HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Sub 09-03-021,1`I y G`'`y of Cq,9y C ity
CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 3, 2002
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Subdivision Committee met at 7:00 PM on September 3, 2002
in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana.
Members present: Dave Cremeans, Chairperson; Wayne Haney; Ron Houck; and Maureen Pearson.
Marilyn Anderson was in attendance as an ex -officio member.
1. Docket No. 93 -02 PV; Shelbourne Greene, Section 8, Plat Vacation
Petitioner seeks to vacate Section 8 of the Shelbourne Green Subdivision. The site is
located on the east side of Shelbourne Road, 1/8 mile north of 96th Street. The site is
zoned R -1 /Residence.
Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for the Evangelical Baptist
Missions.
THIS ITEM WITHDRAWN
2. Docket No. 94 -02 PP; Lakeside Park Subdivision (Primary Plat)
The applicant seeks approval to plat a 215 -lot residential subdivision on 154.8± acres.
The site is located on the southwest corner of West 141 Street and Towne Road. The
site is zoned S -1 (Very Low Intensity Residential).
The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waivers:
94 -02a SW SCO 6.3.15 minimum street radius
Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Associates, Inc. for Roehling Enterprises,
Inc.
Mark Monroe, planner and law clerk with offices at 8888 Keystone Crossing, Indianapolis,
appeared before the Committee representing Ray Roehling of Roehling Enterprises. Also in
attendance were: Ray Roehling, developer; Doug Leske, project manager; and Dennis Olmstead,
project surveyor with Weihe Engineers.
The project consists of 215 lots on 154 acres located at the southwest corner of 141 and Towne
Road. The density on this project computes to 1.39 units per acre, and the open space is 41
The plat was presented at public hearing two weeks ago. Mark Monroe reported that at this time,
the landscape issues have been addressed as well as comments from the Technical Advisory
Committee.
S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\SubdivisionCommittee\2002Sept
Department Report, Jon Dobosiewicz. The Department has received the revised landscape plan.
The traffic study was distributed with the Department Report last week. A draft commitment was
submitted and attached to the Department Report. Following are comments regarding 141S
Street, identified as a collector roadway by the Thoroughfare Plan. The maximum improvement
on a collector road would be 4 -lane segment with curb and gutter. The collector road similar to
the identification in the Thoroughfare Plan, the northwest roadway through this site, is identified
as a collector road as well as the connection of 136 Street, both to be constructed with urban
cross sections.
Jon further commented that if the traffic study prepared by A &F Engineering represents build -out
of this subdivision as well as six additional subdivisions, (and if the traffic study is deemed
appropriate) the Department would see that this particular development would comply with the
following: Construction of one -half of the roadway with a single lane as opposed to one -half of an
additional lane, and improvements at the intersection of a dedicated separation between through,
or right and through, at which time we can improve the other corner. The Department will meet
with the petitioner and iron out the draft commitment.
The Department would want to see the petitioner move forward on using the resources that
would otherwise be dedicated to Towne Road in acquiring additional right -of -way off that parcel
and producing the minim improvement or the same improvement applied to the rest of 141S
Street. We don't want to end up with a telephone poll at the end of an accel lane along 141S
Street. We want to see consistent roadway improvements. The traffic study is supported by
comments in past approvals and supported under the Thoroughfare Plan.
Mark Monroe said that last week the petitioner met with Scott Brewer, Urban Forester, to go
over all of the issues. The landscape issues have been addressed.
Jon Dobosiewicz said he had not yet received an approval letter from Scott Brewer. Scott was
concerned about the area along the western edge and also about the interior of the site. The plans
have been added consistent with the buffer guidelines and clearly identified the plant species and
calipers at planting. It appears that the petitioner has addressed Scott Brewer's concerns.
Dan Dutcher had questions regarding the commitments —they do not mention the accompanying
recreation path. If it is incorporated in the plan, it is not specifically shown.
Mark Monroe responded the petitioner is prepared to install a 10 -foot pathway along 141S Street
and along Towne Road as required by the Subdivision Regulations.
Dan Dutcher also questioned the cash contribution on the basis of completion. The definition of
completion is not shown. Further, the cash payment is referred to as being in installments. If a
payment is due upon completion, it does not seem consistent with the concept of installment
payments. This needs clarification. Also, regarding the three year standard after payment of
roadway improvements—is this a standard policy? Roads should be improved close to the time
development takes place as opposed to three years after the fact.
Jon Dobosiewicz responded there are issues that tie things up regarding right -of -way acquisition.
S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes \SubdivisionCommittee \2002Sept 2
Three years is typical, and the City would not want to be forced into a time line any shorter than
36 months. The Department needs to review this language to determine whether or not we are
comfortable with the language specified. Regarding the definition of completion, John Molitor,
legal counsel, has reviewed this language and has no issue. Typically, the improvements will be
completed and Secondary Plat approved based upon acceptance of the streets by the County
Highway Department.
Mark Monroe explained the subdivision waiver being requesteda minimum street radius of at
least 150 feet. The County Standard is 150 feet as well as Carmel Subdivision Regulations.
Jon Dobosiewicz said this particular configuration would not save the developer any money—
they probably would prefer to install a cul -de -sac (less pavement width, much less curb). These
will be premium lots because they are grouped on a common green across the street. The County
has indicated that they are willing to support the waiver request required by the County
Commissioners so that the County Highway, in turn, would support the request for variance from
the standard.
Ron Houck asked if there were street lighting or individual lot lights. Mark Monroe responded
there is lighting at the Clubhouse /Community Center and down -style lighting in the parking lot.
Each individual lot in the subdivision is lit with dusk -to -dawn lights.
There were concerns expressed by Committee members regarding the safety issue of lot lights
versus street lights. Small lots with coachlights would be OK. If the lots were large, street lights
would be preferable.
Marilyn Anderson had comments and concerns regarding the traffic situation at 116 and
Shelborne and 96 and Shelborne. Jon Dobosiewicz said that one of the results of the traffic
study showed that more traffic than originally thought takes 146 Street over to Shelbourne and
moves south across 146 Street and down Towne Road. The intersection at 96 and Shelbourne
will be signalized this fall and lane improvements made.
Ron Houck moved to recommend approval of Docket No. 94 -02 PP, Lakeside Park
Subdivision Primary Plat, conditioned upon acceptable language in the commitments
regarding 141S Street roadway improvements. The motion was seconded by Maureen Pearson
and APPROVED 4 -0.
3. Docket No. 105 -02 PP Amend; Shelborne Park (Primary Plat Amendment)
The applicant seeks amended Primary Plat approval to plat a 57 -lot subdivision on
42.189± acres. The site is located on the north side of West 131S Street approximately
one quarter mile east of Shelborne Road. The site is zoned S -1 /Residential.
Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Associates, Inc. for Roger L. Kessler.
Roger Kessler, attorney, appeared before the Committee representing the applicant. Approval is
requested to plat a 57 lot subdivision on 42 acres located on the north side of West 131S Street,
one- auarter mile east of Shelborne Road. At the time of original platting of Shelborne Park, there
was a stub street to the west. Subsequent to the Primary Plat, the City finalized their plans for
S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes \SubdivisionCommittee \2002Sept 3
property to the west owned by Lacey, for a maintenance facility and water tower immediately to
the west of Shelborne Park.
Also, at the time the City was developing its plan, the property to the east was being developed as
Sedgwick and at the time of initial plat for Sedgwick, there were two retention ponds necessary
for Sedgwick and Shelborne Park. This then, became an opportunity to provide one large
retention pond that would then be under common control and maintenance.
As a result of the changes, additional lots can be added to Shelborne Park. The petitioner believes
that the plan, as submitted, complies with both the technical requirements of the Residential Open
Space Ordinance, and the spirit of ROSO, i.e. to set aside open space for active and passive use
and emphasize the protection of woodlands. There are 5.6 acres preserved in a conservation area;
there will be a walking path through the woods, as well as a connection to The Haydens
Subdivision to the north. There are also passive recreational uses on the southern portion of the
property.
The previous minutes of the Public Hearing and Subdivision Committee review wherein the
Primary Plat was approved were distributed to Committee members. The Department is
recommending a favorable consideration by the Committee and return to the full Plan
Commission. After construction of the single pond and common ownership, Sedgwick still fully
complies with the platting requirements contained within the Ordinance. Through the modification
and elimination of the stub street, the additional common open area created by combining the
lakes resulted in the modification in number of lots.
Ron Houck asked if the recreational area were large enough to be of any use, other than a place
for a bench. Before, the area could have been a playground —play area; now it appears the only
thing it is right for is encouragement by the adjacent property owners. Will the recreational area
be fenced, or will it be demarcated by heavy landscaping at the property line?
Roger Kessler responded that the open area will be heavily landscaped to mark the property line;
Dennis Olmstead said the area to the south is larger for useful recreation.
Ron Houck was in favor of eliminating two lots or incorporating them into existing lots, and
having a useful recreational area. The passive part of the open space is wonderful for the view,
but there is a practical side. One of the things we strive for in open space is a balance between
passive and active. The open space would be accessed via sidewalk.
Jon Dobosiewicz asked if the petitioner were able to shift the two lots and place them at the south
end adjacent to lots 14 and 23 where there is a large expanse of common, open area and pick up
the larger open area at the north end?
Marilyn Anderson commented that she agreed with Ron that the northern two lots should be
shifted to the south and the "tiny little strip" at the top should be increased to useable open space.
Roger Kessler suggested a wrought -iron fence around the two properties abutting the common
area and heavily landscape them in order to more clearly define the area.
S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes \SubdivisionCommittee \2002Sept 4
Jon Dobosiewicz commented on the concept of open space; there should be some meaningful
distribution of open space —the Committee can ask for fences, additional landscaping, benches,
sidewalks, paths, etc., if we want to focus on that particular area.
Roger Kessler agreed—if there were no clear delineation of the common area, the owners of the
adjacent lots would "take it over." A wrought -iron fence and a sidewalk would create a real
amenity area.
Jon Dobosiewicz asked that a re- design of the area be submitted to the Department prior to
September 11 so that it could be included with the Department Report.
Ron Houck moved to recommend approval of Docket No. 105 -02 PP Amend, Shelborne Park
Primary Plat Amendment, subject to the applicant's submission of a re- design of the northern
open space area by September 11, 2002 to the DOCS. The motion was seconded by Maureen
Pearson and APPROVED 4 -0.
4. Docket No. 39 -02 OA, 40 -02 OA
Amendments to the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance
Use Table Adoption Definitions Amendment (Text Amendments)
The petitioner seeks to make amendments to the structure of the Ordinance relating to
uses, add definitions and group all definitions into Chapter three of the Ordinance.
Filed by the Department of Community Services.
Jon Dobosiewicz said there were 4/5 uses identified that did not have assigned definitions. These
were highlighted in the Department Report along with modifications made thus far. There is no
expectation that this item will be completed for referral to the full Commission this month.
Here followed discussion regarding language, use table and definitions —text amendments to the
Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance.
Due to the lateness of the hour, the Committee agreed to meet on Tuesday, September 24, 2002
to continue the discussion regarding the text amendments to the ordinance. It is conceivable this
item could then be referred to full Commission in October.
5. Discussion of Secondary Plat approval process. (Open Item)
The meeting was then adjourned at 8:50 PM.
Dave Cremeans, Chairperson
Ramona Hancock, Secretary
S:\P1anCommission\ Minutes \SubdivisionCommittee \2002Sept 5