HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 05-08-01
City of Carmel
May 3, 2001
Department Report
To: Board of Zoning Appeals Members
From: Department of Community Services
Re: projects scheduled to be heard May 8, 2001
H. Public Hearine::
lh. Martin Marietta (SU-40-01)
Petitioner seeks Special Use approval in order to establish a mining use and artificial lake
on IOS.98B: acres. The site is located on the northwest comer of East 106th Street and
Hazel Dell Parkway. The site is zoned S-l/residence.
The Department has several concerns with the proposed Commitments for this petition
and would like to see the following changes made or items clarified:
1. Item 1 (d) should include a Legal Description of the wooded portion of the
Mueller Property, and should be expanded to commit that the area will not be
cleared.
2. Item 2( d). The Department requests that the petitioner consider amending the
hours to be between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
3. Item 3(b). The division of the land north of the artificial lake would constitute a
Subdivision under the Carmel/Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance. As such the
petitioner will need to employ more than "its best efforts" to see that a Primary
Plat Amendment and subsequent Secondary Plat (Replat) are accomplished.
4. Item 3(c). When will the dedication of right-of-way for East 106th Street be
accomplished? Will the 60-foot half right-of-way for Gray Road be dedicated?
S; Item 3(d). The Department would like an initial copy of the Indiana Mineral
Aggregates Association reclamation guidelines to be submitted at this time.
Technical Advisory Committee concerns are as follows:
Carmel/Clav Parks & Recreation: Would like to have the lO-foot asphalt path required
by the Alternative Transportation Plan of the Thoroughfare Plan develolJed between Gray Road
Page 1
Department of Community Services Report
Board of Zoning Appeals
May 8, 2001
Page 2 of2
and Hazel Dell Parkway. also from East 106th Street on the south to Carmelot Park on the north.
Paths can be accommodated within the 45-foot half right-of-way required for East 106th Street
(Secondary Arterial) and the 60-foot half right-of-way required for Gray Road (Secondary
Parkway).
Hamilton County Soil & Water: Requested an Erosion Control Plan. The Department
of Community Services has not received a copy of this Plan. The Department does not know if it
was provided to Soil & Water.
Hamilton County Hiehwav Department: Inquired how far the mining operation would
be from the rights-of-way. The Developmental Standards Variance petition associated with the
Special Use requests a 100-foot setback from the rights-of way (150 feet from residentially
occupied property). The Department of Community Services would like to be sure that this is
from the required right-of-way rather than from the existing right-of-way.
City of Carmel Urban Forester: Requested conceptual Landscape Plan for review with
the reclamation efforts.
DOCS Division of Duildine & Permittine: Requested efforts on the petitioner's part to
abate the outdoor storage/iunk yard use on the Mueller Property on the south side of East 106th
Street. The City would like to see this accomplished at this time.
The Department recommends favorable consideration of this petition conditioned uvon
satisfactory resolution of outstanding T AC concerns.
2h. Martin Marietta (V-41a-Ol; V-41b-Ol)
Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variances of Section 5.2.2 and Section
22.3.1(4) in order to establish a mining use within 150 feet of the Kingswood Subdivision
and within 100 feet of property lines abutting or adjoining residentially zoned and used
property for the remainder of the site. The site is located on the northwest corner of East
106th Street and Hazel Dell Parkway. The site is zoned S-l/residence.
The Department of Community Services does not see a problem with a reduction of the
setback from 300 feet to 100 feet where the property abuts rights-of-way or properties on which
mining operations currently exist. The approval of the reduction from 300 feet to 150 feet
adiacent to the Kingswood Subdivison should be contingent upon the acceptability of the
reduction to the adjoining property owners. whom the setback is intended to protect.
Page 2