HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence
Fax
To: ~nd&~LA
Fax: 5<tGJ.q~<o(p
From: Christine Barton-Holmes
Pages: including cover
Phone:
Date:
JUvt. 'Zit; ~
Re:?' t)VJ)Y/PILi!.. AJ~
CC:
o Urgent
o Please Comment ori. p,. ~.ease Reply 0
~. ""~ Please Recycle
o For Review
lJi ck
/
-rk ':t.. 6/dAPtt€.. ~bv fr l'/-Y'aYlW~
;prvJ.. i ne,f-.",.,,;.ft 4Il t; ft; Y'Il fk de/k. . U 4iOUrllj
JVt lAAfacJt.d. Ptt#R. {,R;f- v'I"L ~,'f 'I J'^-
UaAL- M""1 ~th/itJ.1h.
Ttt~,
~q:,~
Christine Barton-Holmes
Planning Administrator
City of Carmel
317.571.2417
fax 317.571-2499
cholmes@carmel.in.gov
PittmanPartners.
June 5, 2006
Mr. Nick Redden
City of Carmel, Department of Engineering
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
Dear Mr. Redden:
Please let this letter serve to document our commitments for our proposed Aramore project
located on the east side of Westfield Boulevard between 98th Street and 99th Street.
1. We will install the median cut at our entrance on Westfield Boulevard with the acel and
decellanes. Also we will install the 10' asphalt trail in the Westfield Boulevard right of way
along our western frontage that was removed from the City of Carmel work description in
the Westfield Boulevard Right of Way.
2. We will dedicate the right of way for 98th street on our property and install a 10' asphalt
trail in this right of way, from Westfield Boulevard past our east property line all the way to
the Wood briar Right of Way of the neighborhood to our east. This fulfills Carmel's desire
to have interconnectivity between neighborhoods.
3. We will dedicate right of way consistent with the City of Carmel's thoroughfare plan for
99th Street along our frontage. In addition, we will improve 99th Street with acel and decal
lanes and a stone shoulder. A passing blister is not necessary because our entry is
aligned with the entry at Walden Pond.
4. We will fund and install 100% of all offsite storm drainage from our parcel all the way to
the 1-465 right of way discharge point. This will include securing all offsite easements,
permits from the City of Carmel, Hamilton County, Indianapolis, Marion County, the State
of Indiana and the Indiana Department of Transportation. This improvement not only
benefits our parcels but the entire area including City owned right of ways.
We will record these commitments for this project as requested. We look forward to
discussing this project with you prior to the subdivision review meeting tomorrow night. If you
have any questions, I can be reached at 580-0883.
Sincerely,
-~1~
Neal Smith
C: Steve Pittman
C: Mike McBride
C: Matt Griffin
P.O. Box 554 0 Carmel, IN 46082
(317) 580-9693 · (317) 580-9786 Fax
Message
Page lof2
Conn, Angelina V
From: Dutcher, Dan [ddutcher@ncaa.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 11 :29 AM
To: rripma@usavingsbank.com; schleif@ indy.rr.com; whaney1393@aol.com; kevin@ indianatrails.org
Cc: Griffin, Matt L; Conn, Angelina V
Subject: Comments re this evening's Subdivision cases
Colleagues:
My regrets that basketball related duties will prevent me from joining you tonight. I did want to forward a few
thoughts for you to consider in my absence.
I think we all saw Jerry's message yesterday regarding the premature consideration of incomplete petitions. I
echo that statement, and the related feedback I have seen so far. It appears the department is recommending
that
1. Has been continued to May 4.
2. Recommend approval.
3. Recommend approval.
4. Shelborne PUD. I agree with the department that this should be continued to May 4 because of several
important outstanding issues.
. There is a much description of recreational uses (paths, playground, public space, etc.) than last time we
saw this.
. One question--we need to be we balance the rec paths with tree preservation. The path network in the
common area might be too extensive.
. We will need to decide the window and porch issue. In each case the PUD standards are slightly below
city guidelines. If I had to choose one over the other, I would chose for the second widow over the extra 2
feet of porch depth, but why not get both?
5. Crook PUD. Same basic comments as with No.4.
6. Aramore PUD. I agree with the department that this should be continued to May 4 because of several
important outstanding issues.
. Are there applicable design standards that the department could use to compare with those included in the
the PUD?
. I really didn't see a landscape plan.
. I think there needs to be more buffering and landscaping along 98th street.
7. Stafford Lane. I agree with the department that this should be continued to May 4.
. I agree with the department and the neighbors--the entrance road design is unacceptable. The current
design unnecessarily affects Copperwood to the west. It also bisects the common area. They need to
back to the drawing board.
8. Woods at Lions Creek. I agree with the department that this should be continued to May 4 because of several
important outstanding issues.
. I believe this is the first request we have seen for a gated community since we approved the new gate
standards. The department should review in detail how the proposal meets (or fails to meet) each
criterion. The petitioners have not asked for a gate/private street waiver, but I believe that will still be
necessary? We established new standards to consider when a wavier is requested, rather than eliminating
3/30/2006
\
Message
Page 2 of2
the waiver requirement.
. I also think we need a comparison of the city's design guidelines with what is being proposed. Yes, I know
this is a high end development, but let's check, not just assume, that the city standards are exceeded in
every case. A summary statement from the department to that effect would suffice.
. I don't think I have seem a design before where individual lot owners actually share a portion of ponds. Do
they really want this?
. Likewise, there is no access to the main common area pond. Should there be?
. The main common area runs along the gas line. They really don't do much with this. Should/could there
be some kind of minimal gravel path installed that could then link up the common area in Bellwood to the
south?
. The gate/cul-de-sac and access waivers are all tied together. I don't have a problem with the other two
(frontage and thoroughfare). But we need to be sure there are commitments for landscaping and buffering
for the lots affected by the thoroughfare waiver.
9. Michigan Road Overlay. As the attached article from the LBJ indicates, Zionsville also seems to be going in
this direction. I think the dept's rational for a gradual transition makes sense. I would support moving this
forward.
10. 96th and Westfield Plan. This obviously is a hornet's nest. Fairly complicated and politically charged. We
really need to take our time with this, be sure to hear from all sides and understand the many issues.
Thanks.
Dan Dutcher
Vice-President for Div. III
NCAA
ddutcher@ncaa.org
www.ncaa.org
This email and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
sender immediately by return email, delete this message and destroy any
copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other
than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal.
3/30/2006
'"
"
( .
Carmel Planning Commission
First of all I would like to thank the Planning Commission for allowing us to have some input. I also
would like to say my wife and I are not opposed to progress and the development of the vacant field.
We have lived on Maple Drive for 33 wonderful years. We have had the benefits of the large city yet
have enjoyed a rural flavor; we hate to see this change yet we know this will change. We feel the Forest
Glen Subdivision has been excluded from the planning process. We were denied a voice on the Steering
Committee even when we requested to be included. We were told the committee was full and other
individuals would represent us. It now seems they did not. Other areas had as many as three members
while the Forest Glen Subdivision was not represented. So thank you for allowing us to present our
thoughts.
We had planned to retire at this residence and do not want to see the area turned into a commercial district
with transient occupants, and vacancies. The Retreat on Westfield north of 96th street and the
townhouses on Hazel Dell at 116th Street are examples.
Some of the specific areas I would like to address are: Drainage, Traffic and Buffers.
Drainae:e:
Our concern with this submitted plan does not address any of the drainage problems existing in
the area. If the 96th street corridor is all commercial, how is the flow of water from the Forest
Glen and Chesterton areas going to be addressed? This is one area that needs attention before
constructing new barriers to the water flow.
The existing drainage problems are due primarily to the virtually flat area we live in and as
everybody knows water does not flow very well on the flat surface. The ditches have not been
maintained by the County to facilitate the flow of water.
East Side of Maple Drive drainage problems are the result of the surface drainage out of the
Chesterton Subdivision. Heavy rain results in back yards flooding for several days until it can
run off. The Drainage tile going under 96th street is inadequate and does not allow water to flow.
On the west side of Maple Drive the only problem we have is the ditches have never been
cleaned since we moved here in 1973, some culverts are buried and or closed with dirt and
debris.
Traffic:
The thought of more business on 96th Street and the projected development of the Marion County
side with office building seem unfeasible with the current traffic problems. The Round-About
although improving traffic flow has already caused delays in getting out of our sub-division and
we do not see how this will imprOve with added traffic.
The proposed development of 21 0 units in the field north of 98th street on the east side of
Westfield Blvd. will generate approximately four hundred additional vehicles to be dealt with on
the streets. Depending on how the traffic flow is maintained it will be impossible to exit our sub
division onto the streets or even onto Maple Drive at times. With that thought in place I would
like to present to the commission ~ signed petitions from" residents on Maple Drive,
5"3
Maurer Statement - Planning Commission 3-21-06 Page 1 of 2
- ...
Lincoln Blvd and Kittrell Dr. requesting the current streets be maintained as is. This means not
opening up Maple Drive to 99th street and leaving 98th street closed without opening it to the
Chesterton Subdivision and Westfield Blvd.
Carmel has in the past demonstrated an ability to correct extreme congested traffic situations.
Two examples are at 116th and Merchants Square Mall and 96th Street at Brandt Road. The
method of limiting the left hand turns by use of medians and access roads has eliminated the
problem. The same situation is evident at 96th and Keystone with business entrances being
located at the intersection and every property between Keystone and Haverstick having access
entrances. Some of these businesses have even added to the congestion by hiring part time
coverage of private security to direct traffic on 96th Street to allow their customer's immediate
entry or exit from 96th street. The back up sometimes extends almost to Westfield Blvd.
Traffic making left turns into the businesses are required to turn through the long lines of traffic
and many accidents are narrowly avoided. I'm sure there are plenty that do happen. Left turns
should not be allowed when there is this level of traffic. This situation had not been addressed by
Hamilton County and now is Carmel's responsibility. We hope Carmel will make this a priority.
Buffers:
What is going to divide the current residential area from the proposed development? In one of
the Carmel meetings the statement was made there would be a 50 foot buffer. What would this
buffer consist of: Flat ground? Earthen mound? Trees? Bushes? Parking lots? Fences?
We request input with the developer to make it esthetically pleasing to both the current residents
and the development. We do not wish to look at back doors and garbage dumpsters.
What consideration is being given to a Green Way and or sidewalks for access to the Monon
trail?
~~ opportunity to contribute to this process.
Dennis E. Maurer ~..
Patricia A. Maurer
9642 Maple Drive
Indianapolis, IN 46280
lf~/JS-/
Maurer Statement - Planning Commission 3-21-06
Page 2 of2
"',-
''''\1"
_...-
- THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF MAPLE DRIVE IN SOUTH CARMEL 46280
Upon presentation of the proposed plans for the extension of Maple Drive north through the Development by
Pittman through what has been referred to as "the Horse Farm" to 99th Street. We the undersigned wish to state
our disagreement with this procedure as it will increase the traffic on Maple Drive and some turning West over
to Lincoln Boulevard to an unacceptable level. The speed none residents drive through this neighborhood now
is also a major concern with children playing in the yards.
Currently traffic on 96th Street is (our only exit from Forest Glen) already at limits and will only get worse with
the development of 21 0 additional residences in the development. At times traffic is backed up from Keystone
Avenue back to Maple and at other times traffic is backed up trying to get into the roundabout past maple. The
residents of Maple Drive (22 properties) have to wait to exit Maple onto 96th.
Therefore; we the undersigned homeowners request that the street both at Maple
Drive and Lincoln Blvd., where they end at 98th street remain closed to vehicle
traffic to the North, East, or West of where cars may travel today. We are
opposed to any connected thru trafftc Into our out of the Pittman Proposed
development.
c--
J( v.
1
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
?C/7 /~ t:-~ ~,
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
Maple Drive Page- 1 - of I-
- 1 v J
g'Y?-jK'3
'i t/(p - 5J-o ~
%'/~- 52-tiP'
~ J
'3 Lf ((- (;; II /; {
<(;L\\/-&\{(P I
S;~- /OO~
~go -eSA
I (
tQ\~ Lll1
~1,-o( tf
~.-
.'" ~
THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF MAPLE DRIVE IN SOUTH CARMEL 48280
Upon presentation of the proposed plans for the extension of Maple Drive north through the Development by
Pittman through what has been referred to as "the Horse Farm" to 9~ Street. We the undersigned wish to state
our disagreement with this procedure as it will increase the traffic on Maple Drive and some turning West over
to Lincoln Boulevard to an unacceptable level. The speed none residents drive through this neighborhood now
is also a major concern with children playing in the yards.
Currently traffic on 96th Street is (our only exit from Forest Glen) already at limits and will only get worse with
the development of 21 o additional residences in the development. At times traffic is backed up from Keystone
Avenue back to Maple and at other times traffic is backed up trying to get into the roundabout past maple. The
residents of Maple Drive (22 properties) have to wait to exit Maple onto 96th.
Therefore; we the undersigned homeowners request that the street both at Maple
~ Drive and Lincoln Blvd., where they end at 98th street remain closed to vehicle
-J
traffic to the North, East, or West of where cars may travel today. We are
opposed to any connected thru traffic into our out of the Pittman Proposed
development. ~cn
eAL\- tJ44 \
{)cf1:)S-
LeD,
76
Coo <<.0 vt\ ~ \y..(
~. '"} - sS-
?fi./L/ - L!d-q 7
'51
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Maple Drive Page- 2 - of :J-.
I", -->
I ~. ...,;,:
)..,
The Undersigned Residents Of Lincoln Boulevard In .South C;armel 46280
,.~
Upon presentation of the proposed plans for the extension of Maple Drive north through the Development by
Pittman through what has been referred to as ''the Horse Farm" to 99th Street. We the undersigned wish to state
our disagreement with this proc~ure as it will increase the traffic on Maple Drive and some turning West over
to Lincoln Boulevard to an unacceptable level. The speed none residents drive through this neighborhood now
is also a major concern with children playing in the yards.
Currently traffic on 96th Street is (our only exit from Forest Glen) already at limits and will only get worse with
the development of 21 0 additional residences in the development. At times traffic is backed up from Keystone
Avenue back to Maple and at other times traffic is backed up trying to get into the roundabout past maple. The
residents of Maple Drive (22 properties) have to wait to exit Maple onto 96th.
Therefore; we the undersigned homeowners request that the street both at Maple
Drive and Lincoln' Blvd., where they end at 98th street remain closed to vehicle
traffic to the North, East, or West of where cars may travel today. We are
.opposed to any connected Ibm traffic Into our out of the Pittman Proposed
,
devel ~en~../
1
'l t c? Llv"'Lc.>'-'d bL t/.
1:1 /c;- -12.. t -
2
3
4
. ,'I., c,I'l
J/s- - / d-(."S-
)' gcX.1 ~ s'
gt/3.-? )Y'S -
'ill j.- Z} J)
5
CPb/ &? L,//7/~;Y~/jPbC/(
l' 2'1 (!^L(JIJ1 I ~
6
8
fl; 2. C L ~.. c () I "'- I"?i
96~3> L.~(IQ.v fJ...u{).
Sb 17 2 '2'l
7
~r;-Cb8
9
"
96os-- LIIVC'{)/t'v 13 ~ uP
}l
, 1
10
Ir13--/.3 '7 Y
11
12
13
14
15
tI?
Lincoln Boulevard Page- 1 - of ~
The Undersigned Residents Of Lincoln Boulevard In South Carmel 46280
Upon presentation of the proposed plans for the extension of Maple Drive north through the Development by
Pittman through what has been referred to as "the Horse Farm" to 99th Street. We the undersigned wish to state
our disagreement with this procedure as it will increase the traffic on Maple Drive and some turning West over
to Lincoln Boulevard to an unacceptable level. The speed none residents drive through this neighborhood now
is also a major concern with children playing in the yards.
Currently traffic on 96th Street is (our only exit from Forest Glen) already at limits and will only get worse with
the development of210 additional residences in the development. At times traffic is backed up from Keystone
Avenue back to Maple and at other times traffic is backed up trying to get into the roundabout past maple. The
residents of Maple Drive (22 properties) have to wait to exit Maple onto 96th.
Therefore; we the undersigned homeowners request that the street both at Map'e
Drive and Lincoln Blvd., where they end at 98th street remain closed to vehicle
traffic to the North, East, or West of where cars may travel today. We are
opposed to any connected thru traffic into our out of the Pittman Proposed
development.
1 Ie- ~ r3n .) 2.v<U F2- ~ ~~"l5t' / ,.) ^.L I &-vi 0
/Ju J /O} ,Jl;/\AIC v
2 - 11:, (,) LIV! ~/fA l5/ \/ d L/ t, zw
~1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Lincoln Boulevard Page- 2 - of)--
\ (
.'
The Undersigned Residents Of Kittrell Drive In South Carmel 46280
Upon presentation of the proposed plans for the extension of Maple Drive north through the Development by
Pittman through what has been referred to as ''the Horse Farm" to 99th Street. We the undersigned wish to state
our disagreement with this procedure as it will increase the traffic on Maple Drive and some turning West over
to Lincoln Boulevard to an unacceptable level. The speed none residents drive through this neighborhood now
is also a major concern with children playing in the yards.
Currently traffic on 96th Street is (our only exit from Forest Glen) already at limits and will only get worse with
the development of 21 0 additional residences in the development. At times traffic is backed up from Keystone
Avenue back to Maple and at other times traffic is backed up trying to get into the roundabout past maple. The
residents of Maple Drive (22 properties) have to wait to exit Maple onto 96th.
Therefore; we the undersigned homeowners request that the street both at Maple
Drive and Lincoln Blvd., where they end at 98th street remain closed to vehicle
traffic to the North, East, or West of where cars may travel today. We are
opposed to any connected thru traffic into our out of the Pittman Proposed
development.
1
Name
Address
Phone
2 t>~,\::.~
~.rr\ '> ~
, "~l 't..,-+-\.r t' \ ~ (' ; \ '" JA 7
..g, ~ -ct ~L..'
3
l:A.iC Hi/old^,
'1 J 't f '" I f11Z.t= u.. f)IL I IV I) ,'-..)
,f;; '.i,.";",
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Kittrell Drive Page- 1 - of J--
t
.1
The Undersigned Residents Of Kittrell Drive In South Carmel 46280
Upon presentation of the proposed plans for the extension of Maple Drive north through the Development by
Pittman through what has been referred to as "the Horse Farm" to 99th Street. We the undersigned wish to state
our disagreement with this procedure as it will increase the traffic on Maple Drive and some turning West over
to Lincoln Boulevard to an unacceptable level. The speed none residents drive through this neighborhood now
is also a major concern with children playing in the yards.
Currently traffic on 96th Street is (our only exit from Forest Glen) already at limits and will only get worse with
the development of 21 0 additional residences in the development. At times traffic is backed up from Keystone
Avenue back to Maple and at other times traffic is backed up trying to get into the roundabout past maple. The
residents of Maple Drive (22 properties) have to wait to exit Maple onto 96th.
Therefore; we the undersigned homeowners request that the street both at Maple
Drive and Lincoln Blvd., where they end at 98th street remain closed to vehicle
traffic to the North, East, or West of where cars may travel today. We are
opposed to any connected thru traffic into our out of the Pittman Proposed
devel ment.
1 ".1~ A-iTlJri (/ k I'I'.~J
2 1?3~ If, TTjI~ ff ~ '~.21.J
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Kittrell Drive Page- 2 - of :J-
"
I
_. .__. ._ ./Je..- _-tk.~~-u-l<'k:s ~~. _ ~Q~ ~~LX'1-M"'+- +iwL.-
. _.~- .__ _~__:s::h-~--~- qj-~ _\'!1~lt-:Dr--~_..k'I"..:!>l,^ .---
_ _ __ __'_ _",__.w~.,.-:fu'l-~~-- ".;::L.'1-~~ ~+,~",!",~~",-~!'!f?~
_---- ,..+~L_\l~~,~k_kM~-.'+Q_N I'\Alr~._~~L~v~~+-.
_' ._ ..... __Q :t-.- _wk"'..ce-~ .. WlE:y__k\!J +r,&'1'~ ...~., .~v:.~-
_,--,----~H!'s~ ~. .. '<&~J __e,,:t\.~t4--...f1t.'!:..... +.",.ffic,./ ""h 6 r ....-.-
.,' _.,.' ,_~~-t-,pJfu--,~i-t:~~~~.~~:de..~~'r---~~ .... .... .
37 iJ ~_~~~~-..- ~'Ct fI.o':fry;ltlL~ b. ~.u _if~ -:75LD'J - ..'
.' _ _.' .._ -~'K . ,.9(,pLC'm~~-<Js't(f':~I()g--.
. ' .- __ ~ 4Y }_-- 9 re.1 b lv'JP-fk j) {. . '7 15-.{00 3
__ __ _---. . .. . _." _'i~~s.. ,~'- ...,. -- .'Zl:\\:r:.\\1CI .
___,..____-hl- ...... _.....' ___.-,-9.~~~- _, .. . . .p 2cj4:'l~G/
.---------' ___ ---..:-fA~. --9to-Z.--- ... - W- &ii~/027
.. .... ~__ _-- 'rud.C!:tJ~..- j(P Lf/Lu,tc-;LM.'Dlvd.. -- 8LJ.B_#-$/}12- ..-
~~__-__.---..---~--~--. p__~~_ --__~ _.- ....---~l~it~~~~fi=~-~~-~0I~-('
._------:iflt ___ . _ _., ~.u1.kB2~fb. .' ~~----:'HS-~
__-- _- _~_ uJ~--9l.ecf/~E&L..l{t--:[,J9..a-
. .--.--. __ .!d/.~(~M:J;:;!lK7'7~9../:5.&~-L- #.- .-€-i4! -i!:9Ia. .
.---..'M!:-- ..-c. . .,-- cnlL_j~~ ~...~-~'()~~J
...___'" .. ,.__".-... __.._.'" ._ . ,,_ .".. ___._ _ _ _em" ~.._. __.." ._. ..-'_. _... ..' .. ...___m. .
( 4/
John B. Tintera
2700 E. 96th Street
Carmel, IN 46280
March 17,2006
Plan Commission
City of Carmel
To Plan Commission Members:
The Carmel Department of Community Services has recently issued the 96th Street & Westfield Blvd Area -
Neighborhood Planning Study. The Tintera family has owned the 2700 block of East 96th Street (bound by
Haverstick and Wild Cherry Lane) since the late 1940s. Attached is an aerial photo ofthe site. Previously, we
filed a rezone application to reclassify the real estate from its current residential zoning to an Office Use
designation under the B-2 zoning classification, and then after the introduction of the 96th Street & Westfield
Blvd Area - Neighborhood Planning Study we placed the rezone request on hold and participated in the "study
process" by attending meetings and discussing the relevant issues with some of our neighbors and DOCS. Prior
to the "study process", we had worked with our neighbors and the DOCS extensively while seeking a rezone to
the office designation for the parcel at 2700 E 96th Street. The recent Neighborhood Study has designated the
parcel at 2700 E 96th Street as Medium Density Residential. We respectfully ask you to reconsider classifying
the parcel as Medium Density Residential, and change the classification to Neighborhood Commercial under the
96th Street & Westfield Blvd Area - Neighborhood Planning Study.
Prior to the recent "study process", we have worked with the several of the neighbors near the parcel at 2700 E
96th Street. These neighbors include some of the approximately 20 closest parcels or property owners. My
understanding is that the neighbors signed and submitted a recommendation on November 29th, 2005 that they
are in favor of "Mixed-Use Residential" classification and not the existing residential classification. This
recommendation includes two components, "residential housing" and "neighborhood scale commercial sites."
We look forward to the comments and clarifications from this group.
The recent Neighborhood Planning Study created a "Transitional Zone," which is in part, immediately north of
the parcel at 2700 E. 96th Street. The Neighborhood Planning Study describes this "Transition Zone" by stating:
The Department recognizes that the private real estate market might desire the redevelopment of several single-
family lots in these areas. While maintaining and improving the existing residential community is encouraged,
consideration will be given to:
. Private market assembly of contiguous land for redevelopment, adjacent to a changing land use
area on Westfield Blvd. or 96th Street, which total a minimum of 5 gross acres.
Should this occur, the Department would begin a special review of the land assembly, working to understand
development form, access and parking, and open space issues.
To the extent that the study contemplated "changing land use," we seek further clarification from the Plan
Commission on the potential conclusions from the study as they affect my family's real estate. The Tintera
family desires to be consistent the principles of the new Civic Design document, the Neighborhood Study, and
we desire to continue working with adjacent neighbors and resolve planning issues for the 2700 block of E. 96th
Street.
The document Civic Design, Guiding Design Principles for the Future of Carmel's Central Core, states that
"Each neighborhood should have its own future planning to define its character and development. These plans
should be based on the principles in this document" (pg 13). Our neighborhood on 96th street is designated
graphically on page 20 under a "City of Neighborhoods" as a "hybrid" of Density and Mixed Land-Use.
Civic Design also places an emphasis on small parcel development. Page 11 of Civic Design states that "The
City should seek opportunities to encourage small development ventures to add interest and variety to the build
environment." If significant "tracks larger than 5 acres" as stated in the Neighborhood Plan above are optioned
up, then it is less likely a "small development venture" can be achieved and the Civic Design principle number
i
J
2, an "Interesting City", is reduced or marginalized. In order to encourage "small development ventures," it
might improve the neighborhood planning process to extend consideration to a smaller scale.
We believe that parcel at 2600 E 96th Street is well positioned to support the planning principles in Civic Design
and create a Central Core which is Pedestrian-Oriented and Intentionally Designed. As stated in Civic Design
and mentioned several times by Adam and Mike during the planning process, one ofthe general principles is to
create a walRable neighborhood and reduce the number of car trips. Adarrl. has suggested a "goal to reduce 2 of
5 car trips" dr a 40% reduction in car trips. Adam has stated further, "We would prefer a neighborhood where
someone can walk to lunch from work rather than drive." Civic Design has also mentioned that a problem from
past urban planning is the creation of "mono use districts" such as residential suburban subdivisions, which did
not encourage a pedestrian friendly neighborhood. We believe the parcel at 2700 E 96th Street is well positioned
to serve the goals of a Pedestrian-Oriented neighborhood. I
! '
Since the parcel is located on 96th Street, our initiative is supported by adequate access on 96th Street, not only
by automobile, but by all alternative bike and walk path which is scheduled to be 10' wide inside the right-of-
way along 96th Street. Since the parcel already includes this 10' bike/walk path, residents and any office
workers will have access to mixed use amenities as part of a Neighborhood Commercial classification.
Furthermore, according to Civic Design on page 23, the parcel at 2700 E 96th Street is on the East Loop of the
proposed Intra-Urban Carmel Transit System. It is for these reasons that our requested classification the parcel
at 2700 E 96th Street is consistent with the Civic Design principles and why we are in favor of Neighborhood
Commercial and opposed to a proposed land use of Medium Density Residential in the Neighborhood Study.
The 96th Street & Westfield Blvd Area - Neighborhood Planning Study, Civic Design principles, and the Video
"Carmel Urban Design Initiative" on the City of Carmel's website all cite the principle of Three Rules of Urban
Design. Thi~ includes: 1) Build to the Sidewalk, 2) Make the Building Frqnt Permeable and 3) Put Parking
Behind the flront of the Building. The parcel at 2700 E 96th is well positioped to accommodate this principle
and we look iforward to implementing this. l
I '
I
I would like to add further that since the parcel is adjacent to proposed Ne~ghborhood Commercial to the East in
the recent N~ighborhood Study and adjacent to Office with incidental Retail use to the South in the recently
adopted Marton County Comprehensive plan, then it would be arguably cJnsistent to assign a similar use
classification of Neighborhood Commercial for the parcel at 2700 E. 96th Street. It would not be inconsistent to
assign a use tlassification to the parcel of Neighborhood Commercial since the adjacent parcel's uses are
compatible. It is for this reason that a use classification of Neighborhood Commercial for the parcel at 2700 E.
96th Street is well-suited.
Given that the Neighborhood Study contemplated additional consideration for the "Transitional Zone," Civic
Design states that neighborhood planning "should be based on the principles in this document," Civic Design
"encourages small development ventures" to create an "Interesting City," the ability to accommodate a
Pedestrian-Oriented neighborhood along with the goals of the Intra-UrbanCarmel Transit System, the Three
Rules of~rtfn Design stated by Civic Design, and .the p~esence of.two ad~acent parcels ~lassified for
commercIal use, we respectfully request a use claSSIficatIOn of "Nelghborijood CommercIal" for the parcel at
2700 E. 96th Street. i
i
!
Sincerely,
John B. Tintera
Carmel Plan Commission
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
9871 Westfield Boulevard
Indianapolis, IN 46280
March 16,2006
Re: Docket No. 06020006 PUD
Dear Carmel Plan Commission:
As a 20 year resident of the area in question, I am wholeheartedly in favor of this
rezoning request.
I have seen the proposed 96th and Westfield Boulevard Neighborhood Land Use Study,
as well as Pittman Partners' congruent plans for developing the area. Each is a
balanced, well thought-out vision of urban development that is inevitable for the
neighborhood.
I cannot comprehend those who object to positive change, such as replacing the blight
along Westfield Boulevard Oust north of 96th Street across from The Retreat) with
upscale town homes. Nor do I understand the animosity directed towards developers.
Where do people think their homes came from? One cannot expect our area to remain
bucolic forever when we are a mere mile from one of the busiest intersections in the
state.
This area is being developed for two reasons: There is a demand (Hamilton County is
the 18th fastest growing county in the U.S.); and most importantly, our neiahbors are
willina to sell their land.
A few years ago, I too was hesitant when the Walden Pond project was proposed.
However it has proved to be a benefit to the community, providing a safe, pleasant place
to walk and is a great improvement over the rat-infested abandoned drive-in theater.
This rezoning is a necessary, considerate step in the careful planning and managing of
development in the 96th and Westfield Boulevard area. J urge the Commission to
approve it.
Sincerely,
Jesse Hughett
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
~
RECEIVED
MAR , 0 2006
DOCS
STOEPPELWERTH & ASSOCIATES, INC.
9940 Allisonville Road
Fishers, Indiana 46038-2005
Phone (317) 849-5935
FAX (317) 849-5942
DATE:
March 10, 2006
JOB NUMBER: 51685PIT
TO:
Department of Community Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
ATTENTION:
Matt Griffin
RE:
Aramore
WE ARE SENDING YOU [ ] UPS
] Courier [ X] Other:
Deliver - SAB
COPIES SHEET DESCRIPTION
NO.
15 Aramore Plan Commission Packet
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
] For Approval
[ X ] As Requested
] For Review and Comment
X] For Your Use
REMARKS:
If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call at (317) 577-3400, ext. 46.
Th~
c-~dan D. .
Cc: Nick Churchill
MEB/meb
S:\51685\Blue _ Book\Agency _ Correspondence\TRANSDeptOfCommunityServicedGriffin03-1 0-06.DOC
..
~
,
u
u
City of Carmel
Via emall: Nick@pittmanpartners.com
Original by mail
February 14, 2006
Nick Churchill
Pitman Partners
PO Box 554
Carmel, IN 46082-0554
RE: Aramore PUD (06020006 Z)
copy.
Dear Mr. Churchill:
This letter is in response to your Rezoning application for the Aramore PUD. Comments and
concerns are as follow:
1. Section 2: Are you sure that non residential uses will not be a part of this area? Is
there any potential for future non residential along Westfield Blvd across from the
golf course?
2. Section 6.2: Please provide a section showing the distancing of the structures and
their relation to the street right of way - include street, on street parking, sidewalk,
landscape area, and structures.
3. Section 7: The Architectural Design Requirements should include language that
requires a design and/or product mix. Staff would prefer to see a required mix in
materials, colors, unit sizes, and unit styles. Having two distinct enclaves of identical
units is not the most effective way to create an interesting, dense urban node. By
providing different siding colors and materials for units (in different buildings, or
even in the same) more visual interest and identity can be given to the project, and to
the units themselves. Staff would like to see a mix of unit sizes and types so that
future homeowners do not become segregated to distinct age or income subdistricts.
4. Please provide all Exhibits that are referred to in the text. Also label the Exhibits that
have been provided.
5. Please provide a scaled, engineered landscape plan.
6. Section 8.2 A 1: Please define "breast height". Typically this means 40 inches from
grade.
7. Section 9: Please specify that all fixtures will be downcast fixtures/90 degree cut off
(compliant with Dark Skies Initiative).
8. Definitions N. Minor Alteration: Please revise definition so that it is trackable and
enforceable. A minor alteration can not include changes to architectural
requirements, decrease in open space or amenities, elimination of required plantings,
or the addition of living units.
Page 1
ONE CIVIC SQUARE
CARMEL, INDIANA 46032
317/571-2417
,)
,<
,.;
\
u
u
9. Preliminary Design Concerns:
a. Street and pedestrian network must be designed to accommodate future
development of the SE comer of Westfield Blvd. and 99th Street.
b. Please relocate the proposed roundabout to the interior street intersection. As
located, it serves no purpose and further separates the two products/market
segments.
c. Please revise the unit locations so that there is a mix to unit size and type. Two
distinct enclaves reduce the potential for an interesting urban node. Mixing
incomes and "market segments" is inherent in successful urban districts.
d. Are there any amenities for this site? Please provide for more courtyards or nodes
of interest for residents. A small scaled retail building (coffee shop/deli) along
Range Line could provide such.
e. Is there any way to do subsurface detention (over sized pipes?). The proposed
ponds are not usable amenities. Staff would support increased density if these
ponds could be reduced or removed with subsurface detention. The increased
density could be used to offset the additional cost. Additionally, the increased
density could help encourage/support a future neighborhood retail option.
f. Plans should identify on street parking spaces.
g. Please provide details for the townhome units.
Please wait to submit revised materials until after the Technical Advisory Committee (T AC) has
met on this application. The resubmitted materials should include edits addressing the above
comments along with any requirements that arise from the T AC meeting. Additional comments
may be made after the requested revisions have been submitted.
Sincerely,
llhatj< 5;::J".t(J--
&i~tthew Griffin, Aicp
Planning Administrator
06020006 Z Aramore POO
Page 2
ONE CIVIC SQUARE
CARMEL, INDIANA 46032
317/571-2417
02/10/2006 14:35
3177769628
HAMILTON CO SURVEYOR
PAGE 01/01
.J((lTfon C. 'Ward, SU11J'f'Or
"Pliont (~q.J i7~<~4~S
'FO.T (P7) i7(;-~16:t.8
February 10, 2006
Suttr: T So'
0/11' ,J(am{//oll Olllllty Squllre
,:,y"bIc'SI,i!/t, [lIdintll/ 46oLO(l-,uJo
Stoeppelwerth &: Associates. Inc.
ATTN: Gordan Kritz
9940 Allisonville Road
Fishers, IN 46038.2005
VIA F ACSIMJLE: 849.5942
/ -;.--'7->~>,'
"" , , . " ?"
,/"'/-A,--'~r,>,\
' hi. ''''{,
:// RECEIVED \ ,,)'
I l. .
~ FEB 1 0 2006 - "
", ., DOCS /
\ ,,\ !'
-.. .,A ~
\4~~ ~/'
'''/ / \.
"Z / l~r , ...,~\ 'Y
-'z- _s,~
RE: "III Street and Westfield Boulevard
Dear Mr. Kritz:
We have reviewed the conoept plans submitted to the Hamilton County Surveyor's Office on
February 1. 2006, for this project and have the following comments:
1. The proposed project falls in the incorporated area of the City of Carmel
2. The proposed project DOES NOT fall in a Cannel Wellhead Protection Zone.
3. The proposed project does not fall in a regulated drain watershed.
4. Please direct all storm sewer related questions to the City of Carmel Engineering
Department, unless new regulated drain is being proposed to drain this site.
5. The Hamilton County Surveyor's Office has no objections to the proposed
project.
Should you have any question~ I can be reached at 317-776-8495.
Sincerely,
~f#t:
Plan Reviewer
CC: Matt Griffin - Cannel DOCD, Amanda Foley - Carmel Engineering
Dick Hill- Cannel Bngineerin& Mike McBride ~ HCHD
Greg Ilko . CI'08Sroads Engineering
...-:;
os
..
U,
\''i,..
,.'w"""'.'"
; "
Avamor~
.:~~
EL
JAMES BRAINARD, l\1AYOR
February 7,2006
Mr. Gordan D. Kritz
Stoeppelwerth & Associates, Inc.
9940 Allisonville Road .
Fishers, IN 46038-2005
RE: 99tb Street & Westfield Boulevard Conceptual-Project Review #1
Dear Mr. Kritz:
We have reviewed the plans submitted for review at the February 15,2006 Technical Advisory Committee
meeting. We offer the following comments:
This information is provided in advance of detailed construction plan review. These general information
comments will be repeated and updated as construction plans are submitted for review.
GENERALINFO~ATION
1. The project site is located within current City of Carmel Corporate Limits.
2. Jurisdictions:
. Streets and Right of Way - City of Carmel (Westfield Boulevard/99th Street/98th Street)
. Water - City of Carmel Utilities (please contact John Duffy of Carmel Utilities)
. . Sanitary Sewers - Clay Township Regional Waste District
". Storm Sewers/Drainage - City of Carmel.
. Legal Drains - Hamilton County Surveyor's Office.
3. Board of Public Works and Safety Requirements:
. Water Availability approval from the Board is based upon the total number oftownhome
units and number of bedrooms per unit. Reference item #11 below for a more detailed
. .'explanation.If a community swi~Jg pool or bathhouse is planned, additional Water
Availability approval from the Board Will be required and additional Water Connection Fees
will be assessed. If entryway or other ~ommunity irrigation systems are planned, these will
also require additional Water Availability approval from the Board and additional Water
Connection Fees will be assessed based upon the size and usage of the system.
. Commercial Curb Cut Approval- This approval will be required for the Westfield Boulevard,
98th Street and the 99th Street entrances. Provide a letter to this office requesting BPWS
Commercial Curb Cut approval. Provide an 8 Yz x 11 exhibit or exhibits detailing the
requested curb cut(s) with all appropriate dimensional data including width, radii,
acel/decel/passing blister dimensions, existing and opposing streets or drives, etc.
. Temporary Construction Entrance approval if the location is at a site other than a permanent
curb cut on either Westfield Boulevard or 99th Street. Submission requirements are the same
as for commercial curb cut.
. Open pavement cuts of dedicated streets require BPWS approval.
. Any permanent improvement to be installed within dedicated right of w~y or dedicated
easements. This approval would require a Consent to Encroach Agreement between the
Owner and the City of Carmel.
. Secondary Plat approval if applicable.
. Dedication of Right of Way ifnot platted.
.;:
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING
ONE CMC SQUARE, CARMEL, IN 46032 OFFICE 317.571.2441 FAX 317.571.2439
EMAIL engineering@ci.carmel.in.us
....
:.
u
o
Any submission to the Board requires prior approval by the Carmel Clay Plan Commission
and/or the Board of Zoning Appeals (if applicable) and completion of review by the Technical
Advisory Committee. All written requests to be placed on the Board's agenda must include the
appropriate Docket Number and the date (or dates) of approval by the Plan Commission and/or
the Board of Zoning Appeals (if applicable).
4. T.A.C. Review/Drawings submitted for approval:
We request that all comments and comment letters generated by this office be answered in writing
and be accompanied by a drawing reflecting requested revisions. Final drawings will not be
approved for construction until all Engineering Department and Utility Department issues have
been resolved. The design engineer must certify all drawings submitted for final approval. This
office will require a minimum of four-sets of drawings for approval after all issues have been
resolved. The drawings will be stamped as approved and will be signed by the City Engineer and
Director of Carmel Utilities. The Owner will receive one-set which is to be maintained on the
construction site at all times. Carmel Utilities will receive one-set, our Public Works Inspector
will receive one-set and one-set will be maintained in the Engineering Department. If additional
approved sets are desired, we will approve a maximum of two-additional sets for a total of six-
sets. However, the additional sets must be submitted with the required four-sets.
5. Please be advised that any installation of signs, walls, irrigation systems, etc. within dedicated
right of way or dedicated easements will require a Consent to Encroach Agreement with the City
of Carmel. This agreement, with the exception of irrigation systems, requires BPWS approval.
The City Engineer may approve irrigation system agreements.
6. Carmel Utilities should be provided drawings for review of water issues. They will provide a
separate review regarding these issues.
7. Carmel Utilities does subscribe to "Holey Moley" who should be contacted directly for all water
main locations.
8. We will provide copies of the following with the submission of conStruction plans:
. Board of Public Works and Safety meeting dates and agenda deadlines.
. Subdivision Project Approval Procedures
. Commercial Project Approval Procedures
. Performance Release Procedure
. Subdivision Building Permits
. Permit Data, Contacts, etc.
. Street Signage Requirements
BONDING REQUIREMENTS
9. Upon initial review, it appears the following bonding requirements may apply to this project:
Performance.GuaranteeslEngineer's Estimates
I
. Streets (base, binder and surface must ~e bonded together)
. Curb & Gutters \
. Water Mains
. Storm Sewers/Drainage
. Monuments and Markers (if platted)
. Street Signs
. Sidewalks (Interior-builders lot right of way sidewalks and Exterior-common area/perimeter
right of way sidewalks/asphalt paths may be bonded separately).
. Right of Way Improvements may be bonded separately. this could include accel/decellanes,
passing blister, pavement widening, thermoplastic striping, stone shoulders, curbs, etc.
Erosion control may require a Performance Guarantee. This will be determined later.
The amount of the Performance Guarantee is based upon a certified Engineer's Estimate for 100%
of the cost oflabor and materials to construct the individual improvements, to be provided by the
design engineer. Please provide detailed Engineer's Estimates for each improvement including
quantities, unit costs, pipe sizes and materials, etc. Upon completion and release of individual
Performance Guarantees, a three-year Maintenance Guarantee will be required. The Maintenance
Guarantee amount is based upon 15% of the Performance amount for Streets and Curbs and 10%
.-"\
-.
,.
u
u
of the Performance amount for all other improvements. Performance Guarantees may be
Performance or Subdivision Bonds or Irrevocable Letters of Credit.
Right of Way Permit and Bonding
Any work in the dedicated right of way of Westfield Boulevard or 99th Street will require an
approved Right of Way Permit and a License & Permit Bond. The bond amount is determined by
the number of instances of work in the right of way at $2,000.00 per instance. However, if the
work is included in the scope of work of a required and posted Performance Guarantee, the
Performance Guarantee may be used to satisfy the bond requirements of the Right of Way Permit.
Please contact our Right of Way Manager, Fred Glaser, to arrange right of way permitting and
bonding. Note: Any open pavement cut within dedicated streets will require separate Board
of Public Works and Safety approval.
10. We have engaged Crossroad Engineers, PC to review all drainage plans and drainage calculations
submitted to thisofficeforreview. We will share Crossroad's comments as they are received.
When construction plans are submitted for review for this development, please provide a set of
drawings and drainage calculations directly to Crossroad.
AVAILABILITY AND CONNECTION FEES
11. Availability (acreage) Fees must be paid after all other Engineering Department requirements
have been satisfied and prior to approval and start of construction activities. Availability Fees are
based upon total platted acreage or legal description acreage for the development at the current
rate of$I,OIO.OO per acre for Water Availability.
Connection Fees-We will ask that you provide this office with a listing of the townhome
buildings, units per building and number of bedrooms per unit. The current Water Connection Fee
is $1,310.00 per EDD. Connection Fees are paid when the infrastructure has been completed,
satisfactory test results obtained and the development has been released for building permits.
Connection Fees are paid on a building-building-lot basis. The EDU calculation is based on the
following:
I-Bedroom Unit @ 0.54 EDUs per Unit
2-Bedroom Unit @ 0.81 EDUs per Unit
3-Bedroom Unit @ 1.00 EDU per Unit
The Availability and Connections Fees are current as of this date but are subject to future
revisions.
If an irrigation system, swimming pool or clubhouse is planned for this development, additional
Water Connection Fees will be assessed based upon the recommendations of the Director of
Carmel Utilities.
PROJECT COMMENTS .. . {... .
. 12. A seven-page Plan Certification Form is enclosed with this letter. This form was created with the
desire and intent to streamline the plan revibw process. We request that you please complete this
form and return it to the Department of Engineering as soon as possible. Comments will be
generated after the Certification Form is returned.
These comments represent the Department of Engineering's initial review of the conceptual plan for this
project. We request that all responses to our comments be provided in writing. Failure to provide written
responses may result in the delay of the review process.
It is critical that this office be made aware of all modifications made on the plans being re-submitted,
particularly if any such changes are considered "new" or fall outside of our previous reviews. Please
provide revised plans including all revisions. Please notify us of any changes and specifically state any
changes, including changes resulting from Plan Commission, BZA or other committee meetings.
All bonds and performance guarantees must be posted prior to Engineering Department approval of
construction plans. Board of Public Works and Safety approvals and any other governing agency approvals
(if required) must be obtained prior to Engineering Department approval. All performance guarantees must
be posted prior to submission of secondary plats for Board of Public Works and Safety approval.
;
..
u
u
The Department reserves the right to provide additional comments based upon subsequent reviews and on
the grading and drainage system upon receipt of drainage calculations and more detailed construction
drawings that provide grading elevations, pipe sizing and invert elevations. These comments may affect
the drainage system layout presented on the primary plat.
If you have questions, please call me at 571-2441.
Sincerely,
~~/. ~
Plan Review Coordinator
Department of Engineering
Enclosures
Cc: Matt Griffin, Department of Community Services
John Duffy, Director Carmel Utilities
Paul Pace, Carmel Utilities Distribution
Greg Ilko, Crossroad Engineers
Greg Hoyes, Hamilton County Surveyor's Office
Engineering File Copy
Engineering Department Review
S:\DHILL\PROJREV06\99TH&WESTFIELDCONCEPT
C(llJrmel
&Jrt:ment:
,. .,~", ., .,
February 6, 2006
Mr. Gordan D. Kritz
Stoeppelwerth & Associates, Inc.
9940 Allisonville Road
Fishers, IN 46060
RE: 99th Street and Westfield Boulevard
Job Number: 51685PIT
Dear Mr. Kritz:
I have received and reviewed the information for the above-mentioned
project.
At the present time, I see nothing in the plans that would hamper law
enforcement efforts.
If we can be of any further assistance to you, please contact us.
Respectfully,
~)).~~
Michael D. Fogarty .
Chief of Police
MDF:vb
v6ept. of Community Services
cc:
A Nationally Accredit
(317) 571-2500
orcement Agency
Fax (317) 571-2512
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
STOEPPELWERTH & ASSOCIATES, INC.
9940 Allisonville Road
Fishers, Indiana 46038-2005
Phone (317) 849-5935
FAX (317) 849-5942
DATE:
February 1, 2006
JOB NUMBER: 51685PIT
TO:
Department of Community Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
ATTENTION:
Matt Griffin
RE:
99th Street and Westfield Boulevard
WE ARE SENDING YOU
] UPS [ ] Courier [
Other:
Deliver
COPIES
SHEET
NO.
DESCRIPTION
1
1
1
1
Concept Plan (11" x 17")
Landscape Plan (11" x 17")
Auto Turn Exhibit (11" x 17")
Color Site Plan (11" x 17")
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
] For Approval
[ X ] As Requested
] For Review and Comment
X] For Your Use
REMARKS:
If you have any questions, please give me a call at (317) 577-3410.
Thank you,
GDKlmeb
S:\S168S\Blue _Book\Agency _ Correspondence\TRANSDepartmentOfCommunityServicesGriflin02-Ol-06.DOC
II
; .,.~
F-eJ\~ Lory
u
Sponsor: Councilor
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA
ESTABLISHING
THE ARAMORE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Section 31.6.4 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance Z-289 (the
"Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance"), provides for the establishment of a Planned Unit
Development District in accordance with the requirements ofl.C. ~ 36-7-4-1500 et seq.;
WHEREAS, the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission (the "Commission") has given a
recommendation to the ordinance set forth herein (the "Ordinance") which
establishes the Aramore 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-l500 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 and its exhibits are hereby repealed, (iii) all prior commitments
and restrictions shall be null and void and replaced and superseded by this Ordinance, 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 Aramore.
Section 1.2 Development in the District shall be governed entirely by (i) the
provisions of this Ordinance and its exhibits, 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 ofthis 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.
rmitted Prima Uses: Permitted uses are~~d()'iiii'lliums and/or multi-fam~
? ~,,~:'
.
"
,
U/
,'. .
.,
.
"
u
~ ~ '\
Section 3 Accessory Buildings and Uses: All Accessory Structures and Accessory Uses
shall be permitted except that any detached accessory building shown in any development plan
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. Home satellite
dishes shall be permitted.
Section 5 Platting: The platting of the Real Estate into smaller tracts shall be permitted, so
long as the proposed plat complies with the area requirements set forth below in Section 6, and
the creation of a new property line within the Real Estate shall not impose or establish new
development standards beyond those specified below in Section 6 for the entirety of the Real
Estate. However, the development of any parcel shall conform to all Preliminary Development
Plans and Final Development Plans which are approved or amended per the terms of Section
14.1 below, and all other applicable requirements contained in this Ordinance.
Section 6
Height. Area and Square Footage Requirements:
Section 6.1 Maximum Building Height: The maximum Building Height for
Townhomes is thirty-seven (37) feet. The maximum Building Height for Courthomes is
thirty (30) feet.
Section 6.2. Minimum Building Set Back: The Minimum Set Back from any p~rimeter ~
boundary line of the Real Estate shall be not less @n Ten ~. d ~~ ~... ~ \N .
Section 6.3 Minimum Building Separation. The minimum building distance between
Buildings, measured from the exterior face of the foundation, shall be ten (10) feet for
Townhomes and Courthomes.
Section 6.4 Maximum Parcel Coverage. Densitvand Square Footage:
A. Maximum Parcel Coverage shall be fifty percent (50%).
B. . There shall be a maximum of one hundred and fifty (150) Townhomes and
seventy-two (72) Courthomes on approximately twenty-seven and 35/100
(27.35) acres.
C. Square Footage of Townhome Floor Plans for Product Offerings shall not
be less than one thousand five hundred square feet. Square Footage of
Courthome Floor Plans for Product Offerings shall not be less than two
thousand square feet.
2
u
u
Section 6.5 Maximum Number of Buildings. There shall be no more than thirty (30)
Townhome Buildings and twenty-two (22) Courthome Buildings located upon the Real
Estate.
A.
. r . ~O~ ~V'\~:,,;~\o.th'~1""""
.1tt'~ ·
. ,.....ovc..,... ti\ \)t . . .
Suitability of building materials: A minimum of four (4) materials shall be used
for Building exteriors, from the following list: brick, cast stone, stone, Hardi-
Plank, stucco, glass, wood soffits, and vinyl clad windows and/or the equivalents
thereof for all of the foregoing. The use of wood and Hardi-Plank shall be limited
to Trim and Siding.
Architectural Design Requirements:
Section 7.
B. Roof design: All Townhome roofs, except for open porch roofs, shall have a
minimum slope of 12 horizontal to 6 vertical. All Courthome roofs, except for
open porch roofs, shall have a minimum slope of 12 horizontal to 4 vertical.
C. Building rendering and elevations: Attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference as Exhibit "B" are a rendering and elevations, depicting the building
materials and architectural elements of the Buildings to be constructed upon the
Real Estate.
D.
Communit mail b
reference as Exhibit
mailbox plan as Exhib
structure: Attached hereto and incorporated herein by
. s a rendering of the community mail box and master
Section 8
Landscaping Requirements:
Section 8.1 Landscape Plan: The Landscape Plan shall consist of the landscape detail
depicted on the landscape plan which is attached hereto as Exhibit "D" (hereafter
"Landscape Plan"). Landscaping shall be installed per the Landscape Plan.
Section 8.2 Landscaping Standards:
A. Materials: All plants proposed to be used in accordance with any
landscaping plan shall meet ANZI Z60-60.1-1996 and meet the following
specifications:
~ I .. ........~ 1. Shade trees: a minimum trunk diameter of 2.5 inches measured at
-"....~ _ reast hel minimum height of eight (8) feet, and a branching
hei 0 not less than 1/3 nor more than ~ of tree height.
2. Ornamental trees: a minimum trunk diameter of I ~ inches
measured at breast height, and a minimum height of six (6) feet.
3
u
u
3. Shrubs: shrubs may be deciduous or evergreen, and shall be
eighteen (18) inches in height at planting.
4. Evergreen Trees: shall be six feet (8') in height at planting.
Section 8.3 Landscaping: Installation and Maintenance:
A. Maintenance: It shall be the responsibility of the owners and their agents
to insure proper maintenance of project landscapi~g and lake areas
approved in accordance with 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.
Section 9
Lighting Requirements and Park Benches:
Section 9.1.
A. Front of Townhome lighting:
1. Each Townhome having a covered porch at the front entrance shall
have one (1) light fixture hanging from the ceiling of the covered
porch.
2. Each Townhome which does not have a covered porch at the front
entrance shall have two (2) ligijt fix~is mounted on either side of
the front door.- ~~CA~ ~~~ ,""co .\) ..
B. Rear of Townhome lighting: Each Townhome shall have two (2) exterior
grade coach lights mounted on either side of the overhead garage door,
each one activated by a dusk-to-dawn sensor.
C. Courthome lighting:: Each Courthome shall have a minimum of one (1)
light fixture at each entry door and shall have two (2) exterior grade coach
lights mounted on either side of the overhead garage door, each one
activated by a dusk-to-dawn sensor.
D. Li tin: Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as
'bit "is a picture e community street ligllting fixtures and
master s eet lighting pI Exhi 1 " ". ~~..,
E. Park Benches: ttached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as
Courtyard Be Xhl "I" is a pictur of the community park bench and
master community enc plan as Ex . it" ,
Section 1 0 SilIDS
4
u
u
Section 10.1. Ground Signs and Entry Wall.
A. ~: One (1) Ground/Entryway Sign shall be permitted near each
entrance to the development, as is depicted on Exhibit "E", which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
B. Maximum Sign Area: Thirty Six (36) square feet each.
C. Illumination of Sign: External.
D. Sign Permit: Required.
E. Fees: Required.
Section 11
Parking
Section 11.1 Parking: Each Townhome shall contain a two (2) car garage and each
Courthome shall have a two car garage, in addition, there shall be not less than one
hundred twenty (120) external parking spaces.
Section 12
Mechanical Equipment
Section 12.1 Mechanical Equipment: Any mechanical equipment visible from an
adjoining street or highway shall be screened with suitable fencing or landscaping and in
general be architecturally compatible with the building(s) with which it is associated.
Section 13
Homeowners Association and Declaration of Covenants
Section 13.1 Declaration of Covenants and Homeowners Association: A Declaration of
Covenants shall be recorded which shall also contain various provisions regarding the
Real Estate, including provisions for an initiation fee, a budget requirement to fund
general reserves, the use of the Real Estate, and improvement approval requirements after
initial construction. The Declaration of Covenants will also provide for the establishment
of a Homeowners Association in which membership shall be mandatory.
Section 14. Approval Process:
Section 14.1. Approval or Denial of the Primary Plat/Development Plan.
A. Exhibit "F", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference, shall serve as the Conceptual Plan (the "CP"). The CP
constitutes the Development Plan and primary plat for the Real Estate.
5
u
u
The architecture, design, lighting and landscaping for the Real Estate and
the improvements thereon, considered in connection with the Ordinance,
do not require any further (i) ADLS approval or (ii) Development
Plan/primary plat approval other than Final Development Plan approval
per the procedure set forth below in this Section 14. If there is a
Substantial Alteration in the approved ADLS and Development
Plan/primary plat, review and approval of the amended plans shall be
made by the Commission, or a Committee thereof, pursuant to the
c;:~;~:$es of procedure6:~:or Al,<,~~:c@ Mate~a1""'"""")
C AlteratIons e approved by the .
B. The Director shall have the sole and exclusive authority to approve
without conditions, approve with conditions, or disapprove the Final
Development Plans/Secondary Plats (collectively, the "FDP") for
Aramore; provided, however, that the Director shall not unreasonably
withhold or delay the Director's approval of the FDP that is in substantial
conformance with the CP and is in conformance with the Development
Requirements of this Ordinance. If the Director disapproves any FDP, the
Director shall set forth in writing the basis for the disapproval and
schedule the request for approval of the FDP for a hearing before the full
Plan Commission.
C. An amendment to the FDP, which is not determined by the Director to be
a substantial or material alteration from the approved CP, may be
reviewed and approved solely by the Director. However, in the event the
Director determines that there has been a Substantial Alteration or
Material Alteration between the approved CP and any proposed FDP, the
Director may, at the Director's discretion, refer the amended FDP to the
Commission, or a Committee thereof, for review and approval by the
Commission and/or a Committee thereof.
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 to the Director, which shall
include reasonable detail regarding the facility and structures to be
constructed, as well as drainage, erosion control, utilities, and building
information.
Section 15
Definitions and Rules of Construction:
Section 15.1 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.
6
u
u
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 15.2 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. Building Height: The vertical distance when measuring from the first
finished floor elevation to the mean height between eaves and ridges.
D. City: The City of Carmel, Indiana.
E. Commission: The Carmel/Clay Plan Commission.
F. Council: The City Council ofthe City of Carmel, Indiana.
G. County: Hamilton County, Indiana.
H. Declaration of Covenants: A Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions for the Real Estate which shall be recorded in the office of the
Recorder of Hamilton County, Indiana, and which may, from time to time,
be amended.
I. Plan. Conceptual. A general plan for the development of the Real Estate
that is submitted for approval showing proposed facilities, buildings, and
structures. This plan generally shows landscape areas, parking areas, site
access, drainage features, and building locations.
J. Development Plan. Final. A specific plan for the development of the Real
Estate that is submitted for approval showing proposed facilities,
buildings, and structures. This plan review includes general landscaping,
parking, drainage, erosion control, signage, lighting, screening and
building information for the site.
K. Develo{)ment Requirements. Development standards and any
requirements specified in this Ordinance which must be satisfied in
connection with the approval of a Final Development Plan.
7
T.
u.
v.
x.
u
o
L.
Director: Director, or Administrator, of the Department of Community
Services for the City of Carmel, Indiana. "Director" and "Administrator"
shall includehislher authorized representatives.
M.
Material Alteration: Any change to an approved plan of any type that
involves the substitution of one material, species, element, etc. for another.
N.
Minor Alteration: Any change to an ap~lan of any type that
involves the revision ofless t~n te~ercent 000 f the plan's total area
or approved materials. .1.11\M.A.
O.
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 Real Estate
boundaries.
P.
Real Estate: The Real Estate shall mean and refer to all of the Real Estate
described in Exhibit "A".
Q.
Right-of-Way: An area of land permanently dedicated to provide light, air
and access.
R.
Set Back: The least measured distance between a building or structure,
excluding, however, porches, patios, 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.
S.
.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.
Substantial Alteration: 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 approved materials.
Townhome: An attached townhome intended for occupancy by a single
family.
Townhome Building: A structure containing Townhomes.
Courthome: An attached condominium intended for occupancy by a single
family.
8
u
u
Y. Courthome Building: A structure containing Courthomes.
Z. Trim: Soffits, architraves, wood reveals, and casement around doors and
windows.
Section 16. Violations. All violations of this Ordinance shall be subject to Section 34.0
of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance.
PASSED by the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana this _ day of
, 2006, by a vote of ayes and nays.
COMMON COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF CARMEL
Presiding Officer
Richard L. Sharp, President
Ronald E. Carter
Brian D. Mayo
Fredrick J. Glaser
Mark Rattermann
Joseph C. Griffiths
Kevin Kirby
ATTEST:
Diana L. Cordray, lAMC, Clerk Treasurer
Presented by me to the Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana the _ day of
,2006, at o'clock .M.
Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk Treasurer
9
.... t.
u
u
10
. .
o
u
Approved by me, Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana, this
,2006, at o'clock .M.
day of
James Brainard, Mayor
ATTEST:
Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk Treasurer
This Instrument prepared by: Steve Pittman, Pittman Partners, Inc. PO Box 554, Carmel, IN
46082.
11
" .
u
u
EXHIBIT" A"
Le1!al Description
Part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 17 North, Range 4 East, in Hamilton
County, Indiana, described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest comer of said quarter section; thence South 00 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds West
(assumed bearing) along the west line of said quarter section a distance of 425.85 feet to the northwest comer of a
tract ofland described in a deed recorded as Instrument Number 2005-26315 in the Office of the Recorder of
Hamilton County, Indiana; thence South 89 degrees 50 minutes 54 seconds East along the north line of said tract a
distance of75.00 feet to the northeast comer of said tract and the Point of Beginning, being a point on the south line
ofa tract ofland described in a deed recorded as Instrument Number 89-25227; thence continuing South 89 degrees
50 minutes 54 seconds East along said south line a distance of 429.20 feet to a point on the easterly line of a tract of
land described in a deed recorded as Instrument Number 2005-26316 (the following three courses are along the
easterly lines of said tract ofland); 1) thence South 00 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 54.36 feet;
2) thence South 89 degrees 47 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 156.00 feet; 3) thence South 00 degrees 09
minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 222.63 feet to the north line of a tract ofland described in a deed recorded in
Deed Book 314, page 403; thence South 89 degrees 31 minutes 11 seconds East along said north line a distance of
307.73 feet to southwest comer of a tract of land described in a deed recorded in Deed Book 349, page 522; I)
thence North 00 degrees 20 minutes 59 seconds East along the west line of said tract a distance of 689.87 feet to the
north line of said quarter-quarter section; 2) thence South 88 degrees 58 minutes 07 second East along said north
line a distance of 379.80 feet to the northeast comer of said quarter-quarter section and the northeast comer of a tract
ofland described in a deed recorded in Deed Book 349, page 523 (the following two courses are along the easterly
and southerly lines of said tract); I) thence South 00 degrees 20 minutes 55 seconds West along the east line of said
quarter-quarter section a distance of 445.00 feet; 2) thence North 88 degrees 58 minutes 07 seconds West a distance
of 190.22 feet to the east line of the aforesaid tract ofland described in Deed Book 349, page 522; thence South 00
degrees 20 minutes 55 seconds West along said east line a distance of243.05 feet to the north line of the aforesaid
tract of land described in a deed recorded in Deed Book 314, page 403; thence South 89 degrees 31 minutes II
seconds East along said north line a distance of 190.21 feet to the east line of said quarter-quarter section; thence
South 00 degrees 20 minutes 55 seconds West along said east line a distance of 646.66 feet to the southeast comer
said quarter-quarter section; thence North 89 degrees 30 minutes 24 seconds West along the south line of said
quarter-quarter section a distance of 1275.51 feet to the east right-of-way line per road plans for Carmel Project
Number 04-11 for Westfield Boulevard (the following two courses are along said east right-of-way line); I) thence
North 00 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds East a distance of 323.07 feet; 2) thence South 89 degrees 31 minutes II
seconds East a distance of 5.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds East a distance of 597.10 feet
to the Point of Beginning, containing 27.358 acres, more or less.
12
~ #. ..
u
u
13
.. f ;;.", ..
U
99th 8r Westfielll J60u eVArll
CONCEPT PLAN
.
AREA MAP
(N.T.S.)
SIM.p"- of. a.._.:iM.
(;OIG\,t.TIItGENGlfEERS L_SlRVfYOlIS
l~"l"""_ ........,'1.......
--..-.."".".......-...-.
u.
r- rr
Is [iI1tj l-\I ~ 1H Hf lJ:J
If lC~___ _ ~
, -'" ~="., ~ R~
HuH HlJH HIlH HtlH ~\ L L' G
.L r 1 I' h -
- ~ r~ Or\ "i .d
Q -- ~ ~!g~ ~ It!/? ~ ~
<( II U ~ ,~\:
o U c> \\:...'\... ~
( ::::ra ~ ~ ~(
( "'0 c I
II J: III Do
~~5i!~
u;~5~
~ I ;i r. a
u
u
~ ~,.....,... -rv--..
~ T'l""}...L'lf'" IlJU
~ ~ ~[iI1tj ~
~ --~~-J
....
:t:: a. ;::::::-::::::: ~ I
i -;J JR lRtJR~JH
~:K ,l
.......,....,.
-
'"'
.J>. rr.4.
'IJ
..--
"--
I--
......
..--
(
~) I~'
~
I~
I~
J
)
,- {
....-r ~""""I
t- ~ r--
'""""""
~ r--
........ ......
.~ =
-
"\ ~
( ~ · I Hl ]I I " ~ H ~
,,\~)~ - ~
~ 10. ~~I~'II~'II~ ~)l I'~
=- ::~ ~-
~ ...... ~J:. - -
~ _ l- llllll<<)l ~ ~ ,t ~
) - ~"-- :: ~J
~ ~) lll.Lll.Llll~ ~) ,~
! L 5
~~ ----
(
( ~
tt(
J '-
a~V^31n08 0131.:1lS3M
~ ueld adeospuellen~daouo:)
--I
--..'\1
,.......
......., II
,.......
......,
,.~
~
L
~
)
;'J .~
oj .-'J,
u
u
~!
r
~i
ii
"
~ ~
~{
;j
~