The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCorrespondence u u NELSON & FRANKENBERGER JAMES J. NELSON CHARLES D. FRANKENBERGER JAMES E. SHINA VER LAWRENCE J. KEMPER JOlcIN 13. fLA rr A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3105 EAST 98TH STREET, SUITE 170 INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46280 PHONE: 317-844-0106 FACSIMILE: 317-846-8782 www.nf-Iaw.com ~ RECEIVED FREDRIC LAWRENCE DAVID 1. LICHTENBERGER JESSICA S OWENS Of Counsel JANE B. MERRILL ocr - .3 ~on7 October 1, 2007 DOCS Angie Conn City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, rN 46032 RE: IH Docket No. 0705001 6Z II6!h Street Crossing PUD Dear Angie: Per my prior e-mail, please show this matter as formally withdrawn by the Petitioner. Thank you. Very truly yours, NELSON & FRANKENBERGER CL----. Charles D. Frankenberger CDFlbjt 11:\LkckY'kming & KcallstdeMmtcrs\Dukcll16th ShOOI\L..i.iu A COlin IOUIO?doc: Page 1 of2 Conn, Angelina V From: Charlie Frankenberger [chalie@NF-LAW.COM] Sent: Monday, October 01 , 2007 2:51 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: pud's & October plan commission agenda Hi Angie, Thank you for remembering and asking. Please note: .lti,--RQGl:<:~.1J'--IQ.QZ_Q~Qj)_HLZ;J16JtU:Jt[~QL~r.Q~~jD.Q...EVQ.--Plea5e show this matter as formally withdrawn. I will send you a separate letter confirming this. As such, please do not place this on the 10/16 PC Agenda. ftL..J2.Q'2K~L~Q-,.._Q?'Q_QQQJLZ_:J~)9JjLSt[l:l~tCLQ~~if:lgEl,J[J--We are in the process of evaluating this and, as such, please show this as still tabled and not on the 10/16 PC Agenda. As an aside, I have a couple of questions about re-filing. In summary the PC rules state that a case withdrawn by a petitioner cannot be placed on the docket until: 1-Six months after withdrawal, unless the case is a new case; and 2-Three months after withdrawal if the case is a new case. Regarding the interpretation the words italicized, please let me know about the following: 1-ls the date on which the matter is again placed on the docket the date of the new public hearing, the date the re-filed matter is assigned a docket number, or the date on which the re-filed matter is re-filed? In this regard, there are about 60 days between filing and the public hearing, and it seems to me that it is most certain to conclude that the matter is on the Plan Commission's docket when the public hearing occurs; however, of course, we will defer to your discretion on this. 2-A case is a new case if it (i) involves more land, less land, or entirely different land or (i) involves the same land, but includes different uses or standards. All of these, of course, are a matter of degree, and the close ones would be subject to the Department's discretion. For instance, a case in which the only change is the addition of 1 use or the addition of .02 acres may be determined to be substantially the same and subject to the 6 month rule. Please let me know your thoughts and, in the interim, (I) please show 2H. (96th) as tabled and not on the 10/16 PC Agenda and (ii) I will send a letter formally withdrawing 1 H (116th) so that it, too, is not on the 10/16 Agenda. Thanks for your help. Charles D. Frankenberger NELSON & FRANI<ENBERGER 3105 East 98th Street, Suite 170 Indianapolis IN 46280 Phone: 317-844-0106 Fax: 317-846-8782 http://www.nf-law.com From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn@carmel.in.gov] Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 10: 15 AM To: Charlie Frankenberger Subject: pud's & October plan commission agenda 10/112007 Page 1 of2 Conn. Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 3:39 PM To: 'Charlie Frankenberger' Subject: RE: pud's & October plan commission agenda Charlie- yes, there is much interpretation to these specific ru les and, yes, there are 60 days between filing deadlines. Seeing that neither of these items ever made it onto an official plan commission agenda, it is safe to say that the Department would not hold you to the 3 month or the 6 month waiting time after withdrawal of this project, in this particular instance. Thanks, Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square. 3rd Floor . City of Carmel, IN 46032 p.317-571-2417 f.317-571-2426 aconn@carmel.in.gov from: Charlie Frankenberger [mailto.:chalie@NF-LAW.COM] Sent: Monday, October 01, 2.007 2:51 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: pud's & October plan commission agenda Hi Angie, Thank you for remembering and asking. Please note: jtL_I:)Qt::_~el_1'-J9_.Q7QQQQ19Z:Jl(3Jh~tr~IiLC[QssjD9E)J)[:)--Please show this matter as formally withdrawn. I will send you a separate letter confirming this. As such, please do not place this on the 10/16 PC Agenda. 2.tJ.,..J2.Q_GJs.~LN.Q,-.Q?QQ.QQ1ZZ:_~f:)Jb$t[eeLCfQ$$ingJ=:J)J:)--We are in the process of evaluating this and, as such, please show this as still tabled and not on the 10/16 PC Agenda. As an aside, I have a couple of questions about re-filing. In summary the PC rules state that a case withdrawn by a petitioner cannot be placed on the docket until: 1-Six months after withdrawal, unless the case is a new case; and 2- Three months after withdrawal if the case is a new case. Regarding the interpretation the words italicized, please let me know about the following: 1-ls the date on which the matter is again placed on the docket the date of the new public hearing, the date the re-filed matter is assigned a docket number, or the date on which the re-filed matter is re-filed? In this regard, there are about 60 days between filing and the public hearing, and it seems to me that it is most certain to conclude that the matter is on the Plan Commission's docket when the public hearing occurs; however, of course, we will defer to your discretion on this. 2-A case is a new case if it (i) involves more land, less land, or entirely different land or (i) involves the same land, but includes different uses or standards. All of these, of course, are a matter of degree, and the close ones would be subject to the Department's discretion. For instance, a case in which the only change is the addition of 1 use or the addition of .02 acres may be determined to be substantially the same and subject to the 6 month rule. Please let me know your thoughts and, in the interim, (i) please show 2H. (96th) as tabled and not on the 10/16 PC Agenda and (ii) I will send a letter formally withdrawing 1 H (116th) so that it, too, is not on the 10/16 Agenda. Thanks for your help. 10/1/2007 Page 1 of 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Charlie Frankenberger [chalie@NF-LAW.COM] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 3:53 PM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Conn, Angelina V; Holmes, Christine B Subject: Status of 2 Duke Matters Hi Mike, Angie, and Christine, We are continuing to work on 96th Street Crossing (Docket # 07050017 Z) and 116th Street Crossing (Docket # 07050016 Z) and, pending this, we thought it would be helpful to provide a brief status report and to confirm that we are requesting that neither matter be placed on an agenda for Plan Commission or for TAC. To this end, please note: 1-With respect to 96th Street Crossing and 116th Street Crossing, we are requesting to not be placed or even appear as continued on the (i) August 07 Plan Commission Agenda, or (ii) on any subsequent Plan Commission Agenda. In this way, we will avoid confusion that may result from appearing as an entry on an agenda before we have given public notice and are ready to proceed. We will keep the Department updated, and we will let the Department know when we have given notice so that we can be placed on the Plan Commission Agenda for which we have given notice 2-With respect to 96th Street Crossing, we are in the process of evaluating the manner in which we will proceed and, pending that determination, we want to remain on file but are requesting to not be placed or even appear as continued on any agendas. 3-With respect to 116th Street Crossing, we are continuing to work on and revise the land plan and corresponding PUD, and we do not anticipate that plans will be sufficiently definite to permit us to be heard by Plan Commission until the 3rd Tuesday in November, at the earliest. Pending our request to be placed on an agenda, we are requesting that we not be placed or even appear as continued on any agendas. As indicated, we will keep you fully apprised and updated. Should you have any questions or comments, please let me know. Thanks. Charles D. Frankenberger NELSON & FRANI<ENBERGER 3105 East 98th Street, Suite 170 Indianapolis IN 46280 Phone: 317-844-0106 Fax: 317-846-8782 8/212007 Page 1 of 1 Conn, Angelina V ~~C--""""''''''''-''~'~'_~~_''~__'~_'~~~~'_'''''''''''''''~~~;''__---''''~~ From: Charlie Frankenberger [cha/ie@NF-LAW.COM] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 20074:51 PM To: Conn, Angelina V; Jennifer.Burk@Dukerealty.com Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: RE: 116th Street crossing PUD - review letter #2 Hi Angie, We recently met with the Mayor and Mike Holilbaugh, and we have determined that it is not feasible for us to go to Plan Commission in August. We need to revise our plans, and meet again. After our plans are revised, we will be in a position to also revise the PUD to conform to the revised plan. Considering this, we will not notice for and August Plan Commission hearing, are asking to not be placed on the Plan Commission's agenda for the August public hearing. Once our plans are revised, we will again meet. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. As always, than ks for you help From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn@carmel.in.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 3:06 PM To: Jennifer.Burk@Dukerealty.com Cc: Charlie Frankenberger Subject: 116th Street crossing PUD - review letter #2 Hi, Jennifer: Please see attached review letter #2 for the 116th Street Crossing PUD. Original will be mailed today. Please set up a meeting with Christine Barton-Holmes and myself to go over the PUD language, prior to the August 21 plan commission meeting. Thank you. Angie Connl Planning Administrator Dept, of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317-571-2417 f. 317-571-2426 aconn@carmel.in,gov 7111/2007 Page 1 of 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Charlie Frankenberger [chalie@NF-LAW.COM] Sent: Monday, June 18,2007 3:51 PM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Conn, Angelina V Cc: Jennifer Burk; Blaine Paul; Aaron Reynolds; John Girod; Matt.anderson@dukerealty.com Subject: Duke-Sexton Update Hi Mike and Angie, Regarding the Sexton (96th Street) matter, we have concluded that we will not be in a position to proceed with (i) TAC on Wednesday, June 20, or (ii) Plan Commission in July. We will keep you apprised as we continue to assess this matter. Regarding Pittman, we will go to TAC on Wednesday, June 20, at 9:50 a.m. and, although we will not be in a position to go to Plan Commission in July, we are planning on going to Plan Commission in August. In advance, we and our land planners will meetwith you to obtain input on our proposed plan. Should you have any questions or comments about this, please call or email. Thanks. 6/18/2007 Conn, Angelina V From: Sent: To: Subject: Tingley, Connie S Thursday, June 14,20072:26 PM Coy, Sue E; Boone, Rachel M.; Stewart, Lisa M; Conn, Angelina V; Holmes, Christine B FW: Duke Realty Checks Importance: High FYI See below ct -----Original Message----- From: Carla Lakia [mailto:Carla.Lakia@dukerealty.com] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 2:23 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Cc: Matt Anderson Subject: Duke Realty Checks Connie- Will you please forward this email on to whomever may receive checks. From what I am told, the following jobs have been delayed and we do not wish to pay the docket fee at this time. When the checks are received, will you please mail them back to Duke Realty at my attention (the address is below). Thanks. Docket #: 07050016Z: 116th Street Crossing PUD Check #: 146986 Amount: $9,764.26 Check Date: 06/11/2007 Docket #: 07050017Z: 96th Street Crossing PUD Check #: 146987 Amount: $4,583.89 Check Date: 06/11/2007 Thank you, Carla Lakia Duke Realty Project Accountant 600 East 96th Street, Ste 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 phone (317) 808 - 6508 Fax ( 31 7 ) 808 - 6776 1