Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Sub 06-06-00 CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE Tuesday, June 6, 2000 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Subdivision Committee met at 7:00 p.m. on June 6, 2000 in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall, One Civic Square, Carmel, Indiana. Members present were: Chairperson Ron Houck, Marilyn Anderson, Kent Broach, Wayne Haney, Nick Kestner, Norma Meighan, John R. Sharpe Sr. Ron Houck started by sharing a letter regarding the Treesdale Subdivision. The Petitioner requested to be tabled to the July committee meeting because of unresolved issues, such as drainage. Ron Houck told committee that he has arranged of the committee to be on the agenda for the Greater Home Place Association meeting on June 22, 7 p.m., at the Clay Township government building. This is an opportunity to get input from the residents about the issues in the area. Docket No. 68-00 PP Amend, John A. Phelps' Addition, Lots 12 & 13. Item 1. Petitioner John A. Phelps Addition seeks approval to replat Lots 12 and 13 of the on 0.573+ acre. thst The site is located on the northeast corner of 5 Street Southeast and 1 Avenue Southeast. The site is zoned R-3/residence. The petitioner also seeks approval of the 68-00a SW, following Subdivision Waiver: SCO 6.3.6to reduce the 25' half right-of-way st on 1 Avenue Southeast to 20' in width. Filed by Melissa Rhodes Garrand for Ross D. Moffitt & Elsie Moffitt McIlroy. Melissa Garrard updated the committee on the progress of the application. The petitioners are trying to clean up the original plat. Mrs. McIlroy owned both lot 12 and 13 for a period of time. Lot 13 encroached into Lot 12 but at one time it was not a problem because she owned both lots. The encroachments aren't allowed to happen now. They are attempting to move the property line of Lot 13 further north. In addition, Mrs. McIlroy acquired an additional part by metes and bounds. The staff recommended that this piece be brought into the replatting process and be added to Lot 13. Finally, there is a 16 foot unimproved strip of ground, never intended to be used. It was part of the John A. Phelps subdivision. It is not referred to as an alley in any plats. It is her position that this strip has been transferred to Mrs. McIlroy through inheritance. This piece was left in no man's land. They have brought a quiet title action in the Hamilton County Superior Court on those grounds. They have default judgment against most of the parties. They named the City of Carmel in the lawsuit. They have settled with the City of Carmel. They have a Quit Claim Deed to this piece of ground which is recorded in the Hamilton County Recorder's Office. Everything was wrapped up until subsequent to the filing of the petition a neighbor intervened in the action claiming an interest in that piece of property. She is in the process of resolving those issues as expeditiously as possible but will have to litigate. They will get the court to adjudicate that issue. Staff told her that proving the ownership wasn't an issue until the secondary plat process. That is when they will need to document ownership of that strip of ground. She made a commitment not to file for secondary plat approval until there is a judgment s:\\plancommission\\subdiv2000jun.doc 1 on the ownership issue. She does not think it is anything for the committee to worry about because she doesn't intend to file for secondary plat approval until the judgment. They would still be here tonight because the intervenors claim is only to part of the strip. The southern most 8 feet is totally uncontested. In addition they have asked for a variance from the right-of-way requirements. This is based on the fact that the rest of the plat only has 40' right-of-way so you wouldn't be able to use the additional five feet unless acquiring it through eminent domain. Additionally, the streets and sidewalks have recently been improved. It was their understanding that the city engineer didn't need anymore right-of-way in that area. The additional five feet would not be a benefit for the city of Carmel. Terry Jones addressed the status and progression of litigation. He said that the Department recommends that litigation be resolved before the Plan Commission acts on the application. Ron Houck asked the petitioner why they were in a hurry with the primary plat when they are not in a hurry with the secondary plat and are amid litigation. Garrard stated they didn't expect the litigation to be ongoing. Carmel had given a quick claim. They didn't anticipate the additional litigation. She stated that when she filed the application the city stated that Mr. Yonovich would accept a quick claim also. They relied on that representation when they filed. They don't want to repeat the process or refile. She said Mr. Molitor's position was that they could approve it contingent on the trial court's judgment. She is not trying to sneak anything by. They filed in good faith based on the status of litigation at that time. Her clients have been in this process for a year and want to start building. She suggests to go with Mr. Molitor's recommendation. Ron Houck asked when they filed. Garrard stated that they filed on the day of the deadline in March. Jones stated that there were other issues. The statutes give procedure for vacating right-of-way. If this a right-of-way then a different procedure would need to take place. There is question to what the Old Town plat shows. If it is a right-of-way it will be split 50/50. Garrard stated they never sought to vacate a right-of-way because they never believed it was a right-of-way. They sought to adjudicate that it had been transferred by inheritance laws and wills and probate. They are not asking them to vacate this right-of-way, the plan commission doesn't have jurisdiction to do that. It is not issue to concern the committee about, that is the issue in the court proceedings. They haven't sought the 50/50 split because it was never dedicated or accepted. Mr. Phelps died before it was annexed into the City of Carmel. An offer to dedicate expires with death. They have gone through a quiet title action not a vacation procedure. Based on their interpretation and their title company's interpretation, it was left in no man's land and was passed down through the century to Mr. Phelps heirs. Jones recommended again that the litigation should be settled before deciding. He also added that there could possible be notice issues. A greater notice is required for a plat vacation than for a secondary plat/plat amendment. s:\\plancommission\\subdiv2000jun.doc 2 Garrard stated that she thought the notice issue was resolved as Mr. Molitor had allowed the presentation at the May Plan Commission public hearing. The statute says that the Plan Commission will adopt a rule regarding notice. She has complied with all the notice requirements in our rules. You amend a plat the same way you create a plat and they have complied with all those rules. They are not vacating a plat, which would implicate ownership interest far beyond those noticed. She felt Mr. Molitor was accepting of this interpretation because she was cleared for hearing. Houck confirmed that the proper notice was sent. Elsie McIlroy stated that this property has stayed in the family. It has never been sold out of the Phelp's family. She is the last one to own it. She was told that those lots were access strips not alleys and they don't show as alleys on other things. She was told at the Court House that somebody at the court house wrote that on there. Houck confirmed that the City of Carmel did not have an interest in the property. Marilyn Anderson said she is not very comfortable approving this without the ownership being resolved. She suggested tabling it until the issues are resolved and pick it up where it is left off rather than refiling. Houck asked how long Garrard anticipated the litigation lasting. Garrard did not have an answer. She stated it would probably not be done in a month. She suggested that they condition approval based on the resolution of the lawsuit. She wants to be able to come in with the secondary plat. That is a ministerial issue. There are no other problems with the plat. She stated that they tried to bring the neighbor into the litigation almost a year ago. The City's outside counsel objected to that. Elsie McIlroy stated there was another access strip near Lot 13 that was Quit Claim deeded to her. Houck questioned that secondary plat approval is ministerial unless there are substantial changes to the primary plat. If boundaries change, would that be substantial? Garrard stated that we have probably seen boundaries change a couple of feet. At most they are talking about 8 feet. This is the only problem and it is a hardship to hold this up because of this. Jim Smith of Builders and Design, retold the history of the development of these lots going back to the Bethlehem history. The access strips were not to be built on because they were the mechanism by which the tractors got to the farms. Anderson asked for clarification about which boundaries could change. The only change would be to the boundary of the northern 16-foot strip, depending on the court decision. s:\\plancommission\\subdiv2000jun.doc 3 Elsie McIlroy asked if maintaining a certain property for so many years allowed a person to claim it. Jim Smith stated that there are pins and concrete in the ground. Garrard clarified that the only question the courts are deciding is whether the northern boundary will include 8 feet or 16 feet. Garrard clarified that Elsie already owned the property and has given it to her son as a wedding present. She wants him to build on it. Jim Smith clarified that on the survey it was found that Elsie's lot encroached a couple of feet onto the other lot. They are replatting to make sure Elsie's lot is the proper size. Garrard spoke about the 5-foot underground utility easements shown on the drawings. That was part of some early negotiations and should no longer be included on the drawing. That issue dropped out of the settlement. Houck allowed the attorney for Mr. Yonovich's to add comments. The attorney stated that he only became involved in this issue a month ago and wishes he could have been involved sooner. Some things could have been done procedurally to make the situation better. He stated that the City never had the authority to say Mr. Yonovich did not have interest in the piece of land. He was called to figure out what Mr. Yonovich's rights were. He feels that the only way to take ownership of this land is to go through an alley vacation process. He suggested that the legal issues be resolved before decisions are made regarding the plat. The committee may be dealing with an 8 foot, 16 foot, or 0 foot strip. He suggested that the area has historic value that could be compromised by bigger lots. Garrard said that Mrs. McIlroy is not trying to change the character of the neighborhood in any way. She said that they will either own 8 or 16 feet, not 0. This approval will not affect any other alleys. Alleys are shown on the original plat, this is not one of them. It is shown as a blank strip of land. Nothing the Plan Commission does has precedential value. She again suggested following Mr. Molitor's suggestion of basing approval contingent on the court decision. The committee feels uneasy deciding on something that is under litigation. It bothers them that they may be used later down the road in the litigation process. Jim Smith stated that something will be built on the lot. It will be architecturally matching to the neighborhood. He stated that, in 1998, he met with Mr. Yonovich on the site and offered him topsoil, underground people, and a landscaper to help him with his property. He has been well aware of the proceedings. Garrard thought that what they didn't have resolved could wait until secondary plat approval. She was not aware that the problems with the neighbor existed when filed. The 16 or 8 feet is issue is truly ministerial. She said this is a minor issue and wouldn't require refiling. s:\\plancommission\\subdiv2000jun.doc 4 Jones said that he doesn't recall a large discrepancy in moving the lot line handled before. He said that it is not certain that this would simply be a ministerial issue. It would be under the discretion of the director to decide if that is a substantial change. Jones clarified Laurence Lillig's position. He again said that the Department recommends that the committee wait for litigation to be resolved. John Molitor's recommendation was not the Department's recommendation. If the courts determine that a plat vacation is necessary, then they might have to renotice. Houck clarified that they could request to table for any length of time. He doesn't see how tabling the issue will hinder their timeline. He suggested that it is possible to file primary and secondary plat at the same time. The normal process is to have all the issues settled before taking action. It doesn't seem like all issues are settled. Garrard asked if it was possible to make a decision on the subdivision waiver. Jim Smith said he needs to know if the waiver will be passed in order to finalize or change the design if necessary. Houck confirmed that it would be best to table the waiver with the plat. He said that the area has 20' right-of-way as the standard. That will not impact their progress. The committee confirmed that no one had a problem with the subdivision waiver. A motion to table was made by Marilyn Anderson, seconded by John Sharpe. Motion carried with a vote of Yes-7, No-0, and Abstain-0. Houck requested that the Department be up-dated on the status of the litigation monthly. Docket No. 80-00 PP, Hazel Dell Corner Subdivision. Item 2. Petitioner seeks approval to plat 6 lots on Hazel Dell Corner Subdivision 14.738+ acres to be known as . The site is located on the st northwest corner of East 131 Street and Hazel Dell Parkway. The site is zoned B- 80- 3/Business. The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waiver: 00a SW , SCO 6.5.1, to plat Lot 4 with 0' of frontage on a right-of-way. Filed by J. Cort Crosby of Schneider Corporation for Plum Creek Partners, LLC. Corby Thompson presented the plan for Hazel Dell Corner. It is part of the Plum Creek development. It is designed to be a neighborhood center, pedestrian friendly. There are six lots. Lot 4 will be accessed through a private drive. It is zoned B-3 so every use will have to go through the BZA and will be coming back to the Plan Commission for ADLS approval. Some of the environmental issues surround Wellhead protection. There is a committee that will deal with the wellhead areas. Houck confirmed that the site is in a wellhead protection area. s:\\plancommission\\subdiv2000jun.doc 5 Thompson stated that the uses will all be judged as they come back through the approval process. Jones confirmed Thompson's statement and added that this is just a platting process and the uses will come at a later time. The environmental issues will be addressed at that time. A gas station was suggested as an unattractive use. Whether a gas station can be part of the development would be determined at a later time. It is a permitted use but all permitted uses are special uses in the B-3 and so it will have to go through BZA for approval. (Several feet of tape were undistinguishable due to poor tape reception.) Concern was raised about the division of the land. It was questioned what it would look like in the future and how can the way it all looks be controlled. Also, it was asked what type of business would be put in Lot 4. If developed as one parcel, the architect could ensure that they whole development went well together. The overall question was, why divide it into six lots? That may require more parking and more setbacks. Crosby stated that every user will be back for ADLS so they can control the architecture and design of the users. They want to sell the lots individually. Jones explained the difference in deeding and ownership between a one parcel commercial park and dividing the parcel into individual parcels. The petitioner wishes to sell the parcels. Landscaping will be addressed during ADLS review. The property owners would have to agree to maintain the private road. That would be part of their agreement when purchasing. The owners would pay something similar to a homeowners fee. Houck invited the audience members to offer comments. Erin Pickering voiced a concern over the gas station use. She also questioned the notice requirements. Jones added that after the primary plat process is finished. The users applying for ADLS would only be required to notice adjacent and abutting owners. Who will be noticed depends on the ownership at the time. The notice is given in the Noblesville Daily Ledger. A better way to insure that you are contacted is to contact Ramona Hancock and ask to be put on the mailing list. Another member of the audience suggested that a gas station next to a subdivision is not a desirable use. There is no other corner in Carmel with a church, neighborhoods, and then a gas station. (Several feet of tape were undistinguishable due to poor tape reception.) s:\\plancommission\\subdiv2000jun.doc 6 Landscaping and signage were discussed. There must be a balance between sensitivity and exposure. The Subdivision Waiver was discussed. The waiver is needed due to the Lot only be accessible by the private drive. The private drive will be open to all people, it will just be maintained privately. It will be built to city standards. It will receive the commercial traffic. The petitioner committed to that. Jones explained why private streets should be built to city specifications. Norma Meighan moved to approve the docket and subdivision waiver. Kent Broach seconded the motion. The motion carried with a vote of Yes-7, No-0, and Abstain-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. ___________________________ Ron Houck, Chairperson ____________________________ Kelli Hahn, Acting Secretary s:\\plancommission\\subdiv2000jun.doc 7