The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCorrespondence / , August 11 ~19i'a G.'othlc ~stgner~lnc. 4~05 E. 56th Street 7 IN 46%20 l'.1icC. PMJECTNO. 45063 OccQpal1q Type B..3 COlultrwct;1Qn Type V ~€l Csfe~ria RestJurant - H6th & fl. Keystone . Cat'tnl!t 1) india,riIe Hmtr11ltcnCDynty . ----- { / I JJear $1 r:. . The plans and $pca(:if,1catio~s of the above refe1"ence4 subject il1"e hereby tentatively apprOVetd' on ill mattarsun~r the jur1$dietton of tilts department, stibje,ct to all local regulatiGf,\s axcept~ 1- '2. 3. 4. s. 6. 7. 'fheresniHtle a minimum of !o'J,4!1 betw&en thec~shite'" CC)un~'" lnd the divider wall l,n aceorQilmce wf,th set. 3304...fj, title 1973" Door 14 ,from tho Jan.1tor clo:Ga~ litLal1 not obs,truct 'the exit' in accGlJd.. an,ce wttb'Sea..'33'Ol-i, 3304...D~e.J{cef!lE~j()n.lt fJB€ 1913. Attie area and ~CC(lSS sha;fl be hi acc:ordance w1thSec. 320S"UBC 1913. Panfchllrdwat'@ lrhnn be in accordrJncetd-tb Sec.3316~ use 1913. Exi t 111lhts sha 11 betimafZcordanc~ \'11 th Sec. 3312 ~ use 1913. f<iitcn9n~ookfn9 equlP~nt shallb$ fn accordanCE! withNFPA 96. Interior finish sball be tn iecordencQ withCb. 422 UBe 1973. fJlech$rHQlil equ.i(pment andelectr1 aal n1 ring must Gomplyw1 th t~. respective codes govenl"hig$a~~ as wen as, enrolss and 'rog'ulations of ttle Administrative Bul1d1 AQ CouflGHpertatnillg to thhtype stnreture. Wtlenthh pr9Ject f~tXimpleted~ you are~quested tOf'lot1fyth1s department inof'Gertbat~, ~~pectionmaybe ma,dean.d final apprev&l 1"ssued. WCGlcs cc: Swatls ~ FI" Ollef c... awenbe.rg~ ~B.l d9,. Com. Stmday!t l~$pec:tor A. B. C... Ale 40 Easl Main Slreel Carmel, Indiana 46032 CITY OF CARMEL OFFICE OF THE BUILDING COMMISSIONER , May 24, 1977 Mr. Ralph Wilfong 1350 Greyhound Court Carmel, Indiana 46032 Dear Ralph: Since the -bonds are adequate for the street (okayed by Fred Hohl), a building permit can be issued for the two properties on Keystone Drive. The City or the Building Commissioner's Office can not be held responsible for any court decision. jl~;~/~:;:?'..<:.0//; "Victor Van Cauwenbergh /' Building Commissioner / Carmel-Clay Townsh~p cc. -Noble Homan 1 s, -.MCL Cafeteria " VC/lg Ii II Da.ta .r~ iZ. ~ 77 Time II I ~~ ..~ r II M~V~~ of II . . ~S7- ~III To -~ Phone Area Code TELEPHONED CALLED TO SEE YOU "" ..Jet .~-". '"'" ~ ATTORNEYS AT LAW WOOD TUOHY GLEASON 8:. MERCER PROFE.SSIONAL CORPQR,Io.TION (FORMERLY SCHORTEMEIER, ESY & WOOD] WllLiAM J; WOCo JAM 1::5 L. TUOHY CHARLES :THOMAS {";LEASON JOHN L.. MERC=:R JOHN Q. HERRIN 1930 lNOIANA TOWER fCREO(RICK E_ SCI'10RT.ii:tu\EIER,ISS9-196"S ROBERT 1<. EBY. 1900.19062 ONE INOIANA S~UARE INDIANAPOLIS. INDIANA 46204 . JOSEPH G. WOOD OF COUNSEL. January 13, 1977 (317) 636 3551 Mr. James Litzinger, Chairman Carmel Planning Commission 9899 Lakewood Drive Indianapolis, Indiana 46280 Ro.o Petition of I1CL Cafeteria for Zoning Approval on Site Abutting Rejected' Frontage Road, Keystone Square Shopping Center Dear Mr. Litzinger: You will recall I represented some of the merchants in the Keystone Square Shopping Center at the .final hearing before your Commission on October 19, 1976 in which your Commission rejected the proposed roadway fronting along Keystone Avenue to the east of the established shopping center. I am no"" advised by my people that your Commission will be asked to consider, on Tuesday, January 18, 1977, the approval of a proposed MCL Cafeteria at this site. \ As you may be a1;Qare, the peti tioners seeking to establish such roadt<Jay, following your Commission's rejection, promptly thereafter filed a zoning variance application which was heard on November 22, 1976, and approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals, some of vlhose members had been in the minority when your Commission considered the same application. On December 20, 1976, T.tJe commenced an action in the Hamilton Superior Court under Cause No. 876-979 challenging the granting of the roadway permission by the Board of Zoning Appeals on the basis that the es'tablishment of roadways is purely a matter of plat- approval and plat amendment, and since the Planning Co~mission had exclusive jurisdiction to approve plats, the law seems to be clear .... " Q ',> :-{-j ATTORNeyS AT LAW WOOD TUOHY GLEASON a MERCER P~CF"ESSIONAL CORPORA.TION Br.James Litzinger, Cl;1airman Carmel Planning Commission January 13, 1977 Page TvlO that only the Planning Conunission can arnend plats by author- izing new roadways. Notwithstanding the pending litigation in Hamilton Superior Court, we understand that the petitioner, prior to the onset of severe weather, had cornmenc~d construction activities on installing a new roadway \'lhich we are satisfied will not be allmved by the Court in the matter now pending. Rather than take your Commission time to again hear the many reasons vlhy you properly rejected this roadway when previously sought, vJe thought it appropriate to call to the Commission's attention that consideration of proposed businesses fronting on a roadway which you have rejected, and which we think the Court will agree that your Commission's action is decisive, would prove to be a futile exercise on everyone's part and would mislead all of the interested parties into thinking that your Commission would have surely changed its mind if it approved the location of a business on a road which it disapproved. I would suggest that in vie,'l of the fact that lending institutions and title insurance companies will not likely want to be involved in financing or title insuring these parcels until the Hamilton Superior Court has decided this matter, your Commission may wish to consider postponement of business locations along the roadway unti,l the Court determines whether or not there is to be a roadway. Yours very truly, l'lOOD TUOHY GLEASON & MERCER James L. Tuohy JLT:nb cc: Members of the Carmel Plan Corrunission Jack Thomas