Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves two Courtyards of Deer Creek ordinances; developer commits to bridge if permits allow
Summary
The council approved two ordinances to rezone and adopt preliminary plans for Courtyards/Courtyards at Deer Creek (≈80–160 acres) to allow age‑targeted (55+) courtyard‑style homes, contingent on permits for a bridge across a regulated drain; vote count was 6–1.
The Noblesville City Council voted to approve two related ordinances (17‑O‑4‑26 and 18‑O‑4‑26) that would change zoning and adopt a preliminary development plan for Courtyards of Deer Creek, an age‑targeted (55+) courtyard‑style detached dwelling community.
Planning staff (Miss Douglas) summarized the project: the site is roughly 80–160 acres at the northeast corner of Olio Road and 156th Street, the plan proposes about 160 single‑family courtyard‑style detached dwellings with 45% open space and a net density of about 3.4 units per acre, and the plan commission recommended approval subject to conditions and required permits. The presentation noted the site includes a regulated floodway and Sand Creek traverses the parcel.
Council raised concerns about a lack of vehicular connection between lots on the west side of the project and amenities on the east side. Planning staff and the applicant’s attorney described a developer commitment to construct a vehicular bridge over the regulated drain; however the commitment depends on securing required local, state and federal permits. Miss Douglas told the council that if required permits are not granted the developer must return to the planning commission and council to amend the plan and could split the project into two separate phases.
The applicant also requested waivers (cut and fill in the flood hazard district; some bulk standard waivers) and offered a standard rental commitment (a 15% rental cap and one‑year minimum ownership before rental). The council motioned and, after roll‑call, approved both ordinances (6 ayes, 1 nay — Elliott). One council member explained their no vote citing market concerns for 55+ housing.
The ordinances were approved with the plan‑commission conditions and the developer’s written commitment regarding the vehicular connection; staff said required permits must be obtained before issuance of improvement location permits. The council did not require additional conditions at the meeting beyond the recorded commitments and plan‑commission conditions.
