HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket PC 03-19-02
o
o
o
o
HUNTERS CREEK
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
'0
Change of Zoning Classification
To Planned Unit Development-
Office Use
5 Acres at Rohrer Road and
Marana Drive
Docket No. 125-01-Z
Carmel Plan Commission
March 19, 2002
Charles D. Frankenberger
NELSON & FRANKENBERGER
3021 East 98th Street, Suite 220
Indianapolis, IN 46280
Telephone: (317) 844-0106
o
o
o
,0
o
o
D
o
o
0',
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Explanation
2. Aerial Photograph
3. Identical Front/Rear Elevations - Buildings on Marana Dr. - 6,000s.f. .
4. Reports of Appraisers and Realtor
5. Homeowner letter
6. Site/Landscape Plan
7. PUD Ordinance
H:\JallclIHiIl. BradITOC-1'(" 031902.wpd
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
Q
o
o
,tAMEs J. NElSON
ClIARLES D. FRANKENBERGER
JAMES E. SHINAVER
LAWRENCE J. KEMPER
JOHN B. FIATI'
of couosel
.JANE B. MERRILL
NELSON
&
FRANKENBERGER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
. ATIORNEYS.AT.lAW
3021 EASr 98th SrREEr
Surm 2ZO
1No1ANAPOus, INDIANA 46280
317-844-0106
FAX: 317-846-8782
March 8, 2002
To: Plan Commission Members
Re: Hunters Creek Office Park - 5 Acres at Rohrer and Marana
Docket No. 125-01-Z
Special Studies Committee, December 4, 200 I
Dear Plan Commission Member:
In anticipation of the Plan Commission hearing scheduled for March 19,2002, we thought
it would be helpful to summarize this request and the history of these proceedings.
By way of general background, the Hunters Creek Office Park has requested a change in
zoning classification to permit a planned unit development for office use. The subject real estate is
5 acres located north of U.S. 3], north and east of the Meridian Village Plaza, and southeast of the
~ corner of Rohrer Road and Marana Drive. It is outlined in white on the aerial photograph enclosed
as Exhibit 2.
o
The first public hearing before the Plan Commission occurred on November 20, 2001, at
which time we were referred to the Special Studies Committee. We remained in the Special Studies
Committee in December, 2001, January, 2002, and February, 2002, when we were returned to the
Plan Commission, with a negative recommendation, for the hearing scheduled to occur on March 19,
2002. For the following compelling reasons, however, we believe that this request should be
referred by the Plan Commission to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation:
o
o
o
o
o
o
1.
Zoning Ouandry. The five acres is zoned for residential and special uses which are
prohibited by the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone in which it exists.
2.
Comprehensive Plan. The office park follows the recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan.
3.
Overlav Zone. The office park complies with the dictates of the Overlay Zone and,
in many respects, is less intense than what is encouraged by the Overlay Zone.
4.
Intensity. The office park is not intense. Its density is substantially below what is
permitted by the Overlay Zone, and its landscaping exceeds the requirements of the
Overlay Zone. Moreover, the size and height of the buildings is substantially less
than what is permitted by the Overlay Zone and, while the Overlay Zone permits
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Plan Commission Members
March 8, 2002
Page 2
some retail use, the proposed PUD Ordinance permits only office use. In this regard,
the Department of Community Services (the "Department"), in its report dated
November 20, 2001, December 4, 2001, January 3, 2002, and February 5, 2002,
states:
"In summary, the proposed development requires a building size,
landscaping, architecture, parking configuration, and lower
intensity use in order to provide a transition between the existing
residential and higher intensity commercial uses and U.S. 31. The
design of the proposed development is superior to the type of
transition that could be achieved under the current zoning (B-3/R-1,
U.S. 31 Overlay)."
5. Transition. The buildings are understated, single story, residential appearing office
buildings. Parking is in the center. _For ease of reference, another drawing of a
proposed elevation is enclosed as Exhibit 3. The office park provides transition and
buffering, both of which are cornerstones of fundamental urban land use planning.
6. Traffic. It is uncontroverted that traffic is nominal and, as indicated in the
Department's report, there is no level of service more efficient that A. In this regard,
traffic studies are valuable and relied upon. The traffic study for this proposal is
particularly simple. It is not complex and does not involve multiple assumptions and
projections into the future.
r~
U
The remonstrance to this request has been occasioned by misinformation. For instance, please
consider the following:
1.
Allegation - "Misrevresentations". Remonstrators initially asserted that Church
representatives made misrepresentations while attending a meeting of homeowners.
Ultimately, the following facts emerged:
o
o
o
o
o
o
(a) Under the guise of discussing the remonstrators' belief that deed restrictions
prohibited any use other than church use, two Church representatives were
invited to a meeting attended by over 50 remonstrators, the remonstrators'
attorney, and Councillor Wilson. Brad Hill and Jim Reed were not invited;
(b) During the meeting, Church representatives, inexperienced in these matters,
indicated that they did not think there was a written contract with the Hunters
Creek Office Park but that, in any event, there was a verbal promise which
they intended to honor;
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
a
o
a
Plan Commission Members
March 8, 2002
Page 3
o
o
,0
o
o
o
o
o
o
(c) There is, in fact, a written contract.
While this is not germane to the issue of land use, it is obvious that there were no
misrepresentations.
2. Allegation - "Skirt the Zoning Process". The remonstrators have argued that we have
skirted the zoning process. It isobvious from what has transpired, however, that we
are not skirting the zoning process; instead, this request is being fully disclosed and
discussed, in all of its detail, to the Plan Commission and the Special Studies
Committee, and it will eventually be presented to the Common Council.
In order to utilize the real estate for office use, it is necessary either (i) to obtain use
variances, developmental standards variances, waivers and special exceptions or
(ii) to obtain a change in zoning classification to a PUD. It is our understanding that
a change in zoning classification is the preferred avenue of approval. In this regard,
it should be underscored that the variances, or differences, between the proposed
PUD and the requirements of the Overlay Zone are all to the benefit of the residential .
uses - the buildings are smaller and shorter than what is permitted by the Overlay
Zone, the landscaping is more substantial than what is required by the Overlay Zone,
the intensity is substantially less than what is permitted by the Overlay Zone, and the
PUD Ordinance, unlike the Overlay Zone, does not permit retail. It is apparent,
therefore, that the proposed PUD Ordinance, when compared to what is permitted
under the Overlay Zone, imposes greater restrictions on the developer and provides
substantially more protection of the residential neighbors.
3.
Allegation - "Devaluation". The remonstrators have argued that the proposed use
will cause devaluation. While impact on surrounding values is not the sole
consideration, it is something about which we have inquired. We have received and
filed opinions of two (2) certified appraisers and a realtor, copies of which are
enclosed as Exhibit 4, establishing that the existence of the office park will not
decrease values. These reflect common sense judgments.
The conditions establishing the value of nearby residential real estate already exist.
These include the proximity of the U.S. 31 Corridor, the shopping center
environment established by the Meridian Village Plaza, and the uncertainty
surrounding the use of the five acres. It is this uncertainty, and not the answer to the
uncertainty, which causes devaluation. In other words, a potential purchaser of a
nearby residence would be aware ofthe abandoned five acres and the fact that it will
eventually be used for something. This purchaser will discount value, accordingly,
and would most likely assume a use more intensive than that proposed. In other
words, a potential purchaser would pay more with the proposed office park intact.
o
o
o
u
o
o
o
a
o
a
o
o
18
I
o
o
o
Plan Commission Members
March 8, 2002
Page 4
F or these reasons, we believe that (i) it is the uncertainty, and not the proposal, which
worsens value, and (ii) the proposal is not the problem but, instead, the solution that
stabilized prices and eliminates the uncertainty by positively answering the unknown.
4. Allegation - "Other Uses are Feasible". The remonstrators have argued that
residential and church use are feasible. In this regard, what follows is a brief
discussion of other available uses:
II
~
o
o
(a) Residential Use. Considering the comparatively small size of the real estate,
its narrow configuration, and its exposure to the Meridian Village retail
center and U.S. 31, it is not feasible to develop the real estate for detached
single family homes. Multi-story, multi-family development would perhaps
be economically viable, but may create other concerns such as increased
traffic, additional impact on schools, and devaluation. Either option,
however, is purely academic because this parcel is governed by the U.S. 31
Overlay Zone, which prohibits residential use, per se.
(b) B-3 Use. Part of the real estate is zoned B-3. All uses within the B-3 District
are special uses, requiring approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals. While
the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone prohibits special uses, it would permit such uses
as schools, hospitals, or a multi-story office building. These uses would exist
in large, multi-story structures, for which parking would not be centered and
screened by buildings. Their characteristics would import substantially more
intensity. There would be traffic and activity at night and on the weekends.
These considerations, however, are also somewhat academic, in that it is
questionable whether that portion of the real estate zoned B-3 would be large
enough for the development of such uses.
(c) Church Use. It may be suggested that another church would be an
appropriate use of the real estate. The most telling evidence of the
infeasibility ofthis use is the vacant Carmel Brethern Church. Contemporary
churches typically prefer large tracts of real estate, suitable for future
expansion, to justify and warrant extensive investment in a physical plant that
can offer the multi-faceted services sought by today's parishioners. This
parcel is not large enough. It may, perhaps, attract a start-up church;
however, the start-up church would either move on or fail and, in any event,
not attract much investment. The land value would continue to decline and
surrounding values would continue to be affected by the continuing
uncertainty and transitory nature of the site.
o
o
o
D
o
lJ
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Plan Commission Members
March 8, 2002
Page 5
In an effort to show Church intent, the remonstrators asked
parishioners of the Korean Presbyterian Church to attend the first Plan
Commission hearing. It should be noted that this Church submitted an offer
of$200,000.00, substantially below the fair market value ofthe 5 acres. The
offer was woefully inadequate and rejected.
5. Allegation - "Failure to Cooperate". The remonstrators have attempted to create the
impression that Brad Hill and Jim Reed have not met with homeowners and have not
made concessions. In fact, they attended at least 6 meetings with homeowners.or a
HOA representative between March and October of2001. Significant concessions
have been made in terms of (i) the elimination of an originally planned second
entrance on Marana, (ii) substantive and costly landscaping as indicated by the
landscape plan, (Hi) the setting aside of substantial green space in the northwest
comer, (iv) the elimination of a building, and (v) increasing to forty feet (40') the
building set back from Marana Drive.
6. Allegation - "Elimination of Green Space". The remonstrators have written that the
applicant eliminates all green space. In fact, there is substantial green space.
Approximately 29% of the site is dedicated to green belt, and over 50% of the site
is landscaped areas.
7. Allegation - "Fewer than Five Acres". The remonstrators have repeatedly stated that
the site is less than 4 acres. As we have always maintained, however, and as
indicated by the survey from Weihe Engineers, the parcel is in fact 5 acres.
The impression may exist that all of the homeowners in Hunters Creek oppose the office
park. While there is a well organized faction of homeowners who oppose the request, all
homeowners do not oppose the request. For instance, included as Exhibit 5 is a letter from one
homeowner who lives here (indicating) and who states (i) "I feel property values will be less affected
by this proposed development than the uncertainty of what could be developed on this land
(apartments, 3 story office, etc.)", (ii) "Mr. Hill has taken a lot oftime to show this proposal to the
neighborhood and has been very receptive tot he concerns we have had", and (iii) "the shortsighted
views of some of the neighborhood is not shared by all."
n
U
o
Finally, it should be mentioned that, as a result of the prior Committee meetings and
meetings with the Department of Community Services and the remonstrators' counsel, the following
have occurred:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
Plan Commission Members
March 8, 2002
Page 6
1. Reduction in Buildings. The number of buildings has reduced from eight to seven.
This is reflected in the revised site plan, a copy of which is enclosed as Exhibit 6;
2. Increased Set Back. The building set back from Marana Drive has increased from
30' to 40'; and
3. Revised PUD. Enclosed as Exhibit 7 is a copy of the revised PUD Ordinance. The
PUD Ordinance, as revised, fairly reflects the project as presented.
We look forward to presenting this to you on March 19,2002.
Very truly yours,
NELSON & FRANKENBERGER
cc
Charles D. Frankenberger
CDF/jlw
1l:\Janctlllill. BradlPC Itr 030702.wpd
~
8
~
o
<::(
z
<(
~
<(
:E
u.. .
V)
o
o
o
\..0
o.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0",
o.
INTEGRA Realty Resources
MICHAEL C. LADY ADVISORS, INC." INDIANAPOLIS
May 24, 2001
. -~
Mr. James Reed
Century 21 Realty Group I
3801 East 82nd Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46240
Re: Proposed Development
Rohrer Road at Marana Drive
Carmel, Indiana
MCt File #11810593
Dear Jim: _
At your request, we have reviewed the preliminary exhibits for a proposed office park
development at the southwest comer of Rohrer Road and Marana Drive in
Carmel, Indiana. The purpose of our review was to analyze the proposed development
--and to form an opinion of the possible impact of-the change in the land use as pertains to
the nearby single-family residential development
Included in our review was an inspection of the site and adjacent area The subject site is
irregular in shape, contains an area of approximately five acres per the records of the
Assessor of Clay, and has a gently sloping topography. The 'site fronts onto
Marana Drive with single-family residential development to the north, west and east, and
backs toward a recently developed neighborhood shopping center. The site is presently
improved with a church .building of apparent average quality construction, an asphalt
paved parking area and established lawn area.
The information furnished is for a proposed office park. The proposed development will
consist of eight 19w-rise office buildings constructed around the perimeter of the site with
paved parking to the center. The site 'development plan prepared by Weihe Engineers,
Inc. and provided to the appraisers, indicates extensive landscape plantings around the
perimeter of the site to improve the site/view amenities and screening. It is our opinion
that the proposed improvements including the landscaping will also screen the retail
center from the residential areas.
In considering the possible impact of the proposed development on the nearby residential
areas, it is important to consider the proposed development as well as any other use
LOCAL EXPERTISE...NATIONALLY
. -
4981 N. Franklin Road . Indianapolis. IN 46226-2000 . Phone: 317-546-4720 . Fax: 317-546-1407 . El11ail: I11lad:/@irr.com
o
o
o
o
o
o
o.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
which may be possible under current zoning restrictions or reasonable zoning change or .
variance. Also, it is important to consider similar developments in other 1u'eas' of the .
community.
, Based on our inspection of the site and the nearby areas, oUr review of the proposed
development including the landscape plan, and review of other areas with' similar
developments with buffer areas, it is our opinion tIiat the proposed office' park
development will not have an adverse influence ontlie~ketability of the.single-family
residences in the area.
If you have any questions regarding our opinion or if we may be offurther service, please
contact us.
Sincerely,
C)
~chaeIC.Lady,~,SRA
Certified General Real Estate App .
Indiana Certificate #CG69100223
RJP/sI
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D-
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
. .
... .
: ~:. . !'~.I..'.~..;~~;~\~.,
AERIAL MAP
o
o
o
o
o
- :-~
o
o
o
O'
----
o
; I
I
o
4
,.,
.
~.
o
o
o
o
~
I~. ::;~~'.~.,~~
.~ ....O;.;~~-:.~.. .
f ~"~..:;:::.,-::- :.
o .:",'-..-- .
CAPE 'XAIolPU-
10' BUILDING LANDS _ ._ '.
o
o
o
o
.;:
--
SUBJECT SITE
:~...
cj: \,
~;l Ii
Ill' I
a: ,:
lfl, Ii
z.! I
a 'Ill
z Ii
IUd !
lUll, I
:El!" i
IU ..
: ~t"
... j,
-11
; -.. il
i!lifll
.i.'" 1"1
~"- "--1
I....__.!
~
- .
- ~
~
- .
- ~
- ~
::
- 1
..
- ~
:::: 1
- ~
I .: ~
~
I::. ;;
-.-
f
---
o
o
o.
:~~j/f.j~;:':::~~~i" .
'.\'. -.
".
. ~ ~~. .......
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
C)
i
d
o
:.
o
o
o
o
o
,
D.
o
o
o
o
o
01
o
o
o
o
q
o
o
o
o
o
o
:~J-
. -~
View Looking toward Shopping Center
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
ExPERIENCE:
EDUCATION:
LICENSES:
PROFESSIONAL
MEMBERSmpS:
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
OF
RAYMOND J. PICKETT, JR
Senior Real Estate analyst for Integra Michael C. Lady Advisors, Inc. - Indianapolis
Background includes 13 years as an independent fee appraiser associated' with Michael C.
Lady Appraisal Company. Valuations have been performed on various property types
including, but not limited to 1and~residentia1 properties, including small income
properties. The purpose of these valuations are for mortgage lOaDS, marriage dissolutions,
estate planning, insurance settlement, etc. .
Bachelor's Degree, Wabash College
Course Work Completed:
Real Estate Appraisal I-A
Real Estate Appraisal Principles
Standards of Professional Practice ~art A
ConstructionlInspection
Condo/Small Income Properties
Limited Properties Appraisal Reports
FHA Valuation Analysis
Appraising Complex Properties
Appraisal Continuing Education Seminars Completed
AIREA-Rates, Ratios, and Reasonableness
AIREA-Highest and Best Use
SREA-Standards of Professional Practice
Indiana Certified Residential Appraiser # CR6920 I 098
Licensed Real Estate Broker-State ofIndiana-# B127736
Metropolitan Indianapolis Board of Realtors
Indiana Association of Realtors
National Association of Realtors
o
"
o
o
D.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
EXPERIENCE:
PROFESSIONAL
MEMBERSHIPS
and
DESIGNATIONS:
PROFESSIONAL
INVOL VEMENT:
EDUCATION:
LICENSES:
CERTIFICATION:
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
OF
MICHAEL C. LADY, MAl, SRA
:~...
Managing Director for Integra Michael C. Lady Advisors, Inc. - Indianapolis.
Background includes two years as Staff Appraiser for the Indiana State
Highway Commission and tWenty-five years serving the public in real estate
valuation and consulting. Recent experience is concentrated in major urban and
suburban development projects, as. well as public development and
redevelopment projects. Valuations~ave been performed on varioUs property
types including single and multi-tenant retail properties, apartment complexes,
single and multi-tenant industrial properties, low to high rise office buildings,
mixed use facilities, residential subdivision analyses, and vacant land for
different uses. Specialized real estate valued includes military bases, hospitals
and medical centers, nursing homes, churchC?s, and recreational properties.
Valuations have been performed for mortgage loan purposes, equity
participation and due diligence support, estate planning, condemnation
proceedings, insurance purposes, and real estate tax valuation. Assignments
have included the valuation of proposed properties, distressed properties,
contaminated properties, and market studies.
Qualified as an expert witness in several courts and jurisdictions, including
U.S. Bankruptcy Court and Federal Tax Court. Litigation support work has
included consulting and review services, as well as valuation services.
Appraisal Institute: MAl, SRA
American Society of Real Estate Appraisers: ASA
Commercial Real Estate Institute: CCIM
Commercial, Industrial Marketing Group (Member)
Indiana Association of Realtors (Member)
Metropolitan Indianapolis Board-ofRealtors (Member)
National Association of Realtors Real Estate Appraisal Section (Member)
Urban Land Institute (Associate Member)
Member: Appraisal Institute
Chair of General Experience Subcommittee
General Admissions Committee
Qualifying Education Committee
(Past member of National Board of Directors)
(Past President, Hoosier State Chapter)
Bachelor of Science Degree, Ball State University, 1972
(Major Study: Business Administration)
Successfully completed numerous real estate and related courses and seminars
sponsored by the Appraisal Institute, Commercial Investment Real Estate
Institute, and accredited universities.
Indiana Broker #IB51238117
Indiana Certified General Appraiser #CG69 I 00223
Kentucky General Real Property Appraiser #000951
Michigan Certified Appraiser #1201004011
Ohio Certified General Appraiser #397391
Florida Certified General Appraiser #RZ 0001893
Currently certified by the Appraisal Institute's voluntary program of continuing
education for its designated members.
o
\
o
REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL CO.
rB,
REALTOR l!l,.
IA
DOUGLAS W. LEWELLEN
ASSOCIATES:
O NANCY GLASS
MICHAEL C.GLAZER, GRI, CRS
5160E. 65th Street. Indianapolis, Indiana 46220 Phone: (;317) 842-8862
6618 Moss Circle. Indianapolis, Indiana 46237 Phone: (317) 881-0863
Fax: (317) 842-8878
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
October 31, 2001
Century 21, Realty Group I
3801 E. 82nd Street
Indianapolis, IN 46240
" :-!
ATTN: James Reed
RE: Proposed office building development
Rohrer Road and Marana Drive
Carmel, IN 46033
Dear Jim, ,
Per your request, I have reviewed the site development and landscape plan,
proposed building elevations, maps, and other information regarding the above-
referenced proposed 8-building, office building development An inspection" of the
property was conducted on October 25, 2001.
"The 5~acre tract of land is currently Improved with a small, vacated church
building and adjoins a shopping center on the south. There are single-family
residential properties located on the northslde of Marana Drive. These homes are
located In Hunters Creek South, ~ubdlvlsion. A portion of the subject site Is
currently zoned for business or 63, and is also in the 31 Corridor. The proposed
development consists 'of eight l-story, brick office buildings, two of which contain
5000 SF, and the remaining six have 6000 SF of building area. There is only one
proposed access to the development, and this Is just west of Rohrer Road, and
across from Offut Drive. All parking will be on the Interior of the site and there
will be extensive perimeter landscaping, particularly along Marana Drive. It
appears that this landscaping will block out most of the view of the office
buildings, and block out the view of the shopping center, for the homes located
on Marana Drive. . ,
I am a certified, residential appraiser, licensed through the state of Indiana, and
have been appraising residential propertieS for approximately 30 years. I have
appraised many homes in the Hunters Creek, Hunters Creek South, and Village
of Mt. Carmel areas over the past years.
D
'.
D
o
D
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
After reviewing all of the above-referenced exhibits and information, It Is my
opinion that the office complex, If developed as proposed, will not have a'
negative effect upon the market value or marketability of the homes in Hunters
Creek South and surrounding residential neightiorhoods.
. Respectfully submitted,
.((). l W.~~
~LeWellen, fiSA -
DWl/jct~s
--
D
o
D
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
D
o
D
D
D
o
D
JAn-Ua-,uu, U~:~U~M rKUM-r~ IU~~~K ~~UI uKUU~
T
JI(~bb~~~lI
1-890 .. UUZlDDZ
F-147
January 7, 2002
RE: Proposed Office Development at Rohrer Road and Marana
To Whom It May Concern:
I have reviewed the proposed site plan. Based on the information I have been given, once
this project is complete the value of the homes in tbe area should not be affected. This is
predicated upon there being mOWlding and extensive landscaping along the perimeter of the
development. Included in the landscaping is the understanding that there would also be a
large quantity of siZable trees.
My opinion is based upon 30 years of residential experience.
F.C. Tucker t:Dmp~y. 111(.
9201 Nurch Meriulan Screer. Suite 250
Indian"polis. IN 462(,0
Olfice: 317.566-2~99
Fu: 317.;66.23911
www.T"lkToTllcker..:om
10
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
Supan Jim
From:
Jim aI1d Doreen Supan
679 Marana Dr.
Carmel IN 46032
To:
Brad HIII- Developer
Carmel Plan Commission
GenUemen:
We live on the property borderinQ the west side of the proposed development on Marana Dr.
We are not opposed to the re zoning requested by Brad Hili.
If this land now zoned B3 and R11s going to be developed, we feel the renderings submitted by Mr. Hillis as
good as any commercial development can be for this area.
. one story buikllngs blend Into the neighborhood
. tree plantings are abundant
. single entrance at the bottom of Marana Dr. should not hurt the neighborhood
I feel the property values win be less effected by this proposed ~ment than the uncertainty
of what could be developed on this land ( apartments. three story offICe, etc. )
Mr. Hill has taken a lot of time to show this ::OSSI to the n~hbcrhccd and has been very ~tive to the
concerns we have had. The &hOlt sighted v of some of the neighborhood is NOT shar8d by all.
Regards,
",
/~4-
Jim and Doreen Supan
Nov. 19th, 2001
1
C]
CJ
c::J
t:::J
CJ
I.:=J I::J t:::I C::J I=:J r:::J r:::J
Hunter's Creek Office Park
LANDSCAPE PLAN
c::l 1:::1
r::::J
I:=t
c::J
CJ
c:J
!;~
LL_
LL~
. '. ()D
- . 1 i\
i=----.---=.__~.~'....dW..,Bu".r '. .'_ ___~_ \'
I . :-Ikrm MARANA DR1VEu.rm -==-=-~-",~., "~=====.-=-",,,:
..--..-.-.. - .
! = ~.~~.~~. = ==-- ~ ;;;'-
iU.
(),
J:
iU1
ml
iUl
~I
()f
)>;
Q!
"-
'''I.
'~4.
J?q..
.."
It./);
".'.......
"-
..........
.'............."
",
I
I
I
/
I
J
J
/
~Ij/
I ~ i
;1\
II'
IiI
1..\
I'
, III
T
'.;.l~""! ,. ~ .
~----
oJ .:' :'.
hempdesign
land p1anning services
'--""
fO~~""'O
c.....L'if"""
0tI'v0r1l'''1''''''''
'.)174J""
WEIHE ENGINEERS. INC.
Alu.....u. [[]m ..........".C\lUU...f."....
.[Ctln"'Da\U~. NlU....--.af'tlU.........
..c.anuoL.VoDM.'I\noe IUt)...... .'" 01'")...._
PtlIIDOn JU.1..n&& ~U:_
0\0"Zl1"<<llWP.S . LA"''OJ\.'U''ITOAS . LA'4H'\,A'(IOoJ'M . 1A~,," uontcn
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
.0
o
C
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
ORDINANCE
NO. Z-
HUNTERS CREEK OFFICE PARK.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT
.Draft #6
Dated 1/24/02
l
I 0
0
0
0
0
0
~'
u
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ordinance No. Z-
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE'
HUNTERS CREEK OFFICE PARK
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Section31.6.4 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance Z-289 (the "Carmel/Clay
Zoning Ordinance"), provides for the establishment of a Planned Unit Development District in
~ccordance with the requirements ofI.C. ~ 36-7-4-1500 et seq.;
WHEREAS, the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission (the "Commission") has given a favorable
recommendation to the ordinance set forth herein (the "Ordinance") which establishes the Hunters
Creek Planned Unit Development District (the "District").
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Common Council of the City of Carmel,
Indiana (the "Council"), that (i) pursuant to IC ~36-7-4-1500 et seq., it adopts this Ordinance, as an
amendment to the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance and it shall be in full force and effect from and
after its passage, (ii) all prior ordinances or parts thereof inconsistent with any provision of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed, (Hi) from and after the passage and signing by the Mayor of this
Ordinance, the U.S./31 Highway Overlay Zone Ordinance No. Z430 shall no longer apply to the
Real Estate, and (iv) this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and
signing by the Mayor.
Section 1
Applicability of Ordinance:
Section 1.1 The Official Zoning Map of the City of Carmel and Clay Township, a part of
the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance, is hereby changed to designate the land described in
Exhibit 'A' (the "Real Estate"), as a Planned Unit Development District to be known as
Hunters Creek Office Park.
Section 1.2 Development in the Planned Unit Development District shall be governed
entirely by (i) the provisions of this Ordinance, and (ii) those provisions of the Carmel/Clay
Zoning Ordinance specifically referenced in this Ordinance. In the event of a conflict
between this Ordinance and the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance or the Sign Ordinance, the
provisions of this Ordinance shall apply.
Section 1.3 Any capitalized term not defined herein shall have the meaning as set forth
in the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance in effect on the date of the enactment of this
Ordinance.
Section 2 Permitted Primary Uses: Office, any type, including without limitation, clinic or
medical health center, general offices, professional offices, insurance offices, and office buildings.
o
o
u
o
o
D',
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
r~
w
Section 3 Accessory Buildings and Uses: All Accessory Structures and Accessory Uses which
are permitted in the B-5 zoning district shall be permitted except that any detached accessory
building shown in any Development Plan ("DP") shall have on all sides the same architectural
features or shall be architecturally compatible with the principal building(s) with which it is
associated.
Section 4 Communication Equipment. Cell towers shall not be permitted. Communications
. equipment, as required by the building occupants, shall be permitted and shall be screened with
suitable walls or fencing and in general be architecturally compatible with the building( s) with which
it is associated.
Sectj.on 5 Platting: The platting of the Real Estate into smaller tracts shall be permitted.
However, the development of any parcel must still conform to the DP for the entire tract as approved
or amended by the Director, and all other applicable requirements contained in this Ordinance.
Section 6
Height and Area Requirements:
Section 6.1 Maximum Building Height: The maximum Building Height is thirty-two (32)
feet.
Section 6.2 Minimum Set Back: The minimum Set Back from the perimeter boundary
line of the. Real Estate contiguous with Marana Drive shall be forty (40) feet, and the
minimum Set Back from all other perimeter boundaries of the Real Estate shall be thirty (30)
feet.
-
Section 6.3 Minimum Building Separation. The minimum building distance between
Buildings, measured from the exterior face of the foundation, shall be twenty (20') feet.
Section 6.4 Maximum Parcel Coverage and Density:
A. Maximum Parcel Coverage shall be twenty-five percent (25%).
B. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) shall be twenty-five percent (25%).
Section 6.5 Architectural Design Requirements:
A. Suitability of building materials: A minimum of three materials shall be used
for building exteriors, from the following list: stone, brick, architectural
precast (panels or detailing), architectural metal panels, glass, ornamental
metal, wood, and EIFS.
B. Building design: All buildings shall be designed with a minimum of eight
external comers, in order to eliminate monotonous box buildings, unless
3
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
u
o
o
otherwise approved by the Commission.
C. Roof design: Sloped roofs shall be a maximum of one hundred (100) feet
without a change in roof plane, or gable or dormer. All roofs shall have a
minimum slope of 12 horizontal to 6 vertical.
Section 6.6 Minimum Gross Floor Area: No building shall exceed six thousand three
hundred (6,300) square feet of Gross Floor Area, excluding the floor area of any Accessory
Structure(s). All buildings, together, shall not exceed forty-f<?ur thousand one hundred
(44,100) square feet of Gross Floor Area.
Section 6.7 Maximum Number of Buildings. There - shall be no more than seven (7)
Buildings located upon the Real Estate.
Section 7
Landscaping Requirements:
Section 7.1 Greenbelt. The Greenbelt shall exist around the entire perimeter of the Real
Estate.
Section 7.2 Landscaping Plan: The Landscaping Plan is attached hereto and incorporated
herein as Exhibit "B" (the "Preliminary Landscape Plan"). The Preliminary Landscape Plan
is intended to illustrate the landscape requirements set forth in this Section 7. The
Preliminary Landscape Plan identifies landscaping for (i) the three (3) buffer yards, each of
which is intended to adjust landscaping for adj oining uses, (ii) the base building landscaping,
_. and (Hi) internal parking lot landscaping and perimeter parking lot landscaping. Each of
these areas is further described below.
Section 7.3 Areas to be Landscaped:
A. Marana Drive and West Bufferyard.
1. The Marana Drive and West Bufferyard starts at the center of the
access drive on the north property line shown on the Conceptual
Redevelopment Plan, and extends (i) west to the west property line
and then (ii) south to the southwest property line. The Marana Drive
and West Bufferyard is identified on the Preliminary Landscape Plan.
2. The purpose of the Marana Drive and West Bufferyard is to provide
a heavily landscaped area to accent the property and screen the
residential area from the commercial use.
3. The landscaping in the Marana Drive and West Bufferyard shall
include, within each one hundred foot (100') increment, (i) five (5)
4
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
,0
o
o
o
o
o
o
B.
shade trees, (ii) five (5) ornamental trees, (Hi) twenty-seven (27)
shrubs, and (iv) in the areas shown on the Preliminary Landscape
Plan along the northern property line, undulating mounds, two feet
(2') to three feet (3 ') in height. Evergreen trees may be substituted for
shrubs and, for each evergreen tree planted, three (3) fewer shrubs
shall be required.
Rohrer Road Bufferyard.
1. The Rohrer Road Bufferyard starts at the north end of the east
property line and then extends south along the east property line, to
the south property line on the Rohrer Road Right-of-Way. The
Rohrer Road Bufferyard is identified on the Preliminary Landscape
Plan.
2. The purpose of the Rohrer Road Bufferyard is to enhance the
property perimeter and provide a transition from the U.8. 31 use to
that of a lower profile office use.
3. The landscaping in the Rohrer Road Bufferyard shall include, within
each one hundred foot (100') increment, (i) three (3) shade trees,
(ii) two (2) ornamental trees, (Hi) ten (10) shrubs, and (v) two (2)
evergreen trees.
c.
Meridian Village Plaza Bufferyard.
1. The Meridian Village Plaza Bufferyard starts at the south property
line adjacent to Rohrer Road and extends west, and then northwest to
the south end of the west property line... The Meridian Village Plaza
Bufferyard is identified on the Preliminary Landscape Plan.
2. The purpose of the Meridian Village Plaza Bufferyard is to provide
a transition from the Meridian Village Plaza to the office use.
3. The landscaping in the Meridian Village Plaza Bufferyard shall
include within each one hundred foot (100') increment, (i) one (1)
shade tree, (ii) one (1) ornamental tree and (Hi) two (2) evergreen
trees.
D.
Base Building Plantings. There shall be planted in front of and adjacent to
each Building (i) two (2) ornamental and/or shade trees, and (ii) eighteen (18)
shrubs. There shall be planted on each of the two sides of each Building (i)eone (1) ornamental and/or shade tree and (ii) seven (7) shrubs. Except for the
5
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
E.
Section 7.4
area of the Real Estate occupied by Office (1) shown on the Conceptual
Development Plan, there shall be no building base plantings adjacent to the
rear of any building. There shall, however, be (i) two (2) shade trees and/or
ornamental trees, and (ii) twenty (20) shrubs located along the rear of each
building located within the area of the Real Estate occupied by Office (1)
shown on the Conceptual Site Plan.
Planting Within Parking Lots: All parking lot landscaping, consisting of
both perimeter parking lot landscaping and internal parking lot landscaping,
shall comprise no less than eight percent (8%) of the total surface parking
area, and shall be of a quality to improve and enhance the site and its
surrounding area:
1. Landscaping internal to the parking lots shall occur in any
combination of planting islands, planting peninsulas and
entranceways, and provide not less than one (1) ornamental and/or
shrub tree and ten (10) shrubs for each four hundred (400) square feet
of interior, paved, parking lot area;
2. Perimeter parking lot-landscaping shall exist along the perimeter of
the parking lot except along those segments of the parking lot
perimeter adjacent to the front and sides of any Buildings. In each
one hundred foot (100') segment of the perimeter parking lot to be
landscaped, perimeter parking lot landscaping shall consist of
(i) twenty-four (24) shrub.s, (ii) four (4) evergreen trees, and (Hi) two
(2) shade trees every one hundred (100) feet.
Landscaping Standards:
A.
Materials: All plants proposed to be used in accordance with any
landscaping plan shall meet the following specifications:
1. Shade trees: a minimiun trunk diameter of2 ~ inches at six (6) inches
above the ground line, a minimum height of eight (8) feet, and a
branching height of not less than 1/3 nor more than ~ of tree height.
2. Ornamental trees: a minimum trunk diameter of 1 ~ inches at six (6)
inches above the ground line; and
3. Shrubs: shrubs may be deciduous or evergreen, and shall be
twenty-four (24) inches at height at planting.
4. Evergreen Trees: Evergreen trees shall be eight feet (8') in height at
6
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
planting.
Section 7.S Landscaping Installation and Maintenance:
A. Installation: All required landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance
of a fmal Certificate of Occupancy by the City. If it is not possible to install
the required landscaping because of weather conditions, the property owner
shall post a bond for an amount equal to the total cost of the required
landscaping prior to the issuance of the temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
B. Maintenance: It shall be the responsibility of the owners and their agents to
insure proper maintenance of project landscaping and retention ponds
approved in accordance with the Development Requirements specified for
this Ordinance. This is to include, but is not limited to, irrigation and
mulching of planting areas, replacing dead, diseased, or overgrown plantings
with identical varieties or a suitable substitute, and keeping the area free of
refuse, debris, rank vegetation and weeds.
C. Changes After Approval: No landscaping which has been approved by
the Commission may later be materially altered, eliminated or sacrificed,
without fll'St obtaining further Commission approval. However, Minor
Alterations in landscaping may be approved. by the Director in order to
conform to specific site conditions.
D. Inspection: The Director shall have the authority to visit the Real Estate
to inspect the landscaping and check it against the approved plan on file.
Section 7.6 Initial Landscaping: Landscaping within the Marana Drive and West
Bufferyard, the Rohrer Road Bufferyard, and the Meridian Village Plaza
B ufferyard shall be installed during the first phase of
construction/development.
Section 8
Parking Requirements:
A. Efforts to break up large expanses of pavement are to be encouraged by the
interspersing of appropriate planting areas wherever possible.
B. Pedestrian acceSs to and through parking areas shall be provided in the DP.
C. The number of Parking Spaces required shall be one (1) Parking Space per
three hundred (300) square feet of Gross Floor Area.
D. There shall be an appropriate number of parking spaces, accessible to the
building(s) and identified as reserved for use by handicapped individuals, and
7
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
these spaces shall meet State requirements.
Section 9
Lighting Requirements:
Section 9.1. A site lighting plan shall be submitted to the Commission along with the
information and other plans for ADLS. The site lighting plan shall include the layout, spread
and intensity of all site lighting, including:
A. Parking lot and service/storage area lighting;
B. Architectural, display lighting;
C. Security lighting;
D. Landscape lighting.
Section 9.2. All site lighting shall be coordinated throughout the project and be of uniform
design, color and materials.
Section 9.3. The height of light standards shall not exceed twenty (20) feet from the top of
the fixture to the top of the pole base. The base of the pole shall not exceed two (2) feet in
height.
Section 9.4. All exterior and street area lighting fixtures shall be of the "shoebox" variety
_ which directs light downward. Any parking lot lighting or building lighting illumination
emanating from the Real Estate development shall not exceed (i) 0.1 Footcandle at the north
right-of-way line of Marana Drive, and (ii) 0.3 foot candles along all other perimeter
boundaries of the Real Estate. The light fixture to be located near the Mararia Drive entrance
shall be a minimum of seventy (70) feet south of the south right-of-way line of Marana
Drive.
Section 10 Signs
Section 10.1. Wall Signs.
A. Number & Type: The maximum number of Identification Signs permitted
shall be four (4) wall signs for each Building.
B. Maximum Sign Area: 30 square feet each.
C. Location: The signs may be located on the front of each Building. For
purposes of this Section' 1 0.1, the front location of each Building shall be the
Building elevation facing the parking lot.
8
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
u
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D. Design: All walls signs shall consist ofindividua1letters and/or logo.
E. Illumination: Internal or external.
F. Sign Permit: Required.
G. Fees: Required.
Section 10.2. Center Identification Sign:
A. - Number & Type: As approved by an ADLS Sign Program for Hunters Creek,
but shall not exceed two (2) in number.
B.. Maximum Sign Area: As approved by an ADLS Sign Program for Hunters
Creek~
C. Maximum Height of Sign: As approved by an .ADLS Sign Program for
Hunters Creek.
D.
Location: As approved by an ADLS Sign Program for Hunters Creek, to be
located east of the Marana Drive entrance.
E.
Design: Signs must comply with the approved architectural scheme of the
complex, and must be of a simil~ design, lighting and style of construction.
F.
Illumination: Internal or external.
G.
Landscaping: Sign must be accompanied by a landscaped area at least equal
to the total sign area.
H.
Sign Permit: Required.
I.
Fees: Required.
Section 10.3. OtherProvisions. Section25.7.01- "General Provisions" and 25.7.06-25.7.09
- "Legal Non-Conforming Signs, Sign Permits, Variance, and Administration and
Enforcement" of the CanneVClay Township Sign Ordinance Z-302, are also incorporated
by reference.
Section 11
Other ADLS Requirements
Section 11.1 Outside Storage of Refuse or Merchandise: No outside, unenclosed storage
9
D-
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
of refuse (whether or not in containers) shall be permitted. All refuse shall be contained
completely within the building(s) or in separate Accessory Structure(s). Any separate
Accessory Structure designed for refuse storage shall be architecturally compatible with the
building(s).
Section 11.2 Mechanical Equipment: Any mechanical equipment visible from an adjoining
street or highway shall be screened with suitable walls, fencing or landscaping and in general
be architecturally compatible with the building(s) with which it is associated.
Section 12 Approval Process:
Section 12.1 Approval of ADLS:
A. The Commission shall consider an ADLS approval petition for any building within
Hunters Creek.
B. The ADLS approval request shall be a specific plan consisting of the architectural
design of any buildings, landscaping, lighting, and signage for a site within the
Hunters Creek development.
C. The Commission shall approve the ADLS without conditions or approve with
conditions.
D. If there is a Substantial Alteration in the approved ADLS plans, review and approval
of the amended plans by the Commissign shall be made by the Commission, or a
Committee thereof, pursuant to the Commission's rules of procedure. Minor
Alterations and'Material Alterations may be approved by the Director.
E. In no event, however, may the Commission or the Director approve any alteration
that exceeds a maximum limitation imposed by this Ordinance or approve any
alteration that is less than a minimum limitation imposed by this Ordinance.
Section 12.2 Approval or Denial of the Development Plan:
A. The Conceptual Development Plan is attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference as Exhibit "D" (the "CDP").
B. The Director shall approve without conditions, approve with conditions, or
disapprove the Final Development Plan (the "FDP") for any project within
Hunters Creek; provided, however, that the Director shall not unreasonably
withhold or delay his/her approval of a FDP that is in substantial
conformance to the CDP and is in conformance with the Development
Requirements of this Ordinance. If the Director disapproves the FDP for any
10
)
I
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0'
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
project within Hunters Creek, the Director shall set forth in writing the basis
for the disapproval and schedule the request for approval of the F,DP for
hearing before the Commission.
C. An amendment to a FDP which does not alter the use of any land may be
reviewed and approved by the Director.
D. The FDP shall be a specific plan for the development of all or a portion of the
Real Estate that is submitted for approval by the Director showing proposed
facilities and structures, parking, drainage, erosion control, utilities and
building information. '
Section 13
Definitions and Rules of Construction:
Section 13.1 General Rules of Construction. The following general rules of construction
and definitions shall apply to the regulations of this Ordinance:
A. The singular'number includes the plural and the plural the singular, unless the
context clearly indicates the contrary.
B. Words used in the present tense include the past and future tenses, and the
future the present.
C. The word "shall" is a mandatory requirement. The word "may" is a
permissive requirement. The word "should" is a preferred requirement.
Section 13.2 DefInitions.
A. Accessory Structure: A structure subordinate to a building or use located on
the Real Estate which is not used for permanent human occupancy.
B. Accessory Use: A use subordinate to the main use, located on the Real Estate
or in the same building as the main use, and incidental to the main use.
C. Alteration. Material: Any change to an approved plan of any type that
involves the substitution of one material, species, element, etc. for another.
D. Alteration. Minor: Any change to an approved plan of any type that involves
the revision ofless than ten percent (10%) of the plan's total area or approved
materials.
E. Alteration. Substantial: Any change to an approved plan of any type that
involves the revision often percent (10%) or more of the plan's total area or
11
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
approved materials.
Building: A structure having a roof supported by columns or walls, for the
shelter, support, enclosure or protection of persons or property, and intended
for human occupancy.
Building Height: The vertical distance from the ground level at the main
entrance to the mean height between eaves and ridges for gable, hip and
gambrel roofs.
CertifiCate of Occupancy: A certificate signed by the Director stating that the
occupancy and use of land or a building or structure referred to therein
complies with the provisions of this Ordinance.
City: The City of Carmel, Indiana.
Commission: The CarmeVClay Plan Commission.
Council: The City Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana.
County: Hamilton County, Indiana.
Development Plan. Final: A specific plan for the development of real
property that is submitted for Commission approval showing proposed
facilities, buildings and structures. This plan review includes general
landscaping, parking, drainage, erosion control, signage, lighting, screening
and buildings information for a site. A development plan may include only
parcels that are contiguous and not separated by the right-of-way of any
highway in the state highway system.
Development Plan. Conceptual: A general plan for the development of real
property, that is submitted for Plan Commission approval showing proposed
facilities, buildings and structures. This plan generally shows landscape
are~, parking areas, site access, drainage features, and building location(s).
O.
DevelopmentReQuirements: Development standards and any requirements
specified in this Ordinance which must be satisfied in connection with the
approval of a Development Plan.
P.
Director: Director, or Administrator, of the Department of Community
Services for the City of Carmel, Indiana. "Director" and "Administrator" shall
include his/her authorized representatives.
12
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Q. Floor Area Ratio (f.A.R.): The Gross Floor Area of all stories of all
buildings within the Real Estate divided by the total horizontal area within
the Real Estate boundaries.
R. F ootcandle: A unit of illumination. It is equivalent to the illumination at all
points which are one (1) foot distant from a uniform source of one (1)
candlepower.
s. Greenbelt: A strip, thirty (30) feet in width, around the entire perimeter of the
Real Estate. The Greenbelt shall be unoccupied except for plant materials,
steps, walks, terraces, bike paths, driveways, lighting standards, and other
similar structures.
T. Gross Floor Area (Construction Area): The floor area, excluding any
. penthouse areas, as measured by the face of the exterior building material.
u. HV AC: Heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment.
v. Landscaping: The improvement of the Real Estate with grass and mounding,
shrubs, trees, other vegetation and/or ornamental objects. Landscaping may
include pedestrian walks, flower beds, retention ponds, ornamental objects
such as fountains, statues and other similar natural or artificial objects
designed and arranged to produce an aesthetically pleasing effect.
w. Office: A building or portion of 11 building wherein services are performed
involving predominantly administrative, professional or clerical operations,
including but not limited to professional offices, business or personal service
offices, financial institution offices, sales offices, real estate offices, and
governmental offices.
x. Parcel Coverage: The total ground area, within the Real Estate, covered by
buildings and accessory structures which are greater than eighteen (18) inches
above grade level, excluding fences and walls not attached in any way to a
roof, divided by the total horizontal area within the R.eal Estate boundaries.
Y. Parking Space: An area having a rectangular area of not less than one
hundred eighty (180) square feet and a minimum width of nine (9) feet
exclusive of driveways, permanently reserved for the temporary storage of
one automobile.
z. Professional Office: An office of a member of a recognized profession stich
as an architect, attorney, dentist, engineer, physician or surgeon.
13
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
AA. Real Estate. The Real Estate shall mean and refer to all of the Real Estate
described in Exhibit "A".
BB. Right-of-Way: An area of land permanently dedicated to provide light, air
and access. .
CC. Setback: The least measured distarice between a building or structure and the
perimeter boundary of the Real Estate. For purposes of determining Set
Back, the perimeter boundary of the Real Estate (i) shall always mean and
refer to the outside perimeter boundary line of the Real Estate and (ii) shall
not be changed or reduced by reason of the platting or subdivision of the Real
Estate into smaller parcels.
DD. Sign: Any type of sign as further defined and regulated by this Ordinance
and the Sign Ordinance for Carmel-Clay Township, Ordinance Z-196, as
amended.
EE. Story: That part of any building comprised between the level of one finished
floor and the level of the next higher floor or, if there is no higher finished
floor, that part of the building comprised between the level of the highest
finished floor and the top of the roof beams.
FF. Street: A right-of-way,. other than an alley, dedicated and accepted, or
otherwise legally established for public use, usually affording the principal
means of access to abutting prop-erty.
GG. Trash Enclosure: An enclosed accessory structure that is designed to screen
and protect waste receptacles from view and to prevent waste debris from
dispersing outside the enclosure.
HH. Use: The employment or occupation of a building, structure or land for a
person's service, benefit or enjoyment.
Section 14. Violations. All violations of this Ordinance shall be subject to Section 34.0 of
the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance.
14
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
PASSED by the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana this
, 2002, by a vote of ayes and nays.
day of
COMMON COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF CARMEL
. . Presiding Officer
N.L. Rundle, President
Kevin Kirby
John R. Koven
Robert Battreall
Luci Snyder
Ronald E. Carter
Wayne Wilson
ATTEST:
Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk Treasurer
Presented by me to the Mayor of the City of Cannel, Indiana the
, 2002.
day of
Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk, Treasurer
15
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Approved by me, Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana, this day of
2002.
James Brainard, Mayor
ATTEST:
Diana 1. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk Treasurer
TmsInstrwnemprep~edby:Ch~ksD.Frankenb~g~
NELSON & FRANKENBERGER
3021 East 98th Street, Suite 220
Indianapolis, IN 46280
H:\1anet\HilI, Brad\Draft Ordinance #6.wpd
16
o
o
EXHIBIT" A"
~ N.E. Cor. S.W. '/4
I \ See. 24-Tl8N-R3E
o ~ i~ i
w III ~
a:: I~ ~
J: 'Ot .....
Hunters Creek South - Section One ~ I ~8
D D.B. 12. PilI 74-76
~ en
D . . ! N 88'00'00. W \1
- -- - - _ _ ~5~A~A~ _ __ _ _ 40'.~~
r - - - --i.--. - - - --J!. 88'00'00. W :
715.00'" - - - - - - - ~
D . I
P.O.B.
. ,.
len ~~
D ~I~ ~Ig ~
D ~l'~': - ,~/r'- I ~
BRETHREN CONFERENCE OF" INDIANA_ ~
Parcel '17-09-24-00-00-044.001 ~
D.B. 335. PIIS. 771-772 I en
.
5.00 Acres .J i' . i
D .... .... ....3 6~~ . . , .k ~ I ~
~.~. ~ ,-
-<~~.( .~ ~/'" =
........ ~ ~
D., ~-------!lm~oo.L- /, ~
. 365.87'" - - - ;::;J/ &3
o
o
o
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
d
.-;:.
!
I
I
F"l.YNN '" Z1NKAN REALTY COMPANY
Instr:-- 18~0293t 4 .
MERIDIAN VILLAGE PLAZA
""
. ?~;~
n\ PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 18 NORTH. RANGE 3 EAST, IN HAMILTON COUNTY,
~ INDIANA, 'MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 18 NORTH,
D RANGE 3 EAST. IN HAMILTON COUNlY, INDIANA; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 42 SECONDS EAST
(ASSUMED BEARING) ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER 1451.11 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88
. DEGREES 00 MINUTES DO SECONDS WEST 40.03 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING FOR THE TRACT HEREIN
DESCRIBED; THENCE NORTH 88 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST 715.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01
O DEGREE 03 MINUTES 53 SECONDS EAST 201.80 FEET; THENCE SOUTH. 62 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 21 SECONDS
EAST 324.67 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST 365.87 FEET TO THE
NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR U.S. HIGHWAY 31 PER WARRANTY DEED RECORDED IN DEED RECORD
248. PAGE 216 IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA; THENCE NORTH 16 DEGREES
0" 54 MINUTES. 30 SECONDS EAST ON SAID NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF...;WAY LINE 198.45 FEET; THENCE-NORTH 00
DEGREES 06 MINUTES 42 SECONDS WEST PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER 150.10
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 5.000 ACRES. MORE OR LESS.
D
o
CJ L::::J ~ C=:J LJ CJ l::::J c=J CJ CJ LJ CJ ~ CJ CJ CJ LJ CJ r::=J'
"'"'-
-- .....-
. '--...- ia--_
... 1-.... 1-_
.1;1I_.___.. 1-....._
.1-___ 1---_
.1iiiiDiiiO_ ....._
. __ ir-_
-...- 1-_
,,----- ---
a ....__ ___
. .....--- ---
--... --
--
--
. -..- --
--
-- --
0 -- -
0 -- --
u - -
.. - -
. - ---
. - --
. -- --
. ...-
.. - -
.. -- -..-
---
. ..."
. ..."
. r.
o r.
. r.
.......-.
a......._.
.",,- -,..-
. MII_ "".._
I HJr_ "'''_
g HIt_ ..,.._
- ..,......-
-,-
---
----
......-..
Hunter's Creek Office Park, LLC.
LANDSCAPE PLAN
-
I_~-
. .--..., --
-- --
-.... ---
. .----
0 ....-
. ...._- -..
.-- -
--
..
.
..
---
. ..."
- ..."
- ....
,_.
. ....
. ....
. ..."
. ....
. ....
-.:- - ..
,.....--
,.....--
,._."
-..-....-
,.__"
,.--......_-
........--
........,.,....._-
............--
...--
hempde.lgn
land planning ..rvlc..
~-~
..10____"
--.....
_lIUlt-Stlt
'.:IIH1I+I.
~
H
txl
H
r-:)
/
/
txl
,
CIlUl.... ..
"....-
. .. ..
WlaHB ENOIN....~. INC.
.~._. m --...--.
'UQliaWlC1V1L~ __...__
kli'''I_'A/IIDW.~''''. ."1l_...1M:l11l...._
ru:..wu.HI I....I..~_...-
n-......-w . IAhUltlJ....\<AI. . I .,.,,"'__. ,_""._.......'.U'l~