HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence
Dla otl cpl L., uV
~
Phone Record
Gary Duncan call to Rex Neal
April 11, 2007 1630 or 1645
1. Reviewed options related to dedication of right-of-way as a condition of his use
vanance.
2. I explained that he could apply for a variance or commit to dedicate the right-of-
way if ever needed by the City.
3. In response to his question "What would I do in his situation?" I explained that I
would weigh the cost of the variance application versus the cost of the land
encumbered by the Thoroughfare Plan and outside of the existing right-of-way. I
stated that if there was no additional cost for a second variance request, that he is
out nothing to request the variance. I stated that I was unaware of the "success
rate" as it were of such variance requests and that I was unsure as to how the BZA
typically votes for such requests. If there was a cost associated with the second
variance; then I would weigh the value of the land to be dedicated against the cost
of the application.
4. I explained that if he were not seeking the use variance that he would not need to
dedicate the land and that the City would need to approach him to purchase the
right-of-way ifneeded for a future road project.
5. I explained that Staff would not support the variance request due to the cost to
acquire this land (the future land costs and the costs associated with establishing
the value of the land and to make and offer and transfer the property).
6. I provided some reasons for which he could use in support of the variance,
including sometimes the right-of-way needs for physical construction is less than
the Thoroughfare Plan right-of-way. However, by not having a firm road design,
it is hard to say and that in some instances, the Thoroughfare Plan right-of-way is
not adequate. Most times we struggle to fit the plalll1ed roadway in the existing or
the Thoroughfare Plan right-of-way and need to obtain more (usually for grading).
7. We reviewed that the Thoroughfare Plan does encumber property. I reviewed that
if a developer were to consider acquiring blocks of land to. develop, that
sometimes they do not place a value on the land encumbered by the Thoroughfare
Plan because they know they will need to dedicate this land to the City as right-
of-way. I agreed that, unfortunately, the Thoroughfare Plan can make the land
valueless in some cases but it is still up to negotiations with the purchaser and that
he would not be obligated to sell to the purchaser.
Page 1 of 1
Conn, Angelina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Conn, Angelina V
Tuesday, February 27,20079:23 AM
'Rex Neal'; 'Rex Neal'
Cc: Tingley, Connie S; Hollibaugh, Mike P; sarah@printing-plus.net
Subject: Printing Plus use variance request (Docket No. 06090012 UV)
Attachments: BZA Rules of Procedure 2006-0828.pdf
Good Morning, Col. Neal:
At the February 26,2007 BZA meeting, the Board unanimously voted to withdraw docket no. 06090012 UV (Printing Plus)
from the agenda.
This means that you will have to resubmit a use variance application and re-do public notice if you choose to pursue this
use variance request again.
Also attached to this email are the BZA rules of Procedure, if you are interested.
Thank you,
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
Division of Planning & Zoning
Dept. of Community Services
City of Carmel
p.317-571-2417 f.317-571-2426
aconn@carmel.in.gov
2/27/2007
u
u
Page 1 of2
Conn, Angelina V
From: DeVore, Laura B
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 11 :25 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: RE: tac minutes oct 2006
9:15 a.m.
Forest Glen, Lot 3 - Printing Plus
The applicant seeks the following use variance amendment approval for an office:
Docket No. 06090012 UV ZO Chapter 6.01 Permitted Uses
The site is located at 2110 E. 96th St. and is zoned S-2/Residence.
Filed by Col. Rex A. Neal of Printing Plus.
Present for the Petitioner: The petitioner did not appear.
Greg Hoyes, Hamilton County Surveyor's Office: He said that he had no objection to the use
vanance.
Shirley Hunter, Duke Energy: She said that she had no objection to the use variance. She
pointed out
that there was only single-phase power available, so if the petitioners should need three-phase
power, they
will need to fill out a request.
Scott Brewer, DOCS Urban Forester: He said that he needs a copy of a landscape plan that
shows the current landscaping on the property.
Nick Redden, Carmel Engineering: He said that they just received information on the project
on Friday, so they are still reviewing the project. He said that they would provide the petitioner
with comments when their review is complete.
Gary Hoyt, Carmel Fire Department: He said that he sent the petitioner a letter saying that he
had no comments, but that he has comments now. He clarified with Angie Conn that the
petitioner intended to use only normal office equipment and that there wouldn't be any heavy
machinery or chemicals used.
Karyn Ryg, DOCS Transportation Planner: She said that it is her understanding that the
right-of-way and path issues are being worked out with Gary Duncan, Mike Hollibaugh, and
Angie Conn.
Matt Griffin, DOCS: He said that he had no comments.
Christine Barton-Holmes, DOCS: She said that she had no comments.
Angie Conn, DOCS: She said that her comments were that the petitioner still needed to work
out the landscaping issues, road right-of-way, and parking issues. She said they also needed to
work out if they would commit to no signage and they would need to check with the covenants
and restrictions for the subdivision to see if the use was even allowed.
...END...
1/10/2007
Page 1 of2
Conn, Angelina V
From: Duncan, Gary R
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 20064:50 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V; 'Rex Neal'
Cc: Tingley, Connie S; Hollibaugh, Mike P; McBride, Mike T
Subject: RE: BZA - Printing Plus
Mr. Neal,
Compliance with the Alternative Transportation Plan requires the construction of a 1 O-ft wide asphalt multi-use path that
runs parallel to 96th Street across the frontage. In some cases, petitioners provide the monetary equivalent of
constructing this path to the City's non-revolving Thoroughfare Plan fund, instead of actually constructing the multi-use
path. The frontage of the property is approximately 11 O-feet (scaled from the GIS). June 2006 cost data from a City's road
project was $26.33 per linear foot for a 10-foot wide asphalt multi-use path. The path would be expected to cost
$2,896.30.
Compliance with the 20-yr Thoroughfare Plan requires dedication of the right-of-way prescribed by the plan. This calls for
a 60-ft half right of way, as measured from the centerline of 96th Street. This dedication will be approximately 27 -ft in
depth from your front property line. The City is willing to accept a formal commitment to transfer fee simple ownership of
the portion of the property outside of the existing right-of-way that is encumbered by the Thoroughfare Plan right-of-way
when such property is identified by the City as being necessary for a public improvement. Such a commitment would
stipulate that the transfer would be at no cost to the City and that no damages or other losses could be claimed against
the City resulting from the property transfer. Such a commitment would also require proof of clear title in the warranty
deed. Such a commitment would need to be recorded and would run with the land. The commitment would also state that
the property owner would prepare the transfer documents. Typically, the petitioner or his attorney prepares such a
commitment document with review by the City.
As we have discussed, you can also request a variance from these requirements.
Thanks so much,
Gary
Plc.afit?!1Qtc...!1c.IYt?mail..a4Jlrc.fifibc.1QJY
Gary R Duncan Jr., P.E.
Assistant City Engineer
City of Carmel
Department of Engineering
One Ci vic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
(317) 571-2441
(317) 571-2439 (fax)
gduncan@cannel.in.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 15:31
To: 'Rex Neal'
Cc: Tingley, Connie 5; Duncan, Gary R; Hollibaugh, Mike P
Subject: RE: BZA - Printing Plus
12/8/2006
Page 1 of2
Conn, Angelina V
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 3:31 PM
To: 'Rex Neal'
Cc: Tingley, Connie S; Duncan, Gary R; Hollibaugh, Mike P
Subject: RE: BZA - Printing Plus
Hi Rex: sorry to hear about your mom. I hope the treatments are helping.
I will show your item as being tabled again on the Nov. 27 BZA agenda. The next BZA meeting will be Dec. 18 at
6 pm.
Also, I will forward this email on to Gary Duncan in the Engineering Dept so he knows about the status of this
project and the dedication of road right of way issue that is still at hand.
Thank you.
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
Division of Planning & Zoning
Dept. of Community Services
City of Carmel
p. 317-571-2417 f. 317-571-2426
aconn@carmel.in.gov
From: Rex Neal (mailto:colneal@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 3:24 PM
To: Tingley, Connie 5
Cc: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: Re: BZA
Thank you for the reminder. Will not be able to at this point, my mom has recently been diagnosed with cancer in
three places and am taking her to radiation every day to try and slow it down. Once we get a handle on her I will
look at this again but thank you for the reminder.
Also, no one has yet gotten back with me in regards to the "donation" and paving, etc...would you please have
someone follow up so we can get this addressed? Thanks
Best
Col. Rex A. Neal
Sadly, there are few heroes today, only celebrities.
----- Original Message -----
From: Il!lgj~'y,G9DJJie$
To: R~X_~_~~I
CC:GQOD_L8ng~ljmtY
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 1 :36 PM
Subject: BZA
Are you planning to present your petition, Docket No. 06090012 UV Forest Glen, Lot 3 - Printing Plus, at the
November 27, 2006 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting?
If so, you need to remit payment in the amount of $1336.00 to this office no later then noon, Friday, November
17.
Please let me know your intentions.
Thank you,
Connie Tingley
BZA Secretary
11/14/2006
Page 1 of 4
Conn, Angelina V
From: Rex Neal [neal.r@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11: 13 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Cc: sarah@printing-plus.net; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Duncan, Gary R
Subject: RE: use variance - docket no 06090012 UV
Morning Angie-
Thank you for showing up for us. Much appreciated.
Believe it is in the best interests of everyone involved to hold back and look at this matter the next go
around. Let me know if there are any drawbacks to this. This way we (I) can get a better understand as
to what's going on. Being on the road right now with limited email access is tough. Will get with you
once I'm back in the office.
Thanks for all
R.
"Conn, Angelina V" <Aconn@Carmel.in.gov> wrote:
Rex: I just spoke with Sarah Combs. I will still have your item heard at the TAC meeting tomorrow, and
will take notes for you and Sarah.. That way, if you do decide to appear at the Oct. 23 BZA meeting, for
whatever reason, this step of the process will be taken care of.
Probably, the biggest issue that will come up will be the engineering dept's comments about the path and
road right of way
Thanks,
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
Division of Planning & Zoning
Dept. of Community Services
City of Carmel
p. 317-571-2417 f. 317-571-2426
aconn@carmel.in.gov
From: Rex Neal [mailto:neal.r@sbcglobal.net)
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:28 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: RE: use variance - docket no 06090012 UV
You are always so quick.
No, no one has gotten back with me. I was told it would be discussed and someone would let me
know but nothing was ever finalized not even what you mentioned.
Don't think Sarah will be at the meeting blc we have not paid for our permit application, don't
want to throw the money away blc based on what we've been told we might not be able to afford
the additonal requests you've recently informed me about.
Call Sarah if something changes.
10/1812006
October 14,2006
L
'"
To Members of the Carmel-Clay Board of Zoning Appeals:
1..
Attached is a petition from residents of the community affected by the Application for a
Use Variance, Docket No. 06090012UV on October 23. As you may recall, many of us
came before you about two years ago concerning a similar variance on Haverstick Road.
We requested the 96th Street Corridor Special Study be completed by the City in order
bring some resolution to the changes that were happening in our area. At that time, we
still believed our area would remain residential and were concerned about the kind of
piecemeal approach being taken to convert some residential homes into businesses.
You responded to our concerns by a unanimous vote to turn down the petition. Once
again we are before you. Since the approval of the new Aramore project which involves
approximately one fourth of our land area, and with the change in the Marion County
Comprehensive Plan for land use on the south side of 96th Street to commercial, we have
faced the reality that change is upon us. The community has been working together to
formulate a cohesive plan for our area with the help of Steve Pittman as one of our
resource persons and have had numerous meetings with the DOCS. The Special Study
designated in the present Comp Plan has yet to be completed. Speculative buyers are
beginning to buy up properties to convert into businesses. One such business is already
operating out of a home at 96th and Maple Drive illegally, evidently not wanting to risk
coming before this Board. The owner through an attorney has sent a rather threatening
letter to one of the homeowners in an attempt to intimidate them. (See attached letter to
Mr. and Mrs. Charles R. Harshbarger.) Although not related to this application, it is an
example of what is happening in our area.
We ask that you deny this application for a UV for the following reasons:
. It is in violation of the Forrest Glen covenants (which evidently the petitioner has
failed to research).
. The petitioner has not met with residents of Forest Glen or surrounding
community. It will be a piecemeal approach to the overall future of this area and
hinder good planning which the DOCS has stated should be at least five acres or
more for redevelopment.
. A decision in favor by this Board would set a precedent for others who are
waiting in the wings and will at some point be before this Board with more such
petitions. A "home office" just west of this property has already come before this
Board (unknown to the community) and received a sign variance which is in
violation of the present ordinances. For all practical purposes, it is functioning
as though it had a Use Variance and this Board apparently not having history of
the past, gave its approval.
. The granting of this variance will be contrary to the public interest, as the only
hardship will be on residents in the community being deprived of stability in our
neighborhoods and ability to participate in change that would provide
2
comprehensive planning for the area. It is also a hardship for the residents of this
corrimunity to be constantly vigilant of the next request before the BZA for
another variance, be that for zoning, signage, or change of commitments,
organizing for remonstrance and wondering just what will be next. Increase in
traffic on 96th Street is a hardship on everyone and this petitioner should have
known that before purchasing this property. It is no secret that we are all
struggling with the increased traffic with backups on 96th Street from Keystone to
Lincoln and even further, occurring several times a day.
. We believe that the granting of this variance will be injurious to the residents of
the community as to its general welfare. There is also a safety issue since no one
would be living in the home, leaving it open to invite theft at night.
. We believe the use or value of the area adjacent to the subject property will be
substantially affected in an adverse manner for reasons already stated.
. The need for the variance does not arise from a "natural condition peculiar to the
subject property" as the "highly trafficked corridor" exists for every resident in
the community and is not "peculiar" to the subject property.
. The granting of this variance does substantially interfere with the Cannel/Clay
Comprehensive Plan. The petitioner misstates that "the current plan's amendment
shows 96uth St. as a Primary Arterial." This particular section of 96th Street is
designated as a "Secondary Arterial" (Chapter 2 - Page 5 of the 96th Street
Corridor Study which was adopted as an amendment to the Cannel-Clay
Comprehensive Plan) and the present plan by the City shows this section of 96th
Street to be a two lane parkway with a median, eliminating all driveway cuts as
well as one to two street cuts. It is intended by the City to be similar to the new
section of Westfield Blvd. north of the round-a-bout at 96th and Westfield Blvd.
. We believe property values will increase if this area is well-planned for residential
preservation and redevelopment. We do not believe a UV will increase property
values since any developer considering an overall plan will not want to develop
around these spot variances or have to pay an inflated price in order to obtain
these piece-meal properties. We believe this will put the entire area at risk for
preservation and redevelopment.
A conceptual plan has already been presented to the Plan Commission and City Council
for this area and we believe this kind of exception will hinder the progress and planning
towards a unified approach for the 96th St.1W estfield area. Attached is a conceptual plan
prepared by consulting engineers, Stoeppelwerth & Associatets. We believe an overall
unified plan is in the best interest of our community and the City. If there are "members
of the public" who wish to speak in favor of this petition, we would request that you ask
them if they are residents of this community and do they plan to live in this community.
We look to you once again to send a clear message concerning any application which
reflects little interest in the well-being of our community.
3
PETITION TO DENY
NAME
ADDRESS
ZIP
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------
------------
Signatures will be attached and
presented to the Board at the meeting.
---------------
------------
---------------
------------
---------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
10/13/2006 16:18
31777696'2.8
U
HAMILTON CO SURVEYOR
U
PAGE 01/01
:Kt!ntoll C. 'Word. SlI/VE:Vor
,
rph'(171l~(JT7) 77G-~4J5
'rax (;f7) 776-~6:zS
Sllttr h~,~
One :Hamill"" Cpnrtly .~qllar~
.:Noble.wllle, lrlliimla 4(~(l6'l'-2.~.'C'
October 13, 2006
Printing Plus
A TTN: Sarah Combs
7433 Westfield Blvd.
Indianapolis, IN 46240
VIA B-Mail: Sarah@printing-plus.net
RE: Printing Plus Use Variance
Dear Mrs. Combs:
We have reviewed the special use information submitted to the Hamilton County Surveyor's
Office on October 13~ 2006 for this project and have the following comments:
1. This proposed project falls within the incorporated area and MS4 jurisdiction of the
City of Carmel.
2. The proposed project DOES NOT fall in a Carmel Well Head Protection Zone.
3. The proposed project does not fall within regulated drain watershed.
4. The Hamilton County Surveyor's Office has no objections to the special use variance
for this proposed project.
Should you have any questions. 1 can be reached at 317-776-8495.
Sincerely,
Jlw1 ~
Greg Hoyes, AC~ CFM
Plan Reviewer
cc: Matt Griffin - Cannel DOCD
Amanda Foley - Cannel Engineering
Dick Hill - Carmel Engineering
Mike McBride - HCHD
Oregllko - Crossroads Engineers
Date:
Place:
Time:
9~OO ~.m.
9:15 a.m.
9.~0 a.m.
9:45 a.m.
10:00 a.m.
o
o
CARMEL CLAY SCHOOLS COMMENTS 10-17-2006
CARMEL TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA
October 18, 2006
Department of Community Services Conference Room
3rd Floor - Carmel City Hall
9:00 AM
Docket No. 06090029 DP/ADLS: Red Robin Michigan Road
The applicant seeks development plan and architecture, lighting, landscaping, and
signage approval for a proposed 6,350-square foot restaurant. The site is located
at 9901 Michigan Road and is zoned B2. It is within the Michigan RoadlUS 421
Overlay District. Filed by John Finnemore of Red Robin International, Inc.
CCS: No Comment.
Forest Glen, Lot 3 - Printing Plus
The applicant seeks the following use variance amendment approval for an office:
Docket No. 06090012 UV ZO Chapter 6.01 Permitted Uses
The site is located at 2110 E. 96th St. and is zoned S-2/Residence.
Filed by Col. Rex A. Neal of Printing Plus.
CCS: No comment.
Docket No. 06090037 PP: Lakeland Subdivision.
The applicant seeks primary plat approval for a ten-acre site, to be divided into
five parcels with one public cul-de-sac access point.
The site is located 12650 Clay Center Road and is zoned S 1.
Filed by Michael DeBoy of DeBoy Land Development Services for Browning
Investments.
CCS: School buses will not travel in cul-de-sac. Sidewalks should be provided for
school age children to walk to bus stop.
Docket No. 06090039 ADLS: Weston Pointe Professional Center.
The applicant seeks architecture, design, landscaping, lighting, and signage
approval to build one, two-story, 12,280-square foot office building on 2.24
acres.
The site is located at Michigan Road and Weston Pointe Drive, and is zoned B2.
It is located within the US 4211Michigan Road Overlay.
Filed by Darci Pellom of Civil Designs, LLP for Williams Realty.
CCS: No comment.
Docket No. 06090041 PP: Towne Oak Estates.
The applicant seeks primary plat approval for an 18.75-acre site, to be divided into
16 parcels with one public cul-de-sac access point.
The site is located south of 131 st Street on Towne Road and is zoned S 1.
Filed by Matthew Skelton of Baker and Daniels, LLP for 56 Towne, LLC.
CCS: No drawings received. School buses will not travel in cul-de-sac. Sidewalks
should be provided for school age children to walk to bus stop.
Page 1 of 1
..
Conn, Angelina V
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 11 :03 AM
To: 'Sarah Combs'; 'Rex Neal'
Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P
Subject: suggested recordable commitments for use variance petition
Attachments: commitments - document example.pdf
Good Morning, Sarah and Rex:
Attached is an example of recorded commitments that another petitioner utilized when seeking approval of a
variance. Please us this as your template for preparing your draft recordable commitments, which will be required
as part of the petition and will need to be distributed with the information packet or at the meeting. If you need
help writing them up, I can help you with that. Commitments ensure the City and the residents that certain things
will and will not take place, if the use variance is approved.
The commitment that the City wants to see the most is: that the property owner will dedicate the road right of way,
pursuant to the 20-Year Thoroughfare Plan, to the City if/when the City needs it. Other items that you may want to
list in the recordable commitments are:
-The Hours of operation and/or days of operation,
-The Maximum number of cars parked on site at one time,
-No signage or signage that is less than or equal to the home occupation signage requirements,
-The Maximum number of employees on site at one time,
-The Maintenance of the home/property
-The Maximum number of deliveries per day or week (if any).
-The landscape plan will be adhered to.
Also, if the business flourishes, do you have any plans for how you might expand the driveway/parking area,
landscape, or the floor plan? This issue will also need to be addressed at the meeting.
Thank you,
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
Division of Planning & Zoning
Dept. of Community Services
City of Carmel
p. 317-571-2417 f.317-571-2426
aconn@carmel.in.gov
10/1 012006
"'cP
0'
~
COpy
Commitments Concerning the Use and
Development of Real Estate
Docket No. V-37-98
290100069261
FlIed for Record in
HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA
MARY L CLARK
10-30-2001 09:31 am.
MISC 13.00
F.C.C. Development COlJ)oration(hereafter, "Applicant"), makes the following Conunitments to the
City of Carmel (government entity).
Description of Real Estate:
See attached Legal Description.
Statement of Commitments:
1. The approved projecting signs shall be 2'6" x 3'6" in size.
2. No wall or roof identification signs will be installed on the buildings.
3. No projecting signs will be installed on the second story of the fa~de of the buildings.
4. The number of allowable projecting signs 0':'::;'';; ~~~~~ n;:~.. IIV IIIvn; ~IClU ~;~;IL
signs per building and no projecting signs are allowed on the southwest fa~e facing
the detention pond.
S. The applicant understands that the representations made in 1 through 4 above will
survive the ownership of the property. The applicant will make the requirements of 1
through 4 above a part of any agreement to sell the property.
Binding on Heirs, Successors and Assigns. These commitments are binding on the owner of the
Real Estate, each subsequent owner of tlte real estate, and each person acquiring interest in the
real estate, unless modified or terminated by the governmental authority authorized to modify.
Recording. The undersigned agrees to record these commitments in the Office of the Recorder of
. Harnilton County, Indiana, upon granting of the approval of the project.
Enforcement. These conunitments may be enforced by the CarmeVClay Board of Zoning Appeals
..
'.
"
Page 2 of2
and/or the City of Carmel, Indiana.
Ex~~e~day of a:,;1~
By: ~/~ Title:
Printed ~A-A...A<.. l!- - ( '.o~~
2ow:;"
, 1099
~,.V'~ LLQ-..
STATE OF INDIANA, COUNTY OF HAMILTON: BEFORE ~ a Notary public in and for said
County and State, personally appeared ~ r j,~ C. (Q S 1"\ 1\ ~ , the
cero of J=~ DSVELof"U&(T" ~ , who acknowledged
the execution of the foregoing Commitments.
WITNESS my hand and Notarial Seal the () Y h. day of
~o~. (d
Residing in f\A..a. (loY-. County. My Commission Expires:
Oc;/-
,;WI: I
,.J>>'Y _'
Notary Public State of Indiana,
s - 3--0")
Commitment form prepared by: John R. Molitor, Attorney
11711 North Meridian Street
Suite 200
Carmel, Indiana 46032
.:~ lIDJaKIdioa.ll: lickwalk 12/97
,I
Conn. Angelina V
Page 1 of 1
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Wednesday, October 04,200610:22 AM
To: 'Rex Neal'
Cc: 'sarah@printing-plus.net'; Duncan, Gary R
Subject: use variance - docket no 06090012 UV
Attachments: image001.emz
Good Morning, Rex:
The Planning Director has taken a look at this petition, and pointed out that since you are requesting a use
variance, you will have to comply with the Alternative Transportation Plan, which calls for a 1 O-ft wide asphalt
multi-use path that runs parallel to 96th Street. Often times, a petitioner will contribute the monetary equivalent of
constructing this path to a non-revolving fund, instead of actually constructing the multi-use path. Please contact
the Engineering Dept to further discuss.
Administrator
Division of Planning & Zoning
Dept. of Community Services
City of Carmel
p. 317-571-2417 f. 317-571-2426
aconn@carmel.in.gov
10/412006
The Director also pointed out that you
will have to dedicate the road right of
way, as required by the 20-yr
Thoroughfare Plan. This calls for a 60-ft
half right of way, as measured from the
centerline of 96th Street. This dedication
will be approximately 27 -ft in depth from
your front property line. Again, you can
work with the Engineering Dept (317-
571-2441 ) to work on the correct
document for road right of way
dedication.
If you have any questions/concerns,
please contact the Planning Director
Mike Hollibaugh to discuss and/or work
out an agreement.
Thank you,
Angie Conn, Planning