By PAULENE POPARAD

Prominent Chesterton developer Tom Roberts told town planning officials Thursday he believes he is being held to a higher standard on his Pumpkin Patch development when the adjacent 370 Indian Boundary project under different ownership is not.

Chesterton Advisory Plan Commission President George Stone assured Roberts that’s not the case at all.

Roberts’ development, located on the north side of Indian Boundary Road and west of Sand Creek Drive North, was approved with Victor Drive, a private road, having a 30-foot pavement width. Roberts questioned why the 370 Indian Boundary commercial development, located immediately west of the Pumpkin Patch, will extend Victor Drive but the road there will be narrower.

Roberts made his remarks during a public hearing on the primary plat for 370 Indian Boundary, which subsequently was approved by unanimous commission vote.

In addition to his concern about the road width, Roberts also asked why the Pumpkin Patch planned-unit development (PUD) was approved with sidewalks along the south, east and north sides of the commercial lots fronting Indian Boundary when the 370 Indian Boundary PUD will have sidewalks on its south side but not the north.

On both the pavement width and sidewalk matters, said Stone, the Plan Commission approved only what Roberts proposed. No one required him to have a wider road or more sidewalks, stressed Stone.

“This (370 Indian Boundary) plan has not changed in three months,” said Stone. “The PUD is already approved by the Town Council, for better or worse. I don’t see how we can require the preliminary plan to deviate from the PUD that’s been approved, and I don’t recall you raised any of these objections.”

Roberts did revisit Thursday an issue he raised at the Aug. 7 Plan Commission meeting. 370 Indian Boundary plans to build a 10,500 square-foot commercial building that Roberts believes will block motorists’ view of the $1.3 million Applebee’s being built on the adjacent Pumpkin Patch lot.

Said Jim Lyons, a 370 Indian Boundary investment partner present Thursday for the public hearing, “I could make the same point Applebee’s is blocking our building.”

Commission member Mike Bannon also sits on the town’s Board of Zoning Appeals, which granted Applebee’s a variance for its sign to increase its visibility. It was the national restaurant chain that chose to put its parking lot in the front of the lot and the building in the back, noted Bannon.

“Blocking the actual building doesn’t have an effect. The sign will be seen,” Bannon said.

Commission and BZA member Jeff Trout said the town doesn’t want to handicap Applebee’s to the point it won’t succeed, and allowing the sign variance was a concession to assure that won’t happen. “I feel comfortable we didn’t put a hardship on them.”

Stone acknowledged Roberts did raise his visibility concerns before, but they did not prompt the commission to change its mind. Said Stone, “You did not win that discussion. I’m saying, in a polite way, your ship has sailed, Mr. Roberts.”

Objectionable view?

Roberts’ final concern was that patrons eating at Applebee’s might view dumpsters and delivery clutter in the rear of the 370 Indian Boundary commercial building. Trout said Applebee’s has the option to fence or screen, and he suggested the restaurant work with its neighbor.

The 370 Indian Boundary parcel at one time was part of the American Stores Property Inc. PUD for the new Jewel/Osco complex at the northeast corner of Indian Boundary and Indiana 49. 370 Indian Boundary LLC submitted its own design for the 3.3-acre tract, which now includes three rather than four buildings but at an increase in their total square footage.

Commission and Town Council member Gina Darnell told Roberts, “You designed your (development) knowing how the adjacent lot would be laid out. That was a very beautiful design and I wish it would have stayed that way. But we tried to give the (370 Indian Boundary) developer some flexibility and make some design changes. It’s unfortunate for you it doesn’t work very well with how yours is laid out at this time.”

At one point Roberts told Stone, “I know you and the other people on this board always work for the betterment of the town. I’m not questioning that.” Nevertheless, “You put us through a thin straw and this is a same situation,” said Roberts of the 370 Indian Boundary project.

Roberts’ own Pumpkin Patch was on the agenda for public hearing for a second amendment to that PUD to eliminate Apple Way, a former north/south access road, in favor of relocating another access road instead. A drainage pond also is being relocated. The Plan Commission, with member Mike Furois absent, voted unanimously to forward the amendment to the Town Council with a favorable recommendation for adoption.

No senior housing eyed

Roberts also spoke under the public comment portion of the meeting to strongly dispel a misconception that Lot 5 in Phase 2 of the Pumpkin Patch is being considered for up to 48 residential units for seniors.

“We do not have any plans for retirement housing in that area,” said Roberts. “We did have interest at one time but that went out of the picture.”

The developer said the 12-acre area, including wetlands, is near the Little Calumet River and he has been talking to environmental groups who would assist in preserving the land, possibly in conservancy status. Roberts reiterated he has no formal plans for housing or development of the property. The Phase I commercial lots, in addition to Applebee’s, have drawn the interest of an Advance Auto Parts store and a City Savings Bank.

Posted 9/19/2003