-drafted with the suggested language
that she presented to me.
In respect to the Church, the Pastor of King of Glory appeared at the public hearing and had
some suggestions and thoughts that we could incorporate into our development plan. We did
revise our development plan for the northern part of the development only, that area that will be
developed by C.P. Morgan. A copy of this revised plan was filed with the Department of
Community Development. My impression is that Terry Jones of that Department favors these
revisions if they are acceptable to committee. Let me review these changes briefly.
First, we have reduced the number of entrances from two to one and the single entrance is now
aligned with the entrance to the Jordan Woods Subdivision.
Secondly, we have provided for a 75 foot tree preservation area along the west property line,
along the north property line adjacent to 106th Street, and along the east property line adjacent
to the real estate owned by the Church.
The Church requested that some supplemental landscaping be installed where it is nonexistent
today. We have added to the real estate that is being subdivided, two acres of land. That two
acres of land is today owned by the Church and the Church has agreed to deed the land to us,
subject to our agreement to construct a retention pond on that parcel of real estate and subject
5
to a drainage easement that will exist in favor of the Church as well as the developers. The plan
as revised has increased the number of available lots by two.
In order to preserve the wooded areas on the outer perimeter of the property, and in order to
accommodate this revised development plan which I understand is acceptable to the Church,
certain additional variances are required from the Subdivision Control Ordinance: the first is a
reduction in the required right of way from 50 to 40 feet, which is consistent with the request
that we have made with respect to the property on the south; the other is that our street widths
be reduced to 26 feet, which I believe is permitted under the cluster optional variance. If the
variance should be required for a single entrance, we will be asking for that, and we will be
requesting that the setbacks (front yard) be 22 feet as opposed to 35, and then you will see that
we have a cul-de-sac that is longer than 600 feet, in fact 650 feet.
In keeping with our commitment to the Church, we have provided for shade trees along the street
right of ways and also, our plan now includes the construction of an additional lane from our
entrance to Keystone Ave. That additional lane does require that the Church join in our
dedication for the required right of way and they have agreed to do that and that agreement is
now in writing. The plan as revised is acceptable to us if acceptable to this committee, and we
are willing to file our revised application tomorrow as well as variance requests.
You will recall that in regard to Spring Arbor, the changes that were made necessitated us re-
noticing. I raised the question today with Terry Jones whether or not that would be necessary
in this case because the public hearing remained open on this project. I believe it is the
Department's opinion that new notices would not be required.
Ron Houck asked the question whether or not plans were required to be made available for
review 30 days prior to public hearing, to which Mr. Nelson replied that he was not aware of any
such requirement, only that you need to state in your public notice where a copy of the plans are
on file. Jim Nelson stated that if it be the requirement that they re-notice, they have no problem
with that, and they would follow the direction of the Committee.
Jim Nelson also stated that it is their intention that this real estate be annexed to the City of
Carmel. If for some reason the County Engineer would not accept the 40 foot right of way, and
would require 50, then we have the opportunity of coming to Carmel and determining if Carmel
would accept it. I believe to date that the County Commissioner as they have relayed to me, will
support the actions of this plan and if this is a reasonable requirement, I believe they will follow
your direction and advice. There was a question regarding the "eyebrow" and it was suggested
that it be private instead of public, and that also requires a variance.
Sue Dillon asked if they had reduced any of their standards over the normal S-2. Response by
Mr. Estridge was that the original plan as filed is totally in compliance with S-2 standards. The
three variances required in the cluster option in terms of its absolute conformance with the cluster
option, are no longer S-2. The response by Estridge was that in order to achieve the changes
driven by comments at meetings with the neighborhood association such as having larger
6
perimeter lots, saving more trees, having a single entry, combining the retention pond to serve
the Church and our development, all these things were coming together and resulted in our
picking up two additional lots to support the cluster option.
A member of the public asked about the huge area at the end of the cul-de-sac, if there was any
way that it could be eliminated. Jim Nelson replied that more recently, the school had been
requesting a 93 foot radius cul-de-sac. They will make an exception if it is a short cul-de-sac
and it is unlikely that a school bus would ever drive down it, rather than on a longer cul-de-sac
that the school bus would be required to travel down, they have been pretty firm in their request
that the diameter be 93 feet. That's what ours is and it has to be that way.
Gary Larson, President of the congregation of King of Glory, wanted to express thanks for the
cooperation of C.P. Morgan. King of Glory has plans for the future and the retention pond will
figure very definitely. The developer has been very good in terms of working with us on the
western property line and making sure that it is acceptable to us, so we feel that we are getting
the best of both worlds.
Ron Houck voiced concern about the south side of the development and the issue that 88 homes
would be accessing one entrance and 9 homes would be accessing one entrance. I think of this
as a general concept that we do not want to foster. I understand some of the reasons presented
by Mr. Estridge at public hearing, but I guess I just don't see why the southern two developments
can't be interconnected.
Jim Nelson stated that they did view this as one subdivision although in keeping with
recommendations of the Department of Community Development, we did ask for variances. We
view this area as no different as a cul-de-sac in a normal subdivision. The fact that it has access
from a public street and serves other properties in our opinion is no different than being a cul-de-
sac on the interior of a subdivision. I guess it is our opinion that it is not in the best interest of
the project that the area which we call the "estate" area, which is the 9 lot area at the corner, be
connected to that area. Maybe that justs represents a difference of opinion.
Estridge added that they felt the present plan was the one they felt the most comfortable with.
Hank Blackwell stated that one of the requirements of clustering is that the natural features you
are saving for the people must be accessible to the people. The response was that the Green areas
are accessible by sidewalks and paths.
Ron Houck asked about the reason for the "eyebrow" in the one section. The response was that
the radius of the street dictates that the lots be fanned out. If you brought the lot lines up to the
right of way, the driveways would all come together at one point. There are four "eyebrow"
configurations on the property and they become private drives, and the maintenance becomes a
homeowner association expense.
Sue Dillon asked about the possibility of a National Wildlife Refuge as opposed to private area
7
maintained by the project.
Jim O'Neal moved to approve Docket No. 32-92 P.P., seconded by Barbara Myers, the vote was
3 for approval, 1 opposed (Sue Dillon, by reason of density). one abstaining, motion passed.
Docket No. 35-92 P.P. a primary plat application for Williams Creek Pointe. The primary plat
consists of 166 lots on 123.28 acres of land located on the south side of 146th Street, just west
of Springmill Road. Site is zoned S-1 residence district. Petitioner requests approval to plat a
166 lot subdivision for single family residential development. The 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 Jim Nelson for Dart Development, Inc.
Drainage plans were submitted to the County Surveyor Discussions resulted in a letter written
by Steven Cash on August 24, which said in effect " that the drainage facility for Williams
Creek Pointe be petitioned to become a regulated drain. We have been in contact with MSE
concerning this site and final approval will be given upon completion of new construction plans
as per county standard."
Dave Freiberger stated that he met with Dwayne McDavitt and walked the property. There is
a 16" pipe going through the McDavitt property that is blown through the ground. They were
promised by the County to repair, but they are currently 11 on the list. The letter says they will
fix it somewhere between 2 and 20 years, but Dr. McDavitt said that if I as developer would
petition the drainage board to make those repairs, they might get it done sooner.
I personally met with Kent Ward and he did tell me, verbally, that they were going to take care
of the drainage. Dr. McDavitt is worried that we are going to create more water into Williams
Creek and back him up some more, but I would like to mention that when our primary plat was
submitted, 116.5 acres came through this area, between Williams Creek and out, and we ran into
a major problem with drainage, and we thought this was approved, literally approved and ready
to start building. It was a problem that someone else had caused us. We went back to the
County Drainage Board, bought an easement, came across the street and raised the land 5 feet
behind Springmill Crossing. We bought an easement and brought it to the Mitchell property, we
bought an easement from Jeff Reed and piped this over 36" concrete pipe and stubbed it out on
the south side of 141st Street. What I am saying is we should have been dumping a lot more
water in here, but when we did this, we really spent a lot of money. I don't know if it helped
their problem, but it sure moved the water into the Creek a lot faster than it does now. I think
we have already done a lot to help the drainage and I can't see that this project is going to
Hank Blackwell asked what was being talked about when referring to repair of the drain. Dave
Freiberger's response was that he thought they were talking about digging up all the old tile and
replacing with new. I will petition the County to repair, but that doesn't mean it will be done.
Dr. McDavitt was invited to speak and said he wanted to go on record as having a concern and
Steve Cash did say that we had a legitimate concern. I just want to be sure that we don't have
8
a back up. It has been a real frustration because I petitioned to have this pond fixed in 1968.
Now, I'm 10th or llth on the list, and we are not making any headway. We cannot stand any
more water than we have now, and Steve Cash advised us to write a letter to the Plan
Commission to go on record.
Dave Freiberger said that even when the tile is repaired, they are still not going to carry all the
water when we have a big rain. The other problem is the blowholes they have been trying to get
taken care of since 1968, right in the middle of the corral where they have very nice horses, and
they could break a leg.
Dr. McDavitt also stated that when there is very much rain, water backs up across 146th Street
and cars hydroplane and have accidents. It is not only my problem, it is a traffic concern as well.
Dave Freiberger thought that a call to the County Commissioners would be more effective than
the Drainage Board.
Sue Dillon expressed concern that on all perimeter lots that back up to the street, all you see are
fences--like driving down a canyon of wooden fences! I don't blame the people for putting them
up, they want privacy, but they are not attractive. I wonder, and it's not in our Ordinances, but
I think this is something that has been addressed by the mayoral study, how can we handle the
lots that back up to main streets? The mounds aren't so good, that was criticized, you don't have
innovative design. I sure hate seeing those canyon fences. I don't know what the answer is. You
can't tell the homeowner what kind of fence to put up.
Sue Dillon also stated that according to the Comprehensive Plan, it was important that the
dedicated open spaces or greenways be linked. I think Rick Brandau is absolutely correct in
asking you to do this so it does connect. If the kids want to ride their bikes to school, they will
be able to do it. Would there be a chance of lining up with the property to the West of you?
Hank Blackwell asked if there was such a thing as a conditional easement that the homeowner's
could hook onto.
Jim Nelson stated that he didn't think it was a good idea to carve an area and call it a common
area because the property owners might be concerned as to what the association may or may not
do in the future. This is their back yard. What I have provided for is an easement along the
perimeter lots that ran to the benefit of the association, its members, guests and invitees. We are
at least halfway there by providing a nature trail easement that runs to the benefit of the
association and all people that live here. I don't know of a way to do it on a conditional basis
because this easement very shortly, when the plat is recorded, will be in control of the
association, then it is out of our hands.
Ron Houck said that it is certainly a subject that requires certain sensitivity of treatment.
Jim Nelson volunteered to put in the covenants that the nature trail easement would run to the
9
association, its successors and assigns, which means that some day if you find something out
here, this nature trail would be a good connection. That then leaves it in control of the
association. I will do that. Sue Dillon said Jim Nelson could also put in language to the effect
that as such time as the nature trail could link to a trail owned by the Parks Department,
whatever. Jim Nelson stated that they would re-think that and he would draft language to run to
the homeowners association, its successors and assigns.
Sue Dillon moved to approve Docket No. 35-92 P.P., Williams Creek Pointe, seconded by Jim
O'Neal, motion unanimously approved.
Ron Houck announced that the Executive Committee of the Plan Commission would not be
meeting this evening.
Motion was made for adjournment at 9:55 PM; all in favor.
Hank Blackwell, Chairman Ramona Hancock, Secretary
10