HomeMy WebLinkAboutLawsuit
~
~
Real Estate are highlighted in yellow on the aerial photograph
that is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit
"B".
3. BONBAR CORPORATION ("Bonbar") is the fee simple owner
of the Real Estate, and Jacob Acquisitions, LLC ("Jacob") is the
contract purchaser of the Real Estate.
4. The Real Estate is zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential
-1) under the Zoning Ordinance of Carmel, Indiana (the "Zoning
Ordinance") .
5. After proceedings not material, Jacob filed an
Application and also filed a revised preliminary plat
("Preliminary Plat") of the "Bonbar Place Subdivision" with the
Commission with respect to the Real Estate on December 18, 2000.
The Application is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and
marked "Exhibit Cu. Petitioners requested Commission approval of
the Preliminary Plat.
6. Jacob requested such approval by the Commission of the
Preliminary Plat in order to develop the Real Estate in
accordance with the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Ordinance No.
Z-160, as amended (the "RCO") of the Zoning Ordinance, a copy of
which is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit
"D", as well as the Residential Open Space Ordinance, Ordinance
No. Z-346, as amended ("ROSa"), a copy of which is attached
hereto, made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit "E".
2
,
7. The Preliminary Plat for the Bonbar Place Subdivision
neither requested nor necessitated any special exceptions,
special uses, variances, or zoning changes.
8. The request for approval of the Preliminary Plat, which
was Docket No. 13-01PP before the Commission, was thereafter
scheduled for a meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee on
January 17, 2001, and for a public hearing before the Commission
on February 20, 2001.
9. Section 5.1.7 of the RCO specifies preliminary plat
approval procedures and provides, in part, that the Commission
shall approve or disapprove of a preliminary plat after any
changes or considerations are incorporated into the plat as are
recommended by the Commission or by the Technical Advisory
Committee to the subdivider with suggestions for changes. If an
application for a preliminary plat is denied by the Commission,
the Commission is mandated to set forth the reasons for
disapproval in its own records.
10. Because Petitioners' request for approval of the
Preliminary Plat of the Bonbar Place Subdivision was accepted,
assigned a docket number, and scheduled for public hearing, the
Preliminary Plat was accepted by the Building Commissioner and it
was acknowledged by the Building Commissioner that the
Preliminary Plat (i) complied with the applicable provisions of
the RCO and ROSa and (ii) was not deficient within the meaning of
3
16. Comments were made by members of the public about
claimed intimidation, greed, and high-priced lawyers. It was
requested by one adverse speaker that the Preliminary Plat of
Bonbar Place Subdivision be denied even if it complied with RCO
and ROSa, because of the planned subdivision's "density" and the
kind of building "materials" permitted by Jacob's proposed
covenants. Speakers expressed concern about wildlife, Yellow
Warblers, and the "sound" of the Great Horned Owl.
17. One member of the public suggested that the proposed
subdivision should be located in a "cornfield" rather than in the
adjoining "cozy neighborhood". One Hamilton County Commissioner
spoke strongly in opposition to the planned subdivision without
specifying why she opposed it and, in conclusion, offered her
"card" to members of the Commission so they could call her with
their concerns.
18. At the conclusion of the First Commission Meeting, the
only legally relevant comments by members of the Commission,
themselves, concerned the matter of traffic. With that, the
Commission referred the Preliminary Plat to its Subdivision
Committee for consideration.
19. The Preliminary Plat was presented to the Subdivision
Committee on March 6, 2001 (hereafter "First Committee Meeting") ·
As of the filing of this Petition, no minutes of the First
Committee Meeting have been prepared.
6
t :;
Trials Drive, and the Department's sudden claim that the same was
not a "through street"r the RCO nowhere defines the term "through
street" or provides concrete standards for what constitutes a
"through street".
In fact, Marwood Trails Drive is a through
street as such term is commonly understood, i.e., a street upon
which traffic can travel from one point to another. Equally
importantr in order to serve as ingress to and egress from an
eventual subdivision development on the Real E~tate, Marwood
Trails Drive was required to be laid out and constructed as a
through street pursuant to the requirements of Sections 6.3.3,
6.3.4 and 6.3.5 of the RCO.
32. Consistent with the constitutional and common law
precept that zoning ordinances must contain concrete standards
and promote predictability, the RCO does not grant to the
Commission an unlimited license to pursue a hidden agenda behind
vague standards.
33. At the conclusion of the Second Commission Hearing, the
members of the Commission members were asked to write out their
findings of fact upon which they based their denial. A copy of
such written findings are attached hereto, made a part hereof,
and marked as Exhibit "H". Essentially, approval of the
Preliminary Plat was denied solely on the basis of the claimed
application of Sections 6.3.21 and 6.5.2 of the RCO. The Minutes
of the said Second Commission Meeting are not available as of the
filing of this Petition.
11
t ~
.
34. Certain of the aforementioned reasons for denial were
ever urged by the Department, (i) during the First Commission
Hearing, (ii) during the First Committee Meeting, or (iii) during
the Second Committee Meeting.
35. Thereafter, on May 15, 2001, some twenty eight (28)
days after the Second Commission Meeting, the Commission rendered
a purported written "Decision" backdated to April 17, 2001 (the
"Decision"), which claims to be based in material part on new,
additional and erroneous "findings" and Sections of the RCO that
raise issues never before revealed to Petitioners. The Decision
is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked as Exhibit
"J".
36. As stated above, the Preliminary Plat was accepted and
scheduled for Public Hearing and, therefore, it had already been
determined that the Preliminary Plat complied with all
requirements of both the RCO and ROSa.
37. None of the aforementioned reasons have anything to do
with the reasons the Commission denied the Preliminary Plat but,
instead, evidence that the Commission acted arbitrarily in an
effort to further its hidden agenda to deny the Preliminary Plat.
38. The aforementioned reasons of the Department and the
Commission for denying the Preliminary Plat constitute the
selective imposition on Petitioners of special rules, a new and
erroneous definition of a "through street", the attempted
12
j ~
abrogation of Sections 6.3.3, 6.3.4 and 6.3.5 of the RCO, and
unwritten requirements or desires concerning open space, density,
lot sizes and wildlife and pond preservation, all in a thinly-
veiled effort to deny Petitioners the benefits of ordinances with
which Petitioners complied and upon which Petitioners relied.
39. The Commission went beyond its statutory authority in
denying the Preliminary Plat and, in denying the Preliminary
Plat, the Commission relied upon matters and considerations
extrinsic to the requirements of the RCO and ROSa, and the
Commission could not both properly apply the RCO and ROSa and
still deny the Preliminary Plat.
40. I.C. 36-7-4-1003(a) provides in material part that
"Each person aggrieved by a decision of the board of zoning
appeals or the legislative body may present, to the circuit or
superior court of the county in which the premises affected are
located, a verified petition setting forth -that the decision is
illegal in whole or in part and specifying the grounds of the
illegality". I.C. 36-7-4-1016 provides in material part that "A
final decision [of the plan commission] under -the 700 Series of
this chapter (subdivision control)" *** "may be reviewed by
certiorari procedure in the same manner as that provided for the
appeal of a decision of the board of zoning appeals". The
statutory provisions regarding primary plat approval are found in
I.C. 36-7-4-700 through I.C. 36-7-4-710.
13
f ~
41. The following principals of law, among other things,
are well-established and apply to the instant proceeding:
(a) Subdivision control ordinances must contain specific
and concrete standards governing primary plat approval.
Tippecanoe County Area Plan Commission v. Sheffield Developers,
Inc., 394 N.E.2d 176, (Ind.Ct.App. 1979);
(b) It is the duty of a plan commission to furnish a
developer with specific and concrete reasons for disapproval of a
plat in advance of denial. Tippecanoe County Area Plan
Commission v. Sheffield Developers, Inc., 394 N.E.2d 176,
(Ind.Ct.App. 1979);
(c) A plan commission has no discretion to approve or
disapprove a subdivision plat; instead, the plan commission may
only determine whether the plan conforms with the requirements of
the subdivision control ordinance. Dosmann v. Area Plan
Commission of St. Joseph County, 312 N.E.2d 880 (Ind.Ct.App.
1974) ;
(d) Any discretion of a plan commission is to be exercised
when the ordinances are formulated and not when they are applied.
Suburban Homes Corp. v. Anderson, 261 N.E.2d 376, (Ind.Ct.App.
1970) .
42. The action of the Commission in denying the
Petitioners' approval of the Preliminary Plat was arbitrary,
capricious, illegal, and contrary to the law, and the Commission
14
Subdivision Regulations
13.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS.
3.1 Violations and Pena1ties
3 . 1.1 A failure to comply with any of the requirements of this. ordinance, including
violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with the granting of variances,
special uses, rezonings and development plan approvals shall constitute a violation of this
Ordinance.
3.1.2 The Conunission, the Board, the Building Commission.er or any designated
enforcement official or any person or persons, firm or corporation jointly or severally aggrieved
may institute a suit for injunction in any court of competent jurisdictio.n to restrain an individual
or a governmental unit from violating the provisions of this Ordinance.
3.1.3 The Commission, the Board or the Building Commissioner may also institute a
suit for mandatory injuncti<;>n directing any individual, firm, corporation or governmental unit to
remove a stru.cture erected in violation of the provisions of this Ordinance.
3.1.4 Any building erected, raised or converted, or land or premises used in violation
of any provisions of this Ordinance or of the requirements thereof: is hereby declared to be a
common nuisance and as such may be abated in such manner as nuisances are now or may
hereafter be abated under existing law.
3.1.5 Any person, persons or corporations, whether as principal, agent, empl~yee or
otherwise, who violates any part of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor upon.
conviction, shall be fined not less than twenty~five dollars ($25_00) and not more than five ~
hundred dollars ($500.00) for each offense. .For purposes of this: Ordinance, each day of
violation of the terms of this Ordinance shall constitute a sep"arate offense.t
3.1.6 The owner or tenant of any building, structure, premises or part thereof: and any
architect, builder, contractor, realtor, agent or other person who commits, participates in, assists
in or maintains such violation may each be found guilty of a separate offense and suffer the
penalties herein provided.
3 ~2 Severability
Should any .section or any provision of this Ordinance be declared by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any part thereof: other than the part so held to be
unconstitutional or invalid.
3.3 Conflicting Ordinances
Whenever any.provision of this Ordinance imposes a greater requirement or a higher
standard than is required in any State or Federal code or regulation or other City ordinance or
regulation, specifically the Unifonn Building Code, One and Two-Family Building Code,
Unifonn Plumbing Code and the National Electrical Code, the provision of this Ordinance shall
5
,:iI~
Subdivision Regulations
govern. Whenever any provision of any State Or Federal statute or other City ordinance or
resulation imposes a sreater requirement or a higher standard than is required by this Ordinance,
the provision of such State or Federal statute or other City ordinance shall govern.
3.4 Non-Interference
It is not the intent of this Ordinance to interfere witl\ abrogate or annul any easements,
covenants, or other agreements between parties or to interfere with, abrogate or annul any
ordinances, rules, regulations, or permits previously adopted or issued, and not in conflict with
any of the provisions of this Ordinance, or which shall be adopted or issued; however, where this
Ordinance imposes a greater restriction upon the use of buildings or land, or upon the height of
buildings, or requires larger open spaces or greater lot area per dwelling unit than are imposed
or required by other easements, covenants or agreements between parties or by such ordinances,
rules, regulations, or permits, the provisions of this Ordinance shall govern.
3.5 Effective Date
The Subdivision Control Ordinance of the City of Carmel and Clay Township,
Hamilton County, Indiana, as herein presented, shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage by the City Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana on Dec~mber 18, 1979.
On this d:ate, Ordinance No. Z-14 passed by the Town Board ofTrustee's of the Town
of Cannel, Indiana, on December 21, 1957 and May 2, 1961, and the Subdivision Control
Ordinance No. 2.160 passed by the City Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, onDece~ber
18, 1979, respectively, and aU amendments thereto, are hereby repealed and all other ordinances
ot parts thereof which are in conflict with the terms and conditions of this Ordinances are' heteby
repealed.
3.6 Amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance
3.6.1 Any person, group of persons or organization may'seek to amend the
Subdivision Control Ordinance. All am-endments shall be subject to State Statutes and to the
procedures cited herein.
3.6.2 Whenever an amendment to the Subdivision -Control Ordinance is proposedJ.ithe
applicant or his duly authorized representative shall meet with the Building Conunissioner in
order that the Building Commissioner may undert.ake a preliminary review of the amendment
proposal. The Building Commissioner shall aid and advise the applicant in preparing his
application and supporting materials as necessarY. The applicant shall then submit two (2)
copies of the written application form together with such necessary supporting documents and
materials and the application fee, as indicated in Section 29.6 of the Zoning Ordinance-, to the
Building Commissioner.
3.6.3 Following the receipt of the written application, necessary supporting documents
and materials and the application fee by the Building Commissioner, he shall then reView the
materials solely for the purpose of determining whether the application is complete, in technical
compliance with all applicable ordinances, laws and regulations and is to be forwarded to the
6
.'1
Subdivision Regulations
· Commission. If the materials su~mitted by the applicant a.re not complete or do not comply with
the necessary legal requirements, the Building Commissioner shall inform the applicant, in
wntkg, within 10 days of.the receipt of the materials,. of the deficiencies in said materials.
Unless and until the Building Commissioner formally accepts the application as complete and in
legal compliance, it shall not be considered as formally tiled for the purpose of proceeding to
succeeding steps necessary to amend the Subdivision Control Ordinance as hereinafter set forth.
Within 30 days of the formal acceptance of the application by the Building Commissioner, he
shall formally file the application by placing it on the agenda of the Commission according to the
Commission's Rules of Procedure.
3.6.4 Once the Building Commissioner has accepted and filed the application with the
Commission, the Commission or its delegate shall assign a docket number and set a date and
time for a public hearing. The :Building Commissioner shall notify the applicant in writing of the
public hearing. the applicant shall be responsible for the cost and publication of the published
legal notification of the public hearing which shall appear at least 10 days prior to the date of the
public hearing. .As necessary, the applicant shall also notify all adjoining and abutting property
owners. The Commission shall hold the public hearing according to its rules of procedure.
3.6.5 Following the public hearing on the Subdivision Ordinance amendment
application, the Commission, within 45 days of the public hearing, shall review the proposed
amendment outlined in the application and shall notify the applicant in writing of any further
changes which are required or should have c.onsideration b.efore a recommendation.on the
amendment application can be given. Within 45 days of the receipt ofm.aterials incorporating
the required changes into the application, the Commission shall make a recommendation to the
City Council for approval or denial of the amendment application. The Commission shall
fonnulate a report, to the City Council outlining the pertinent factors ,involved in its decision, its
recommendation and the vote in regard to said reco~endation. The Commission report shall
be certified to the Commission Secretary and shall be forwarded to the City Council by its next
regularly scheduled .meetin'g.
('
\.
3.6.6 At its next meeting following the receipt of the Commission report, the City
Council shall take action on the Commission .rep9rt. If t.he Commission reco~endat.ion is
positive, the City Council may approve the proposed amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance if
an affirmative vote is obtained. If the Commission recommendation is negative, the City Council
may approve the proposed amendment to the Subdivision. Ordinance "if an aftinnative vote of at
least seventy-five per cent (75%) of the members of the City Council is obtained Failure of the
City Council to pass the proposed amend~ent t,o the Subdivision Ordinance by the necessary
affirmative vote within 90 days after the negative recommendation is made by the Commissio.n
shall const~tute rejection oCthe proposed amendment. Should. the City Council reject the
proposed amendment to th~ Subdivision Ordinance, by vote or by default, said proposed
amendment shall not be reconsidered by the Commission or th'e City Council until the expiration
of one (1) year after the original recommendation of the Commission.
3. 7 Variance
The Plan Commission may authorize in specific cases such variance from the terms of
the Subdivisio'n Control Ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, where, owing to
7
Subd~viaion Regulations
DWELLING, TWQ-F AMIL Y. A residential building containing two dwelling units
and not occupied by more than two families.
DWELLING UNIT. One or more rooms in a residential building, or residential portion
of a building., which are arranged, designed, used or intended for use as a. complete, independent
living facility for ~ne family and which includes pennanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating,
cooking and sanitation.
EASEMENT. A grant by the property owner of the use of a strip of land. by the public,
a corporation, or persons,. for specified purposes.
EROSION. The removal of surface materials by the action of natural elements.
EXCAVATION. Any act by which earth, sand, gravel, rock or any other similar
material is dug into, cut, quarried, uncovered, removed, displaced, relocated or bulldozed and
shall include the conditions resulting therefrom.
FILL. Any act by which earth, san~, gravel, rock or any other material is placed,
pushed, dumped, pulled, transported or moved to a new location above the natural surface of
the ground or on top of the stripped surface and shall include all conditions resulting therefrom.
The difference ~ elevation between a point on the original ground and a designated point of
higher elevation on the final. grad,~.
FLOOD PL~. The area along a natural watercourse which is periodically
overflowed by water therefrom.
(
FLOOD PLAIN" DISTRICT. All land lying within the floodplain of the IOO-year
frequency flood of any water course and their tributary streams is within the floodplain and
subject to these regulations,. in addition to the regulations otherwise established by the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Carmel. The boundaries of the floodplain are hereby established as
shown on the zoning district map.
GROSS DENSITY. The number of dwelling units per acre for the total subdivision,
including all land, roads, parking, services and nonresidential uses.
GROUND FLOOR. The first level of a building that provides outside access by a
door.
HORIZONT.AL VISmaITY. A direct line of sight forty-eight inches high across a
plane parallel to the plane of the horizon.
HOUSE PAD ELEV AIl ON. The lowest outside finished groun.d elevation necessary
to meet the minimu.m drainage requirements for the ground floor of a structure.
Il\1PROVE11ENT LOCATION PERl\1IT. A permit signed by the Building
Commissioner, stating that.a proposed improvement complies with the provisions of this
ordinance and such other ordinances as may be applicable.
11
Subdivieion Regulations
c _ STREET,' AR TERlAL. A street designated for large volumes of traffic movement.
Certain Arterial Streets may be classified as Limited Access Highways.
STREET, FEEDER. A street planned to facilitate the collection of traffic from
Residential Streets, and to provide circulation within neighborhood areas and convenient ways
for traffic to reach Arterial Streets.
STREET, P ARKW A Y. A street intended to be used. primarily for passenger vehicles
and developed with a parklike or scenic character.
STREET, RESIDENTIAL. A street designated primarily to provide access to abutting
properties, us.uallyresidential. Certain Residential Streets may be Marginal Access Streets or
Frontage Roads parallel to Arterial Streets, which provide access .to., abutting property and ways
for traffic to reach access points o.n Arterial Streets.
SUBDIVIDER. Any person or persons, finn or corporation engaged in developing or
improving a tract of land which complies with the definition of a subdivision. as defined iIi this
Ordinance'.
SUBDIVISION. The division of any. parcel of land into two or more parcels, sites or
lots, anyone of which is less than five acres in area for the purp'ose of transfer of ownership, or
building development, excluding cemeteries. The improvement of on~. or more parcels of land
for residential,. commercial or industrial structures or groups of structures involving the
subdivision and allocation of land as streets or other open space.s for' common use by'owners,
occupants or lease holders or as easements for the extension and maintenance of public sewer,
water, storm drainage, Of other public facilities and utilities. .
SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE. The flow of water in man-made structures including
storm drains, drain tile, culverts and tunnels, and the flow of water underground through natural
passage to geologic fonnations.
SURF ACE DRAINAGE. In general, the flow of surface water over a given area to a
natural or man-made waterway.
SW ALE. A low~lying stretch of land which gathers or carries surface water runoff
THOROUGHFARE PLAN. A part of the Comprehensive Plan of Carmel which sets
forth the location, alignment, dimensions, identification and classification of existing and
proposed streets, highways and other thoroughfares.
TOPSOn.,.. Surface soils and subsurface soils which presumably are fertile soils and
soil material, ordinary rich in organic matter or humus debris. Topsoil is usually found.:,in the
uppermost soil layer called the "a Horizon".
TYPE OF OWNERSHIP. Refers to meth.ods .of ownership of any type of dwelling
unit, including individual, corporate, cooperative or condominium fo'nn of ownership or rental.
14
Subdi~ision RegulatiohS
i Commission as to what terms and conditions will apply b.efore secondary plat .approval is
granted, if any, it being the purpose of such preliminary data and drawings to advise both the
Commission and the interested public as to what the applicant or subdivider is proposing in
order to appropriately hold a public hearing on the proposed subdivision.
5.1.6 Public Hearing. Once the Building Commissioner has accepted and filed an
application and preliminary plat, the Commission or its delegat.e shall assign a docket number
and set a date and time for a public hearing as required by the Rules of Procedure of the
Co.mmission. The applicant shall be responsible for providing legal notice to all interested
parties and property owners as required by the Rules of Procedure of the Commission. The
minimum time period for the giving of the notice shall be at least thirty (30) days prior to the
initial hearing date. The condl:1ct of the Public Hearing shall be in accordance with the
Commission's Rules of Procedure. Following the public hearing, the plat is to be reviewed by
the Commission.
5.1.7 Approval of Disapproval of th~ Preliminary Plat Following the public hearing of
the preliminary plat the. Commission, within 45 days of the date of the public hearing, shall notify
the applicant in writing, of any further changes in the preliminary plant which are required or
should have consideration before approval of the preliminary plat may be given. This may
include a review of the proposed plat by the Building Commissioner's Technical Advisory
Committee" When the required changes and considerations are incorporated into the preliminary
plat, the Commission shall then approve or disapprove the preliminary plat. If the Commission
disapproves the preliminary .plat, it shall set forth the reasons for such disapproval in its own
records and shall provide the applicant with a copy of such reasons. In determining whether an
application for approval shall be granted; the Commission shall consider generally if the plat
provides for:l : (1) co~rdinatio.n of subdivision streets with existing and planne4 streets O.f . (
highways; (2) coordinatio~ wit~ and extension ot: facilities included in the master plan; (~)
establishm~nt of minimum width, depth, and area,oflots within the proposed subdivision; (4) .
distribution of population arid traffic in a manner tending to create conditions favorable to
health, safety, convenience' and thehannonious development of the city or county; (5) fair
allocations of areas. for streets, parks, schools, public and semi-public buildings, homes, utilities,
business and industrY; and (6) other relevant factors. The Building Commissioner shall notify
the applicant in writing of the approval or disapproval of the preliminary pIat1 and if approved,
inform the applicant that he may proceed with the final plat and the construction plans.
s. 1.8 The .Nfeani.ngof Approyal. Approval of a preliminary plat shall not constitute
app.roval of the final plat. It shall be deemed as an expres.sion of approval of the layout
submitted on the preliminary plat as a guide to the. preparation.ofthe final plat.
5.1.9 The Fin~ Pl~t ~ .Ge~erally~ the final plat shall conform to the preliminary plat as
approved and may include all, or only a part, of the preliminary plat which has received
approval and shall confonn to all of the requirements for final plat as h.ereinafter set forth.
5.1.10 Applic.atio.n for .Final Plat. Five (5), or more if necessary, of th.e final plat .and of
the construction plans, tog'ether with supporting documents, shall be submitted to the Building
Commissioner with a written application and the applicatio'n fee as indicated in S.ection 29.6 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
17
Subdivision Regulations
.S.O PROCEDURE FOR SUBDIVISIONS
5. 1 Procedure Generally
5.1.1 The Preliminary Plat~. Conformance. Whenever a subdivision is proposed to be
made on any land lying within the jurisdiction of the Commission, and before any construction
work is started, the owner or proprietor of the proposed subdivision or his duly authorized
representative shall cause a preliminary plat to be prepared as required here'in.~" The preliminary
plat shall comply fully with the health, zoning, and other applicable ordinances in effect at the
time the plat is submitted. Whenever the platting .of any residential ground within the
jurisdiction of this ordinance is proposed, the procedure and requirements herein shall apply.
where the platting of commercial or industrial ground within the jurisdiction of this' ordinance is
proposed, the procedure and requirements shall be adjusted as necessary in order to allow the
platting of streets and easements without platting lots. The supporting data, construction plans
and so forth shall follow the requirements herein. The procedures for p.reli91inary and secondary
final plat approval may be followed concurrently, if the applicant desires and so files, although
no final plat approval shall be granted by the Commission until it has granted preliminary plat
approval.
5.1.2 Review with Building Commissioner. Applicants shall meet with the Building
Commissioner to review the zoning classification of their site, obtain copies of all regulatory
ordinances if necessary, review the plattirtg procedure and the proposed development and use of
their property. The Building Comniissioner shall aid and advise the applicant in preparing.. his
application and supporting documents, .ifnecessary. '"
5.1.3 Applic~tio~ for. Preli~nary Pla~.. Five (5) copies', or more ifnecessary, of the
preliminary plat, together with supporting documents, shall be submitted to the Building
Commis'sionet with a written application and the application fee as indicated in Section 29.6 of
the Zoning Ordin~ce.
5.1.4 lnit~:al Revie~ofthe P~eli~nary Plat by the B~ilding C.o.mmi~sio.ner. Following
the receipt o'fthe prelinri.na"ry plat,' other required materials and the writt.en applicatioIl; and the
application fee by the Building Commissioner, the applicant shall have thirty (30) days to
complete the requirements listed herein, if necessary. When the applicant states in writing that
he. has fu1:filled the re.quirements, the Building Commissioner shall, within thirty (30) 'days,
review the p'reliminary plat. and related materials solely for the purpose of determining whether
to allow the preliminary plat to be formally filed with the Commission. If the materials
submitted by the applicant do not co.mply with the ordinance, the'Building C:onunissioner shall
inform the applicant) in writing; of ~he deficiencies in his materials and shall extend the time
period allowed for submissio'n. Unl~ss and u~ntil the Building Commissioner formally accepts a
preliminary plat for filing, it shall not be consi.dered as actually tiled far the purposes of
proceeding to the succeeding steps toward final plat approval as hereinafter set forth. The
application is formally filed when it is phiced upon the Commission agenda by the Building
Commissioner, according to th'e Commission Rules of Procedure curre'ntly in effect.
5.1.5 The Meaning ofFilin,g. The.filing of a primary plat approval request grants no
proprietary rights to the applicant in the proposed subdivision and in no way is binding upon the
16
..
subdivision Regulations
5.1.11 Initial Review. of the Final Plat bv the Building Commissioner. Following the
receipt of the final plat, the construction plans, other required materials, the written application
Aftd th~ A~~1iMtion f!! by th! Building Commissioner, the applicant shall have thirty (30) days to
complete the requirements listed herein, if necessary. When the applicant states in writing that
he has fulfilled his requirements, the Building Commissioner shall, within thirty (30) days, review
the final plat, construction plans, and related materials solely for the purpose of determining
whether the application is complete and whether it fulfills the requirements listed herein. If the
materials submitted by t.he applicant are not complete or do not comply with the..ordinance, the
Building Commissioner s.hall inform the applicant, in writing, of the deficiencies in his materials
and shall extend the time period allowed for submission. When the Buildi,ng Conunissioner
verifies completion and conformance with the technical terms of the ordinance, he shall place the
final plat application on the Commission agenda according to the Commission Rules of
Procedure currently in effect. .
5.1.12 Approval or Disapproval of the Final Plat. After submission of the final plat by
the Building Commis$ioner to the Commission, the Commission. shall review the final plat,
co.nstruction plans and other materials. If any changes or other considerations in the final plat,
construction plans, or oth'er.materials are required or requeste:d by the Commission they shall so
infonn the applicant in. writing. When the required changes and considerations are incorporated
into the final plat, construction plans and other materials, the Commission shall then approve or
disapprove the final plat and construction plans within 45 days of the receipt of amended
materiaL If the Commission approves the final plat, it shall affix the Commissio'n's seal upon the
final plat, together with certifying signatures of the President and Secretary, following the
receipt by the prop.er authorities of financial guarantee of all improvements and installations
required. If the Commission disapproves the final plat, it shall set forth the reason's for such
di'sapproval in its oWn records and shall provide the applicant with a copy of such reas'{:>ns: The
Building Commissioner shall notify the applicant in wiring of the approval or disapproval of the
final plat, and if ap'proved, inform the applicant that he may proceed with the construction of the
subdivision following the recording of the final plat.
5.1.13 Recording the Final Plat. After the Commission has approved the final plat the
. subdivider shall file such plat for rec.ordation in the office of the Recorder of Hamilton County,
Indiana. The application and submission of the plat for approval shall, in and of itself: constitute
an agreement on the part of the applicant that if the final 'plat is approved by the Commission,
the applicant shall proceed to record the approved final plat within one year after the
Commission grants such approval. Failure to record the final plat within this period shall result
in the approval being declared void by the Commission unless an extension is applied for and
granted by the Commission. F allowing approval by the Commission and the recording of the
final plat, the applicant shall provide the C9mmission with a reproducible copy of the final plat
and accompanying covenants and. including certification and signatures of the Conunission and
o.fthe Recorder of Hamilton County, Indiana.
5.1.14 Commencing Construction of the Final Plat. Any person, to whom approval is
granted final plat approval for a subdivision, who fails to .commence construction within
eighteen (18) months after such approv.al has been granted, shall, within thirty (30) days after
said eighteen (18) month period, be required to show good cause to the Commission through
th.e Building Commissioner why said approval should not be revoked by the Commission. A
18
subdivision Regulations
. failure to show good c.ause as herein required shall result in the automatic revocation of such
approval at the termination of the thirty (30) day period set forth above. The application and
gubmiggionof a plat for approval shall, in and of itself: constitute an agreement on the part of the
applicant that should construction not begin with said eighteen (18) months period and upon
notice to the person granted plat approval, the Building Commissioner may be empowered by
the Commission to revert and record the tract given plat approval, as it was recorded prior to
the revoked plat application.
5.1.1 S Simultaneous Filings. The subdivider may file both preliminary plat and final
plat simultaneously as long as proper plans and documents are also filed.
5.2 Req~ir~~ents for Preliminary Plat
The intent of the preliminary plat and accompanying data is not to provide final design
information on the various items required herein, but to provide general information of a
conceptual nature. No land shall be subdivided unless adequate access to the land over
improved streets or thoroughfares exists or shall be provided by the subdivider. Subdivision of
land shall be such that it will not cause harm to the health, safety or welfare of present and/or
potential residents and the community as a whole due to poor drainag.e or flooding, soil
conditions, topography or any other feature deemed harmful. The owner or subdivider shall
submit five (5) copies, or more as needed, of the preliminary plat. The preliminary plat shall be
drawn at a scale of 50 feet to one inch or 100 feet to one inch; provided, however, that if the
resulting drawings would be over 36 inches in the short.est dimension, a scale as recommended
by the Building Commissioner may be used. the preliminary plat shall show.
\
5.2.1 The proposed n~e of the subdivision followed by the words "Preliminary Plat~t~.
the date of submission or latest revision, the name of the subdivision designer, the present
zoning classification and the total acreage of the plat.
5.2.2 Names, addresses and telephone numbers of the owner, subdivider and
Registered Land Surveyor, in accordance with State Statutes and licensed to do business in the
State .ofIndiana, who prepared the plat.
5.2.3 The approximate location of existing and proposed streets and rights.-of-way, on
and adjoining the proposed subdivision, showing the names (which shall not .duplicate other
names of streets in the cpmmunity), roadway widths and right-of-way widths.
5.2.4 Th~ approximate location and widths ofall existing and proposed easements.,
indicating their use for d.rainageor utilities (water, s.anitary sewer, storm sewer, electric,
telephone, gas, street lig.hts, ca~le television,. and/or legal drains).
S.2.5 The approximate location, size and capacity of utilities to be installed including
. water, sanitary sewage and stann drainage facilities. The general location of septic tanks and
wells, if used, shall be shown on the preliminary -plat. The minimum infonnation on the plat shall
include:
(1) Location of proposed sanitary sewers with connection to the main sewer
19
Subdivisiqn Regulations
system, lift stations, if any, and other appurtenances if any. If private sewage
systems, locate the systemjn relation to well, house and adjacent lot systems.
Private sewage systems shall be installed according to the requirements of the
Hamilton County Board of Health and the Indiana State Board of Health.
(2) Location of water mains, hydrants, and other appurte.n.ances.
(3) Location of proposed methods of drainage. If a stonn s.~wer or similar type of
system is used, show cOMection into stream, retention reseIVoir, etc.; distance
to stream outlet; lift stations, if any; approximate size; approximate location;
manholes, if any; inlets; junction boxes and other necessary appurtenances. If
surface drainage is planned -- fo'ad.side ditches, swales, grassed waterways,
water courses, open ditches, roll curb and gutter sections -- show location of
said type; location and approximate size of road culverts; and location and
@)
typical cross-sectio.n of grades, swales, waterways, roadside ditches" and open
ditches, if applicable. If subsurface drain tile is planned, show location,
connection to storm sewer, outlet in open drain or retention reservoir, or other
adequ.ate outlet. Subsurface drains shall not outlet into curbs or shallow swales.
The direction of the flow of the stormwater in swales, curbs, open ditches, tiles
and the like shall be shown.
5.2.6 The ~ayout of lots, showing the dimensions and lot numbers, and the approximate
square footage area on non-rectangular lots..
: 5.2.7 Parcels of land proposed to be dedicated or reserved for public schools2 parks,
playgrounds or other public use, priv:ate recreational facilities for use of the people within the
subdivision, and other areas to be used for community purposes.
5.2.'8 Contours at vertical intervals of one (1) fc.ot if the general slope of the proposed
subdivision is less than three percent (3%), of two (2) feet if the general slope of the proposed
subdivision is three percent (3%) or more and less than ten percent (10%) or aftive (5) feet if
the general slope is ten percent (10%) or more~ All benchmark references shall be based on
National Geodetic Vertical D.atum of 1929.
S .2.9 Approximate tract b'oundary lines showing dimensions, angles bearings, .existing
monuments, existing markers, reference corners an.d benchmarks. All shall be described
according to recognized p.ractice based on approximate distances and directions with reference
to. sectioIl; township and range.
. 5.2.10 Indicate the location of flood plains as established by the FP J FF and FW flood
plain districts.. cited in the Zoning' Ordinance.
5.2.11 Building setback lines.
5.2.12 Where appropriate or required by the Zoning Ordinance, an indication of the
general location of existing and proposed trees, shrubbery and screening materials.
. ~..-:-' :. :....
20
Subdivision Regulations
collection system should be reviewed, tQtal estimated eftluent determined, and any special
problems identified. If septic systems are proposed, the results' of a percolation test must be
kcluded. General approval or the use of septic systems should be granted by the Hamilton
County Board of Health and incorporated into the report. The report should cover the flooding
potential of the proposed subdivision and should include the.design of the storm water system
that would accommodate a 1 0 year stann, the pad elevations necessary to keep all building's
above the 100 year flood level, the expected impact of the proposed subdivision's storm water
runoff on any receiving. stream or downstream property and the approximate location, size and
capacity of any retention basins to be located in or directly affecting the proposed subdivision.
Where legal drains are involved, comments from the Hamilton County Drainage Board shall be
included. If a flood plain of a water shed in excess of one square mile is involved, reports,
recommendations, and approvals, where necessary, from the Indiana Natural Resources
Commission shall be included.
5.3.5 A statement from the State Highway Department, or City Street Department
concerning rights-of-way, road improvements, roadside improvements, roadside drainage,
entrances, culvert pipes and other specifications deemed necessary by the Commission or State
Highway, County Highway or: City Street Department. The condition of the existing roadway
and its suitability to handle its proposed traffic must be specified.
5.3.6 A soils map, and its accompanying report from the Hamilton County Soil and
Water Conservation District office, showing the soil limit atio qs based upon the intended usage
of the land for the proposed su.b.division. .
5.3.7 A description of the protective covenants or private restrictions to be
incorporated in the .plat of the subdivision shall be provided.
5.3.8 An application shall be prepared, th'e form to be supplied by the Building
Commissioner and shall be accompanie.d by a certified check or money order in the amount of
fee specified in Section 26.6 of the Zoning Ordinance..
. 5.3.9 An erosion control plan and statemen~ .setting forth the method of controlling
erosion and sedimentation before, during and following development and construction, i.e.,
temporary .seeding~ sediment d~tention basins, erosi.on prevention devices an:d other similar
means that meet the Hamilton County Soil and Water Conservation District guidelines for urban
development.
5.3.10 Submit a letter to the Carmel Board of Public Works or other appropriate
authorities stating the number of proposed water hookups, sanitary sewer hookups, etc.,
requested for the proposed subdivision.
5..4 Requirements for Final Plat
The final plat may include all or only a part of the preliminary plat which has received
Commission approval. If the final plat is presented in sections for approval, then the applicant
shall provide a drawing of the plat of said section with all items included that are required for
final plat approval. The original mylar dra.wing of the final plat and five (5) copies, or more as
..:.: ~ .~
22
,,~
Subdivision Regulations
5.4.15 Certificate for .approval by the Commission, which shall be on each and every
page of the final plat.
5.4.16 Certificate of acceptance by the Carmel Board of Public Works or the Hamilton
County Board of Commissioners.
5.4.17 Restrictions of all types which will run with the land and become covenants in
the deeds for the lots in the proposed subdivision.
5.4.18 The Subdivider Agreement Forms, as shown in Appendix, shall be completed
and submitted with the final plat.
5.5 Requirements for Final Supporting Data
5.5.1 An application shall be prepared, the form to be supplied b'y the Building
Commissioner, and shall be accompanie.d by a certified check or money order in the amount of
fee specified in Section 29.6 of the Zoning Ordinance.
5.5.2 The following statements or reports shall be provided, however, if there is no
substantial change in.the final plat from the preliminary plat, then the reports submitted with the
preliminary plat is acceptable:
(1) Service reports. or statements, as necessary, may include but not be limited to
the following sources: police or sheriff department; fire department; water and
sanitary sewer.utilities; electric, gas and telephone utilities; city, county or state
highway departments; Cannel-Clay Schools; Hamilton County Health
Department, Surveyor~ Drainage Board and Board of Commissioners;. Hamilton
County Soil and Water Conservation District office; Indiana Natural Resources
Commission; Carmel Bo'ard of Public Works and Building Commissio'ner.
(2) A brief report des.cribing the water system, sanitary sewer system and storm
drainage syste~. This report should state the source of water, the expected
water consumption., method of distribution within the subdivision and any
special problems'. The proposed sanit~ collection system should be reviewed,
total estimate:d eftluent determined and any special problems determined.. If
septic systems are. proposed, the result of a percolation test must be included.
General approval .of the use of septic systems sh'ould be granted by the'
I1amilton County Board of Health and incorporated into the rep.ort. The report
should cover the flooding potential of the proposed subdivision and should
include the design of the sto.rm water system that would accommodate a 10
year stonn, the pad elevations nec'essary to keep all buildings above the 100
year flood level, the expect.ed impact of the prop<;>sed sub'division's stann water
runoff on any receiving stre.am or downstream property and the approximate
location, size and capacity of any retention basins
to be located in or directly affecting the proposed subdivision. Where legal
drams are involved, comments, reports, recommendations and approvals, where
necessary, from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources shall be included.
24
,.
(3)
Subdivision Requlations
A statement from the State Highway Department, the County Highway
Department or the City Street Department concerning rights-of-way, road
improvements, roadside improvements, roadside drainage, entrances, culvert
pipes and other specifications deemed necessary by the Commission or State
Highway, County Highway or City Street Department. The condition of the
existing roadway and its suitability to handle its proposed traffic must be
specified.
(4) A soils map, and its accompanying rep'ort from the Hamilton County Soil and
Water Conservation District, showing the soil limitations bas.ed upon the
intended usage of the land for the proposed subdivision.
(5) An erosion control plan and statement setting fort"h the method of controlling
erosion and sedimentation before, during and following development and
construction, i.e., temporary seeding, sediment detention basins, erosion
prevention devices and other similar means that meet the Hamilton County Soil
and Water Conservation District guidelines for urban development.
(6) A letter or other written statement from the Carmel Board of Public Works or
other appropriate authorities stating that said appropriate authority has capacity
for the number of sanitary sewer and water hookups necessary to service the
proposed subdivision.
5. 6 Requirem~nts for. Construction Plan
Following approval of the preliminary plat approval by the Commission,. the subdivider .(
sh~ ifhe has not previously done so, submit five (5) copies, or more as needed, of the
construction plans for the improvements to be installed in the subdivision in accordance with the
provisions of this ordinance. The construction plans shall b.e prepared by a Prof~ssional
Engineer or Registered Land Surveyor, in accordance with State Statutes and licensed to do
business in the State of Indiana. Construction plans to be submitted shall include:
5.6.1 The propos'ed method of sewage disposal, with detailed plans and profiles of
proposed",sanitary sewers, with connections to the main sewer system.. 'ff such a central system
is used, a st.atement from the appr<;>priate sewage treatment authority that the plans, as proposed,
are satisfactory. If septic tanks are used, plan's shall show the proposed private sewage disposal
tests with results shown at each test location and that the water table at the proposed location is
more than 3'0 inches below the ground surface. . This shall be accompanied by a statement from
the Hamilton County Health Board that the septic tanks should work ~s proposed.
5.6.2 The proposed water supply and detailed plans and specifications of the water
distribution systetn, pro'viding a drawing indicating thereon the connections proposed to the
public water supply and, if not available, the type of well system contemplated for each lot and
the proposed location of the Well.
5.6.3 A drawing and construction plan indicating thereon the proposed method of
drainage.
2S
y'
.
(1)
Subdivision Requlations
If a stonn sewer or similar type of system is used, provide details showing
connection to the main system or method of disposition into stream, retention
raset'Voir, ~te., distane~ to stream outlet, locations and sizes ofIift stations,
manholes, inlets, junction. boxes and other necessary appurtenances.
(2) Ifsurface drainage is used, show roadside ditches, swales, grassed wateIWays,
water courses, open ditches, roll curb and gutter sections and road culverts.
Details to be shown should include, as necessary, type, location, size, typical
cross-sections, depths, grades, profiles and other information as to the adequacy
of the outlet drain or detention reservoir. Show off-site drainage swales,
ditches and any other facilities that discharge onto the site of the proposed
subdivision.
(3) The elevations at each comer of every lot and a minimum house pad elevation.
5.6.4 Detailed plans, profiles, cross-sections and specifications of streets within the
adjoining and proposed subdivision, including roadway widths, pavement widths, rights-of-way,
construction gradients, types and widths of pavement, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, crosswalks,
entrance detail and other pertinent data. Street names shall be cited on the various plans.
5.6.5 Detailed plans of the proposed street lighting system showing locations, type,
wattage, height, easements, wiring location if the. lights are not to be installed at the time of
construction of the subdivision, etc. Final decision on street lighting installation shall be made
by the Carmel Board ofPu:blic Works or other appropriate authorities.
5.6..6 Detailed plan of the. fire hydrant system and their easements.
5.6.7 Detailed plan of the proposed landscape plan, where required, showing location,
size, kind, etc., of existing and proposed trees, shrubbery and screening materials. .
s. 7 Provi~ions for Fin~ncial Performance and Maintenance Guarantees for Subdivisions
As a prerequisite to final plat approval, the subdivider shall agree to provide financial
perfonnance and maintenance guarantees for public facility improvements and installations to be
constructed in and, as necessary for proper connection and system coordination, adjoining the
proposed subdivision. The public facility improvements and installations shall in'elude streets
(base and pavirig, individually), curbs and gutters~ sidewalks, stann water drain and storm sewer
systems, sanitary sewer systems, water supply systems, street name signs, monuments and
markers and the various appurtenances related thereto. All construction shall-be according to
plans submitted as portion of final plat and -accompanying data, subject to standards and
specifications cited herein. Non-public facilityiinprovementsand installations shan be subject to
financial guarantees established by their ownership.
5. 7.1 Performance Guarantee. Prior to or at the time of final plat approval, the
subdivider shall be required to provide financial performance guarantee, by certified check,
performance bond, or any irrevocable, unconditional, acceptable letter of credit issued by a
. financial institution acceptable to the Plan Conunission, that aU public facility improvements and
26
....,
Subdivision Regulations
j~ irtstaIlations required under the provisions of this ordinance shall be completed. Bonds, checks,
and letters are to run to:
A City of Carmel jurisdiction: City of Carmel
B.. Hamilton County jurisdiction: Board of Commissioners of Hamilton
County
Said financial performance guarantee shall be conditioned upon the following.:
(1) The completion of public facility improvements and.installations shall be within
two (2) years from the recording of the final plat;
(2) A penal sum shall be fixed and approved by the Commission equal to 100
percent of the total estimated current cost to the city or county of all public
facility improvements and installations provided in the final plat and
accompanying data according to specifications cited herein;
(3) Each public facility improvement. or installation provided in the finalplat or
accompanying data shall be bonded individually, or shall have' an individual
certified check or letter of credit to cover the penal sum, and shall not have the
performance guarantee provid.ed in combination with any of the other public
facility improvements and installations.
(4)
The performance bond, ,certified check, or letter .of credit shall be issued in the
name of the owner, developer, contractor or other responsible party as
determined by the Plan.Commissioner~'
(
5.7.2 Extension of Completion. rime and N on~Perfonnance.
(1) Should the subdivider not cottlplete the public facility improvements and
installations as herein required within the stated two (2) year period, the
Building C.ommissioner may approve an. extension of time of up to two (2)
additional years, granted at six: (6) month intetvals, for completion of the
required public facility .improvementsand installations.
(2) Should the subdivider not complete the, public facility improvements and
installations as h~rein requited within the two (2) year period or within any time
extension ~pproved by the Building Commissioner, the proper authorities may
take t.he necessary steps to proceed with the completion of the public facility
improvemen~s and installations, making use of the .certified check, perfonnance
. bond. or l~tter of credit.
5.7.3 Release of Performance Guarantee. Upon the completion of the re.quired public
facility improvements and installations according to the recorded secondary plat~ approved
development plans, accompanying data and the standards cited herein, the subdivider shall
provide th~ Department of Community Development with two (2) sets of as-built drawings
showing all site improvements, including but not limited to drainage and sewerage systems,
27
"',
-.
Subdivision Regulations
'~vater distribution systems, signs, and monuments as they were constructed and installed, and
including certificates by a Professional Engineer or Land Surveyor that all improvements were
insta1I~d 4~ Sh6\V!1 and ineonfonnMee with this ordinance and all applicable standards and
requirements of the appropriate governmental jurisdictions. The subdivider may then request
the release of the performance guarantee posted with the proper authority. Upon the receipt of
a maintenance guarantee, as specified herein, the proper authority shall release the performance
guarant~e.within sixty (60) days.. The performance guarantee for each individual public fac~ity
improvement or installation may be handled separately and shall in no way be contingent on the
completion of any of the other individual public facility improvements and installations or their
performance guarantees.
J.
5.7.4 Maintenance Guarantee. Prior to the release of the performance guarantee, the
sub.divider shall be required to provide financial maintenance guarantee, by certified check or
maintenance bond, that all p'ublic facility improvements and installations required under the
provisions of this ordinance shall be maintained according to specifications cited herein. Bonds
and checks are to run to:
A. City of Cannel jurisdiction: City of Carmel
B. Hamilton County jurisdiction: Board of Commissioners of Hamilton
County.
Said financial maintenance guarantee shall be conditioned upon the following:
(1) The maintenance guarantee shall run and be in force for a period of three (3)
years from the date of release of the 'performance guarantee.
(2) A penal sum shall be fixed and approved by the Commission but in no case shall
the pen.a! sum be less than 15% of the total performance guarantee for streets
and 10% of the perfonnance guarantee for all other public facility
improvements and installations. The minimum maintenance guarantee to be
posted for streets shall be no less than $5,000.00.
(3) E.ach p~blic facility improvement or installation shall be bonded individually, or
shall have no individual certified check to cover the penal sum, and shall not
. have the maintenance guarantee provided in combination with any of the other
public f~cility improvements and installations.
(4) The maintenance bond shall be issued in the subdivider's name alone or in the
name of the subdivider and his subcontractor as co-signers. All certified checks
provided for financial maintenance guarantee shall be signed by the subdivider
alone.
5.7.5 Release of Maintenance. Guarantee. All maintenance bonds shall expire at the
end of the three (3) year period for which they were established. Within 60 days of the
expiration date, the proper authority shall return sa~d expired maintenance bonds to the
subdivider. In the case where a certified check has been posted as a maintenance auarantee the
::;,. ,
subdivider shall, at the end of the three (3) year maintenance period, contact the proper authority
28
6.0 STANDARDS OF DESIGN
Subdivision Regulations
The final Plat of the subdivision shall conform to the following principles and standards
of design:
6.1 General Requirements
6.1.1 The subdivision layout shall conform in all essential respects with Ordinance 2-4,
as amended, and elements of the adopted Comprehensive Plan for the City of Carmel, Indiana an
. its jurisdiction.
6.1.2 The subdivision layout shall be in full compliance with the provisions of the
zoning districts in which it is located and the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
6.1.3 The subdivision layout shall be designed in accordance with the principles and
standards contained in this ordinance with the objective of achieving the most advantageous
development of the subdivision and adjoining areas.
6.2 Suitability of Land
6.2.1 Land subject to periodic flooding as determined by the FW and FP flood plain
districts shall not be subdivided for residential OCcupancy nor for any other use which might
involve danger to health, life or property or aggravate the flood hazard, and such land within any
proposed subdivision shall be reserved for uses which will not be endangered by periodic or
occasional inundation. Land subject to periodic flooding as determined by the FF flood plain
district may be subdivided subject to reports, recommendations and approvals from the Indiana
Natural Resources Conunission.
6.3 S.treet Layout and Design St~ndards
6.3.1 The street and alley layout shall provide access to all lots and parcels ofIand
within the subdivision, and where streets cross other streets, jogs shall be created only where
essential and appropriate. Street jogs with center line offsets ofless than 150 feet shall not be
permitted.
6.3.2 Proposed streets shall be adjusted to the contour of the land so as to produce
usable lots and streets of reasonable gradient.
6.3.3 Certain proposed streets, where appropriate, shall be extended to the boundary
line of the tract to be subdivided so as to provide for normal circulation of traffic within the
vicinity. Consideration shall be given to providing access to adjacent, underdeveloped tracts of
ground, including temporary vehicle turnarounds where streets are extended to a tract boundary
line. .
6.3.4 Proposed streets in the subdivision shall provide for the continuation of existing,
planned, or platted streets on adjacent tracts, unless such continuation shall be prevented due to
topography or other physical condition, Or unless such extension is found by the Commission to
30
Subdivision Requlations
be unnecessary for the coordination of development between the subdivision and such adjacent
tract.
6.3.5 Wherever there exists a dedicated or platted portion of a street or alley adjacent
to the proposed subdivision, the remainder of the street or alley to the prescribed width shall be
platted within the proposed subdivision.
6.3.6 Minimum rights-of-way and roadway wi'dths for streets shall confonn to the
Thoroughfare Plan, as shown below:
Functional Right-of-Way Pavement
Classification Width (Feet) . Width (Feet)
Primary Thoroughfare 100 44
Secondary Thoroughfare 80 44
Collector Street 60 36
Local Access Street-- 60 40
Commercial 30
Local Access Street-- (
Residential SO 30
* County Streets SO 26
Cul-de-sac 50 26
** Street subject to annexation within a reasonable period of time (determined by the
Commission) shall be subject to City requirements.
6.3.7 Cul-de-sac streets shall not exceed 600 feet in length. All cul-de-sacs shall
terminate in a .circular right-of-way with a minimum diameter of 100 feet and a minimum
pavement diameter of 76 feet, or other approved arrangement for the turning of all vehicles
conv.eniently within .the right-of-way.
Wh.ere cul-de'"'sac streets extend from another cul-de-sac or dead-end street~ the total length of
both streets shall not exceed 600 feet.
6.3.8 Alleys shall be discouraged in residential districts but should be included in
commercial and industrial areas where needed for loading and unloading or access purposes, and
where platted shall be' at least 20 feet in width. Where alleys are provided, they shall terminate
at .streets or in an are.a with sufficient space for turning atound of vehicles. Alleys shall be
developed as fully paved sutfac.es, built in accordance with the standards of the City of Cannel.
31
Subdiviaion Requla~ion8
convenient access to schools, playgrounds, shopping centers and other community facilities.
6.4.2 Bldcks shall be of sufficient width to pennit two tiers oflots of appropriate
depth, except where an interior street parallels a Limited Access Highway, an Arterial Street or
a Railroad Right-of-Way~
6.5 Lots
6.5.1 All lots shall abut and have access to a street; said lots each having a minimum
frontage at the street right-of-way of 50 feet. The required lot width cited in the Zoning
Ordinance shall be at the building setback line.
6.5.2 Sidelines of lots shall be at approximately right angles to straight streets and on
radial lines on curved streets. Some variation from this rule is pennissible, but pointed or very
irregular lots should be avoided.
6.5.3 Double frontage lots should not be platted, except that where desired along
Arterial Streets, lots may face on an interior street and back on such thoroughfares. In that
event a planting strip easement, at least 20 feet in width, shall be provided along the back of the
lot.
6.5.4 Widths 'and areas aflots shall be not less than that provided in the Zoning
Ordinance for single-family dwellings for the district in which the subdivision is located, except
that when a watermain supply system or a sanitary sewer or storm" sewer are not available the lot.
area necessary to install a private water supply or private sewage disposal on the lot in
accordance with the Zo.ning Ordinance regulations' shall become the required minimum lot area.
(
6.5.5 Comer residential lots shall be wider and larger than interior lots in order to
permit appropriate building setbacks from b.oth streets.
6.5.6 Wherever possible, planned and coordinate.d commercial and ind~stria1
complexes, based upon sound development standards, such as those contained in the planned
district (B-4 and'I-2) regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, should be designed in contrast to the
platting of lots for individual commercial and industrial uses.
6.6 Easements
6.6. I Where alleys are not provid.ed, easements for utilities shall be provided. Such
easements ,shall have minimum widtbs of20 feet and where located along lot lines, one-half of
the width shall be taken from each lot. Lots on the outside perimeter of a subdivision, where
lots do not abut another subdivision, shall provide an easement 15 feet in width~ Before
determining the location of easements the plan shall be discussed with the local public utility
companies ~o assure their proper placing for the installation of such services.
6.6.2 Where a proposed subdivision is traversed by any stream, water course, or
drainageway, the subdivider shall make adequate provision for the proper drainage of surface
water, including the provision of easements along such streams, water courses, and
35
........
9.6 Subdivider Agreement Forms
subdivision Regulations
9.6.1 The following agreement shall be included as a submittal with the final plat
approval application:
AGREEMENT
The developer shall be responsible for any drainage problems," including standing water, flooding
and erosion control, which arise or become evident at any time during the 3 year maintenance
period after the release of the subdivision bond, and which is attributable to a deficiency in .
subdivision drainage design' or construction of drainage improvements. This.. shall include all
pipes; 'structures, swales, ditches and ponds which are pertinent features to the .proper drainage
of the subdivision. .
This responsibility of the developer shall not, however, include problems which are created
subsequent to the completion of the subdivision improvements by the improper grading by
individual builders or structures and improper grading installed or accomplished by individual
homeowners.
It i.s the intent of this agreement t~t the:: developer shall specifi.cally provide such sub-surface
drains, or storm sewers or ditches, as ate required to properly rectify any drainage problem or
" sub-surf~ce water problem which was I'iot.contemplated in the original approved subdivision
.. / design, including, but not restricted to; disposal of sub-surface water from footing drains of
\~ individual lots.
ROAD Th1PROVEMENTS: The typical agreement for existing contiguous Hamilton County
Roads which are substandard, with Hamilton County is:
The developer will put in 12 inch stone base to the required width of the road, and grade the s to
a minimum of 6 feet width and construct proper side-ditches, or, provide storm sewer and curbs.
This will be the black top grade during construction of subdivision. Then the county will come
in and cut out 3 inche$aiidput in 3 inches binder asphalt after which the developer will be .
responsible~for I inch of asphalt topping. This is being done as joint projects between county
and developer. Arragreementshall be executed, in writing, between the developer and Hamilton
county specifically debiling the exact work to be acc 0 mpIi shed by the developer and that to be
accomplished by the County, and shall also state the road or roads or portions thereof which are
included-If the subdivision is contemplated to be annexed to the City of Carmel~ then the
agreement shalHnoludetheCity of Carmel Board ofPubIic Works as a signatory, which sbalfbe'
for the purpose of the City of Cannel agreeing to accept the maintenance and operation, the
improvedroadfaci1ityupon completion of said improvements and completion of annexation.
t'/ 'I "\ ~
subdivision Regulations
of the builder and not of the subdivider.
8.4.2 The plans for the installation of a sanitary sewer system shall.be provided by the
subdivider and approved by the appropriate authority with control over sanitary sewage. This
shall require Indiana State Board of Health approval, including a SPC-15 Construction Permit.
Upon completion of the sanitary sewer installation, two (2) copies of the plans for said system as
built shall be filed with the Building Commissioner.
8.5 Water
8.5.1 The subdivider shall pro.vide the subdivision with a complete watermain supply
system, which shall be connected to a municipal or a. community water supply approved by the
Indiana State Board of Health except that, when such municipal or community water supply is
not available, the subdivider shall provide an individual water sup'ply on each lot in the
subdivisiqn in accordance with the current standards of the City o.f Carmel and the standards and
specifications of the Indiana State Board of Health and the Hamilton County Board of Health.
8.5.2 Plans for the installation of a watermain supply system shall be submitted by the
subdivider and these plans and systems shall be built in accordance with the curre.nt standards of
the City of Carmel or the s~andards and specifications of the appropriate public or private utility
service. Upon completion of the water supply installation,. two sets of plans for such system as
built shall be filed with the Building Commissioner.
8. 6 Intex:p~etation Co~ceming Utility. Systems Installation
8.6.1 In reference to standards for sewers and water, the phrase lithe subdivider shall
provide" shall be interpreted to me'an that the subdivider shall install the facility referred to, or,
whenever a private sewage disposal system or an individual water supply is to be provided, that
the subdivider shall require, as a condition of the sale of each lot or parcel in the subdivision,
that the facilities referred to in these sections shall be installed by the builder of the structure on
the lots in accordance with these regulations.
8.7 Storm Dr~nage
The subdivider shall provide the subdivision with an adequate storm water sewer
system in accordance with the current standards of the City of Cannel whenever curb and gutter
is installed and whenever t.he evidence available to the Commission indicates that the natural
surface drainage is inadequate. When the surface drainage is adequate, easements for such
surface drainage shall be provided in accord'ance with the current standards of the City of
Carmel. Deep open ditches for drainage are not pennitted in the right-of-way, but where curb
and gutter are not provided, a shallow swale with its low point at least'three inches below the
elevation of the subgrade of the pavement may be permitted. All open drainage ditches and
swales shall be constructed in exact c.onformance with the submitted plans and specifications and
the entire ditch or swale seeded or sodded in accordanqe with the guidelines of the Hamilton
County Soil and Water Conservation District and grass maintained before any improvement
location p.ermits shall be issued. This shall apply from April 1 5 to September 15. At other times
of the year the requirement will be waived until the following June 30th, at which time the
44
~
:{ ...!!
. .) . ...., : ;:' '.
: ".:,,~':~~l::'-:ool.:'~~>"':! -. ": ~.~.i}.~~:.'...
. ~. ~-~.'" ..., ..>.:; ~. ......~: .
7.4 GENERAL STANDARDS FOR OPEN SPACE. All subdivision open space that is set
aside for common use, shall be designed using the standards set forth within each open space
category, and per the general requirements below.
A. Any lot within a subdivision shall be located within a 1000' radius of Open Space to help
ensure safe and convenient access to the greatest number of lots within the subdivision.
B. Open space must also be accessible for land management and emergency purposes.
C. Open space must be easily and permanently identifiable as open space through one or
more of the following: maintenance practices, permanent signage, permanent
monuments, paths or walks, walls, or low fencing.
D. Open space intended for active recreational use must be suitable for such use without
posing interference with adjacent dwelling units, parking, driveways, and roads.
E. Open space shall be undivided by streets or alleys, except where necessary for proper
traffic circulation. .
F. Open space must be free of all structures, and buildings except for stmctures directly
related to the purpose of the open space provided, such as swimming pools, clubhouses,
gazebos. picnic shelters, band shelters, decks and bridges. However, the Commission may
grant approval of structures and improvements required for storm drainage, sewage
treatment and water supply within open space, provided that such facilities would not be
detrimental to the usability.of open space. , .
". ~.' ...:.
G. There shall be submitted art ,~cn.~$pa.(:e Conservation PIan as part of the Primary PlallS, ~ ~~ .~.
applicatiolLi;lbe Open Space..COnsefva,tion Plan shall address the.int~~de4 useofptojeet ..:.......
open space;.: _ 's.hall.comply ;with.~the~ ConunissioD Open Space' Coilsetvatioll~'P~~ f'. ';-,.: < ~..: :~'"
Guidelines.~(Exhibit:l~).:'l~' .... .; .~~:: .~.. ' '. .'."'.! . . ~-\'< ~:;";.<' 3~':'" :::<: .
'J' . . ~
',.~.!", .:
.:,~.; :"" ~ ::"'.' :'~. ..::,.~~; "~:'
!. . "~ .; ; !:. ~'. '. . i 0" .",
.~ ... '. '!:: ",,: . ~.: . .. I . ..
. 7.S . OPEN .SP ACE PRIORITY AREAS. Open space Priority Areas shall be proteCted'to the
extent indicated below, and may be utilized as project open space:
A. Public Well-head Prot~on Areas representing a 200-foot radius control area. around the
well-head,. shall be protected in their entirety.
1. The complete sealing ~f a111akes, ponds, or other water impoundment of any kind
. located within the one-year time of travel for any existing public well...bead. NQ lakes,
ponds or other water impoundment of any kind shall be allowed within the 200..foot
radius of a public well-head.
2. The proposed subdivision of any tract shall be designed to cause the least practicable
disturbance to natural infiltration and percolation of precipitation to the groundwater
table, through careful planning ofvegctation and land disturbance activities:. and the
placement of streets, buildings and impervious surfaces.
B. All FEMA and IDNR 1 00 Year Floodway and Floodway Fringe Areas shall be preserved
in their entirety, however;
1. Alterations to floodway and floodway frinlJC areas may occur pursuant to a Letter of
Map Revision (LOMR) pursuant to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and
Commission approval;
2. Excavation, filling of earth or removal of native vegetation within 100 year floodway
fringe areas shall be prohibited, except as may be required by the Hamilton County
Drainage Board, or Carmel Board of Public Works and Safety:
39
..
)- . .
: ~~I, ~.~ ~~~: ~.. . .
C. Fe<leral Jurisdictional Wetlands of ~ acre or greater shall be preserved in their entirety"
including a 50-foot wide perimeter buffer area to insure their protection. Wet1and
alterations may occur~ however~ pursuant to a mitigation plan approved by the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management and the Commission.
D. The White River Greenway.. The White River is this communit}rts most significant natural
and cultural resource. An Open Space Priority Area in the form of a one hundred...foot
wide buffer strip, measured from the water's edge at normal pool elevation (as verified by
the Indiana. Department of Natural Resources) along the Clay Township side, shall be
established adjacent to the White River. This buffer strip serves to help maintain or
improve water and habitat quality along the River's length through Clay Township.
E. Woodlands. Woodland areas that occur throughout Carmel/Clay, are primarily associated
with streams, ditches, wetlands, poor and erodible agricaltura1 soils, and moderate to steep
slopes. Because' of their resource values, all ~ Woodla.nds. Young Woodlands. and
Scrub Woodlands on any tract proposed for subdivision shall be evaluated by the
applicant and the Commission 10 determine the extent to which they shall be designated,
partly or entirely. as Open Space as determined below.. Evaluation criteria and protection
for woodlands are found in Section 1.7:
1. No more than 15% of lands occupied, as of December 1, 1998, by Mature
Woodlands shall be cleared.
2. No more than 30% ofJancls occupied, as of December 1) 1998, by Young
Woodbplds shall be cleared.
3. No more than 50% of lands occupied, as of December 1, 1998, by Scrub
Woodlands shall be cleared. .<>~ .;,':.::':' .
..: ..... ':.
~.... ?: t';~... ,.~ '. .~<..; '.t': ..
F. Special Op~ni1y . Corridors ate ~~7" uribuildablc areas subject to restrictiQP8 .by maj.or. .
pipeline companies o~. Public utiliti~..~: These<~njdQrs extend for long distanC'eJ"~~ugh .:.,;
Cannel/Clay,. and'.provide a trem~aousi;~pp~rl;unit}tfor low-impact imprOv~meiitS;.suc~:ras"." . .
.,~, .' multi-purpose tr~s' and'Iancb~p"iQg.:.i .AlI Pip.e~~eas~ents, and high.~v.Qltage~'el~C$ital. . :.'~.'
transmission lines within easements and delineated'as Special Opportunity Corridors on
. the AltCtnative Transportation Plan of the Cannel/Clay ComprehenSive Plan'shall be set-
asidet and integrated into the overall subdivision design as project open space. As an Open
Space Priority Area, the development of a linear trail system shall be a requirement for all
new subdivisions directly impacted/encumbered by Special Opportunity Corridors,
G. Historic Stmctures and Sites shall be preserved as provided below. Many of the
community's historic structures and sites (resources) have been extensively researched
and remain intact For purposes of this ordinance, The Hamilton County Interim Repo~
as amended, published March 1992 by the Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana,
shall be the official inventory ofbistoric stmctures and sites in Cannell Clay Township.
I. Plans requiring subdivision approval shall be designed to protect existing historic
structures and sites of all classes. This protection shall include the conservation of the
landscape immediately associated with and significant to those structures and sites, to
preserve their historic context.
2. Where, in the opinion of the Commission, a plan will have a detrimental impact upon
a historic' resource, the developer shall mitigate that impact to the satisfaction of the
Commission by modifying the design, relocating proposed lot lines, providing
landscape buffers, or other approved means.
7.6 STANDARDS FOR NATURAL OPEN SPACE. The following represent minimum
standards to reduce adverse impacts on Natural Open Space.
40
. ;. .: .~..i.: ...'-. .~. ~~ \ :....~
.I ":~. :~: ;:' ~: ; .~..: .~.. ~:.
A. Natural Open Space consists of any Open Space Priority Area (Section 7.5). Natural
Open Space Areas are generally the preferred fonn of project open' space, opportunities
for Natural Open Space should be exhausted prior to implementation of other open
space types.
B. Natural Open Space areas may be altered, but only to the extent indicated in the Open
Space Conservation Plan. Such alterations shall occur in accordance with the below
standards, and consistent with the approved Open Space Conservation Plan.
C. Unless otherwise approved by the Commission, each Natuml Open Space area. must:
1. Be a minimum area of one-half acre;
2. Have a minimum width of seventy-five (75) feet, and
3. Have at least two (2) points of access
7.7 WOODLAND EVALUATION. The cva1uationofthetract~s woodlands shall be undertaken
by an arborist. landscape architect, horticulturist or another qualified professional, acceptable
. to the Director. This evaluatioD sball be submitted as a written report, included with and
supplemental to the Open Space Conservation Plan.
A. Evaluation of Trees. The goal of woodland preservation is to ensure trees remain assets to
the site for years to come. Single trees and woodlands that are preserved within Project
Open Space 2 therefore, must meet the following minimum standards:
1. A life expectancy of greater than 10 years.
2. The tree must be in good or better condition.
...~,? .~.~. ,A re~atively sound and sC)lid trunk with.n.q:~iye decay.
. >~:~;JI~~~';~>:"" 4. No more than one major dead limb .or. se~ijt3l.~or dead limbs.
. :.;.~;.,,':.? ,-- S. No major insect or patho~~3ica1 probl~~:.,'~' . ':. ..~~.. :.
~...~:'..~ ~ : :.:!..... .00,_ j" . .....:>.~.~.....~:;.!...>~?...:..~...... 'to .
,:..:~B.'.:'.':iWoo,dland Protection Practi~s." ~~~~11g'the:.~t:.~~~J~,;tb.e. most critical factor..itl':-.~.
.;~;.tr~.~.t~~JVation through(J.>>~ ~~.d9~~JQpme~t.pt~tf~.';Pi~q~~ within this ar~:~: :. :', !~:
directly affects tree survival. To prOtect root'zones~ the following standards apply:
1.' . When earthwor~ gradin& or cOnStruction activities are planned adjacent to
Woodland open space, a limit of disturbance line shall be shown on the
construction plans and the area(s) protected through installation of temporary
fencing or other measures approved by the Commission. Such fencing (or ather
approved measures) shall be installed and identified through signage as a "Tree
Preservation Zone" prior to commencing land disturbance, and remain throughout
the period of construction.
2. The root zone of trees and woodlands shall include no less than the total area
beneath the ttee(s) canopy as defined by the farthest canopy of the tree(s) plus a 5-
foot wide protective buffer.
3. Construction site activities such as parking, material storage, bury pits, concrete
washQut, etc., shall not be allowed within Woodland open space.
4. Grade changes adjacent to tree preservation zones shall not result in alteration to
soil or drainage conditions that would adversely affect existing vegetation.
Woodlands must be evaluated for flood tolerance, and stormwater routed around
those areas deemed intolerant of an increase of additional flow from urbanization.
5. Disturbed areas adjacent to tree preservation zones shall be mulched to provide
additional protection to tree roots.
6. When digging trenches for utility lines or similar uses, disturbances to the root
zones of woodland open space shall be prohibited. Underground tunneling or
directional boring of utilities is required to protect woodland root zones.
7 . Woodland clearing shall not be permitted prior to Secondary Plat approval.
'l:f~1
. ;. /~.~, .i~~.: :.-:".'::' :. .. '.01 . :
. ."!, ~ 1 .": ..
. - ,. . \..f.
41
8. The determination of sight distance clearances along roadways shall be made
graphically, not by clearing woodlands on-site prior to Secondary Plat approval.
C. Afforestation and Reforestation. The replacement of trees in the Natural Open Space or
tree preservation areas shall be determined on the Open Space Conservation Plan pursuant
to the following:
1. The base planting unit for Afforestation within or adjacent to Natural Open Space
shall be for eacb five hundred (500) square feet and include:
a. one (1) shade tree
b. four (4) whips .
c. twelve (12) inch seedlings spaced on three (3) foot centers.
2. Where specimen trees, stands of trees or woodlands within Natural Open Space or
designated tree preservation zones have been irreparably damaged or illegally
removed, a reforestation area shall be set aside, double in size of the damaged or
cleared area. to be 'planted pursuant to the above standards for Afforestation.
3. A landscape buffer of Dative trees and shrubs is required adjacent ~ Woodland
open space areas that have been opened up due to land clearing activity. Planting
shall occur per Exhibit C, Perimeter Buffering.
4. Tree species selected for replacement must be quality specimens and must be
native to N orthcentra1 Indiana. Standards for transplanting can be found in the
Cannel Tree Installation Specifications Manual. A site specific tree list will be
provided to the City Arborist.
.~)
1.8 . ST ~ARDS. FOR AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE..':"~CUlttua1 Open Space shall be
devoted\. ~CUltural uses, including p~~d, or the raisml~t)~ps, and may include
:: ~ .'rCs.id~n~"br'~ilities that are specifically n~~ed to suppott~.~cllve~..viable agricultural
,.' .:i. : '.~ 'op~ra.ti6~' ~~pecifically excluded are comme~ci~liy~k. ;.op.eratio~Hnvol~g swine, poultry,
.~~~~b~~~
B~' Pasture land is land reserved for horses that are solely for recreatiotial purposes.
C. Agricultural Open Space may not consume more than one half (50%) of the SOSR
7.9 STANDARDS FOR DESIGNED OPEN SPACE. Designed Open Space shall asswne any
one or more ofthc following forms; howevert the Commission may consider and approve
other forms not described iJ) this section, pursuant to the criteria in 7.9.J:
A. Squares. Squares are areas designed as neighborhood focal points and/or minor
destination points for sitting or strolling and located at the intersection of neighborhood
streets.
1. Squares shall be no greater than 10,000 square feet, with a minimum width of7~.
2. Streets shall bound squares on at least two sides.
3. Squares shall be improved with a combination of paved areas and landscaped areas,
and should be furnished with benches, lighting, and other site details such as perennial
gardens, shrub borders, ~ird baths, and fountains.
B. Parks. Parks are open space areas designed specifically for~ and equipped for, the play of
small children.
1. Parks shall have a minimum area of 1 O~OOO square feet, with a minimum average
width of 90' .
2. One point'ofaccess is required for each 25,000 square feet. up to a maximum of three
points of access.
. . ..! ;
.: .~: ~ I~ .
. . .,:..: .: .
42
3. Park areas should be fenced and may include an open shelter.
4. Parks should be interspersed within neighborhoods, a short walking distance from
dwellings.
C. Greens. Greens are medium sized open space areas that are designed for unstructured
recreational use.
1. Greens shall be no less than 40,000 square feet in area, with a minimum average width
of ISO'.
2. Greens shall be bound on three sides by streets or house facades.
D. Boulevards. Boulevards arc linear open spaces located within a public or private street
and consist of
1. a linear street medi~ at least ten (10) feet wide;
2. tree lawns along each side of the stre~ at least ten (10) feet wide, and planted in a
formal manner with street trees located on consistent spacing;
3. parallel multi...purpose pathways along each side, or, a multi-puIpose pathway
along one side, and a sidewalk along the other. 'The minimum width for multi.. "
purpose paths shall be 10 feet.
E. Greenb~lts~ Greenbelts arc located along the perimeter of a neighborhood and adjacent to
arterial streets or parkways. Greenbelts may be left natuml or developed to provide for
recreation opportunities. Minimum width 100'.
. i
F. Trails. When"a subdivision is traversed by or abuts a propos~d"Or existing
dedicated~. or a Special Opportunity Corridor,.the applicant sbaUprQVide;for
its develop~~~~~~: continuation, consistent with th;c. maps and polid.~.C?~.the
. i .: Comprehen5jve'PIanand its Alternative Transpo~o~ System map;.atid~pet the
~ ,',; :.... : .tQnstructiQn~~."~sjp specifications of the City '9f,~atmeI;." "~'~:~ '. :.~~:~ : :' ':
"" . ". ".: J.'~ : .,if.1Oca~ ~id~"ofthe street right-of-~Yt ~d.ppo~ privatc:grdu~~. thc"trail sball
..'.::., '~ ":~:".~, ~~. :'"! .':.:; ~"./:"~9' pl~~(l ~".:.CQnservation ease~;' j~;m~~~m#!# ~p~;tb~r~l<(aO) :feet: In ~dtb.
The language of the conservation easement shall be to the satisfaction of the
.. Commission upon recommendation of the ConUnissionattomey.
2. No trail shall be designed with the intent to aCcommodate motorized vehicles.
~ 1 t ~ ; .
G. Paths. Paths shaD generally be located within the undivided (common) Open Space lands.
In situations where paths must cross portions of house lots or conservancy lots, a
permanent conservation and common access easement shall protect them.
1. The minimum width for the easement shall be fifteen (15), and shall have a length
to width ratio of 10: 1.
2. Paths shall be paved with an all weather surface,(e.g. compacted stone) or
hardwood mulch, or asphalt) not less than four (4) inches in depth, upon a
compacted subgrade, and a minimum offive (S) feet in width.
H. Golf Courses. Golf Courses, excluding associated driving ranges or miniature golf
facilities, may comprise up to half (50%) of the SOSR. However) lands devoted to parking
areas) clubhouscs) and any other Assessory structures shall not count toward the S~SR.
I. Ponds. Stormwater management ponds that are designed, landscaped, and available for
use as an integral part of a subdivision's open space network may be counted toward a
portion of the SOSR, based on a percentage equal to that portion of a pond's perimeter
which is not bounded by lots (e.g. 30% bounded by lots, 70% open space).
43
a. The applicant shall provide the Commission a description oftbe organization of the
proposed associatio~ including its by-laws, and all documents governing
ownership, maintenance, and use restrictions for common facilities.
b. The proposed association shall be established by the owner or applicant and shall be
operating (with fmancial subsidization by the owner or applicant, ifnecessary)
. before the sale of any dwelling units in the development.
c. Membership in the association shall be automatic (mandatory) for all purchasers of
dwelling units therein and their successors in title.
d. The association shall be responsible for maintenance and insurance of common
facilities. .
e. The by-laws shall confer legal authority on the association to place a lien on the real
property of any member who falls delinquent is his dues. Such dues shall be paid
with the accrued interest before the lien may be lifted.
f. Written notice of any proposed transfer of common facilities by the association or
the assumption of maintenance for common facilities must be given to all members
of the association
g. The association shall have adequate staff to administer, maintain, and operate such
common &cilities. .
4. Private Conservation Organization. With permission of the Commission, an owner may
transfer either fee simple title of the open space or easements on the open space to a
private non-profit conservation organization provided that:
a. The conservation orea";7aUon is acceptable to the Commission and is a bona fide
conservation orgam7atioD intended to exist indefinitely;
b. The conveyance contains appropriate provisions for proper reversion or retransfer.
in the event that the organization becomes unwilling or unable to continue carrying
out its functions. '. . ..
c. Theopenspaceispe~e~tJy'restrictedfromfuturedevelopmen~througba .:;~~'::' .... .'.
conservation easement and' the :Director is given the ability to enforce these. .:~~ .
restricti011S; and . . . . : '. ~.'.'
d. A maintetiarice. agreement acc~ptable to the Commission is established ;.~~ecn the ~" .~' :~- .~~ ;.' .
owner and the organizatioti~ ,'.' .:. ". .' '. ~~. . " .'~ . ".! ; .... .' .
s. Dedicationof&sementstotheParkBOard.",TheParkBoardmay~but~sba1lnot.bc .;' .... .
required to, accept ea.setmmts for public use ~f any portio~ of the common land or
facilities. In such cases, the facility remains in the ownership of the condominium
association, homeowners~ associatio, or private conservation organization. In addition,
the following regulations shall apply:
a. Any such easements for public use shall be accessible to the general public.
b. A satisfactory maintenance agreement shall be reached between the owner and the
Park Board. .
6. Non-Common Private Ownership (Conservancy Lots). Up to fifty (50) percent of the
SOSR may be included within one or more large "conservancy lots'. of at least three (3)
acres. provided:
a. A maximum of7S% of each lot area. may be applied to the SOSR;
b. the open space is permanently restricted from future development;
c. the Director is given the ability to enforce these restrictions.
7.13 MAINTENANCE
Unless otherwise agreed to by the Pian Commission, the cost and responsibility of open space
land shall be borne by the property owner, condominium association, homeowners'
association, or a conservation organization.
7.14 MODIFICATIONS
A. The Commission may, after a public hearing, permit the modification of the provisions of
this Chapter. However, in terms of modifying any dimensional requirement Oat ar~ width,
setbacks, etc.), such modification may not be greater than thirty-five (35) percent.
45
EXHIBIT'C'
Perimeter ButTering
A. Perimeter buffering shall be located along the side and rear lot lines ofa lot/parcel and shan extend
the entire length of the side and rear lot lines.
B. Where residential or other buildings back onto a public thoroughfare) bufferyard plantings be
provided per paragraph shall occur outside of the public right-of-way.
C. Perimeter buffering shall not be located within any portion of a dedicated public street right-of-
way, private street right-of-way, or County legal drain easement.
D. Existing vegetation may be used to achieve project buffering if: (i) the vegetation located upon
the subject parcel is ofa quality and state of health to achieve buffering, and, (ii) the vegetation is
proposed to be preserved using accepted. best management practices for. tree protection during
constnlction.
-.
.)
E. BUFFERY ARD DBTBRMINATION. To determine the applicable bufferyard requirements:
(1) Use the TABLE FORBUFFBRYARD DBTERMINATIONtoidentifythe land use category of
the proposed project use.
(2) Use the TABLE FOR BUFFERY ARD DETERMlNATION ~ identify the land use(s) of the
adjoining property (s), or identify the street classification adjoining'~e:proposed use by
referring to the Officjal Thoroughfare Plan of Cannel Clay Township~: .......~..~.:;
(3) ~etermine the bu~(s) required on each tioun.dary (or segment tb.Cr~~l~~thesubjcct
parcel by refenin8;:tO~~e.:TABLB FOR BUFFERY ARD."DETERMINAT.Q~t\~:~...' ~. .
. r . .
TABLE POIt'BUPFE&yARD DETERMINATION
. . ...... . :..1";' '.. i .' . .
.'
Jii; D I: ..~ li~ I !fl: z% :::~ ~ .:~n: i'" :. ...... ,.. i!i:.~
c: r: .)1 a Il :~ .jf2 . '!" ;
. . 11'- " .. .,' '.. ~ CD II' ~C ~ ~:!'. ~i iPS' i i:':~ ~.i.
. ::~rn 6 ,. ;:.: Iii:
i'i tit ... . ..
~ ~ ..3 ,. ~ . a.. 0 .;~; Ji... !
Je.... ~ . . ~.B -< . . ;.~ ~~ 'iI
nm~ ~ S a ;II ! ! ~ ~
ra~F ~ ~!!
;.c
SINGLE FAMILY B C C 0 0 D 0 0 C 0 0 0
DUPLEX C A C B B C C 0 B 0 0 D
MUL Tl-FAMIL V C C B B B' C C D C 0 D 0
ACnVE 0 B B A C C C C B 0 D 0
INanrunoNAL; 0 B B C A A C C B 0 0 0
OFPtCEi RETAIL 0 C C C A A C 0 B 0 0 0
WAREROUSE; 0 C C C C C A B B 0 0 0
HVV.INDUSTRY 0 0 D C C 0 B B B 0 0 D
.~~.~.{::.-:~~..:~..~.~. ~~;~ .;:".r- '0;. .'~~'~~?"; ~;.:.J;~(' ::.~!~t.t~~..~ '.'~
F. Bufferyard Design Standards in the table below are stated in terms of minimum width and number
of plants required per one bundred (100) linear foot increment. .
BUPFER.YARD MlNIMUM YARD WlDlH SHADE TREES ORNAMENrAL TREES SHRUBS.
SIDE REAR
A 51 10' 3 2 9
B 5' 10' 3 3 15
C 10' 20' 3 4 21
D 15' 2S' 5 S 27
*Evergreen trees may substitute in lieu of slnubbery,l on a 1:3 basis (1 conifer equals three shrobs)
49
~
11
~
\i
~
.f-
It\)
~
~ j
~ 'C
~
"
~
)C
~
+
~
~
.
~
;~
"~
.f
!j.
u.-.
\;;:
~
If
~
k
~
+
--...
~
I
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
II
~
~
~
+
.....
~
~
~
.
~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ t;\J N w t."J ~ Vl ~~tnO
~ CO 0 '-" 0 ~ 0 0
~ ~ ~ ?f. ~ ~ ~ ~ OO~~~
~~n I-'
Otrj
tI.)
(g
ota Oa
B ~
rn G ~~
.,.a ... ~ ...... ....... ~ .... .... ~.
0 <=> (:) 0 (:) ~ ~ ~
~ ~O
~ t!1
~ t..)
Z '='''tt
j ~ ~
e a ~
~ ~ ~ I~ ~= ...... ..... ,.... ~a- It
t..a ~ ~ @~ ~
pi 0 co ~ lA,)
g e
i.
O~ ~~
B e
rn (0
.... ..... ~ ...... .... ~ ...... ..... ~. 18
(:) (:) (:, 0 <=> 0 (:) (:) ~
~ ~~
~~ (I'J ~
en
~.
c:s ..., O' .
..... ..- ..... ~ ..... ..... ..... ..... ~I- z'
0 8 (:, ...... ...... .. ~ ~
0 \,It 0 VI 00 c..A U1 S~. .' ;
:
S1 ., 0..
~. o.'.~" '~f-d
B rA oS
tIJ (D ~~
~ ....... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... ...... ~.
(:) Q (:) (:) 0 0 0 0 ~ n~
~ ~tj
6 ~
t;~ Z
t-I """" ..... ~ ...... ...... ..... ...... ~. ~.
<:>> (:) ...... >> iN W v. ~ ~=
0 0\ 0 0 0 CJ\ 0 0 ~a.
g
tjbj n~
g 8i ~~
r.o C
..... ~ ..... ..... ...... ~ ..... t-l ;:;..
(:;) 0 0 (:) b (:) (:) (:, '< ~'O
~ org
~t1
~
o~ ~ u.
! ~
..... .... ..... ..... ..... ~ ~ ~ ~. i.
<=>> <:> (:, ..... N ~ W v.
0 v- QO \.h ~ -4 co YJ ~Q.
S
{I)
.
,..,.
f
O'.l
a:
m
tt.
~
r
a
tD
Q
m
Z
Ul
~
Q
Q7
o
Z
~
C7
m
Z
~
8
3:
."
~
~
~
z
\0
OJ
~
.~ '.
... .
..
t3
"
~
k
~ ...... N N c..J W ~ CJ\ C3t-Qrno
V\ ~ 0 v. 0 w 0 0
~ ~ ~ ';!. t!. ~ ~ "#. rn~~~
~~nz ....
om
rn
~
tja; o~
B t1
rn 0 ~tn
t-o-A ~ ~ ~ ..... ...... ~ ...... ~. 2~
t.J W W W 0\ ~ 0\ 0\
~ ~o
~ tn
t:J~ ~
co ~
...... ~ ~. ~.
~ ~ 5 5 ,... ...... \0 ~ ~=
0\ ~ to-J ~a
0 0 ~ ~
g
OtJj I~
g ~
rJ2 (I)
to--' ...... ~ .... ..... a-a ~ ..... ~.
tH ~ LJ LJ W LJ W W
~ ~.~
P
O"'d CIJ ~
.00
(D C t-4
.... ..... ~. ~. .~
..:;& ....... . ..... t-& ...... ~ 0\ :..... ~;;t
'w. ~: tH ~ VI U1 W 0\ ~8..
C) ~ --.:a w 0 ~ ~ ~
0.''; g
. .. . .' ~ . ~... ..f.r:.... .0. -"lo .
tjtd ~.~.
S = oS
tIS (Q ~~
..... ...... .... ...... ~ t-' ..... ~ ~. .....0
w w U.) w w w ~ w ~ n~
y ~tj
CS ...
tj~ Z
t-.J B ~
..... ~. 51.
..... ...... ..... ..... ,..... .....,a \0 N ~~
W w ~ V. 0\ ~ lI\ ~ ~a
0 co ~ C\ \0 " ~ ~
g
tjt7; n~
g = ~o
rn n
...... .... ~ ~ ~ t-' ...... ~ ~. ~
w w ~ ~ ~ tH iN W ~ ~tn
~~
-.,;;;
~ UI
tjt-O
..... ...... 8 ~
....- .,..... ..... ..... ..... .,..... ~ \0 ~. ~.
~r+
~ W ~ "'" 0\ ~ \C QO S-
o 0\ 0 0 0 l.n ~ ~ 1-QQ..
9
~
+
~
o
~
.
~
~~
~~
~
u
~
k
.....
+
~
~
.
~~
~a
~
"
~
"t
~
+
~
2
~
,
-="'~
......~
~~
~
~
II
~
~
~
+
~
\.II
"0
~
,
~ tI2
;::Q
~~
"'-=
en
I
p.l
<
.3
~
~
=
g
CIJ
..
4
CIJ
o
00
~
II
~
fA
~
. ~ .L..t... -. ,
:}
~)
~
o
~
~
~
+
t-.J
2
~
-=" I
~ ~
~
~
n
~
~
~
+
G
~
.
~ ~
.~ ~
" '..r'''' ..
~
D
~
~
~
+
~
~
~
.
~ ~
~ r.ii
~
'.;;::;
~
"
~
~
~
+
.....
~
o
r?J
.
~ ~
e :=tj
~
t-I to-' ~ ~ W \N ~ V\ ~~rno
Vl 00 Ut 0 ~ ~ 0
~ ~ ?ft. ~ ~ ~ ~ cn~~~
0 0 ~(3gz
)-'
~
t::1txt oa
8 ~
fIJ ('D ~f/J
..... ..... t-a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s:;. · z~
00 '<
00 00 ...... t-ool ~ ~ t-6 ~
~o
~ l11
tj~ ~
(I (D
N ~ ~. ~.
~ .e s ~ t-.J N ~ ~ ~~
i.H t v. ~a.
..... ~ ~
g
tjtr:J ~~
B ~
1'.12 0 ~~
~ ..... ...- ~ ..... .... ..... .... ~.
00 Oc 00 00 Co Oa co 00
~ ~~
~
~rn w
o~ en
CD CD (9
; Ii.
~. ......... . ~ .... ~ ~ ~ Z
:::s ';. \0 (:) W
.$>> '00 ..... rpa8.
co e...J 0\ ~
~ .,' , . s.
'"'. . .' r.:'"'
. .::
. , ., - .' .':'.1. ;..". ~..~
'='~
'0' S f}l. go
~ co
..... ..... ...... ~ ::;: 9(3
..... ...... ~ ..... ~
00 co 00 00 00 QO 00 00 ~ ncn
~~
v
6 ..
tj ~. Z
o ~
i t:S ...... .-. ~ tv ~ w l. e.
I>> 00 \0 ....... ~ Vt 00 ~~
00 Q\ ~ ~ co rFa~
S
t;= nJlod
9 ~ o~
~ CD .~~
..... ~ ~ ....- ~ .... ...... ~ ~.
00 00 00 00 00 QO 00 00 ~ ~~
v
{g U)
o~
o ~
~ ~ ..... ~ N ~ ~ N R. ~.
00 ~ 0 ...... ~ ~ ~=
~ Vl ~ .-a ~B.
I g
I I t
'f
....
~
~
=
a
.a.
rn
o
~
n
l--)
=-
~
D
~
.
~.
u
~
~
~
+
~
~
."
~ .
l\.) ~
e
~
~
It
~
~
~
+
0
~
,
~ ;
~
~
.j' .. ~.~:.:,
. .
~
H
~
lot
~
+
""
'0
~
,
~ ~
t-..J
~ ~
.~
U
~
11
~
+
.......
t,.
-0
Eg
.
-C ~
~ ~
~
..... ..... ~ N t.h) ~ ..e:.. l.I\ O~VJO
lit 00 0 VI 0 W 0 0
~ ~ '$. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CIJ~~~
0 0 0 ~~g2:
t-6
rn
~
t'tJj o~
8 f:
~ C'D ~CIJ
~ ~ ~ .-4- ~~
N N ..., N !-'-l ~
~ C\ \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 ~
nO
~ tl1
tjl-C w
..r:a. ~ ~ ~
,a ~ ~ ~ W t.N (:) ~ ~: er
\0 ..... ~ 0\ 0\ ~a
\0 00 Vl ~ ~
g
~t:D ~~
g J:
r.n (1)>
N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~. I~
\0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \c ~
...;;;,
CIJ eM
0--= tn
. . ~. (D S1 6
{. . .. . w !I
~ w w w. .~ .,'-1 Z
~ ki <:> . . 'f ~. .~ ~
\0 .....
'u. :'9. 00 :~
~ ':. . . ':. ~.
f -:
. . . . ". .. . .
t1tx1 ~;g
0- ..J: 0
~ 0 Q~
;:+"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '=d ~o
\0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \C \D ~ (1tn
>~
~ t-oi
6 ....
o~ z
co ~
~ ~. a.
~ ~ w w ~ ~
::J i \0 ........ ~ 0\ 0 ~ ~=
~ \0 QO lit 0\ a ~a.
S).) S
t:1t:d n~
9 ~ ~~
fA 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.
\0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 ~ ~~
~@}
~
C/)
tr1 tit
t:1~
::.. 9 "
N w ~ UJ ~ ~ f!:. e.
~ t3 \0 ..... t.J ~ ~ ~ ~~
p) G
~ .t::.. ~ ~ E.. ~~
I t t~ S I
t I I
~
"
~
~
~
11
~
=
~
: .~. q .......':.;.--.
. ;...,
FAX. NO.' 31"7 571'2426
p.. ()3/10
, ~
also on~'West side of the proposed subdivision and is cumently zoned R-liResidentiaI.
According to Mr. Reiss this particular plan is in accordance with the residential Open .
Space Ordinance thatwas last amended by the CityCo\lI1cil onOctober 2, 2000. There
' are no waivecsor variances being sousht21.23 acres of the site are being preserved as
'Open Space tbroughthecombinatiOQ of preservation and enhancement of the existing
pond, as well as another 9.47 acres of mature, young. and scrub woodlands. A trail
connection to the Monon Trail will be constructed pursuant to specifications to be
determined by the Parks Department.
As required under the Open SpaCe Ordinance, as the lots are developed, there wiD be
' reforestation to the extent thatthere is land clearing in the construction oCthe subdivision.
Additionally, in conversation with the D~partment, a 20 foot landscape buffer has been
added on the south end; these' lots are immediately adjacent I -46S. The landscape' plan
and the tree preservation plan have been filed with and approved by the Urban Forester.
The plat specifies 75 lots~a density of2.1 units per acre. The Residential Open Space
Ordinance provides that the base density underthe~~.l classification for this parcel is 2.9
units. The Open Space Ordinance requires open space of not less than 7.15 acres or 200'" '
of the parcel; the ptoposedplat provides for 14.99 or 41.90/0, adjusted. ' Under the Open
Space Ordinance, the size of the pond and the computation of the open space is computed
on the percentage of the pond that is not adjacent to residential lots. 5.52 acres of the
11.76 acre lake were included in the open space calculation.
As a part oftha preparation pfthe revised pla~ the environmental engineering firm of
' J.F.New & Company was engaged to provide a wetIands delineation study oftha parcel.
The report identified two areasthat constitute "other waters of the United States, n a term
of art within the Federal and State Environmental Statutes. which are the existing pond
and an intermittent drain that currently is found in the northwest comer of the parcel.
There is also identified in the wetlands report the pond itselt: The proposed development
' will not reduce nor negatively impact the existing pond. In strict conformance with the
Open Space Ordinance. the pond will be preserved in its entirety and the plat provides for
a SO foot perimeter buffer area to ensure the protection of the area. Only a notification
'form will be required to be .tiled with the Indiana Dept. ofBnvironmental Management.
The drain is exempt from .the applicable mitigation and permit tequireJ11ents of the federal
,and state enVironmental laws and regulations. ,The Wetlands Delineation Report has been
filed with the Army Corps. of Engineers and approved by them. '
. .
'., As required by the Subdivision Control Ordinance) there will be two points of
ingress/egress for this Subdivision; the ptimaty one at 10 lit Street, the second one at
. Marwood. Drive. " . .
Marwood Drive was "stubbed in" during the development of Marwood Trails to provide
future access to this site as required by the Subdivision Regulations. Due to the existing
neighborhood and the configuration of the existing street, A&F Traffic Engineering was
' retained to study the potential impact of traffic on the SUIToundhlg residential areas as a
result of the proposed development. A Traffic Operations Analysis was prepared and
submitted to the Department, copies to the COmmission members.
S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\pc200 lfeb20
'. .
s
MAY-1 6"""2001 WED 03: 03 PM CARMEL COMMUNITYSVCS
(;'
. ......:' I
. , I .
. I
/
/
, . ,
-..././.
. i
I'... ../
. . ,~,I/
FAX NO. 317 .571 2426.'
'PI 04/10
Thisisa new traffic analysis;. school was . in session, and US 31 was no longer Under
construcUon:SpecificaIly, .three areas were asked to be addressed: lIowwill the traffic
enter and exit the proposed subdivision,. how will the level of service change at key
intersections in the surrounding area vviththe traffic to be generated during the peak AM
and peak: PM hours, andwiUthe development of this parcel sigDificantly, negatively
impact the health, safety and welfare of the current residents in the adjacent
neighborhood? .
.~
Steve Feluibach, professional engineer, said the traffic study was re-done in January.
There was a question as to whether or not schools were in session at thetizne of the first
study, and the density changed significantly to 75 units. On those bases, the traffic was
re-analyzed.The study intersections were maintained at 103rdandCollege; 101st and
College, 10 1st and Carrollton,. and. 1 0 I-and Guilford, and the access point. During the
AM peak hour at l03N and Colleg~there would be level of service liB" existing today
under scenario two with the proposed deve1opm~nt, level of service .'D." For the PM
. . peak hour, scenario one level of service "C," scenario two level of service also "C."
Scenario one is existing traffic only; scenario two adds in the proposed development
. traffic. At 1 0 I rt and College, during AM peak hours, scenario one and two are the same
with acceptable 1 eve. Is of service, the lowest being "C.". In the PM peak: hours, in the west
bOUnd approac~ the lev eiof service is "C" under scenario one, and level of service "ph
under scenario two. Mr. Fehribach further explained the level of service spelled out in
the report. The difference of delay between scenario one and two is fOr the west bound
. approach, there is 20.5 seconds.ofaverage delay. .Once the proposed development is
implemented, there will be an average of2S.1. seconds of delay, a 4.6 second increase.
. 101- and Carrollton will have the same level ofseMce II A. n . Also, Guilford level of
service n A'l is for both scenarios. The amount of delay, 4.6 seconds, is not enough to .
cause a safety problem. If there were490 seconds of delay and S more seconds were
addect the existing safety problem would already be there.. However, we are very close
to level of service "C. II Therefore. the conclusioIl is that this development will not cause
an.yintersection to be un-safely burdened and will not affect the health and welfare of the
roadway system.
Paul Reis said asa result of the traffic study and in consultation with the County .
Highway Department,. the applicant is committed to widening 101 at Street from the west
boundary of the Subdivision to the west property line of the 'Korean Presbyterian Church
where theroad currently narrows. .~ right-of..way wasconfumed today as being SO
feet presently. INDOThad acquired the road for access to the barrow pit when I-465 was
built; upon completion of 465, the State abandoned the road and the right-of..way to the
..Hamilton County Commissioners. The State does not record their documents; the
abandoIllilent was done by letter only. The right-ai-way should be sufficient to do the
. needed widening west of the site to the west property line of the Korean Presbyterian
-Church. .
A real estate appraiser was engaged by the applicant to review the proposed subdivision
to determine the possible effect, if'any, On the vaIue.ofthe existing homes in the
neighborhood. Bob Gerdnick, certified general appraiser with Will Stump & Associates,
s:\PlanCOmmission,\Minutes\pc200 lfeb20
6
. FAX"NO. 317. 571 2426
P. 05/10
11495 North Pennsylvania Stre~ reported on his opinion. Mr. Gerdnick subuutted a
. letter supporting his findings. Mr. . Gerdnick also reviewed the Traffic Study and
reviewed previous sales of properties in the neighborhood. Approximately 36 sales were
revieWed. in the three subdivisio:ns to the west and. north of the . subj ect site.. The sales
. averaged 1633 square feet ofgroundfIoorar~ and ranged between $85,700 to $160,000
in selling price; The a'Veragesale price was $110,000; Looking at the plans for the 35
. acres and reading the Ordinance, the development is within thec()nfmes of the .
requirements; nisis anoldbarro'W pit-where they hauled the dirt out to build the
interstate.. The Iakeis surrounded by the Monon Trail on the east, the interstate on the
south, and established subdivisions on tlieeast and north... The development not only falls
within the standards, but it is a very800d and sensible use for a unique piece ofrea1
estate in that it not only provides the housing. it also preserves the natural attributes of the
of the property.rhe traffic study basical1y says it will not have an impact. Based on all
of the review,:Mt. Gerdnick did not feel that the project would have an adverse effect on
the neighborhood and certainly not on the existing property values.
. Mr. Reissaid all of the issues have been resolved concerning the subdivisions that have
been expressed by members of the Technical Advisory Commiuee, specifically the
HamiltOIl County Highway Depattment concemingthe layout and design of the street.
Steve Btoennann has had input regarding the right-of-way. The Fire Department has
been advised and they have "signed OfFl COncerning the access for emergency vehicles
and access to the pond in the event of emergency. The petitioner has dealt with the
Hamilton County Soil & Wate.r CoriServation District and Hamilton County Surveyor's
Office concerning the design and instilation of yard inlets for sub-surface drainage as
wel1'_s overall. drainage on the site~ .
The utilities providing service to the site have also signed off and based upon
conversations with the Director ofCommwtity Services, there are noknoWD issues
outstandingreg~ding the plat and its compliance and conformance with the Residential
. Open Space Ordinance and the regulations of the Subdivision Control Ordinance. The
material submitted this evenin~ is requested to be apart of the public record.
Members of the public. were invited to speak in favor of the proposed development; no
one appeared. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the proposed
development; the. following appeared:
. John Garvey, 10139 Marwood Trail East Drive, a member of the Coalition Conimittee
representing College Hills, College Meadows, and Marwood Trails; appeared before the
Commission to pick up where the previous Bonbar proposal left off September 19th. The
October 3rrlfield trip to the site was productive and worth more than all ofthe graphics
that might otherwise have been presented. The original plan was based on obtaining
several variances; it also ignored the wetlands requirements. There should be some limit
regarding how long the Commission must devote to one item, and this is particularly true
when the proposal is as hap-hazard as the original one. Considerable time and effort has
been spent by the Coalition Committee pointing out the short comings to the petitioner,
and it would seem that the petitioner should have addressed these in the first place.
s:\PlanComtiUssion \lvIinutes\po200 Ife~20
7
FAX NO. '31'7571 2426
P.
Mr. Garvey said Mr. Kosene had attempted to intimidate the neighboring residents in the
. firstmeetfug. $ubsequent meetirigs were no 'better.. When the residents declined. to'
attend the lastmeeting, we became "unreasonable" and I'uncooperative." Ifwe had met
. 99 times and declined on the lOOth. this would still have been the claim. . This petitioner
has not. addressed the real issues involved. The petitioner offered the residents a change
to have the proposal tabled for 30 days to consider greater details before it'went to
committee. When the residents declined, the petitioner requested a tabling anyway. The
. petitioner was totally unprepared and was trying,to use the resident~. as their alibi for
buying time to get prepared. 'This typifies the treatment the area residents have received
'while hoping that-the petitioner was sincere ,in wanting to reach a 'compromise. Mr.
Kosene's support. staff has not treated the area residents in the same manner--they have
, been conspi~ous in their lack of comment during his presence.
Finally, the Coalition reti;1sed the representation by the petitioner that this new plan with
the reduced number of lots was developed as an attempt to placate the neighbors. It is an
insult to everyone's intelligence to put forth such a preposterous claim. The original
'proposal hardly deserves to be' called a plan. It was a greedy attempt to grab every lot
possible and hope that no one wowd notice or bother to object to it. It is difficult to.
believe that the Plan Commission would approve the development, even. if the neighbors
had not raised objection..' ,
Mr. Garvey said the petition submitted by the area resiQents was signed by more than ISO
neighborhood residents who opposed the original plan. In summation, the residents
. . remain united in their objectionto the revised plan and ask that the Commission deny this
. petition.'
Jeny Wilson; 10129 North Guilfor~ addressedtbree areas: 1) the traffic and safety, 2)
product comp an s on, and 3) the density and responsibility. . The new traffic study has
. been. done at the intersections. of 1018 and College and 1 03Mand College. During the last
. study. the lOIR Street intersection was going from service level to ''Dt' to service level
"F'. dwing the AM peak hours, and nom service level"D" to service level"E11 during the
PM peak hours. Now. the petitioner is saying that service level at that intersection during
the AM peak hours is curr~nt1y level "e" and will. remain at level "e" after the
development is completed. During the PM peak hours. the intersection has improved to
. service level "C" in the last six months and is now 'going to service level liD" after the
development is complete. Who is Iddding whom? The service level will not i~prove
after . additional homes in Bonbar have been. constructed and.tosay that there will be no
traffic impact is a ludicrous statement. Mr. Wilson suspected that the first traffic report.
was closer,to the truth. The residents ofBonbar will probably not use.Marwood to enter
and exit the area. The residents will probably use 101 It Street for that purpose, and when.
the residents cannot exit at 101- and College, they will go through the neighborhood on
Carrolltonand Gqilford and this causes concern for safety. The area residents use the
streets for exercise and health reasons.
:Mr. Wilson spoke about the product b~ing proposed. The original covenants specified
hottles with 1600 square feet and no vinyl siding or aluminum siding was peimitted.
s=\PlanCommission\l\Unutes\pc200 lfeb20
8
. FAX 'NO. 317 5712426
P. 07/10
.. Mr. Wilson spoke about the product being proposed. The original covenants specified
. homes with 1600 square feet and novin;yl siding or aluminum siding was permitted.
Brick facia 'Was reqUired. That has all changed. The new covenants have a minimum
square footage of 1300 square feet, vinyl and aluminum siding maybe used, and there is
no mention of brick facia required on the homes. . If this is not changed, there will be
homes completely vinyl.wrapped and no brick...this would be a blight on the neighboring
community as well as Carmel. Almost all of the homes in the neighboring community
are brick or stone wrapped. . If the covenants are not changed to specify at least brick
facia on the homes in Bonbar, the development will not be compatible with the
neighboring homes. The development as presented takes advantage of the Open Space
Ordinance and the density is still far too high for the amount of available, buildable
ground. Bonbar is unique in that it is landlocked..to gain access one must drive through
. . the neighboring community. The deve10perhas some responsibility to the area. residents
. and that responsibility should include maintaining! 0 lit Street during the construction .
. period. Since IOI.Street is a main point of access. it should be maintained all the way to
College Avenue. Also, atrafiic COntrol device atl01~ Street and College Avenue should
be requited of the petitioner to handlethc. increase in traffic generated by Bonbar..
..In 81uumarizin& Mr. Wil~on said that even though the developer has a legal plan. it is
stilI far too dense and should be. denied by the Plan Commission. Any ~pprova1 should
require a drastic reduction in density and a change in the covenants to provide for at least
a brick facia. ' .
Mark Abbey, 1037 Bimam Woods Trail,. College Hills/College Meadows neighborhood.
. addressed the Commission in regard to theOpen.Spaee Ordinance and the density ofilie
proposeddevelopment. In regard to traffic, the intersection of l06th and College Avenue
is the focus of anon-going study to alleviate traffic problems through the Home Place
area from the US 31IMerldian corridor. It is general knowledge that 106cb Street is .
scheduled for impf,ovements and traffic problems continue to increase throughout
Hamilton County. These arejust a few of the areas adjacent to College Hills/College
Meadows. . Large tractsofland have been proposed for commercial development south of
College Hills/College Meadows, and an apartment complex is expanding and CWTently
under co:c.struction. These developments' are also meeting resistance from aclj acent
property owners because they are also concerned about traffic problems.
Mr. Abbey was utJ.S1.1I"e as to when the area was zoned" but the zoning is R-llow.density .
. residential neighborhood. A land development decision is a tratlic decision as Well. The
petitioner has given no thought as to what will happen beyond the intersection of 10 lit .
· and Guilford. aside from the "mandatory" traffic study that has proven to be random at
best At one oftha meetings, the petitioner stated, "That is the County's problem, not
. minel" This statement was made ina most unprofessional way. The Plan Commission
shOUld consider the impact the various developments will have on the surrounding areas.
. Mr. Abbey went onto say that most persons on the Commission attended the field trip on
October 3It1 through Marwood Trails and back to. I 03M Street. The streets in the area
were designed on a curvilinear alignment for a reason o~er than aesthetics. The .
s:\PJanConunission'Minutes\pc200 Ifeb20
9
I1AY-16-2001 WED 03: 06 PI1 CARI1EL COI1I1UNITYSVCS
;"
.,'
. alignment was also intended to discourage traffic through. the immediate neighborhood.
It makes no sense to llseMarwood'as'anaccesspoint.Thereare only 18 homes in
Marwoo~and the cwrentproposal provides for 75 homes. . The traffic flow through
Marwood Trails creates. a potential for ha.zardaild sends the majority of traffic to 1 01 st
Street. The streets in Marwood are in pretty good condition, the homes are well kept,
however, the traffic issue at present is not in good condition. The area residents certainly
disagree with the currenttrafiic study and find it unbelievable--they are'not interested in
having the numbers justified by a set of statistics. This property is unique because it is
landlocked on three sides and there is no choice but to go through the adjacent .
neighborhood. There are a number of children in the neighborhood that consists of large .
lots. . The petitioner has not provided yards for children.
Mr. Abbey summarized by saying that the area residents do not have high-powered
lawyers, traffic engineers, or appraisers, but they can see that this development just does
not make sense in.this location and they urged the Commission. to deny this project.
Mrs. Ron Meredith, 932 Marwood Trail, North Drive, spoke as ,a former real estate agent
and said she knew the average property value in Marwood Trails and it is much greater
than stated by the appraiser. A home on a cul-de-sac usually commands a higher price
and is a key selling point; 'this wiUalso adversely affect the Marwood Trails property
. values. Most importantly. Mrs. Meridith wanted to stress concern for the safety of the
children and mentally and physically challenged persons in the neighborhood The
majority of the neighborhood does not have streetlights. Bonbar not only adversely
. affects the properties, but the lives of the neighbors.
. William Long. 10142 Carrollton,spoke of the traffic situation and the wait from IOIst
. StTeet onto College Avenue at 5:00 PM as being six or seven minutes. 'No one has said
specifically how big the proposed lots are. Also, Mr. Long had heard at one time that the
roads in the development were not satisfactory to the Fire Dept. Has this now been
correcte~ and acceptable?
Sharon Clark, 11 932 Pebblebrook Lane. County Commissioner, District One, said this
particular request lies in the County's Jurisdiction and is outside the City limits of Carmel.
As a County Commissioner. it is necessary to bring information to the Plan Commission
that is important in making a decision regarding the proposed project. The primary
responsibility is public health, safety and welfare, and the County Highway Department
has no' intention whatsoever of improving 101 at Street to handle the traffic the proposed
development will bring. The narrow, urban street was not designed to handle this amount
of traffic. In Commissioner Clark's opinion, the stub street proposed to serve as a second
entry and e,ot would only add to the safety issue, dumping far more traffic into the
community than the study proposes. Increased tra1l1o on the convoluted routes puts at
risk the safety of the adults .and children in the neighborhood. In 1998, a fellow
commissioner indicated to Carmel officials that there would be intersection
improvements in west Clay to alleviate increased traffic congestion, however, only one
intersection is under construction and will be Completed this summer. A second
intersection is started and there are 6 more under design, but no funds to proceed.
s: \PlanCo1tunission \Minutes\pc200 Ifeb20
10
MAY-16':'2001 WED 03:07.PM CARMEL.COMMUNITYSVCS
',!"~,',",'
.\
I" .
FAX NO. 3-17 ".571 2426
P., . 09/10
Improving lOlstStreet is definitely not on the radar screen at all. Ms. Clark urged the
Plan COmmission to. deny this petition for the safety of the existing community. . Ms.
Clark said she had attended a neighborhood meeting. between the petitioner and the
neighbors and was greatly disturbed by the way the neighbors were treated.
Craig R.yan,93S Marwood Trail..North Drive, said the environmental impact of the .
proposed development has not been covered. .. There is a lot of wildlife in the are~ and a
lot of green space is needed next to the highway. This has not been addressed.
Lisa Ryan, 938 Marwood Trail, said she is concerned about the traffic. the safety of the
children, and the impact the development will have on the school system. School buses
, 'cannotpos'sihly access the areai . , ' .
. Rebuttal: Mr.R.eis said the Open Space Ordinance was carefully crafted with the thought
of maintaining green space. and the petitioner has done everything possible to maintain as
many trees as possible. The petitioner intends to ref9rest and the tree preseJVation plan
has bee.nsubmittedandapproved by the Urban Forester. .
SecondlY2 the density ofadjacent properties. The Retreat project on the. opposite side of
the MononTrail will have greater than 4 units per acre; College Meadows has 2.2 units
per acre; Marwood Trails has 2.3; College Hills. 1.98. The proposed development is at
2.1 and felt to be within the density. . Mr. Reis asked Steve Fehribaeh to address the
co rnm ents regarding the validity of the trafticanaIysis. .
. Steve Fehribach responded that the main issue is the level of service. the'original report
. was doneata time when US 31 was un.der major coDStruction. The density has also
decreased--from 115 to 75 units. and this decreases the amount of traffic generated and
improves the level of service. Trip generation is adifilcult issue. Peak hours usually
occur between 6 and. 9 AM and.4.and6 in the afternoon. The peale hours for the different
intersections are not the same hours. .. This tneans that the peaks do not occur at 103M and
101" ora.t Carrollton or Guilford all at the same thne--they are slightly different. Traffic
.. engineers look at the worst case scenario and the trip generation ret1ects the Worst hour in
the morning and the worst hour in the afternoon. Mr. Fehribach again explained how the
data was collected far the trip generation analysis. A6 or 7 minute delay is e~emely
. long and this was not noted in any or all of the site visits.
. The public. hearing was then closed.
Laurence Lillig said the Department Report recommends this item be forwarded to the
March 6.2001 Subdivision Committee.
, , ,
Ron Houck asked the petitioner to address the following at the Committee level: Detail
on thepriceofhomes~ types QfmateriaIl square footage21ot size. minimum, maximum,
and average. and examples of comparably priced homes elsewhere in the community that .
are representative of the proposed development. A letter from the School corporation
. s: \PI~Commission \lv!inutes\pe200 lfebiO
11
APRIL 17, 2001
Carmel/Clay Plan Commission Agenda
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
April 17, 2001 - DEPARTMENT REPORT
/'
....",.-...-.~
7i. Docket No. 13-01 PP; Bonbar Place Subdivision
Petitioner seeks approval to plat a 75-lot subdivision on 35.77% acres. The site is located at tn..e
northwest comer of 1-465 and'the CarmeVClay Manon Greenway. The site is zoned R-I/residence.
Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for Kosene & Kosene.
The Subdivision Committee returned this item to the full Commission with a negative
recommendation. The Department recommends the Plan Commission deny the petitiorJ
based 00' the following reasons:
1. That it is not appropriate to allow a 75-10t subdivision to have access through either of the existing COllJlty
streets (Marwood"Trail'or 101st Street) due to the fact that these streets both .fail to conform to the
minimum right-of-way or pavement width prescribed by the Ordinance. The minimum requirement fox
. right-of-way is 50-feet and pavement width 26-feet. . At this time it is our understanding that the County
Highway Department has neither plans. to or findS':'~it necessary at this time to upgrade either of these
eXisting County streets in order to provide for the health, safety, convenience and welfare of this part ~
the Coun1y. SeCtion 6.3.6 addresses the required minimum right-of-way and roadway widths.
2. Section 6.3.21 is as.follows:
Subdivisions consisting of :fifteen (15) lots or more shall have at least two (2) points of access. This access
is to be from.a through street (feede~, arterial, or collector) or, where the Plan Commission finds it to be
appropriate, the continuation of existing, planned or platted streets on adjacent tracts, or the extension of
proposed streets to the boundary of the subdivision.
Neither point ofacc~s (Marwood Trail or lOlat Street) for the Plat is from a through Street (a feeder, .
arterria!, or coiiector) whIch'is in violation of the requirement of the above noted section that all access for
a subdivision of greater that 14 'lots be 'from a through street unless the Plan Commission finds it to be
appropriate. The Department does not think t11at it is appropriate for a 75-10t subdivision to have access
from Marwood Trail because it is a street that winds between 2000-feet and 1.17 miles through a well
established neighborhood to College Avenue and l06th Street respectively. Using Marwood for one of the
access points would cause a distribution of traffic in the area which would not be favorable to the health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the adjacent neighborhoods in this part of the County.
3. Section 6.5.2 is as follows:
Sidelines of lots' shall be at approximately rigbt angles to straight streets and on radial lines on curved
streets. Some variation from this rule is permissible, but pointed or very irregular lots should be avoided.
That the Plat does not display the minimum lot standards on lots #1, #2 and #3 in that they are very
irregular in shape and do not conform to the standards of Section 6.5.2 of the seo.
The Department would also recommend that the Plan Commission direct Mr. Molitor to
prepare formal findings based on reasons displayed above and any additional input by the
Commission for signature by the President.
Page 7
EXHIBIT G
ONE CMC SQUARE
CARMELJ INDIANA 46032
317/571-2417
I ~
SUBP ARAGRAPH (3): The Plat does not provide for the establishment of minimum
width, depth, and area of lots within the proposed Subdivision, in that Lots #1, #2 and #3 are
very irregular lots and therefore fail to conform to the following standard:
Section 6.5.2 of the Ordinance-The Commission finds that Lots #1, #2 and #3 are on a
curved street and as such their sidelines should be on radial lines unless a variation from
this rule is permitted by the Commission. The Commission further fmds that no variation
from this rule should be permitted in this case for the reason that these lots will need to
accommodate supplementary trees, shrubs, and other landscaping in order to provide for
adequate buffering from the adjacent Interstate Highway.
SUBP ARAGRAPH (4): The Plat does not provide for the distribution of population and
traffic in a manner tending to create conditions favorable to health, safety, convenience and the
harmonious development of the City or County, in that the Plat proposes a Subdivision having
more than 14 lots (namely 75 lots) with only two (2) points of access to the Public Highway
System, and with both of those points of access to be provided through the continuation of
existing, substandard County Streets on adjacent tracts (namely the neighborhood streets known
as Marwood Trail and 101 st Street), and that such proposal fails to conform to the following
standards:
A. Section 6.3.21 of the Ordinance-The Commission finds that neither point of access
provided for in this Plat is from a through street (namely a feeder, arterial, or
collector), in violation of the requirement of this Section that all access for a proposed
Subdivision having more than 14 lots should be from through streets unless the
Commission finds it appropriate to allow for access to be from the continuation of
existing, planned, or platted streets on adjacent tracts, or from the extension of
proposed streets to the boundary of the Subdivision. The Commission further finds
that it would not be appropriate to allow a 75-10t Subdivision to have access through
Marwood Trail for the reason that said Marwood Trail does not even connect directly
to a through street, but has access to the nearest through street (College Avenue) only
via a curvilinear path (using Guilford Avenue and 10pt Street) that winds for 2,000
feet through well established, adjacent neighborhoods, and the use of such a street for
one (1) of the two (2) required access points for the proposed Subdivision would
unduly burden the neighborhood streets in those adjacent neighborhoods of the
3