HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCM-08-21-06
City of Cartnel
Office of the
Clerk, Treasurer
COMMON COUNCIL
MEETING AGENDA
MONDAY, AUGUST 21,2006 - 6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS/CITY HALL/ONE CIVIC SQUARE
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
1. INVOCATION
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. RECOGNITION OF CITY EMPLOYEES AND OUTSTANDING CITIZENS
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. August 7, 2006 Regular Meeting
5. RECOGNITION OF PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL
6. COUNCIL, MAYORAL AND CLERK-TREASURER COMMENTS/OBSERV ATIONS
7. ACTION ON MAYORAL VETOES
8. CLAIMS
. Payroll
. General Claims
. Retirement
9. COMMITTEE REPORTS
a. Finance, Administration and Rules Committee
b. Land Use, Annexation and Economic Development Committee
c. Parks, Recreation and Arts Committee
d. Utilities, Transportation and Public Safety Committee
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL. INDIANA 46032 31iI.l71.24I4
1
10. OLD BUSINESS
a, Second Readinl! of Ordinance D-1814-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Supplementing and Amending Ordinance No, D-1735-04,
Adopted by the Common Council on December 20, 2004, Authorizing the Issuance of
Waterworks Revenue Bonds, and the Issuance of Bond Anticipation Notes for the Purpose
of Financing the Construction of Additions and Improvements to the Carmel Waterworks
($35,000,000); Sponsor: Councilor Kirby. (FINANCE COMMITTEE 8/17/06)
b, Second Readinl! of Ordinance D-1817-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Adopting and Adding Chapter 8, Article 5, Section 8-47(a)(29) to
the Carmel City Code (No Parking Area); Sponsor: Councilor Carter.
c, Second Readinl! of Ordinance D-1818-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Establishing Meal Expense Advances, Adding Chapter 2, Article
3, Division III, Section 2-64 to the Carmel City Code (Meal Expense Advances);
Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Glaser, Griffiths, Rattermann and Sharp. (FINANCE
COMMITTEE 8/17/06)
d. Second Readinl! of Ordinance D-1819-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 2, Article 3, Division III, Section 2-61 of the
Carmel City Code (Reimbursement Policy for Travel and Related Expenses); Sponsor(s):
Councilor(s) Glaser, Griffiths, Rattermann and Sharp, (FINANCE COMMITTEE 8/17/06)
e. Third Readinl! of Ordinance Z-493-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Establishing the Gramercy Planned Unit Development District;
Sponsor: Councilor Rattermann.
f. Second Readinl! of Ordinance Z-494-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Rezoning of Brunson & Company, LLC Real Estate from R-3
(Residential) to B-5 (Business) Zoning Classification (1003 E. 106'11 Street, Indianapolis,
IN 46280) Sponsor: Councilor Carter.
g. Third Readinl! of Ordinance Z-495-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Establishing the Aramore Planned Unit Development District;
Sponsor: Councilor Rattermann,
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a, Second Readinl! of Ordinance D-1820-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Vacating a Portion of Public Right-Of-Way (Rangeline Road and
City Center Drive, Parcel #5); Sponsor: Councilor Carter
b, Second Readinl! of Ordinance D-1821-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Vacating a Portion of Public Right-Of-Way (Range line Road and
Main Street, Parcel #12); Sponsor: Councilor Carter.
2
12. NEW BUSINESS
a. First Readinl! of Ordinance D-1824-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 8, Article 9, Section 8-120 ofthe Carmel City
Code, Establishing Certain Stop and Yield Signs; Sponsor: Councilor Sharp.
b. First Readinl! of Ordinance D-1825-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Adopting and Adding Chapter 8, Article 5, Section 8-49 of the
Carmel City Code (Thirty Minute Parking); Sponsor: Councilor Carter.
c. Resolution CC-08-21-06-02; A Resolution ofthe Common Council of the City of
Carmel, Indiana, Designating Block Seven in the Carmel Science & Technology Park as
an Economic Revitalization Area (Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator);
Sponsor: Councilor Sharp.
13. OTHER BUSINESS
a. Second Readinl! of Ordinance D-1782-05; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana to Vacate a Segment of Right-Of-Way for River Road; Sponsor:
Councilor Glaser. TABLED 12/19/05
14. ANNOUNCEMENTS
15. EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS
16. ADJOURNMENT
08/21/06CC' Agenda
3
I
COMMON COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 2006 - 6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS/CITY HALL/ONE CIVIC SQUARE
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mayor James Brainard, Council President Richard L. Sharp, CouncirMembers, Kevin Kirby, Brian D.
Mayo, Joseph C. Griffiths, Fredrick J. Glaser, Ronald E. Carter, Mark Rattermann, Clerk-Treasurer Diana
L. Cordray and Deputy Clerk- Treasurer Lois Fine.
Mayor Brainard called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Pastor Al Goertemiller, Pilgrim Lutheran Church, pronounced the Invocation.
Mayor Brainard led the pledge of allegiance.
RECOGNITION OF CITY EMPLOYEES AND OUTSTANDING CITIZENS:
There were none.
I APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Councilor Mayo made a motion to approve the Minutes of the August 7, 2006 Regular Meeting.
Councilor Griffiths seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the
question. The Minutes were approved 7-0.
RECOGNITION OF PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL:
The following individuals spoke in opposition to Ordinance 2-493-06 (Gramercy):
I
Henry Winkler
Bob Battreall (attachment 1)
John Sullivan (attachment 2)
Angie Molt
Phil Squire (attachment 3)
Nyla Johnson
Karen Carter (attachment 4)
Fiona O'Connor
Eric Seidensticker
Pat Truelove (attachment 5)
Hilary Woodcock
Bruce Braden (attachment 6)
Dr. Robert Hartman
Curt Waters
Mary Lou Waters (attachment 7)
411 Jenny Lane, Carmel, IN
1319 Cook Creek Drive, Carmel, IN
862 Enclave Circle, Carmel, IN
740 W. Auman Drive, Carmel, IN
1315 Lawrence Road, Carmel, IN
317 Concord Lane, Carmel, IN
918 E. Auman Drive, Carmel, IN
1330 Fairbanks Drive, Carmel, IN
612 Ash Drive, Carolel, IN
730 W. Auman Drive, Carmel, IN
506 Ash Drive, Carmel, IN
915 Oswego Road, Carmel, IN
581 Melark Drive, Carmel, IN
724 E. Auman Drive, Carmel, IN
724 E. Auman Drive, Carmel, IN
I
I
Marilyn Mesh (attachment 8)
Jennifer Kost Barker
Barry Reynolds
David Springer
Susan McBeath
David Allen
Doran Ellis (attachment 9)
Elizabeth Grossman
10918 Timber Lane, Carmel, IN
819 W. Auman Drive, Carmel, IN
132 Ute Drive, Carmel, IN
603 Kinzer Avenue, Carmel, IN
584 Melark Drive, Carmel, IN
1410 Lawrence Road, Carmel, IN
924 W. Auman Drive, Carmel, IN
11201 Westfield Blvd., Carmel, IN
The following individuals spoke in favor of Ordinance Z-493-06 (Gramercy)
Tom Megenhardt
Dick Teeters (attachment 10)
11938 Eastwich Circle, Carmel, IN
559 Hunters Drive East, Carmel, IN
The following individuals spoke in opposition to Ordinance Z-495-06 (Aramore)
Marilyn Knight
Pat Franz
10 III Hillsdale Drive, Carmel, IN
9990 Holiday Drive, Carmel, IN
COUNCIL, MAYORAL AND CLERK-TREASURER COMMENTS/OBSERV ATIONS:
There were none.
I
ACTION ON MAYORAL VETOES:
There were none.
CLAIMS:
Councilor Mayo made a motion to approve the claims in the amount of $1 ,889,882.45. Councilor
Griffiths seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the question.
The claims were approved 7-0.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Councilor Rattermann reported that the Finance, Administration and Rules Committee met on Thursday,
August 17,2006 and discussed Ordinance D-1814-06, Ordinance D-1818-06 and Ordinance D-1819-06.
Councilor Rattermann will give his report when the items come up on the agenda.
Councilor Glaser reported that the Land Use, Annexation and Economic Development Committee met on
Thursday, August 10, 2006 and discussed Ordinance Z-493-06, Ordinance Z-494-06 and Ordinance
Z-495-06. Councilor Glaser will give his report when the items come up on the agenda.
I
Councilor Carter reported that the Parks, Recreation and Arts Committee had not met. The next meeting
will be held on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 at 3:00 p.m.
2
I
Councilor Kirby reported that the Utilities, Transportation and Public Safety Committee met on Monday,
August 14,2006 and discussed Ordinance D-1817-06, Ordinance D-1820-06 and Ordinance D-1821-06
which were all sent with a favorable recommendation to the full Council
OLO BUSINESS
Council President Sharp announced the Second Readinl! of Ordinance 0-1814-06; An Ordinance of the
Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Supplementing and Amending Ordinance No.
D-1735-04, Adopted by the Common Council on December 20, 2004, Authorizing the Issuance of
Waterworks Revenue Bonds, and the Issuance of Bond Anticipation Notes for the Purpose of Financing
the Construction of Additions and Improvements to the Carmel Waterworks ($35,000,000). Councilor
Rattemlann reported that this item was sent with a 2-0 favorable recommendation to the full Council from
the Finance committee. Councilor Mayo made a motion to approve Ordinance D-1814-06. Councilor
Griffiths seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the question.
Ordinance 0-1814-06 was adopted 7-0.
I
Council President Sharp announced the Second Readinl! of Ordinance D-1817-06; An Ordinance of the
Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Adopting and Adding Chapter 8, Article 5, Section
8-47(a)(29) to the Carmel City Code (No Parking Area). Councilor Carter offered an amended version to
the Council. In the title of the ordinance, delete (a)(29) after Section 8-47, add Subsections 8-47(a)(29)
and (30) after Section 8-47, under Section 2, change (29) to read: On either side of ]'1 Street N. W from
the Manon Greenway west to 3rd Avenue N. W. add (30) On the north side of 1st Street N. W from the
Manon Greenway east to Range Line Road." Councilor Kirby seconded. There was brief Council
discussion. Council President Sharp called for the question. The motion to approve the amended version
was approved 7-0. Councilor Mayo made a motion to approve Ordinance D-1817-06, As Amended.
Councilor Griffiths seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the
question. Ordinance 0-1817-06, As Amended was adopted 7-0.
Council President Sharp announced the Second Readinl! of Ordinance 0-1818-06; An Ordinance of the
Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Establishing Meal Expense Advances, Adding Chapter
2, Article 3, Division III, Section 2-64 to the Carmel City Code (Meal Expense Advances). Councilor
Rattermann reported that this item was sent with a 2-0 favorable recommendation to the full Council from
the Finance committee. There was no Council discussion. Councilor Kirby left the chamber. Councilor
Mayo made a motion to approve Ordinance D-1818-06. Councilor Glaser seconded. There was no
Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the question.
Ordinance D-1818-06 was adopted 6-0.
Councilor Kirby returned to the chamber.
Council President Sharp announced the Second Readinl! of Ordinance 0-1819-06; An Ordinance of the
Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 2, Article 3, Division III, Section
2-61 of the Carmel City Code (Reimbursement Policy for Travel and Related Expenses). Councilor
Rattermann offered amended VERSION A - 8/18/06 to the Council. The amendment was to add to
Non-reimbursable Expenses (e) (J 1) Travel life insurance policies. Councilor Glaser seconded. There
was brief Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the question. The motion to accept
I
3
1
I
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
J
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
I
48
49
amended VERSION A - 8/18/06 was approved 7-0. Councilor Mayo made a motion to approve
Ordinance D-1819-06, As Amended. Councilor Griffiths seconded. There was no Council discussion.
Council President Sharp called for the question. Ordinance D-1819-06, As Amended,
VERSION A - 8/18/06, was adopted 7-0.
Council President Sharp announced the Third Readinl! of Ordinance Z-493-06; An Ordinance of the
Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Establishing the Gramercy Planned Unit Development.
District. Councilor Glaser reported that this item was sent with a vote of2-2 from the Land Use
committee to the full Council. Council President Sharp referred to David Leazenby, Buckingham
Companies, 333 N. Pennsylvania Street, 10th Floor, Indianapolis, IN 46204 who presented legal
commitments to the Council. There was extensive Council discussion. Jim Shinaver, Attorney, Nelson &
Frankenberger, 3105 E. 98th Street, Suite 170, Indianapolis, IN addressed the Council. Councilor Kirby
made a motion to approve Ordinance Z-493-06. Councilor Griffiths seconded. Council President Sharp
called for the question. Ordinance Z-493-06 was adopted 5-2 (Councilors Glaser and Rattermann
opposed) .
Council President Sharp called a five minute recess.
Council President Sharp announced the Second Readinl! of Ordinance Z-494-06; An Ordinance of the
Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Rezoning of Brunson & Company, LLC Real Estate
from R-3 (Residential) to B-5 (Business) Zoning Classification (1003 E. 106th Street, Indianapolis, IN
46280). Councilor Glaser reported to Council that this item was sent with a 4-0 favorable
recommendation from the Land Use committee to the full Council. Councilor Kirby made a motion to
approve Ordinance Z-494-06. Councilor Griffiths seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council
President Sharp called for the question. Ordinance Z-494-06 was adopted 7-0.
Council President Sharp announced the Third Readinl! of Ordinance Z-495-06; An Ordinance of the
Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Establishing the Aramore Planned Unit Development
District. Councilor Glaser reported to Council that this item was sent with a 3-0 favorable
recommendation from the Land Use committee to the full Council. Steve Pittman, Pittman Partners,
presented legal commitments to the Council. Councilor Kirby made a motion to approve the legal
commitments pending Mr. Pittman's recording of the document. Councilor Griffiths seconded. There
was brief Council discussion. Doug Haney, City Attorney, addressed Council for clarification of
Councilor Kirby's motion. There was brief Council discussion. Councilor Kirby changed his motion to
be contingent upon Mr. Pittman recordation of the commitments. Council President Sharp called for the
question. Ordinance Z-495-06 was adopted 7-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Second Readinl! of Ordinance D-1820-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel,
Indiana, Vacating a Portion of Public Right-Of-Way (Rangeline Road and City Center Drive, Parcel #5);
Sponsor: Councilor Carter. This item was not discussed.
Council President Sharp announced the Second Readinl! of Ordinance D-1821-06; An Ordinance of the
Common Council ofthe City of Carmel, Indiana, Vacating a Portion of Public Right-Of-Way (Rangeline
Road and Main Street, Parcel #12). Council President Sharp opened the Public Hearing at 8:52 p.m.
4
I
I
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
I
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
I
48
49
Seeing no one who wished to speak, Council President Sharp closed the Public Hearing at 8:52:30 p.m.
Councilor Carter made a motion to approve Ordinance D-1821-06. Councilor Griffiths seconded. There
was no Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the question.
Ordinance D-1821-06 was adopted 7-0.
NEW BUSINESS
Council President Sharp announced the First Readin!! of Ordinance D-1824-06; An Ordinance of the
Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 8, Article 9, Section 8-120 of the
Carmel City Code, Establishing Certain Stop and Yield Signs. Councilor Mayo made a motion to move
this item into business. Councilor Griffiths seconded. Council President Sharp passed the gavel to
Councilor Glaser to present this item to Council. Councilor Kirby made a motion to suspend the rules and
not send this item to committee and vote this evening. Councilor Griffiths seconded. Councilor Glaser
called for the question. The motion was approved 7-0. There was no Council discussion. Councilor
Sharp made a motion to approve Ordinance D-1824-06. Councilor Griffiths seconded. Councilor Glaser
called for the question. Ordinance D-1824-06 was adopted 7-0.
Council President Sharp reclaimed the gavel from Councilor Glaser.
Council President Sharp announced the First Readin!! of Ordinance D-1825-06; An Ordinance of the
Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Adopting and Adding Chapter 8, Article 5, Section 8-49
of the Carmel City Code (Thirty Minute Parking). Councilor Carter made a motion to move this item into
business. Councilor Griffiths seconded. Councilor Carter presented this item to Council. Councilor
Kirby made a motion to suspend the rules and not send this item to committee and vote this evening.
Councilor Griffiths seconded. There was brief Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the
question on the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Councilor Kirby made a motion to approve
Ordinance D-1825-06. Councilor Mayo seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President
Sharp called for the question. Ordinance D-1825-06 was adopted 7-0.
Council President Sharp announced Resolution CC-08-21-06-02; A Resolution of the Common Council
of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Designating Block Seven in the Carmel Science & Technology Park as an
Economic Revitalization Area (Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator). Councilor Carter
made a motion to move this item into business. Councilor Mayo approved. Council President Sharp
referred to Larry Gigerich, Ginovus, 8888 Keystone Crossing, Suite 1450, Indianapolis, IN for a
presentation to Council. There was brief Council discussion. Councilor Mayo made a motion to approve
Resolution CC-08-21-06-02. Councilor Griffiths seconded. Council President Sharp called for the
question. Resolution CC-08-21-06-02 was adopted 7-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
Second Readin!! of Ordinance D-1782-05; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel,
Indiana to Vacate a Segment of Right-Of- W ay for River Road; Sponsor: Councilor Glaser. TABLED
12/19/05. This item was not discussed.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were none.
5
EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS
I Mayor Brainard adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Respectfully submitted,
Approved,
ATTEST:
,IAMe
I
I
OS/2! /06 CCr..'linule~
6
/
Gramercy Development
My name is Robert Battreall, I currently reside at 1319 Cool Creek
Drive.
I am a Carmel home owner.
As most of you know I spent eight years on this Council and three
years on the CRC (Carmel Redevelopment Commission), so I feel
that I have some knowledge of what the Mayor, the Council and
the Planning departments of the City are trying to achieve.
The results of the efforts, to date, have been very admirable and
are achieving wonderful results.
In the years that I have spent in City service, I have seen many
projects appear before the Department of Community Services, the
, Carmel Planning Commission as well as the City Council, most of
them very impressive and well thought out. One of the most
outstanding was that of" The Village of Clay West",
The Village of Clay West was probably, up to that time, the largest.
residential development to ask for a PUD status.
At the time the area was located out side the City limits, in the .
Township. But due tojoiner agreements was under the jurisdiction
of the City Council.
The density of this area exceeded the existing Comprehensive
Plan but seemed to be well within a tolerable number for the area. '
The development was mainly single family residents but some
condo residents, there were no TIP dollars requested, the
developers went so far as to agree to pay for a large part of the
needed road improvements, so a PUD status was granted to the
developer.
As you are aware PUD status allows the over riding of all area
zoning and set the guidelines for the development of the
. .
A-rrACtth1eNr 1(,)
{}f)un"'~ J m /f
rI( la, /O~
"
-<-
Grnmercy Development
designated area.
The proposed development being presented to you this evening is
of an entirely different nature. The density of approximately 5000
residents in 2400 units gives us an approximate ratio of 20 units
per acre, this would be hard to handle in an open undeveloped
area, not alone in the middle of a residential area.
The projected number of residents would be only slightly smaller
than the entire population in the area bounded by 126th street,
Grey Road, 116th Street and Keystone Ave. an area over 8 times as
large.
Consideration should also be given to the very close proximity of
the new City Centre which is under construction, many of us in
this room have spent many, many hours in helping to achieve the
success of this project. .
This project is scheduled to have 300 to 500 residential units,
added to tlie several hundred units already in the construction
stage with in a mile or two of this project will enlarge our
residential base considerably.
The Petcor Corporation along with the Carmel Redevelopment
Commission have invested heavily in the City Centre and have
extended many millions of dollars in bonds towards its
development and successful deployment.
The Gramercy developers are asking the City taxpayers to foot the
bill for 30 million dollars of infrastructure development.
(4TrAClfmeNr I (--)
C6unc:/ mh(.
~ I~I jo(,
^
,3
Gramercy Development
In the past TIP's have been granted to redevelop business areas
that serve the publics interest. But to my knowledge a TIP has not
been granted to a residential builder. The current area is being
considered a "blighted" area and maybe that is true, but it is being
replaced by a development that in my opinion should not qualify
for a TIP bond. Infer structure expenses have and should be an
expense of the developer.
To allow 20 units per acre in this location is bordering on insanity
and at the same time force the taxpayers of the City to bear a large
part of the cost does not seem reasonable.
Not to mention, ten storied buildings, the highest existing
buildings in Carmel are six stories located on the Meridian
corridor. This means a new half a million dollar fire truck,to reach
the top.
From the information that I could gather the amount of the bond is
well over 20 million dollars, (the last information I could get was
, that the total amount has not been finalized) only 1 and 1/2 million
of this would be spent on city road improvements. In the past,
residential developers have shouldered the cost of the streets and
sewers and included it in the cost of the property. Why the sudden
change?
The developers claim that the price they paid for the property will
not allow them a profit with any less density. I heard this several
times in the past and in most cases when faced with" this is all we
will allow" they seemed to survive very well.
If they paid too much for the property that is their dilemma and we
should not have to live with their plight. I would certainly think
they were smart enough to with hold final purchase until the fmal
approval is granted. /J 'J L
It7iilCtf/YIt:Nr I (J) vounc, m Tj.
~/J.j/o~
.' -
"-/
Gramercy Development
I I know it is the desire of the Mayor and the majority of the Council
to see the City develop and so do most of the residents, including,
. myself I think that I have proven this by my past performances,
but development must be done in a sane and planned manner, so
that we do not disrupt the community.
I do think that there are times that we must set some boundaries as
to the type of growth that we bring to the table.
I also feel that it is time that we consider the plight of the current
population as well as plans for the future residents who would like
to share our "best in the nation" status.
I would agree, along with most of the people that the current
development probably deserves a "blighted" label, this was part
on my council district when in office, and I am certainly not
opposed to a renovation or reconstruction .
However this project is completely out of the realm of reality for
this area.
I thank each of you for your time and hope you will give
consideration to my thoughts and comments.
/JTTIU!H n1/~NT I (If)
Oouncil m'1
8/~, Ju{,
RECOMMlliNDATIONSFORCHANGESTOGRAMERCYPUD
I. Reduce 4 entrances on 126th Street to no more than 2 entrlmces, neither of which is across
from the entrance to the Enclave of Carmel entrance.
2. Move the present Mohawk Hills entrance west at least 100 feet so that Enclave residents
may turn left onto I 26th Street without endangering themselves or others.
3. Limit building height to 5 stories which in turn will decrease density and resulting traffic.
The project will then still qualifY for TIF treatment. One half of the TIF dollars or $9M will
be added to the $1.4M alread,r proposed for Auman and I 26th Street to pay for the round-a-
bout and better designed 126 Street. .
4. No construction traffic can be permitted on either 126th Street or Auman Drive.
5. No construction can be permitted to begin Without first opening an in/out way to the south
in Gramercy.
6. The PUD must require that Gramercy tear down the present apartments within a stated time,
perhaps three years. Gramercy should be required to post a bond so that if Gramercy does
not do as stated, the City may forfeit the bond and tear down the apartments at no cost to the
taxpayers.
7. This PUD is unlawful if it is enacted under the present State law and Comprehensive Plan
which, among other things, limits the number of stories in developments to 4 stories.
8. This PUD is unlawful if it is enacted if it relies on Mohawk Hills from being blighted.
There is absolutely no evidence that Mohawk Hills is blighted.
9. There should be no structure at 126th Street and Keystone approaching 100 feet which this
PUD permits.
10. The PUD provides for 2268 living units as compared to the 565 living units there now. The
726 apartments should be eliminated from the project to help eliminate density.
II. Setbacks on Auman and on 126th Street should be increased to provide sufficient green
space between the respective neighborhoods.
THIS PUD SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE PLAN COMMISSION WITH THE
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PUD BE CHANGED TO INCLUDE THE ABOVE.
Thank you, John Sullivan, Carmel, Indiana
11 TTACf/rneAJT :2.
{bunc, I M +r-
g ldot /0(,
Address to Carmel City Council - Monday, August 21. 2006
My name is Phil Squier. I have lived at 1315 Lawrence Road since 1971.
You are about to vote on the Gramerey PUD. Hopefnlly, you are keenly aware tbat the vast
majority of the people bere tonigbt and at all past Plan Commission, sub committee and
Land Use Committee meetings regarding this PUD are very much opposed to this high
density/commercial zone change in an area cnrrently zoned residential and surrounded on
three sides by residential developments.
If you do not understand - by now - that this is NOT the road the majority of Carmel
residents, voters/taxpayers want our City to travel, then you are simply NOT listening to us.
Or, you are listening and for whatever reason you are determined to ram this monstrous
development down our throats regardless of the wishes of the people of Carmel.
This is not just YOUR City to do with as you please. It is OUR City and you were elected to
represent us. Gentlemen, you will find that if you do not listen to the voters tonight you will
assuredly be forced to listen to them on May lot of next year - just 252 days away.
President Grover Cleveland once said, "Every citizen owes to the country a vigilant watch
and close scrutiny of its public servants and atTairs and a reasonable estimate of their
fidelity and usefulness." It is no small irony that Mayor Brainard repeated these words in
his Oath ofOfflce Ceremony in 2003.
The mayor went on to say, "It is important that we all understand there is a responsibility
that we all share as citizens of our city and a responsibility we share to others, our society
and our environment." We DEMAND that you honor that responsibility for this
generation and the next.
Thank you,
Phil Squier,
1315 Lawrence Road,
Carmel, IN 46033
Phone: 844-0467
A- TTACHmeNI -3
(;0 (.)(1 C; I m~
g/~1 JO(p
Karen Carter
918 E Auman Dr
Carmel In 46032
August 21 st 2006
Good Evening C.ouncilman and Mayor Jim Brainard
On Wednesday August 16th I had a detailed plan. My plan
consisted of placing a sign onto my shirt and walked over
to 126th and W Auman asking the Citizens of Carmel about
the Buckingham Companies project called Gramercy.
After 5 days of listening to the Citizens of Carmel
It is apparent that the Citizens of Carmel do not want this
project to happen in the current form in which is currently
present in front of the council.
They felt the density was high, and it should be lowered,
they were concerned about the traffic and unsafe streets to
travel on by car, bike or walking. They felt much ofthe
green space were being used. They do not want buildings
no more than 3 stories high. ~.;1lftt:... ",itul to and most
importantly expressed they do not want their City to turn
into New York, they have loved their quiet suburban
lifestyles and felt their quality of life is great and it should
remain as it is.
Many have called and emailed their elected officials and
received no response. I was one of them. They have felt for
years that their elected officials were not hearing what they
were saying and by not responding you have proved they
are right. Please listen to the Citizens of Carmel now and
{hunG; / mt
8 /').;I~.b
fl-T/1KYI-IYJetJJ 1 (I)
make a right decision and vote No to the rezone of this
project and make amends to the people.
Thank you for listening
A1TActJ-mGNT Lf (~)
Counci J m+&:
g Jdo,JOr,
:~,
Gentlemen of the City Council
Please take into consideration that this country was founded for freedom of
the people. Our constitution states "we the people", not we the mayor, we the
developers, we the Republican Party, we the Democrat party, but we the
people. As an elected official, your responsibility is to ensure that anything
that is passed is what we the people want and not what the mayor, developers
or political parties want.
I have several areas I wish to object to this evening. The first is the item
which we have been trying to work with "Buckingham Development and city
officials since February of 2006. This is the rezoning of approximately 116
acres of land known as Mohawk Hills apartment and Golf course. We are not
against redevelopment of this land, but we are against the redevelopment in
its current form. Some of the reason for this disagreement are: '
The PUD does not conform to the 2020 plan or the 3C plan which is still in its
draft form.
Is not compatible with the underlying zoning or the adjacent low density
residential neighborhoods.
It will have a negative effect on the safety, quality of life of the residents,
property values and marketability of homes.
It does not qualify for the use of a TIF as outlined in JC36-7-14.
The mayor says that "This kind of redevelopment is a good trend and it will
continue over time." Eric Damian Kelly, the acting chair of Ball State's
Department of Urban Planning says that "It's an uncommon trend. I do work
all over the country and this kind of redevelopment in well-established areas is
pretty unusual anywhere. But in a small suburban city like Carmel, it's
extremely unusual..
The Idea to use TIF to help in the development of this land is against any
taxpayer's interest as there is a possibility that the project will fail and we will
end up paying the bill, not the developer.
The next item on my agenda is the current draft of the 2006 Carmel
Consolidated Comprehensive plan. I was not only shocked, but dismayed at
the language used in this draft. The two of the worst are the deletion of
objective 1.4 under part two, page 20 and the subsequent wording of
Objective 2.1 and 2.2 under part two page 22. This not only insulted my
l2 o,",n..:. I (Y\~
(+ f 'I riCH /J1 t::: NT 5 (.) 81~1 J '0(0
.'
.
intelligence, but I feel that it is also discriminatory and a form of economic
cleansing. Is this the mentality we want to be known for in our .World class
city"? I sure don't want to be associated with a city with this attitude. Do you?
If we are going to do this, let's do it right so we won't end up having the crime
and slum tenements of a large city in the future.
This next item is directed to Mr. Kirby. You have stated that you are for the
Gramercy project in its present form. Why are you for Gramercy in this form
when your constituents, myself Included are against it? I was taught in
government class that a civil servant, who was voted into office, was to listen
to his or her constituents and act for them and not for anyone else.
Remember, it is we the people, whom you represent.
Thank you
Po..--\- IY"ue \'Dv€.
f-tTlAe.ttm8"NI 5 (z.)
Cow'),; I m+&
~ /C}.I /0 (p
:-
My name is Bruce Braden. I reside at 915 Oswego Rd. Carmel. (317) 573-9508
In the six months that I and my neighbors have been attending the various meetings with
Carmel City representatives and Buckingham to discuss Gramercy, I thought some
agreements had been made that would go into city ordinances regulating Gramercy's
development.
I thought we had a pretty clear agreement that the northern and western borders of
Gramercy, those closest to 126'h St. And East Auman Dr., would be residential only in
nature. City officials, such as Michael Hollibaugh were in attendance. We were told that
the city's 2020 Comprehensive Plan was to guide the ordinance process on this and other
projects. But, 10 and behold, since May 16, after a few months of witnessing issues raised
and compromises made in the Gramercy project... by the city officials, developers, and
neighborhoods, a new comprehensive plan was initiated....this one is called C3.......it
might as well be C4.....because it is potentially just as destructive to six months labor.
What disturbed me most about C3 was a Land Classification Map on Page 39. On the
map, the AumanlNewark neighborhoods were colored orange designating us now as an
urban neighborhood instead of suburban. Gramercy is colored dark purple. And, that
aforementioned northern and western border of Gramercy, the supposed residential only
segments of Gramercy, were now miraculously transformed into a lighter shade of purple
signifying a Core Support area.
What is a core support area? On Page 35 of the C3 copy I saw at the time, Core Support
areas along 126'h St. and East Auman Dr. would be allowed to have:
I. "Residential and offices allowed on all floors."
2. "Retail, service, office, entertainment, restaurant, and institutional uses are allowed on
ground floors."
At least the C-3 plan did stipulate that "commercial intensity should be sensitive to
adjacent classifications." Point #1 was also of interest, since there had so much talk in the
early meetings about offices or commercial being only on the first floor, with only living
residential allowed above.
"Suspend the rules." I've heard that phrase a lot in the last six months when I did catch a
city council meeting. Well, that's what appears to me to be happening with Gramercy. Or,
perhaps, it would be better to say that the rules are to be amended to fit some
development plans into the city's legal fabric, a legal fabric that also seems amenable to
change on the spot.
I know the city and developers don't always share the same visions. The mining
operations dispute comes to mind. But, when developers and some city planners share an
idea, and have worked out some details, prior to the public meetings, I just wish both
sides would be honest enough to tell us the whole plan for our community, rather than
telling us we have to go to the other guy to fmd out the agenda. Give us that much, please.H
C' au. r'\ Co " \ N\ .\-~.
A\\A\;>\r<'\E.~ ~ f/) g\~\ \0\0
For, I am sure there are savvy city politicians, savvy city planners in government and
development, who have already laid out the blueprints and/or computer generated
renderings of what the AumanlNewark additions will look like in five to twenty years.
For, let's be honest. Our neighborhoods, and for that matter, I would hazard, any
neighborhood with a one to two mile radius of City Hall is City Core. Who knows how
far out core support could go eventually, or what other areas near any of you could out of
the air of conflict be suddenly transformed into Core Support. I just hope the Core does
not melt down!
So, just remember if, or when, you come calling, and it will be the city and developers in
league calling, calling for our property, just remember that it is the land, the land, the
land, that our houses, our homes stand on that is so valuable. Be savvy enough to
acknowledge that! The land is not blighted. The land is not declining. Our houses might
decline because many homeowners will say, "Why improve my home when the city
wants to tear it down anyway?
My wife, Linda, and I, are just four years shy of paying our home off. In four years, the
house payment monies were scheduled to go into remodeling the interior and exterior of
our house. We thought we'd live out our retirement years on Oswego. Change occurs, I
know. I am often an advocate for it. I just want a little more honesty from the city and
developers in telling us the whole plan, the whole vision, or the lack thereof.
It is just ironic to me that Carmel's vision for the future wants to take us back to the
1800's era of New York. If you build a city, many people will come. You see the high
density buildings, new and full, with their pretty colors. I see those high density buildings
in 20, 50 or 60 years, like those old tenements in New York or Chicago today, if you care
to venture there for a walk!
If you think tearing down Mohawk Hills Apartments will end crime, pay a little closer
attention to the newspaper crime reports when they mention incidents in Clay Terrace,
along Range Line Rd. near or on the Monon Trail, along Carmel Dr., or in other
neighborhoods more modern than our old neighborhood or Mohawk Hills. Raising the
socio-economic status of your citizens will not end crime. All that will change will be the
nature of the crimes, and, the type, and price of the drug abuse, and the size of the police
force needed to control the population and the traffic.
Thank you. 71. '/ . ()
--j)~,R~
Bruce Braden --
II- TT~(,Hrn&f\/J to (~)
Counc; I rn-ff
f? I~I JOe,
WHAT WILL THE FUTURE HOLD?
CURRENT UPKEEP OF RENTAL PROPERTY
LOCATED AT THE
MOHAWK HILLS APARTMENT
SPEAKER: Mary Lou Waters, 724 East Auman Dr.,Carmel, IN 46032
Mayor and Members of the Council:
Recently, I pulled up at many weeds growing under and through the very
rusty chainlink fence separating our property from Mohawk Hills,
owned by Buckingham Companies. Currently, many low and tall weeds
continue to grow that I am unable to reach without scraping my hands or
gloves on their rusty fence. On down the fence top bars holding a section
of the fence together have separated and are slowly sliding down the
fence polls. I also saw that the middle pole was currently absent in one
double section of the fence bordering our property.
Driving south on East Auman Drive I was astonished to see:
1. Sixty to eighty trees of all varieties growing through
Buckingham's fence.
2. The current school bus stop for students from Mohawk, Auman
and Shoshone Drives contained a muddy entry path,
several free-standing bars formerly used for supporting a
missing gate currently used for the school bus stop on
East Auman Dr. road. Old weathered boards were tossed about.
3. Numerous weeds and trees growing through Buckingham's
fence.
Wanting to see how Buckingham is caring for their current tenants since
2004 led me to drive along 126th St. and onto their property. Recent
CO().(lC; I m-fr
j)-TT/}CHmE7if/ 7 t.) rgfo.r /O~
. .
concerns shared with me from Buckingham's residents reflected:
1. Flooding in a newly rented apartment.
2. Tenants not wanting to swim in their pools due to lack of
attention, sanitation, and care.
3. Siding peeling off the sides of the apartments.
How is Buckingham currently treating and caring for their tenants?
How will they care for their future tenants or for the property with these
alarming conditions:
1. Five dead trees on 126th St. near their main entrance.
2. At least forty-three dead trees on their campus.
3. Gaping holes in their barbed wire fence bordering
Keystone Ave. putting the children living in these apartments
greatly at risk.
4. Overflowing dumpsters throughout the property.
5. Above an apartment a corner of a roof and its damaged gutter
hanging from the roof, as well as falling apart.
If in a period of two years Buckingham cannot maintain for their tenants
cleanliness, proper sanitation, new siding for their apartments, a
beautiful view, safety for their children, and reliable plumbing, I wonder
what Buckingham will do for their new tenants in the coming years? As
neighbors, what will we be viewing and experiencing two years from
now?
Thank you for the attention you will give in viewing all sides of our
issues and concerns.
!f.TTl1{},/fm€NT 7 (-:)
Counc;/ m+a-:
~ 1011/ Dr"
August 21, 2006
To: The Cannel City Council
From: Marilyn Mesh
Gentlemen, my name is Marilyn Mesh and for the past 351.ears I have lived in the Jordan
Woodlands neighborhood on the northwest corner of 1 06 Street and Keystone.
I have been authorized to speak on behalf of my neighborhood of 166 homes.
We are concerned with two issues on tonight's agenda - both the Aramore and the
Gramercy proposed Planned Unit Developments. Although vastly different in size, both
are equally important to the hundreds of people in the adjacent neighborhoods. We are
not adjacent to either project, but we feel strongly that ALL citizens of Cannel deserve to
have equal protection of their property and lives from this kind of rampant development
with its many ramifications, including drainage and traffic.
I do not believe people have moved to Cannel to live in a high-density urban
environment. We do not want ten-story buildings or even four-story ones. How many
constituents have told you "we want more traffic!" Or "please cut down more trees"? But
all are being forced on us. You own plan defines the goal to be a world-class city, and
says the most important feature is a desirable quality of life, presumably for ALL of its
citizens. We do not believe that goal requires the destruction of significant parts of the
existing city, building tall buildings, or increasing density and traffic cOngestion.
The proposed Cannel Comprehensive Plan 2006 speaks repeatedly about enhancing the
quality of life for its citizens. To most Carmel residents, this quality is not measured in
dollars and cents. Our homes, neighbors, and neighborhoods mean far more than mere
financial investments. Can we or can we not count on you to do what you say about
enhancing the quality of life?
We in Jordan Woodlands certainly wouldn't want these developments in Q.!!!: backyards
And I'm quite certain you wouldn't want it in yours. It is unconscionable for fellow
citizens to allow this to happen to ANY Carmel homeowner.
We are concerned with what may happen to anyone of the rest of our neighborhoods if
you pass these tonight. We hear developers publicly stating that the Department of
Community Services has encouraged them to pack in as many buildings as possible,
ignoring the trees, etc. You're in such a rush to develop more high-density housing that
there's been no time to assess the impact of what's already being built. Neither of these
developments meets the current city comprehensive plan. Gramercy wasn't even
recommended by the Plan Commission, even though Mr.Hollibaugh was quoted as
saying that's what Cannel wants for this site. WE are Carmel and WE don't want it. You
are our elected representatives and as such, you are responsible to those who already live
here, not the developers with big bucks or to the hoards you hope will come. We are here
NOW and we are the voice of Cannel. Please take time to look beyond the environs of
City Hall to see what actual citizens who live here want.
;+1TfJCffIYJ eNT
8
6J'^nc.... I tr\~
8 {dol Ie (p
Doran Ellis
924 W. Auman Dr.
Carmel, IN 46032
317-848-1421
My name is Doran Ellis and I live at 924 W. Auman Dr. While I greatly appreciate all of
the hard work and many hours put in by those who have represented my neighborhood as
well as the surrounding neighborhoods, and those who have spoken out regarding the
Gramercy project, I feel it's time that you all realize that the opinions given by them are
not just the opinions of a few, but of all the residents that this project will effect.
The AumanlNewark Addition is a neighborhood that is perfect for first time homeowners
who wish to raise a family, and for retirees, many of whom were once those first time
homeowners. This is a 52 year old community where many residents come to stay, some
having been here since this area was built. My husband and I, for example. are only the
second owners of our home, where we have lived for almost 22 years.
Traffic is a major concern not only to our neighborhood, but to other surrounding
neighborhoods as well. Buckingham states that their traffic study showed that traffic in
our neighborhood would "only" increase the number of vehicles during peak times to
around 20 vehicles or less. I have watched out of my living room window on a Sunday
afternoon, and had counted approximately 20 vehicles in just an hour. Again, this was on
a Sunday afternoon. And I live on West Auman Dr. What is this going to do to the people
of East Auman Dr., where you will be allowing access roads into Gramercy?
Buckingham's own figures estimate, yes, that's estimate, because Buckingham states
Gramercy is only a "Conceptual Plan", that they will be building a total of 2,268 high-
de/lsity reside/ltial U/lits. This does not include the retail space, or office space, a 120,00
square foot Hotel, and a parking garage, all on just 116 acres. Nor does this include the
people that would frequent these businesses. Now do you still believe that this will
"only" increase the number of vehicles to 20 or less during peak traffic times in this
neighborhood? It's not unusual to see our neighbors out rollerblading, biking, and
walking. Where are we to go when the traffic increases even more in this neighborhood?
Over to Gramercy?
Let me see if! have this straight.................1et's dump a huge amount of additional traffic
into a bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly neighborhood just so you can accommodate a
bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly redevelopment. And I'm not even going to mention the
problems this redevelopment will cause on 126111 street, which I'm sure you are all aware
of. Yet you are contemplating approving this project without first taking care of the
traffic issues that this raises, PRIOR to Buckingham starting this redevelopment, not only
for our neighborhood, but all surrounding neighborhoods, and the city of Carmel as a
whole.
In Buckingham's own PUD brochure, stating consistency with Carmel's Comprehensive
Plan, they state that access to their site is via regional serving roadways and does not pass
through low-intensity residential areas. Ifwe are to believe their statement, then why are
COUnc.il mfy
A7T~Hm@JT 9 (i) ~ /011/0C,
access roads needed through the low-intensity residential area of the Auman/Newark
addition? Their brochure is also just loaded with "Conceptual Images". How ironic, when
asked for specifics of what Gramercy will look like, they keep stating they don't have any
idea, it depends on the market, that's why all of the "Conceptual Images". They have to
have some idea, and plans, as to what this will look like, or why would they even be here
asking for your approval to build Gramercy?
The city of Carmel is already in the process of building so many of these multi-use, new
urbanism developments, one of which is Buckingham Properties own projects, the
Shoppes at Providence, along with their already completed Providence at Old Meridian.
Another project currently under development by yet another developer is the 1 I 6th Street
Centre, which is to include retail and office space, including restaurants, financial
institutions and medical offices. Construction is planned for a second mixed use retail and
office building that will face Guilford. And this developer is planning for construction of
around 60 upscale town homes in yet another phase ofthis project. Does this sound
familiar? Just how many of these "new urbanism" projects do the people of this city
really need, or want? If I wanted to live in New York or Boston, I would have moved a
long time ago.
Buckingham stated that they will complete no more than 50% of this project without the
access roads onto Keystone Ave. and/or Carmel Dr. And there's the catch.........because
they have also stated they would start in the Northwest corner of their property, which
would mean they will start on the golf course. All apartments would remain as they are
for now. So with all
564 apartments remaining, plus the additional units they would build, doesn't that add up
to more traffic and congestion? Although it was difficult to hear even one word at the
August 10th Land Use Committee meeting, when Buckingham was asked to drop this
number to 35%, everyone clearly heard Buckingham give a resounding "NO". Yet they
state they are willing to work with the City, and be good neighbors to the surrounding
areas?
In Chapter 3 of the 2020 Visioning Process, the second of the 12 items of Consensus as
compiled from the Neighborhood meetings, it states that "the safe and secure feeling of
neighborhoods should be maintained" and that "the nature of housing in Carmel/Clay
should continue to be predominately low density". So why is Buckingham being allowed
to propose such a high density project, right next door to a low density neighborhood?
Will this neighborhood be able to continue to feel safe and secure?
The Carmel Consolidated Comprehensive Plan, Objective 1.4 states: "Be very sensitive
to connectivity and transitions between adjacent areas; unplanned or harsh contrasts in
height, building orientation, character, land use and density--ifthere exists contrast,
utilize multiple design principles to soften transitions". Yet there is no transition from the
AumanlNewark neighborhood to Gramercy. Not when our neighbors on East Auman Dr.
will be looking out oftheir windows directly at buildings that are 40 feet tall. Oh, I know
Buckingham states that the buildings facing both East Auman Dr. and 126th Street are to
be 35 feet in height, but we also know that Gramercy is just a "conceptual plan" with no
4rrfICHmf3tJl '1 (~)
fDun6/ m-J-r.
8/d-1/()(P
specifics.
Further, on page 16, Policy 4: the introduction to "Be a City of Neighborhoods:
"Neighborhoods are an essential component in a community. They create the fabric of a
city". Yet in Cannel's January 2006 version of the Cannel Urban Design Initiative, page
13, it is stated that neighborhoods are only part ofa "collection of individual subdivisions
with little connection to the fabric of the community". So what do you consider the
AumanlNewark neighborhood, an essential component in this community that creates the
fabric of this city as stated in the C3 plan, or one with little connection to the fabric of
this community?
It also states on page 19, under "The Life Cycle of Living In a Neighborhood": "Without
a mix of land uses and housing types within a neighborhood district, residents who would
like to live in the same community for their lifetime face a nearly impossible scenario".
As I stated in the beginning, many of our residents have been here since this
neighborhood was built in 1954. It was also stated under "Affordability" in the same
January 2006 version that "There is an affordable housing need for residents who cannot
afford expensive single- family housing." Our neighborhood is comprised of such
affordable housing. To continue, it states: "Often these residents include those who
provide the essential services such as teachers, government professionals and service
staff'. And who do you think lives in the AumanlNewark neighborhoods? We ARE your
teachers, your barbers, your restaurant workers. We work in construction, in grocery
stores, in offices. Weare your police officers, your firefighters. We work at the local,
state, and federal levels of government.
While we all understand change, and are not opposed to change, change is not always for
the best. We also understand progress, yet giving Buckingham carte' blanche to build
Gramercy as they see fit is not progress. How can this city claim that people want to
move here because of the diversity of this city, when you are wanting to change the very
thing that makes this city diverse? Take a good look around at the people gathered in this
room. We are the heart and soul of Cannel. We are the diversity that makes Cannel a
unique and great city. These are not just a bunch of houses you are talking about, but our
homes, our neighborhoods, that will greatly be effected if you allow this project to be
built the way Buckingham wants it built.
I would like for you to imagine just for a minute that you, each and everyone of you, live
in my neighborhood. Would you really want to live next door to Gramercy? I ask you to
not only take into consideration the concerns of my neighborhood and of all the
surrounding neighborhoods, but to think about the Cannel of the future. Do you really
want this city to be another New York or Boston? As Buckingham clearly gave a
resounding "NO" on August loth, it's time you clearly give them a resounding "NO"
with your vote today on this project.
f}.71fiCHfYJ6N1 q (3)
CoUfJC;/ mif-
f? / d-' /or,
Hello,
I am Dick Teeters, President of Hunters Glen Condominium Association. We
are a small community (149) Home Owners who share a common property
boundary with the proposed Gramercy development, over 1,000 L.F. total.
I am speaking to you this evening in favor of the Gramercv Development.
Gramercy representatives, David Leazenby and Sara N asuti, have met with the
Hunters Glen residents several times, explaining their project and seeking our input
and suggestions.
Presently Mohawk sheds a lot of storm water onto our community.
I met with the Assistant City Engineer, Gary Duncan, and he assured us that when
Gramercy develops, they will be improving the infrastructure and addressing such
issues as the common drainage we share to our East.
We believe the attitude of Gramercy will NOT have a large impact on the
community services of Carmel. A development of this magnitude will increase the.
tax base for Carmel, which will help keep Carmel's taxes reasonable.
We believe, the redevelopment of this property would not only be a compliment to
Hunters Glen but will be in line with the development of Carmel Citv Center and
a point of pride for all of Carmel.
WE AT HUNTERS GLEN CONDOMINUMS ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE
GRAMERCY DEVELOPMENT
THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
(l-rrRCfi mEN( Je)
au n 0i I {Y).Jy-
g { al /0(,