HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence: Questions re: PUD r
i •
FAX i
. COVER SHEET. .
FR+dMYI: Pam Lambert
j' 616 Copley Place
I. Indianapolis, IN 46290
:, Phone No: 844-5511 ,��� I
Fax No. 844.8820 �Q, •
•
E-mail: ctIambert @iquest.net ZECE/vED
TO Racoons Hancock 2 4iy;
, FAX NO: 371- y
2426 DO
DA;�'E: --l. 34/00—i.Z/,Z/ �G: ..
1
RE: PUD questions and concerns ,,
)PAGE 1 OF 1144 �.>
Ramona:
Kevin Kirby asked me to list my questions about the Duke proposal and I have done so. I spoke with
Terry Jones last week about getting together and reviewing my questions and concerns. Terry said he
would call me, but I can only assume the staff has been swamped,because I never got that call from
Terry. I have to believe that DOCS has made a huge attempt to review Duke's proposal,but there
remain some serious questions/issues from my standpoint.
•
I would have been more than happy to discuss my questions last week,but perhaps it's best that we
! didn't meet. Frankly, some of my questions changed after getting another draft yesterday--midday. •
' It took me some time to review the docurttent,and I'm still not sure I've covered everything adequately.
•
At any rate,I am submitting these questions/concems to you for distribution to all the committee
• !, members, .I don't have fiuc numbers for all the members,so I must depend an you for fax distribution.
• , If you•have any questions,don't hesitate to call.
dot .
• �' Pam )- ' .‘,;:' ktiks—P/V I v., ""), (:).: --..,d) -
,h
• i, .nkir , •
r
* i ' ae ,"
.. ,10' '.
•
i
+e;0l
• •
•
GENERAL AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS
REGARDING 4
PROPOSED
RECEIVED A
ORDINANCE 154-OOZ A
b DEC 42
(PARKWOOD CROSSING WEST) 1, r
SUBMITTED BY
PAM LAMBERT
616 COPLEY PLACE
INDIANAPOLIS,IN 46290
(Hamilton County Resident)
Please respond to:
Pam Lambert
844-5511
Fax: 317-844-8820
•
• •
GENERAL QUESTIONS FOR PROPOSED ORDINANACE 1$4-00-Z
•
• • 1. ;What is Cannel's guideline for adhering to the General Provisions as incorporated in the Cannel Clay Land
. Use Regulations book,particularly as they relate to"higher standard"and"greater restriction?"
:.•2. Since Duke.is proposing that ROW•acquisition follow the road improvements as suggested in the A&F
•• • • Engineering report dated September,2000,has anyone checked to see if those:proposals reflect the actual .
• . configuration that•A&F suggested as late as December 5,2000?(i.e. lane additions along US 31)
•
• 3, • jThe proposal suggests that approval of the PUD Ordinance will incorporate the September, 2000 A&F report
it relates to roadway modifications. The inclusion of those roadway improvements into the PUD proposal
• • essentially defines the acreage that would be needed for those•modifications (excluding the potential unknown
!acquisition by 1NDOT). As such,the actual parcel size automatically becomes less than the 36.373 acres they •
• are utilizing for maximum parcel coverage and floor area ratio calculations. Where is the legal provision for
0alculating these standards when the total acreage has been defined by the PUD proposal itself? • ,
4. In a gesture•of good faith,is Duke willing to record the entire PUD ordinance as a"Commitment?"
•
5. ',PVhat has happened to the concept of a"parkway-like"setting(similar to Hazel Dell Parkway)that Mayor
Brainard envisioned for 96th Street?
• 6,• What is Cannel's definition of the word"building?" •
• 7. As it relates to perimeter buffering,(including US 31 and regardless of how much land is acquired by the
: . Mate).has Duke prepared a landscape plan, and commitments thereto,for the PUD (in totality)—for both
• • 'before and after any INDOT acquisition?
•
8. if this PUD Ordinance were to receive approval from the Commission and the City Council,does it then move
to The Board of Zoning Appeals for approval? If so,why?
9.: $houldn't there be two(2)conceptual drawings for the PUD—one for existing buildable acreage as defined by
!the PUP itself and:one for future development if 1NDOT takes all or a part of the reserved land?
14. !Shouldn't ail ordinances in effect at the time of the filing of the proposal be applicable to this proposal?If so,
he PUD Ordinance Must incorporate the August 18,2000 date that has now been omitted in the current draft.
• If not,and the parameters used to create the PUD Ordinance are annulled,and a continuous"open door"for
;Modifications,and/or amendments could negate any or all provisions of the PUD proposal?
` 11, , `:Shouldn't the use of varied terms,such as rentable area and gross area,in the PUD proposal be altered to•total •
• #quare feet to•avoid confusion and speculation?
I
•12. ;Shouldn't all modifications, clarifications,and/or restructuring of the proposed PUD Ordinance be reflected in
h total'ly•revised written document that incorporates the changes before there is any recommendation made by
• •;•the Special Studies Committee?
. :15. •!:What is the legal definition for"enhancement''as it relates to Cannel zoning?
i.
• 14.• Jf substantial changes are made to the DP by the Director or Plan Commission, shouldn't they be subject to •
• • !public notice and hearing? And what happens to the F.A.R.,maximum coverage,and maximum density
!restrictions that were used to create the PUD Ordinance?
15. !Why is there no mention of square footage for the covered walkways?
•
f -1
•:• .
i, • 0
!• . .
i. • i•
. . ;
. .
i. . . . . .
. .
. .
. 1„
. .
. . . . .
. .
•. .
.. . i', • .
. ,
: . ;• •
. .
..
. .
. .
• SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS REGARDING
., .. •
.. . .
PROPOSED ORDINANCE • •
. ;; •
. . ..
. •
. .
•
•
. !! • • !
• •
., ' 154-00Z .
.• • • i: ' . ,
.
' .
• . .
I!
. . 1.: • PARICNVOOD CROSSING WEST
.. .
• ;!.. . . .. .
. .. .
. •
. .
. ..
. !.,.. .
, . . .
.. .
. : .
. . .,
. :
,• . .
i,', • .
. .
. !: .. • .
. .
. .
. • •
. .
. !: • •• . .
. . .
I.:
. •
. . .
. . . .
. . •
. .
. . ,. . .
. .
, . i•::
. .
. .
. • ••
I.: . .
,• .
, .
. . . •
. .
. .
.. . .
. i• . .
.. .
. . .
. . .
. ;; • .
. .
. • • •
I • •
. 1 .
. .
. .
: •
. !.: .
. . .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. •
.. .
. !...! . .
.. ;.! .
. .
. .
. ,.: •
. . . , .
• ,.
:., • • . •
;., •
.• - . ,.; . . •
. .
,.., . .
.. !..!, . . .
. . • •
:., .
. .
. . i., .
. .
. •
. i.. • . .
;• . .
. •
• ;.
. •
. !i • . . .
. •
„-. ,,,
1, I i Chapter 1 •
'' Section 1.,2 The removal of 8/18/00 allows for modifications and/or amendments beyond the
! scope of the proposal. .
: 2. 1; Chapter'2 '
Section 2.2 This section talks about the accessory uses being permitted in the buildings—what .•'
•
!I buildings?Unless this section specifically refers to the office buildings,the placement •
of certain accessory retail and service commercial uses could be in'a building in the
. . outlet. We have all been told that only 2 primary use restaurants will go in the outlets—
not accessory uses.
• B. if 35,000 square feet is the proposed maximum for the PUD, the mount needs
•
• i; revision for the following reason: •
• 35;000 proposed square footage
•
. • less 8,000 for day care• `: less 5,000 for fitness center
!; less . 5,000 for conference center
' less 18,000 for outlot restaurants •
•
• I
• • Balance (a minus) - 1,000 square footage is already beyond the maximum
• I.
•
3. 1 I Section 2.3, The parking plazas are defined as accessory structures iu'the PUD proposaL
Consequently,the total square footage of the parking plazas should be included in
i, the maximum accessory space of 35,000 square feet,if not,then the parking plazas '
. ' . are buildings whose square footage applies to the F.A.R. (They must be either an
•
.accessory or a building.)
AS AN ACCESSORY: •
•. .
• E'parking plaza 243,000 square feet(based on approx.dimensions in proposal) .
. ! W parking plaza 264,000 square feet(based on approx.dimensions In proposal)
! Total sq.ft. ' 507,000 square feet=THIS IS MORE ACCESSORY •
SQUARE FOOTAGE THAN ALLOWED FOR ACCESSORY
. USES OVERALL!
• ;; • •
• I've•Just shown that the total square feet of the parking plazas exceeds the total accessory use space
;' . pertained on'the site. If the parking plaza is defined as a"building",then we could be looking at an
: • entiely different scenario(although BOMA does not typically define them as such):
• AS A BUILDING:
.
• I 507,000 square feet for parking
+ 667,905 square feet of actual building space
Grradd Total of square•feet for the site 1,174.905 gross square feet for all the buildings
j
In this case:th'e floor area.ratio would equate to: •
••• • •1,17:4,905.(total sq.ft. of all buildings) j 1,584,407.88(43,560 X 36.373)=74%
• (This is higher than the permitted 70%,and assumes that NO land(whatsoever)Will be taken by road
• .improvements and ROW! Loss of acreage for roadway improvements and ROW just makes the F.A.R.
higher and'greater than what is allowed by existing rules—ultimately a worse case scenario.)
. BQTOM LINE--EITHER TJIE,PARKING PLAZAS ARE BUILDINGS OR THEY ARE .
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WHOSE SQUARE FOOTAGE FALLS WITHIN THE PARAMETERS
• i 1
.
.QE:4iCCESSORY SPACE SPACE.LM--E PROP D TOTAL SQUARE
. FOQTAG:E,OF ACCESSORY/RETAIL SPACE IS WELL BEYOND THE 15% MAX.„ MUM
. ALLOWED'BY TUE V.S:;31 OVERLAY ZONE.ORpINANCE—Z-340.
'.• ADItlITIWIAL NOTE
Section 2.3 Overlay Zone Ordinance Z-340 sets out excluded uses (23 B:5.1)for parcels in the •
i• Overlay Zone. There are approximately 5 excluded uses thatmay have bearing on
' the proposed vehicular service facility.
i`
„
•. •
is Environmental issues with respect to oil and other lubricants as well as soaps used
for the washing of autos are significant reasons why certain exclusions were initially
.
• • established for the overlay zone. So the service facility should not be allowed '•
• 4. '! Section 2.4 There is no mention of any"communication equipment"falling within the total
' height of the building. The screening needs a maximum. What constitutes
. "communication equipment?" Is such equipment to be permitted on top of the parking
• ;:
plazas.? •
5. i Chapter 3 •
•
Section 3.1. 'Reference to the Director in this section further substantiates said Director's
preemptive authority. Significant limitations should be in place for those areas where the •
' Director may approve modifications.
•
6. j i Section 3,2 'WE HAVE NOW GONE BACK TO THE 100' MAXIMUM HEIGHT POTENTIAL.
The building height should be limited to basement plus 4 stories,including penthouse for •
mechanicals(AND HVAC). Existing Comp Plan makes provision to protect MacMillan
. Publishing building,so.surrounding residential.neighborhoods deserve no less
•. consideration. In this event,maximum height of the buildings should be limited to 60'.
. . • 'NOTE-.Why would the penthouse need 21' for mechanicals and HVAC,this is
excessive!
7.. '' Se'ction 3,3, No communications equipment should be allowed on the top of the parking p1a7.ac. '
Why,has there been no consideration of placing plazas underground?
8, ; Section 3.5 •
A. ' • The issue of maximum parcel coverage could be extremely relevant. •
• If the"Real Estate"equals 36.373 acres,then the maximum parcel coverage and floor
area ratios will be calculated on that 36,373 number, HOWEVER,Duke is requesting •
• that the PUD utilize the roadway improvement engineering,from the A&F report. An
. engineered report should indicate how many acres will be used for those improvements .
• . .and ROW. Even if only 3 acres are taken from the total site for all the new W. 96th Street
• !, ROW and improvements,the maximum parcel coverage calculations should use 33373
• !: for the baseline! 33.373 X.65%=21.69 acres for maximum coverage.
•.
• This is another important technical area. The following is an example of what happens to the F.A.R.
• .:.when just 3•afres are taken:
33.375•'(instead of 36.373)X 43,560(sq.ft.in an acre)=1,453,727.8 sq..ft.in 33.373 acres
•. 1,114,905(proposed bldg. sq.ft. if PP are defined as bldgs.)+1,453,727.8(sq.ft.in 33.373 acres)=80%
• This FAA.exceeds maximum when parking plazas are defined as buildinngs. This is why the parking
' plaza definition must be articulated UP FRONT.
.9. ec ion 3.6
2
E. The built penthouses that house mechanicals shoebe included in the overall
building height.
10. ; Section 3.7 0
'!' C. If the mechanical (and/or HVAC)equipment is housed in the penthouse,then NO •
mechanicals should ever be visible,and no"suitable walls"are an issue. Perhaps there
should be a stipulation that all mechanicals AND HVAC should be housed inside the
penthouses. WHERE IS THE DEFINITION OF A PENTHOUSE IN THIS
ORDNANCE?
11. Chapter 4
Section 4.1
a. The west section line of the Real Estate actually falls hi the MIDDLE OF SPRING
MILL ROAD! On the north end of the site,this 115' dimension would allow Duke .
to put a building(including parking plazas)within 15' of the actual legally
described boundary of the Real Estate! If INDOT(or Carmel)ever used their
ROW to widen the Spring Mill Road bridge,the building nearest Spring Mill Road
could be LESS.THAN 15' FROM THE ROADWAY! This explains why Duke
eliminated the 30' perimeter buffering.(greenbelt)all along Spring Mill Road up to
the interstateon their rendering.
b. There should be some provision for any deviation from the"proposed INDOT
ROW" cited in this section. Ordinance Z-340(section 23$.16.3)requires 30'from
the ROW line nearest to and most parallel to US 31; and that should be
accompanied by the minimum applicable buffer,which is 30'! The question
becomes. . .where is Duke's DP that reflects these requirements that total 60'?
c. . The south section line is in the middle of W.96th Street! Duke proposes that 57'
of the Real Estate be used for the W.96a'St.roadway improvements.
133.5' (proposed setback along south section line this is setback
parking plazas could use)
-57.0' (roadway improvements&ROW)
76.5' (actual distance a 3 story parkins garage would be from street
including all the mandatory lighting required for 24 hours!)
• 266.5' (proposed setback for office buildings)
-57.0'.
209.5' (proposed building setback for.a 5 story office building along
W 96th Street per proposal) Has anyone checked to see what
the setback was for Parkwood East? (It's a lot more than
209.5'2)
• is • • .
NOTE! If A••&F's engineering plans for W.96"Street don't work,then new improvements would eat up
the 30 greenbelt!
it
Altll►ugh.Duke is preferring ROW(from the Real Estate)of 57' in depth.along W. 96'h St.(to comply
witbthe roadway improvements suggested in A&F's September,2000 engineered report),the actual
configuration may not conform to either Carmel's own thoroughfare standards(140')for a primary
• parkway or Hamilton County's recommendations'(120')for a commercial arterial.
•
3
It is!critical to note that a totf 90' is not enough ROW for"eventuals."•The landscaped median
.promoted by Mayor Brainard(to Heartland Coalition)for the parkway setting needs more space. In
fact,it"appears" as though the landscaped median is not even featured as an.integral part of W.96th St.
, proposal.
If the maximum total ROW is not set aside now,with as much land taken from the vacant site as possible,
thefthe perimeter buffering could ultimately be lost when any requisite modifications are enforced.
Essentially,-the current proposal for 90' creates a roadway that might ultimately prove ineffective and
unsafe.
•
12. ;, Section 4.2 •
: A. Be specific and define the accessory structures(for this clause),
B. Exactly what accessory structures need not meet the minimum floor area requirement?
This sentence would be fine if the accessory structures were limited to or defined as
• ;:' maintenance or refuse accessory structures.
•
13. Section 4.3
591,000 square feet of office buildings
58,905 maximum square feet for reserved land
667,905 total square feet for all bldgs. in office area
TH S. S OW AN.I C' •. E s 8 000 S s U• RE FEE SIN E 2 /00 DRAF"f l •
NOTE; This.section Should stipulate that the additional 58,905 square:feet of office space,
permitted on'land not taken by INDOT,must be placed on THATRESERVED LAND. There is
the possibility that the added square footage might precipitate a reconfiguration of the DP that could
alter setbacks, landscaping,perimeter buffering,parking, etc.
• 14. ; Section.4.4 There must be a footprint in order for the landscaping plan to be effectively reviewed.
In this went,there should be two DPs that reflect reserved INDOT land issues. (even if
• 1NDOT only takes 1,2,or 3 acres)
15, Section 4.4
B.
La, This greenbelt iksge has extenuq ing circymgtagces. Appendix A—C.in Ordinance
Zr 340(pg. 15) requires that no perimeter buffering shall be located within any
. portion of a dedicated public street,private street right-of-way,or County legal
drain easement.
•
If Carmel doesn't allow buffering on ROW, how do we know INDOT will give
permission for a greenbelt(perimeter buffering) on their ROW? What if INDOT
decides to utilize their ROW along Spring Mill Road,the greenbelt will be lost: I
believe there is a real difference between the Road ROW and the.INDOT ROW
along Spring Mill Road that must be recognized.
' '' If you notice,this section also !.Lake' n+ me '11 i f le ► dab ut at ► r:1_• Mill
Road_.The most recent drawing I've seen for 96t St.clearly shows the roundabout
• ROW weft INTO the greenbelt. The proposal allows roadway improvements within
that ROW,in violation of existing laws.
NOTE: The Con•rehensive Plan calls for 90' of buffer alon S•rin Mill Road,
I gather this desirable buffer,.and states a plan.has been forgotten.
4
•
t
•
16. Section 4.4
B.
1.b. This clause seems to allow for surface parking(possibly plaza parking?)
within the greenbelt. If so,then the DP is allowing for something less than
the 30' required for perimeter buffering within Z-340 Ordh ance.
•
17. Section 4.4
2.a. This section should say something to the effect that the planting strip will
• be located adjacent to and along the"entire" INDOT gOW,as per Z-340.
2.b. What are the"other similar structures"mentioned in this section?
NOTE: There should be a "c."in this section that requires planting strips in the
Roundabout and/or W.96th Street median since Dnke is:applying for tax
incremental funding for the improvements.
•
19. Section 4:4 •
' • !' 83. Clauses B,C, &D all mention"outdoor eating terraces"in conjunction with
the"Office Area"portion of the DP. The proposal defines restaurants as
facilities which may have an outside eating component. In that event,there is
absolutely no provision for outdoor speakers.outdoor music,and excessive noise
levels.
18. k Section 4„.4
B. 5. The proposal appears to be making use of the entire parcel for the 15%landscape
'! requirement. The actual figure changes if the"Real Estate"acreage diminishes,
particularly with respect to the W. 96th St.roadway improvements that we know
n*ust.be made.
19. ! Section.4.4
C.2. The information in this section has eliminated the 30' greenbelt(perimeter
buffering)along the US 31 ROW,and only allows for up to 500' north of W.960'St.
along Spring Mill Road. It also mentions the South Section Line(for 96th Street),
rather than the northern boundary of the W.96th ROW. NOTE; Where is the
mention of a bike path anywhere in the proposed landscape guidelines?
20. Section 4.4
D.2. ' . There is no mention of maintaining the median or roundabout in this section. If Duke is
applying for a TIF to make the improvements—who is going to maintain them?
21. Section 4.5 Ordinance Z-340 (section 23B.12)says that except as provided in Paragraph B,there
shall be no parking between US 31 ROW and the front"build to"line of a building.
Does this apply to the sides of buildings as well?
22. Section 4.5 •
, C. This clause uses the term"rentable area"rather than gross square feet. This term
essentially allows for more parking than people really understand.
5
' i
' • 23. 1:: Section 4.6 • •
•. H. D. Ordinance Z-340(23B.13)stipulates that lighting in the overlay zone be •
. restricted to 25'total(from the bottom of the pole to the top;of the fixture). 32' IS NOT •
PERMITTED.
24. i 1 Section 4.$ .
E. • There should be additional restrictions in this section that prohibits light from being
. •beingdirected downward. . . and away from any south and west residential homes."
•
25. •Section 4.7 FIRST AND FOREMOST—THIS PROPOSAL ALLOWS FOR NO LESS THAN .
'.31 SIGNS IN TIERS PUD OVERALL! Currently.,Parkwood East appears to have
1. • .th . 10 "bit' •" si• i s in the ro'ect--a •ro'ect which is a. .roximate 100 •
ties,whereas Parkwood West is avuroximately 36 acres!
1•' •rif the accessory uses are subordinate and incidental to the main use,then•the rno
!' neeti for•eiterior signage that promotes retail traffic. CONSEQUENTLY, •
EXTERIOR SLGNAGE FOR ACCESSORY/RETAIL.USES SHOULD BE
PROHIBITED IN THE OFFICE AREA.
•
! There.is no mention of"non-#lashint.signage in this section. •
• 26. ' Chapter 5 .
• • . S ction 5.1 .
a. The setback in a.is too small. Z-340 stipulates 30' from:INDOT ROW PLUS 30'for •
1: :a greenbelt! This setback is totally inadequate!
b. The proposed 83.5' setback is inadequate. At Meridian Street,there'i.s a greater •
•
. �; possibility that ALL this footage would be taken up by improvements. Duke has
. • requested that you make provision to use the A&F suggested engineering proposal,
so they know how many acres they"currently"want to use. Add to this point,the
• previously cited County recommended ROW requirements,and it is evident that the
. • suggested 83.5' setback WILL NOT WORK.
: . .NOTE: The 30' perimeter buffering is totally gone if the 83.5' setback is approved--especially since that • .
buffering cannot be placed in public ROW. .
27. ':. Section 5.2 •
i; B. This section is open to speculation as to what constitutes"accessory structures."
28. •i . Sectii n 5.3 This section needs revision. WE ARE NOW UP TO 18)O0.SQUARE FEET—AN
INCREASE OF 24250 SOUARE FEET FROM THE 12/5/00 DRAFT!
"A maximum of two(2)primary restaurant use restaurants,with a combined total
of no more than gross square feet,shall be permitted .
�' within the outlot area." • •
. • I! • A statement similar to the above would define what can"go in"the outlot area,and limits :
!,' its maximum square footage, ;
28. i Section.5:4 • •
•
A. Where is the plan and did it include_bilie nuths? •
B.l.a. There should be a change in.t h e language t h a t says . . .
" . . . adjacent to and along the entire West 961 Street ROW. . ." What they have
6
Lam,,,
written de not make the same provisions for the piing strip that Z-340 does.
(The same issue is true in the Office Area regarding planting strips.) •
29. I Section 5.4. Outdoor terraces are again a major component of this entire:section!
B.2.b. These"outdoor terraces"are still of concern because of noise, etc. However,if they
are'permitted,it should contingent on adequate perimeter buffering and adequate •
. ;; setback. •
` : 30.. ; Section 5.4 . •
. i' BA. . ()nee again,the total landscape requirement is predicated on the total amount of
• . acreage for the project—which confuses the projected amount that is required, and
could reduce the greenbelts.
L'
. - '••31. .'7 Section 5.5 Ordinance Z-340(23B.12A)should take precedence over this section. (Even including
siuch.minor things as bicycle parking!)
32. !: Section 5.6 •
! A. Ordinance Z-340 only makes provision for a total height of25' for lighting poles—not .
32'.
: 33. •Section 55.6 THIS IS A.TECHNICALLY"ENLIGHTENING"CLAUSE.
•
' B. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT IN THIS SECTION DUKE REALIZED
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE"SOUTH SECTION LINE"AS REGARDS
• *LIGHT°ING-AND DIDN'T USE IT! IF THEY CANMAKE'PROVISION TO USE
THE NORTH ROW LINE FOR W. 96171 ST.HERE, THEN THEY CAN DO
LIKEWISE IN OTHER AREAS OF GREATER IMPORTANCE SUCH AS
SETBACKS,ROW ROAD IMPROVEMENTS,ETC. g ,
34. " Section'5.7 There are.no less than.18 signs permitted on the outlot section—PLUS PUD
• IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE! This is too much signage for 2 restaurants.
35. Section 5..7 .
4. WHAT SETBACK ARE THEY REFERRING TO? (96Tn.St.- US 31?)
The 10' setback minimum does not meet the 30'•requirement of Z-340 along US 31.
7. . Illumination should be internal AND completely shielded&non flashing!
•
. • 36. i i Section 5.7 . .
B. • Why aren't the Parkwood Crossing West ID signs computed as part of the ID section in '
ithe earlier Office Area section? How many signs does Park-wood We need for 36 acres
when.Parkwood East has so few on more acreage?
•
: 37. s Chapter 6
.
: Sectii n 6.1
• . , B. • • What happens if the Plan Commission decides NOT TO APPROVE the ADLS--
•. . period?
•
• 38. j. Section .1 •
C. . IhjL is a technical aspect to the DP that may easily be i�nared. if there is room
to approve a'10%change(10% or more of what—square footage? That could mean
as much as an additional 60,000+square feet:) then.theentire plan could overstep
. . 7
•
• the F.A.I .,the maximum parcel coverage,and in um density provisions,etc.,
. ; , and.the public couldn't'do anything about it! Where is the provision to keep the
• • ; overall development well within the initial PUD guidelines?
is
39. ; Section 6.2, EVERY CLAUSE IN THIS SECTION PREEMPTS THE AUTHORITY OF THE
PLAN COMMISSION AND GIVES THE DIRECTOR TOO MUCH LATITUDE
IN.DECIDING WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEST FOR THE SITE! ONE MUST
ONLY ASSUME THAT HE CANNOT DO THIS UNLESS THE COMMISSION •
ALLOWS HIM THAT AUTHORITY.
39. * Chapter 7
i H Section 7.1 DEFINITIONS
B. 1. Parking Plazas are defined as accessory structures—;and therefore fall within the
framework of accessory uses and their square footage should fall within the
accessory'use designation. (If the parking plazas are not buildings—their space
' i . has to be accounted for some way.)
. 2. • Why aren't the accessory uses defined as uses located"in the building?" Section
•
2.1 talks about accessory supportive services being permitted in the buildings,and •
Duke says that the accessory uses will be in the buildings, so PUT THEM
•
. THERE BY DEFINITION! The outlot restaurants fall within the"primary use ..,
' category"and that is all that is supposed to go on the outlots anyway.
4. Minor alteration could mean as little as 3.6 acres—WHICH COULD MEAN A .
. WHOLE LOT IN DENSITY,F.A.R.,AND PARCEL COVERAGE—OR
' • less than approximately 64,990 square feet of space WHICH IS STILL A
LOT OF ADDITIONAL SPACE! .
• . 5. A substantial alteration is defined as 10%OR MORE—HERE AGAIN IT .
COULD AMOUNT TO A LOT MORE SQUARE FOQIA(E THAN
. ANYONE COULD EVER REALIZE UNTIL IT,WAS TOO LATE! (It could •
• . also mean 10%or more signage unless the definition is changed or the term
eliminated from the document.) .
FORMER NO 8. • BASEMENT-The definition for basement must be,kept in this document. The
use of the space—i.e.the fitness center,or the convention center,or retail support
f businesses COULD operatE from there. The bottom line is—the square footage
. i, should count if they use it for something other than Maintenanee and the space
•
must be defined.
•
'10. If a parking plaza houses a service facility, and fundamentally serves as an
accessory for the occupants of the primary uses it seems as though it should be .
. defined as a building. However, either Duke uses the parking plazas as buildings
. . or as an accessory use—but they have to declare so that the parameters are
• i i .absolute. POINT TO NOTE—No one is talking about the covered walkways that
connect the buildings to the parking plazas. If you read the definition of
. : ' I: • . ' "building"the parking plazas fall within the guidelines because of the connecting
walkway. However,Duke is ignoring their own definition and decided the •
. parking plazas are not buildings..Either way—the covered walkways are
important and their square footage should be considered as part of the total.
11. They are using the"South Section Line"rather than ROW lines for the building
' • 'i line. •
124 This building height should definitely include the penthouse(particularly if it's
•
' 21' high)and the communication equipment(since there is rio maximum height
restriction)should also fall within the total buildingheight in the basic definition.
• 8
•
i
13. Ineresting in this definition they specifica efer to"South Section Line."•
This setback definition—again-clearly allows Duke the"minimum"open
space between the"south section line"and the front line of the building.
' Duke should be using the north ROW line of 96th)St.
14. Food consumed in any of this accessory retail should be consumed within the
• building—or we could end up with a great deal of outdoor eating,which is
• unacceptable for residential homes across the street
25. Why doesn't the definition for development plan include"Sizes/dimensions?"
29&30. Dishes can be enormous—shouldn't they be defined as an element that
does not exceed the overall height of the building. (4 stories maximum)
33: Why was"basements"removed?If any accessory use is placed in the basement
areas,then the square footage must be incorporated in the total.
in the basements-the square footage is important.
35. If Duke uses ROW in this section,then they can use it in the more important
definitions.
36. The definition of greenbelt should not be limited to the office area. The
d e f i n i t i o n also has used t h e word"or"rather than"and"w h e n i t r e f e r s to". . .
adjacent and parallel to the ROW of 96"'St.or("should be"and")
Spring Mill Road,"
37. The greenbelt buffer must be defined as that portion of the entire Real Estate
(NOT THE OFFICE AREA ONLY)which abuts the perimeter of the
development and which is designed specially to provide a buffer and . . ."etc.
38.. They've now excluded basements and penthouses in the square footage—the
penthouse is an improvement of the building,and is therefore taxable by the state. .
The square footage of a building that is supposed to be 21' high most certainly
should be counted in the total square footage of the Real Estate. As mentioned
earlier,the basements could house accessory uses and their square footage should
be included in the total for all buildings on the RealEstate.
40. Why is this here? There should be a commitment that NO heliport be allowed
on the Real Estate. A heliport could be unsafe to area homes, it is a nuisance,and
freeway to freeway modification might create other safety issues.
• 42: I believe there are some sizes in this definition that are incorrect—
A minimum of 24"on the shrubs
A minimum of 8' for the conifers,and
A minimum of 8' for the shade trees
47. The definition for Parcel Coverage includes parking plazas and
accessory structures—what are the accessory structures other than the
• arkin lazes?If Duke uses this definition the total square feet of all these
•
structures should be included within the total 35;000 square foot accessory .
use maximum they listed in 2.2 B.
56, There is no size limit in this definition for a receiver. And there is no mention of
the height restriction for any screening the receiver May require.
57. The restaurant definition clearly enables the restaurants to have outdoor
eating areas--despite the downside for surrounding.residential homes.
61. This definition has now been changed in favor of"Section Line" instead of
the"right of way"that was in their earlier docuunents. The definition also
i` uses side or rear property lines,rather than ROW. This is too broad a
i
definition for"setbacks!"
69. THIS FACILITY AS DEFINED IS AN UNACCEPTABLE ACCESSORY
USE AS EARLIER EXPLAINED.
9
•
• II3E COMMISSION PERMITS THIS OPE,THE TOTAL SQUARE
• , FOOTAGE OF THE FACILITY•SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE . .
TOTAL ACCESORY USE SQUARE FOOTAGE,AS THERE WILL
PROBABLY BE A FEE FOR ANY OF THE SERVICES OFFERED BY
• THIS'FACILITY. (UNLESS DUKE IS OFFERING FREE CAR WASHES,
. OIL CHANGES,ETC.)
. THERE ARE STILL DEFINITE CONCERNS ABOUT THE•US 31
•• OVERLAY EXCLUDED USES AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL
j HAZARDS AS REGARDS THIS FACILITY. `
: fIT_B•-•COMM.ITMENTS .
• P' E: There TO re is NO cotnmitment against Fast Food restaurants as"AccessO usi :.only as primary . •
.0
. • ,: d. ' 1. Does the A&F engineered report make allowances for the changes they
proposed on 12/5/00?
•2. The suggested ROW is too small and doesn't make adequate allowances for •
•
. any potential modifications in case the NEW roadway doesn't work.
e. Access to Spring Mill Road goes against the Comprehensive Plan—regardless
• of any circumstances regarding Spring Mill Road. (If you played the."what if'game,
then let's talk about what would happen"if'Spring Mill Read were closed south of
95th Street? •
f. This commitment mentions Marion County sewers—where are they actually coming
from?
i, If this definition is referring to surface.parking--then they•have once again ignored
the north ROW of 96th St. DUKE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO USE THE
S( ITE SECTION LINE WHEN THEY RECOGNIZE ITS IMPORTANCE AND •
. YET IGNORE ITWHEN BECOMES AN INCONVENiEN 'ISSUE!
2000 engineering report,but they have
. .,•• j. � � Once again,they are referencing the September, g g p y
• ' not actually said that the roundabout will commence simultaneous with the other
changes. So the report,dated and all,needs to be incorporated within and"made a part
.hereof as if set out herein in full."
Item 7 of the commitments—Enforcement—should read: "These commitments•may be enforced by the
Catmel/Clay Plan Commission,and/or adjacent property owners." .
***This riadkes•.certain that adjacent homeowners have some say when rules.and regulations violated. •
• • NOTE: • .. :
. 1. ; *rage should be.a:commitment in this document as to number and location.
2. Entire.PUD Ordinance should be a recorded commitment.
3. i 1, There•should•be a commitment denying a heliport anywhere on the Real Estate. •
• : 4. !' There should also be a commitments for the following:
• • • a. • noon site construction Before SAM weekdays,9AM Saturdays,and none on Sundays. •
• • ; b. maximum erosion control on site
c: trucks should be washed down to keep dirt/mud off a newly constructed 96`h ST. •
• d. all construction traffic should enter and exit from the outlet area—and no construction
• trucks should go up Spring Mill Road • •
e. there should be perimeter fencing to prohibit trash from blowing into residential areas
• f. soils should be watered down for dust control
• • 10