HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Sub 12-02-03
City of Carmel
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 2, 2003
Minutes
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission Subdivision Committee met on
December 2, 2003 at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana.
Committee members present: Marilyn Anderson; Stephanie Blackman; Wayne Haney; Maureen Pearson;
Pam Williams, thereby establishing a quorum.
The Department of Community Services was represented by Mike Hollibaugh, Director, and Jon
Dobosiewicz.
The following items were considered:
(TABLED)
. Docket No. 78-03 PP Amend; (#03050038);
1
The Lakes at Hamilton Place (Formerly: Eagle Ridge Subdivision)
The applicant is requesting approval of an amended Primary Plat to allow a private street.
The site is located on the north side of West 116th Street, 1/4 mile east of US 421. The site
is zoned S-1/Residence - Estate. The petitioner also seeks approval of the following
Subdivision Waiver:
78-03a SW (03050039) SCO 6.3.20
private streets
Filed by David Sexton of Schneider Engineering for Dura Development, Inc.
Docket Nos. 126-03 Z (#03080012); 127-03 Z (#03080013)
2.
Burlingame Subdivision Rezone
The applicant seeks to Rezone 67.295 acres± from S-1/Very Low Intensity Residence to
R-2/Residence and also seeks to rezone 9.13 acres± from S-1/Very Low Intensity Residence
to R-4/Residence. The site is located at 13619 Shelborne Road.
Filed by Steve Pittman on behalf of Shelburn Family Limited Trust.
Steve Pittman appeared before the Committee representing the applicant. Also in attendance were
Paul Rioux and Steve Edwards of Platinum Properties; Chad Pittmann, attorney with Bose
McKinney & Evans; Neal Smith, Pittman Partners; and Matt Brown, Traffic Engineer with A&F
Engineering.
1
S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee-2003\\sub2003dec02
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
Steve Pittman reported to the Committee that a letter was submitted to Carmel today from an
individual that lives on Shelborne Road in support of this project.
Steve Pittman gave a brief history of the development, dealing with the water tower, the issue of the
thth
proposed Street facility, the 136 Street road extension. The 136 Street road extension is actually
a 2100-foot extension through a property with 1400 feet and 70 feet of right-of-way.
Currently, the Dad’s Club is struggling to meet the recreational needs of the youth in Carmel and
has outgrown its present facilities. A representative of the Carmel Dad’s Club has been searching
for additional ground and exploring possibilities.
The Department of Community Services encouraged “outside the box” thinking and the proposed
plan is felt to be worthy of bringing before the Commission.
The plan was reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee in August 2003 and if approved for
the rezone, will return to the Plan Commission for Primary Plat approval. This plan is conceptual,
and with that conceptual plan, significant commitments were tendered. Those commitments were
revised in October and again in November.
The parking requirements were discussed at length; 164 parking spaces were initially provided for
three fields. There were still concerns expressed, and the parking has now been increased to a
minimum of 200 parking spaces. A second point of ingress/egress has also been included.
There was concern expressed regarding the traffic study and its accuracy. John Myers (HNTB) was
hired to do a traffic study and the Department (Jon Dobosiewicz) has submitted a letter to all
Committee members containing specific questions. Two additional questions were posed, one of
which was “Why would any empty-nester want to be by a football field?” Steve Pittman stated that
empty-nester people he had talked with liked the idea of being around the football field and would
help maintain the fields, etc. There is a demand for this product and a demand for this location—not
everyone has the same criteria. Market studies were done on small ranch homes with small square
footage—there are very few available and these sell quickly.
Department Report, Jon Dobosiewicz. Included with the Department Report is the letter from John
Myers.
th
Marilyn Anderson commented that one of her big issues is that 116 and Shelborne is a dog-leg and
initially, there was a traffic count for the part with the dog-leg, but there is no information in the
balance of the traffic study. Currently, there is no plan and no funds set aside to align the road.
However, the traffic study assumes alignment. There is no real documentation about the
seriousness of the traffic problem in the report. If we knew it was going to be aligned, and knew it
would be funded and would happen within the next year, that would help—but that isn’t the case.
Mike Hollibaugh responded that some monies have been set aside as part of the C-10 and the road
has been inventoried. There is no guarantee that road improvements will take place by the end of
next year, but that was part of the bond issue.
2
S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee-2003\\sub2003dec02
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
th
Jon Dobosiewicz said there is an illegal subdivision at the southeast corner of 116 & Shelborne that
will need to be corrected. There is a 4-lot Subdivision—2, 5-acre tracts—that have been illegally
split into 4 lots. Currently the property is “For Sale,” and when requests are made for development,
the City will request right-of-way.
Paul Rioux responded that they had given enough land (3 ½ to 4 acres) that could be either an
intersection or a round-bout.
Jon Dobosiewicz said the developer is here this evening and prepared to make commitments
regarding the roadway improvements. The Plan Commission is desirous of getting a commitment
that this intersection will be expanded. The other issue would be whether or not the petitioner is
willing to make a commitment (as a part of the rezone) that no more than “X” units will be
constructed until a trigger is met, i.e. the re-alignment of the intersection. The petitioner is
committing dollars to fund the roadway improvements, and that expedites the implementation. Also
a factor is the annexation by the City and the bond issue.
Marilyn Anderson asked if there were a list, how many road projects are ahead of this one, and is it
a matter of priorities?
Mike Hollibaugh responded that it is not just about priorities; there is so much work to be done in
western Clay Township.
Paul Rioux commented about the concept of restricting units, timing, etc. Do you have a moratorium on
new developments proposed and slow down the ones that are in process? Are we going to say that new
development has to stop—or will we wait until improvements are completed and the next level is “across
the street, or future plats, and whose lot is more important to be approved?
Paul Rioux also stated that it is not a commitment that developers would be able to live with—it would
ruin the finance ability with a bank.
Marilyn Anderson said it is the evening time in particular that stacks up traffic.
Jon Dobosiewicz said that today, a decel lane could be constructed and a left turn lane on the north side.
Paul Rioux said they have committed to spend $200,000 on off-site road improvements. It will be spent
wherever the City thinks it is necessary to spend it.
Matt Brown said he had spoken with John Myers. The traffic study is the result of 2002 compilations.
The County had decided that within reason, the intersection would be re-aligned. Knowing
developments take time to actually be completed, hopefully the road would be re-aligned by then. The
th
area was identified as existing, not yet problem, but no different than any other two-way stop along 116
th
Street to 146 Street. Of all the intersections studied, studied, this was not over-looked—it was pointed
out that probably the most significant improvements would be the re-alignment, or left-turn lanes on all
approaches and a signal.
3
S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee-2003\\sub2003dec02
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
Jon Dobosiewicz said he had talked with Centex and will bring it up with Claybourne—they make
commitments with their subdivisions to spend money on improvements within a one-mile radius,
and this intersection falls just outside that radius, about a half mile. If they are willing to grant the
ability for us to spend those resources and re-align this intersection, it will be that much more
important because of the construction of the new middle school in that area. Right now, developers
are platting subdivisions and the Department is having them sign additional commitments to pay
upon construction of the next section. Hayden Run Subdivision is now ready to record Section III
and the Department wants to close out the Subdivision. The Department does not want open books
on subdivisions, so the City will ask them if they would be willing to re-direct that money to one and
one-half miles out as opposed to the one-mile radius with the project. So, we could move that
money to this intersection.
Paul Rioux commented that in effect, the developer has little say where the road impact fee is used.
The impact fee is paid to the County Highway and they use it wherever they see fit. Paul Rioux
wondered if any approval could be conditioned upon commitment of the $200,000 specifically for
th
intersection improvements at 116 and Shelbourne Road.
In response to Paul Rioux’ question regarding the Department’s recommendation, Jon Dobosiewicz
said the Department’s recommendation on this proposal is favorable. The integration of the Dad’s
Club facility into the neighborhood is more meaningful as far as designed open space—it will be an
asset. This is a higher-level design and incorporates empty-nester housing. The concept provided
is more modestly price ranch homes with lower maintenance costs. To have the year-round activity
around the ball fields makes use of the facility as opposed to other facilities that are only used 6
months out of the year. This proposal integrates the ball fields into the community and everyone
living in and around this community will use this facility as park space and active recreation as
opposed to other subdivisions that are passive recreation (with the exception of swimming pool and
tennis court facilities.)
Marilyn Anderson then commented she was more hopeful about this intersection than she has been
at any other time. However, there is still one issue and that is the density of this proposal. In effect,
the ball fields are a gift from the Community to the Dad’s Club—the developer is making up for the
cost through the increase in density and asking the community surrounding to bear the cost. This
proposal is jumping a lot of levels in density—one level, nor problem—two to three levels,
questionable—four or six, that is more than comfortable.
Steve Pittman said he followed the reasoning. However, the developer is being asked to look into
this, and this proposal is a way that we think it can work. If you were the Dad’s Club, maybe you
would reduce the density. Maybe you would have ranch homes on half of the property and
two-story homes on the other half—you would be eliminating the townhomes. The townhomes are
effectively what is creating the greatest density.
Steve Pittman further commented that in looking at the Comprehensive Plan, going from “Industrial
Use” to the south to a higher density to a medium density use, and the possibility of building a road
through—that is how we made it work. When we talked to the people in the Subdivision next door
4
S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee-2003\\sub2003dec02
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
who had made significant investments, they liked the idea of empty nester next to their homes.
Centex and Ryland/Corby Thompson across the street were not opposed to this proposal—they
thought it was innovative development and added value to the entire area. The question is: “Can
we eliminate the Dad’s Club and the Townehouses and go with small ranch homes?”
Mike Hollibaugh commented that it you look at the user and the townehomes, the empty nester will
probably have fewer cars than a three or four bedroom home. You could say that this is a better
project than one that has kids in schools.
Marilyn Anderson said it is not as if there are areas where this proposed development would not
fit—areas that are zoned for this type of project—but it is not here! This is a significant difference
than expected.
Jon Dobosiewicz referred to the traffic analysis. John Myers will not comment as to whether or not
this development is appropriate, but this is the issue. If this development were 200 units rather than
307, would it make a difference in the level of service anywhere? The answer is “No.” If this
development were 200 units, we definitely would not be asking the developer to do anything with
the Dad’s Club and it would be a marginal question to ask for a commitment for $200,000 for
th
additional roadway improvements. The fact that the petitioner is extending 136 Street, pursuant
to the Thoroughfare Plan, encumbers this site. The logic is that there are two issues—design and
density. Ultimately, those are the two things that will matter in 20, 30, 40 years. What did we get
through design, and what does it look like and is it dense enough to support the type of
infrastructure improvements necessary when the time comes for additional expenses to be borne by
the City?
It will be much more difficult and a much greater expense to the residents in the area in 40 or 50
years to maintain the existing roadway networks. It will be much more expensive to maintain the
existing roadway at one unit per acre than at 3 or 4 units per acre. Per John Myers’ letter, it is not
“how many houses are there—it is level of service.” If this were built only as a subdivision, it would
th
have been finished by now and platted, and the intersection at 116 and Shelbourne Road would still
be in the same boat it is today. The intersection would not be any better, and aligning it would make
it better—better handling more traffic than it is today with less traffic, unaligned with no
improvements. The road improvements will handle the level of service necessary for everyone not
just this development. If the subdivision only were platted, the traffic problem would not be
addressed. We would be no sooner and no better off in getting closer to an improved roadway
network. If the developer can be coerced into making a commitment for additional roadway
improvements, it will be better for everyone. If the developer had 100 less houses, and the project
was approved, let’s say the Dad’s Club then pays a half million dollars for property and the
developer can only commit to spend $50,000 instead of $200,000 for roadway improvements.
Paul Rioux said the City does not have the opportunity, other than current laws or Ordinances, to
request anything of the plat. So, what happens is a rezone to open the door to negotiating on what
is good for everyone. The comments start at what does the City want—however, the developer is
not a charitable organization. The football field complex built for approximately $500,000 (one
existing in Fishers community) comes out of increasing the density to have the money to do it. The
5
S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee-2003\\sub2003dec02
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
th
$200,000 down the road in connection with 136 Street—under a planning scenario, you could say
it would be a good idea, but across the board, the developer would probably say, “We don’t have
to do anything.” It is not out of arrogance; there are just certain rules. When a rezone is requested,
there are other issues at play. The Street Fleet facility is zoned S-1 also, but it serves a need. When
going into a rezone, it has to be a “Quid Pro Quo,” there must be a benefit to the community or there
will not be a fair hearing at all. The Dad’s Club cannot buy ground anymore—it is too expensive
and no one is going to give it to them. So, this becomes an opportunity and the question is: “How
do we make it work?” Twenty-five years ago, towns/cities would purchase the ground and have the
facility available. Over the last ten years, it has been put on the backs of developers (then the
builders, then the residents.) Eventually, the homeowner pays for the development of the
infrastructure. Eventually, the person writing the check for the home has just paid for the Dad’s
Club, the intersection improvements, the sewer line, the water tower, etc. It becomes an economic
issue; then you try to find a new balance.
Steve Pittman said that looking at the other ground in the immediate area, this is the only site that
supports a valid argument for a different use. If this proposal were outside the ROSO, the
Department would probably say, “Don’t waste our time and money to bring it before the Plan
Commission.”
Wayne Haney asked about buffers between the smaller lots and bigger lots.
Pam Williams commented that it was not only a question of buffers between lots, but buffers
between the development and the homes around it.
Steve Pittman responded that this is not a negative—there are one-story homes. If someone wanted
to widen the lot to 75 feet, we would be willing to do that. We will meet the requirements of the
buffer yard ordinance. The area where Drees Homes are has 100-foot wide lots. There were
specific commitments made regarding fencing, trees, transplanted trees, etc. There are homes
surrounding the proposed development that could not be built in the proposed subdivision—they
are 100% vinyl, etc. The petitioner has made commitments that are not required on home sites.
They can have accessory structures, tall vinyl, etc.
Maureen Pearson asked if the perimeter setback and landscape requirement would be the same with
the rezone as it is with the existing zoning—Jon Doboseiwciz responded in the Affirmative,
specifically along the north side.
Marilyn Anderson said the noise factor goes up tremendously with density—and “I’m somebody
that it matters to.”
Steve Pittman said he had met with all of the surrounding neighbors and talked with them about their
concerns. It would be putting words in their mouth to say they are excited about this property being
developed. Realistically, they know it will be developed, and they want to know that we will do a
good job of it.
Steve Pittman also said he had requested acquisition of ground to extend the 8-foot asphalt trail; the
6
S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee-2003\\sub2003dec02
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
owner would not do that. Steve referred to the list of commitments being offered with this
development. 1) Meeting the buffer requirements. 2) Installation of a 6-foot shadow-box fence on
the southern property line, and 160 feet of shadow-box fence on the eastern property line on
residence commonly known as 13535 Shelbourne Road. 3) Installation of 328 feet of chain-link
fence along the north property line. 4) Installation of 118 feet of chain link fence along the eastern
property line residence, commonly known as 13549 Shelbourne Road. 5) Replacing existing fencing
in need of repair. 6) Submission of a landscape plan during the primary platting process. 7) Trees
positioned for specific screening for 13549 and 13535 Shelbourne Road. 8) The owner will install
new farm fencing along the north property line between the real estate located at 13881 Shelbourne
Road and other places where fence is missing or in disrepair. 9) The eastern property line will have
a minimum setback of 250 feet where the townehomes portion of the site is adjacent to Shelbourne
Park. 10) Installation of perimeter landscaping that separates the townehome portion of the
development from Shelbourne Park will be landscaped at 1.5 times the perimeter buffer
requirements per the zoning ordinance. Generally speaking, all rear yards next to roadways will
have at least one conifer tree of at least six feet, and one deciduous tree of at least 2-inch caliper.
Steve said that as a developer, he has worked hard to meet specific requests and concerns of the
neighbors.
Members of the public in attendance were invited to offer input at this time.
Debbie Winchester, 13881 Shelbourne Road, stated she and her husband had met with Steve
Pittman and expressed concern about moving the 15 lots that would be a wall of houses away from
the tree line and provide some green space. At a previous meeting, Steve made the comment that
he could install a buffer with a walking trail but the neighbors would not go for it. Well, that was
never suggested to the neighbors. The issue was “What could Steve do on his property?” not,
“What could Steve do on our property” We have no objections to the installation of a walking trail
across the front of our property and get the hikers and joggers off Shelbourne Road. The neighbors’
main issue is the density along our property line and if those houses could be moved back. A tree
is not going to screen unless you can put a 30 or 40 foot pine tree in there to block the view from
our bedroom. We have a two-story house and our master bedroom is on that side—it’s not going
to happen! If you screen the fence row, that would take some really big trees. Ms. Winchester
suggested installing open space in order to create some breathing room—even if it came from the
rear of the house to the front road—and put the houses up against the property line next to our
wildlife area. This would still provide breathing space in our home and where we spend most of our
time.
Mike Claytor, 13881 Shelbourne Road, said the issue is really how close the back of the proposed
homes would be to the side of their house. If there were additional space, it would not be an issue.
Debbie Winchester and Mike Claytor do not like the density, but with the changes in the area as
stated, a little breathing room would make it more palatable. We knew when we purchased it would
not remain vacant land, but we would like to see something in place that gives us a little respect for
the quality of life we have had up to now.
Steve Pittman responded that the request is very reasonable and he and Paul Rioux would be
amenable to taking the two lots in view and doing something different with them, perhaps a pocket
7
S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee-2003\\sub2003dec02
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
park. It is a reasonable request, and we would be willing to do that.
Marsha Henry, 13850 Shelbourne Road, across the street and south, stated she has the same issues
expressed, i.e. traffic, density, and more green space. Ms. Henry would like to see green space in
other areas as opposed to concentrated where the football fields are. The neighbors do not benefit
from the football fields, and we are used to seeing the green space. Also, the second entrance on
Shelbourne is not wanted. Ms. Henry said she has her own buffer—three rows of Pine trees, but
would still hear the noise.
Steve Pittman said another neighbor had wanted a second entrance—we are going back/forth on
this one.
Jon Dobosiewicz suggested that the petitioner submit language for changes to be made pursuant to
concerns raised. This should be added to the commitments and highlighted in a Memo.
Marilyn Anderson again referred to the traffic study and said she would like to see some studies with
a “T” and a labyrinth to see how it doesn’t click than to not have anything in there at all. Otherwise,
it is too easy for people who do not live in the area to not have any awareness.
Docket No. 126-03 Z and 127-03 Z, Burlingame Subdivision Rezone were referred to the full
Commission
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 PM.
___________________________________
Stephanie Blackman, Chairperson, pro tem
____________________________________
Ramona Hancock, Secretary
8
S:\\PlanCommission\\Minutes\\SubdivisionCommitteeMinutes\\SubdivisionCommittee-2003\\sub2003dec02
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417