Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRelated/historical information for the site j ~ \ "::,1-0(l~ (}~ Stk City of Carmel CARMEL PLAN CO'MMISSION SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE TUESDAY, MAY 3,2005 Minutes The Special Studies Comm.ittee met at 6:00 PM on Tuesday May 3, 2005 in the Caucus Roo of City HaU, Carmel, Indiana. Mernbers present: Jeny Chomanczuk; Wayne Haney; Mark Ratterrnann; adeleine Torres, thereby establishing a quorum. Matt iffin, City Planner, Jon Dobosiewicz, and Mike Hollibaugh at' nded the meeting on behalf of the De tment of Communjty Services as well as John Molitor, egal COllnsel. The Special Stu 's Conmlittee considered the followlng it 1. "'i; Docket No. 040" 045 ADLS: O'Malia Fire ace The applicant see' pmval of a building d parking lot expansion. The site is located at 220 South Range . ~ Road. The site' zoned B-I/Business. Filed by Paul Reis of D Simmo Vornehm, LLP for Helen J. O'Malia Trust. TABLED orner of 146th St. and Hazel Dell Pkwy. 2. Traci Preble, G Associates appeared before the Committee re - "enting the applicant. The phm has bee evised to eliminate one drive-through lane. The A 1 foot bypas ane have been retained. In eljrninating the drive through lane, the number of parklng spaces has been e t4~petitioner still meets the required number of spaces under the Ordinance as acceptable amount for Fifth Third Bank. S :/PlanC om missi 0 nlMi u Ie ,IS pee ial S lud i e sCa III mi Itee/2 0051 ss2005 ma y03 ONE eI\/IC SQUARE Cf\RMEL, INDIANc'\ 460.12 .'317/571-2417 " The lighting fixtures are the same as the CarMax location ut' izes. All of the signage on the A TM has been reduced except for the "Indiana Members' redit Union" at the top and that is 'less than three square feet. The mber of drive-through lanes is necessary for c stomer utilization. One lane is for dedicat drive-through. The parking complies w' the Ordinance. Department ort, Matt Griffin. Regarding t e ground sign, are the cabinets t1ush-mounted or recessed into the ick. Has any thought bee given to matching the color of the entire cabinet to the building elevatio materials? of the A TM and the coloring is somewhat consistent with ogo. Wayne Haney referred to the s tch 0 e louVered door. The dumpster doors should go to the capstone-would prefer Iou red rather t chain-Link. The dumpster door will match the gray of the roof, same as in the tanding seam. Mr. aney said he preferred the metal louvered door to the chain link. Dave oots agreed to make the oor metal louvered doors. There will be no ac ~ ss directly off Gray Road. Traffic uld turn off Gray Road and connect with the access ro tl. Traffic will be right in/right out on 96 Jerry Choman uk also felt the number of drive-through lanes was e petitioner says the number of lanes is justified. Mark Rattermann made formal motion to forward Docket No. 05020036 DP/ADLS, Indiana Members' Credit Union to the full Commission with a positive recommendation, seconded by Wayne Haney, Approv d-5~O. 4. .. D..icQcke.t,~~,",fi5,Q20038 Z and 05020039 DP/ADLS: ~~~;~~~~f~~~~~~f~~\::;~~n~~llsiness [0 PUD/Planned Unit Development for the purpose of creating a two story commercial building and 38 townhomes in 7 residential buildings. The site is located at S'E:,cQrneForl1)'&tfGSJreef~ld \:,P;i'Q.--~L~ne.:d -"- " -.' ,'. ,- , .- - . .' '~"' Filed hy Paul Reis for Justus Home Builders. Paul Reis, attorney, 8888 Keystone Crossing, Suite 1200, Indianapolis appeared before the Commission representing the applicant, Also in attendance: Wally Justus, Walt Justus, Chris Miller and Bob Dine, Justus Home Builders; Chris White, Development Consultant; Barbara Eden, Carson Designs; Rich Kelly, Engineer. The petitioner is proposing a mixed-use development located at the southeast corner of l36th Street and Pro-Med Lane, directly east of the intei'section of US 31 and Old Meridian Street. S:lP] anCommissi 0 nfl\,1 i U Ie sfS pee ialS tud i esCo m mi tteef200Sfss200SIl1 a yO::; 3 ONE CIVIC SQlL\RE CARlvIEL, INDV\NA 46032 317 /571--2417 Meadowlark Offke Park is to the south~ to,the east is the Ke,nsington Townhome neighborhood. There are single-family residences located to the north as well as US 31. There are significant tree preservation areas on the north side and along the east side of the property. One ground sign is being proposed at the intersection of Pro-Med Lane and Smokey Row Road. The petitioner is proposing a 30,000 square-foot, two-story office building, .and 38 owner/ occupied townhomes io the residential district. The road will be private with a gated entry; the gate will have a "knox-box" that will allow fire and emergency vehicles access at any time should the gates be closed. In addition, emergency access is being provided off Smokey Row Road and off Pro-Med Lane, There are actually three points to access the site for emergencies. Paul Reis reviewed the history of this particular site. Paul Reis displayed a drawing of the approved Development Plan for when the site was fIrst being developed, as revised in 1994. Originally, in 1990, the entire site was zoned R-2; the entite propertywas put within the Overlay Zone, then rezoned from R-2 to B-6., At that time, there were as series of commitments made on this propelty. Copies of the commitments were distributed to COIlunittee members. One ofthe initial commitments l1lade in 1990 stated that the site would be developed pursuant to a Development Plan. That- Development Plan actually had another street that ran to Smokey Row Road. [n 1994, an affidavit and additional commitments were made and the road was el iminated, however, the Development Plan remained which was: Tei County (now Behavior Corp.) the proposed Justus site, the Meadowlark Office Site, and a park area and proposed lake in the southeast corner of the site. Roadway improvements were committed to for Smokey Row Road ano Pro~Med Lane as a part of this. There were certain uses that were restricted as q part of the commitments, and those are listed. There was a conmlitment to go through ADLS, and a commitment that there would be 00 -k office building higher than four (4) stories or 50 feet, whichever is less, Finally, there was a .-. cOinmitment that said that one of the parcels would only be used for signage pUlvoses on behalf_ l\- of the entire site. ""f'JA The second set of commitments that were approved stated that in all ADLS hearings, there would be a public hearing associated with that'and that was agreed to. Also, there was a commitment as to a definitive tree preservation plan submitted with eachADLS application. The petitioner has submitted a tree preservation plan; it has been reviewed and approved by the Urban Forester. The third commitment was a commitment to contribute to a traffic study for the intersection of Old Meridian and Smokey Row. This was in 1990 prior to the actual improvements made by the State. The State owns past the intersection of Smokey Row Road and Old Meridian. In [994, Behavior Corp. changed their plans, filed for the fi nal Development Plan, and made additional commitments. One'of those cOl1unitments was to constmct roadway improvements at the corner. However, within months of the approval in 1994, the State did make the S :/Plan Co mm i 5S i on/Miutes/S pee i al Stud ie sCom mil tee/2 0051 ss2 005 ma y03 4 ONE CI'ilIC SQUARE C\RL\rEL, lNDL-\Ni\ 4GD32 317/571-2417 improvements and there are no additional roadway improvements to be made at Smokey Row and Old Meridian. The proposed US 31 upgrade will affect the intersection. Mike McBride, City Engineer states that there is a possibility of a round about being constructed at this intersection. The intersection is being studied and will most likely be approved by either the City of Carmel or the State. Currently, the. intersection is within ihe right"of"way of the State of Indiana. At the Plan Commission meeting, several residents of Kensington Place spoke concerning the buffer mea. The approved plan provides for a 50-foot non-disturbance buffer. The reason for th is significant buffer was that this property was being rezoned to B-6-intense office uses that are fOlmd throughout the US corridor. Justus Home Bllilders is proposing a slight reduction of t\1at area to make it 45 feet, primarily to address some of the grade changes moving north to south as well as to ensure that the drainage is properly addressed in the area. The petitioner feels the uses are veryc0n1patible-re,sidential to residential. The original commitmetlt of 50 feet was because of the stark change in uses. Taking off 5 feet should not be of any great detriment, considering the change in use and that the proposed use provides a much better transitional use between the Kensington neighborhood and the proposed development. Secondly, the petitioner looked into the backyard Wildlife Habitat program. It is a part of the Indiana Wildlife Federation and Justus Home Builders as well as the Homeowners Association is prepared to participate with Mr. Dockstater on this program. If Mr. Dockstater takes the lead, Justus will support it-it' will expand the back,yatas 'another 45 feet that can be put into the Wildlife Habitat area and will enhance the neighbors' t.o the east. There were some questions concerning LheUS 31 Overlay Zone and this Ordinance. Basically, the US 31 Overlay Ordinance is the basis for the Ordinance governing the commercial developrrient area. The retail uses and restrictions and provisions that are in the PUD being proposed arc identical with the restrictions within the US 31 Overlay Zone. Again, the 'petitioner feels that all of the uses being proposed are compatible. with the townhome development located to the east as well as Behavior Corp., the office uses, and the US 31 corridor in general. Mark Rattet'ffi3.l1n had raised concern at the Plan Commission meeting regarding the parking. The parking has been revisited and the petitioner feels that based upon the experience, that Justus ,has in developing this type of conununityand the price range of the homes, the petitioner truly believes that the residents wil1 be parking their cars in the garage, and will avail each unit of four parking spaces, two above the reciuired. At this point, 4 spaces should be adequate. Also, there was a comment concerning the gate-Justus feels that the gate feature adds additional value to the community. However, the petitioner is happy to review again as well. As noted earlier, access for emergency vehicles will not be hindered in any way by the fact that there is a gate. There are two alternatives ifthe gate, for whatever reason, malfunctions'. There will be a "knox-box" that will allow immediate 'access. S :/P I anCo mm i S5 j 0 n/Mi ute s/S pee ialS IUd iesCo 111m i ttee12005/ss2005 ma y03 5 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDBNA 46032 317/57'1-2417 Department Comments, Matt Griffin. The Staff has no additional comments and supports this petition as presented. Committee Conunents/Questions: Jerry Chomanczuk asked where a school bus would stop to pick up and discharge children. Rich Kelly responded that the drawings have been submitted to the School and they have advised that a school bus would stop at the north end of the townhome development on Smokey Row Road. The School requested that a sidewalk be provided from the townhomes to Smokey Row and the petitioner has agreed. The east side of the dri ve to Smokey Row is a grass-paver area for emergency vehicle access. Wayne Haney commended the architect for the aesthetics of the development; it blends weLl with the commercial units. The fencing, railings, everything looks French Provencal and is a very up- scale development. The apartments make a good transition between the existing residential area and the commercial use. Jerry ChomancZLlk said he was also impressed with the architecture, color scheme, and everything that has gone into putting the plan together. However, there are two on-going concerns. One is parking for the townhomes. The other is "office buildings" which is really a mixed use retail-type building wheFe the ground floor will be used fo1"a variety of store fronts. Paul Reis said that Pro-Med Lane would be able to serve after hours for location of parking. People will be able to park on the street as well as the large parking area for office buildings. There are also cross-eaesments. As far as retail area, it cannol exceed 15% of the gross noor area of the office area. Retail is limited in the US 31 corridor. Jerry Chomanczuk also expressed concern about the reduction in the buffer area. There were commitments made in regard to the buffer. Paul Reis stated responded that the 50-foot buffer was appropriate for an office use adjacent to residential use. The 50 feet and concern for tree preservation in 1990 an again in 1994 was appropriate. With the proposed development, an office use is not proposed-far different from the adjacent property use. The Ordinance requires 20 feet of buffer. There are strict guidelines iil the PUD about what can happen in there-more strict than were actually in the commitments. Also, with participation in the backyard habitat program, there may be further restrictions as to what may go in there. Actually, with what is being given back by the additional language in the Ordinance, plus participation in the habitat program, the 50 feel is being enhanced. Mark Rattermann asked where invitees would park if there were a party or private function? Wally JUStllS responded that each unit has two parking spaces. Assuming the owner uses the garage, the driveway has two spaces available. There is also parking on one side of the street that S:I PI anC 0 m m i 55 i 0 nIM i utes/S peci al S tudiesC 0 m m i ttee/2 0051 582005 ma y03 6 ONE CIVIC SQUARE C\R..l\IEL, TNDL\N/\ 46032 317/571..2417 is 26 feet in width, and beyond that, there is parking near the office building and on Kensington. Mark Rattermann said he would rather see that the banked parking is not "banked" as planned but constructed now as parking. Members of the public were invited to speak at this time: Virginia Kerr, 13595 Kensington Place, referred to the commitments made in 1990. Ms. Kerr was very concerned regarding thereduction in the. buffer, since commitments were made for a 50- foot buffer. The residents of Kensington thought an adjacent development WQuld be an office-the proposal is for retail, 26-foot wide lots, and parking is still a concern. There is difficulty in parking at Kensington Place and the smallest lot is 52.5 feet wide. Ms. Ken" said the backyard habitat refeLTed to by Mr. Dockstater consisted of bird feeders and birdbaths, and committing to that is nothing to the residents of Kensington Place. The 5 feet is extremely important! Is there any reason why there can't be a commitment to leave this as trees as it was initially stated in the commitments? The street will be considerably more narrow than 26 feet when measured back of curb to back of curb. Also, if 50 feet has been committed, why can't the developer leave the 50-foot tree buffer in place? It is a little humorous to compare the proposed development to where Mr. Justus lives~those lots are considerably wider in Mr. Justus' gated, residential community-this is not a fair comparison. Sharon Oldham, 13534 Kensington, reiterated that most residents in Kensington would prefer an Office development adjacent rather than residential. An office community would not generate family activity, increase lighting, and traffic. A commercial development would be vacant after 6:00 PM, the building would be dark, there would not be cars, or children/family activity and no one would be there on the weekends. When people from Kensington Place come home from work, there would not be any residents next door. Regarding a school bus, Smokey Row Road is extremely congested during school days-kids on the west side are transported to the high school and Smokey Row is a very dangerous curve in this location at Pro Med Lane. Ms. Oldl1atn would prefer that a school bus not stop on the curve to pick up children. John Kerr, 13595 Kensington Place, spoke on behalf of himself and Kensington Partners. Mr. Kerr agreed with all comments made by previous speakers who are residents of Kensington Place. The residents met with Wally Justus on a couple occasions; Mr. Justus stated no preference as to office/commercial use or residential. It is being presented as a mixed PUD- obviously Mr. Justus did have a preference. Mr. Kerr asked that the Commission honor the previous commitment in regard to the 50-foot buffer. Paul Reis responded to public comments. The 50-foot commitment was made and the reason why it was determined to be 50 feet was beCaL1Se of the use. When you look at transitional land use, and in discussion with the Department, it was felt that this proposal is actually a better use of the land than office. Because there would be residential use to residential use, there would be a 45 buffer should be adequate. Tree preservation will remain intact-in fact language has been added to improve these types of areas so. that they arc maintained. There seems to be some concern about noise and lights and commotion. The intent of this community is not one that will S :lPI anCo mm iss i 0 n/Nri uLes/S pee ial S tud i csCo III m ittcef20051 ss2005 ma y03 7 ONE CIVIC SQUARE C\lUvfEL, INDBNA 46032 317/571-2417 be noisy or any more noisy or have any more lights than the residents of Kensington have. The residential area is not really set up or designed for families. The developer has no control over the schools, but if this is an issue, it can be addressed with Mr. Fearrin of the School Corp as far as the bus pick up location. Walt Justus said the townhomes are marketed more to the empty nester/adults and young professionals. There would be very few families and small children; there is no programmed space for play, etc. Out of 38 units, it would be very surprising if there were 10-15% of families with children. John Molitor, legal counsel was asked for an opinion by JenyChomanczuk. "Are commitments being eroded, and are we setting a precedent?" John Molitor said the proposal to rezone to a PUD from a business district can be any mixture of uses proposed by the developer. This matter will go before the City Council and then become a legislative issue. The City Council is to be guided by the Comprehensive Plan as well as current condition, character of structures and uses in the District, the most desirable use for the land, conservation of property uses throughout the community, and responsible development and growth. These are all somewhat nebulous, but when put together, itgives the City Council a way to act rationally when is judges whether or not to approve a rezone. The commitments are part of the rezone issue. The commitments from 1990 nd 1994 are from previous rezones. This is a new rezone; it replaces the old rezone and replaces the old commitments. The Council must judge whether or not to approve the rezone; you don't look at the commitments in a vacuum, you look at the entire package as to whether or not rezoning the property would make sense for the neighborhood and the entire community. The commitments are just part of the package. In response to questions from Mark Rattermann, Paul Reis said the property was zoned R-2 residential prior to the rezone to B-6 business. The commitments were tendered because a portion of the property was in the Overlay Zone. The public hearing will remain open so that public will have an opportunity for input at the next Plan Commission meeting as wen as the City Council meeting. Mark Rattermann made forl11al motion to recommend approval to the full Commission of Docket No. 05020038 Z and 05020039 DP/AOLS for Jackson Square Planned Unit Development, conditioned upon the developer installing one-half of the parking at this time rather than land-banking, (the entry area will be left intact for now and land-banked for future parking.) The motion was seconded by Madeleine Torres and APPROVED 4 in favor, one opposed (Chomanczuk.) *Note: ScottBrewer, Urban Forester should probably review and suggest alterations in the landscape plan regarding the change in land-banking. S :/PlanCommissionfMi llres/SpecialStlldiesCommi ttee12005/ss2005 may03 8 ONE CIVIC SQUi\RE C\R,\,ifEL, INDL-\N-\ 46032 317/571-2417 :0.;.... _ .. (J bULb'! VL-U, 40- qO L '-.." \~ r _~ ~if !\(\~ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. Z-160, A PART OF THE MASTER PLAN OF THE CITY OP CARMEL, INDIANA Pro-Med ORDINANCE NO. Z-252 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, ORDINANCE NO. Z-160, AS AMENDED, PASSED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMELt INDIANA, ON JANUARY 21, 1980, UNDER AUTHORITY OF ACTS OF 1979, PUBLIC LAW 178, SECTION 1, et seg., (I.C. 18-7-4-101 et seq.) AND ALL ACTS AMENDATORY OR SUPPLEMENTARY THERETO. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, THAT ORDINANCE NO. Z-160, AS AMENDED, IS HEREBY AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: That. the zone map accompanying and made a part of Zoning Ordinance Z-160, Sections 4.1-4.3, as amended, and the zoning classifications of Zoning Ordinance No. Z-160, are amended to reclassify and re-zone the following described property from an R-2 Residence District Classification to a B-6 Business District within the zoning districts and on the official zoning map: Part of the Northeast Quarter and the Northwest Quarter of Section 25 t Townshi.p 18 North, Range. 3 East in Hamilton County, Indiana, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Quarter Quarter Section; thence along the North line thereof on an assumed bearing of South 88 degrees 38 minutes 05 seconds West 1306.37 feet to the Northwest corner of said Quarter Quarter Section; thence along the West line of said Quarter Quarter Section South 00 degrees 06 minutes 32 seconds East 892.61 feet to the South right of way line of old U.S. Highway 31 (Meridian Street) said point also being the Point of Beginning; thence along said right of way line North 35 degrees 31 minutes 32 seconds East 665.00 feet to the South line of an access road; thence along said South line South 54 degrees 28 minutes 28 seconds East 98.93 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left having a radius of 300.00 feet, the radius point thereof bears North 35 degrees 31 minutes 32 seconds East from said point; thence along said curve and said South line Southeasterly and Easterly 193.16 feet to the point of tangency thereof, the radius point bears North 1 degrees 21 minutes 55 seconds West from said point; thence continuing along said South line North 88 degrees 38 minuted 05 seconds East 130.64 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the right having a radius of 25.00 feet, the radius point of said curve bears South 1 degrees 21 minutes S5 seconds East from said point; thence Easterly and Southerly along said curve 39.81 feet to the point of tangency thereof, the radius point of said curve bears South 89 degrees 51 minutes 48 seconds West from said point, said point is also in the West right of way line of a cul-de-sac street; thence along said West right of way line South 00 degrees 08 minutes 12 seconds East 283.38 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left having a radius of 300.00 feet, the radius point of said curve bears North 89 degrees 51 minutes 48 seconds East from said point; thence Southeasterly along said curve 118.37 feet to a point that bears South 67 degrees 15 minutes 21 seconds West from said radius point; thence South 35 degrees 31 minutes 32 seconds West 475.12 feet to the center of a stream (the next 12 courses are along said stream); thence North 59 degrees 09 minutes 49 seconds West 115.19 feet; thence North 85 degrees 38 minutes 09 seconds West 81.49 feet; thence North 60 degrees 49 minutes 49 seconds West 50.89 feet; thence South 74 degrees 49 minutes 08 seconds West 47.36 feet; thence North 67 degrees 51 minutes 11 seconds West 115.13 feet; thence North 58 degrees 01 minutes 56 seconds West 51.32 feet; thence North 17 degrees 05 minutes 11 seconds West 20.26 feet; thence North 35 degrees 04 minutes 05 seconds East 41.98 feet; thence North 02 degrees 50 minutes 58 seconds East 21.65 feet; thence North 82 degrees 12 minutes 46 seconds West 54.31 feet; thence North 73 degrees 57 minutes 41 seconds West 45.55 feet; thence South 80 degrees 07 minutes 41 seconds West 54.25 feet to the West line of said Quarter Quarter Section; thence along said West line North 00 degrees 06 minutes 32 seconds West 144.97 feet to the place of beginning, containing 11.30 acres, more or less. AND Part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 25, Township 18 North, Range 3 East, in Hamilton County, Indiana, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the East line of said Northwest Quarter Section South 00 degrees 08 minutes 12 seconds East (assumed bearing) 777.80 feet from the Northeast corner thereof; thence continuing along said South line South 00 degrees 08 minutes 12 seconds East 19.60 feet; thence South 10 degrees 42 minutes 23 seconds West 92.32 feet; thence South 39 degrees 19 minutes 01 seconds East 56.39 feet; thence South 06 degrees 09 minutes 02 seconds West 144.99 feet; thence South 53 2 degrees 39 minutes 23 seconds West 150.43 feet; thence South 18 degrees 38 minutes 08 seconds West 68.06 feet; thence South 68 degrees 29 minutes 46 seconds West 258.78 feet to a point on the South line of said Quarter Quarter Section 925.00 feet from the Southwest corner thereof; thence along the South line of said Quarter Quarter Section South 88 degrees 44 minutes 03 seconds West 394.71 feet; thence North 35 degrees 31 minutes 32 seconds East 512.22 feet to a point on a curve to the right having a radius of 300.00 feet, the radius point of said curve bears North 61 degrees 15 minutes 21 seconds East from said point; thence Northwesterly along said curve 118.37 feet to the point of tangency thereof, the radius point of said curve bears North 89 degrees 51 minutes 48 seconds East from said point; thence North 00 degrees 08 minutes 12 seconds West 283.38 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left having a radius of 25.00 feet, the radius point of said curve bears South 89 degrees 51 minutes 48 seconds West from said point; thence Northerly and Westerly along said curve 39.81 feet to the point of tangency thereof; the radius point of said curve bears South 1 degrees 21 minutes 55 seconds East from said point; thence South 88 degrees 38 minutes 05 seconds West 130.64 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the right having a radius of 300.00 feet, the radius point of said curve bears North 01 degrees 21 minutes 55 seconds West from said point: thence Westerly and Northwesterly along said curve 193.16 feet to the point of tangency thereof, the radius point of said curve bears North 35 degrees 31 minutes 32 ~econds. East from said point; thence North 54 degrees 28 minutes 28 seconds West 98.93 feet to the Southerly line of Old u.s. Highway 31; thence along said Southerly line North 35 degrees 31 minutes 32 seconds East 83.63 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the right having a radius of 2814.79 feet, the radius point of said curve bears South 54 degrees 28 minutes 28 seconds East from said point: thence Northeasterly along said curve 210.41 feet to a point on the Southerly right of way line of Smokey Row Road (136th Street) per Warranty Deed to the State of Indiana, dated October 7, 1971, the plans for said road as a part of the relocation of U.S. Highway 31, designated as ISHC Project ST-F-222(9), the radius point bears South 50 degrees 11 minutes 29 seconds East from said point: said point also heingon a non-tangent curve to the right having a radius of 437.46 feet, the radius point of said curve bears South 38 degrees 19 minutes 10 seconds East from said point; thence Easterly along said Curve 282.49 feet to a point that bears North 01 degrees 19 minutes 16 seconds West from said radius point; thence North 75 degrees 12 minutes 25 seconds 3 East 9.6.34 feet along said right of way line; thence perpendicular to the North line of said Quarter Quarter Section North 01 degrees 21 minutes 55 seconds West 20.00 feet to a point on the North line of said Quarter Quarter Section; thence along said North line North 88 degrees 38 minutes 05 seconds East 165.99 feet to a point 221.00 feet West of the Northeast corner of said Quarter Quarter Section; thence parallel with the East line of said Quarter Quarter Section South 00 degrees 08 minutes 12 seconds East 217.00 feet; thence parallel with the North line of said Quarter Quarter Section North 88 degrees 38 minutes 05 seconds East 37.00 feet; thence parallel with said East line South 0'0 degrees 08 minutes 12 seconds East 560.80 feet; thence parallel with said North line North 88 degrees 38 minutes 05 seconds East 184.00 feet to the place of beginning, containing 14.89 acres, more or less. AND Part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 25, Township 18 North, Range 3 East in Hamilton County, Indiana, described as follows: Conunencing at the Northeast corner of said Quarter Section; thence along the North line thereof South 88 degrees 38 minutes 05 seconds West (assumed bearing) 686.01 feet to the Southeasterly limited access right of way line of u.s. Highway 31 per plans thereof designated ISHC Project ST-F-222(9); thence along said right of way line South 54 degrees 01 minutes 58 seconds West 230.56 feet to the Place of Beginning, said point being on a non-tangent curve to the right having a radius of 3964.72 feet, said point also being on the Northwesterly right of way line of Old U.S. Highway 31 designated rSHC Project 222-Section B dated 1931, the radius point of said Curve bears North 30 degrees 24 minutes 25 seconds West from said point; thence along said curve and limited access right of way line Southwesterly 361.31 feet to a point that bears South 25 degrees 11 minutes 07 seconds from said radius point; thence along said limited access right of way line South 06 degrees 24 minutes 36 seconds West 117.23 feet; thence South 61 degrees 00 minutes 54 seconds East 102.86 feet to the Northwesterly right of way line of Old U.S. Highway 31; thence along said Northwesterly right of way line North 35 degrees 31 minutes 32 seconds East 282.83 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the right having a radius of 2914.79 feet, the radius point of said curve bears South 54 degrees 28 minutes 28 seconds East from said point; thence Northeasterly along said right of way line and curve 130.65 feet to the place of beginning, containing 0.85 acres, more or less. 4 . '. . - ...- This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage . passed/by the Common Counc.il of the City of Carmel, Indiana, on the r,P. day of August, 1990. COMMON COUNCIL, CARMEL, INDIANA BY: Dorothy J. Presiding A:Z ~A-04.~ ~san W. Jones t/ Clerk/Treasurer APPROVED: ::L ~ . ~~.vI.. 0 ~usan W. Jones -zJ Clerk/Treasurer 5 -''t\."1' - CITY OF CARMEL ZONING QRDINANCE i) LANDSCAPING: Ground Signs must be accompanied by .a landscaped area at least e<jual to the total Sign Area. REQU1RED APPROVALS: ADLS approval is required fur aU permanent signs that are established in a Zoning District and/or Overlay Zone requiring ADLS approval. SIGN PERMIT: Required. FEES: Required. .....----" j) k) I) 25.07.02-10 Multi-Tenant Multi-Level Building: [ a) SIGN CLASSIFICATION: Ground Sign, Wall Sign or Roof-Sign. (Roof Signs are prohibited on residences which have been converted to office, business and/or manufacturing uses). b) NUMBER & TYPE: One (1) Identifica1ion Sign for each Frontage on a public street (not alleys) with a maximum of three (3) signs for lots with 1hree (3) or more Frontages. A building owner with two (2) or more Frontages may elect to transfer a permitted Identification Sign from one (1) Frontage to another to permit up to two (2) signs to be oriented to one (1) Frontage as follows: one (1) Wall or Roof Identification Sign and one (1) Ground Identification Sign. Buildings with more than one (1) main entrance and served by separate parking lots are permitted two (2) Directory Signs, one (1) at each of the main buiIdingentrances. c) MAXIMUM SIGN AREA: Each Directory Sign shall have a maximum Sign Area of twenty (20) square feet. The maximum Sign Area for each Identification Sign and each Center Identification Ground Sign as per appropriate chart. d) MAXIMUM HEIGlIT OF GROUND SIGN: (i) Directory Sign and Multi-tenant Building CompLex Directory Sign: five (5) feet. (ii) Identification Sign and Center Identification Ground Sign as per appropriate chart. e) LOCATION: ~....-. (1) Directory Sign and Multi~tenant Building Complex Directory Sign shall not interfere with Vision Clearance. (ii) Identification Sign and Center Identification Ground Sign as per appropriate chart. 1) DESIGN: No restrictions except for those signs which require approval by the Commission. However, signs in Unified Centers must be of similar design and identical in lighting and style of construction. g) COPY: As per definitions of Identification Sign, Directory Sign and Center Identification Ground Sign. Any permitted Ground Identification Sign may include Changeable Copy not to exceed two-thirds (213) of the Sign Area. h) ILLUMINATION: Internal or completely shielded. i) LANDSCAPING: Ground Signs must be accompanied by a landscaped area at least equal to the total Sign Area. II Section 25. M. 02-il) amended per OrdlllQfJCe No. Z-47rNJ5. jh. "" Section 25.07: Signs 25.07-10 as adopted per Z-302; as amended per Z-365-0J.. 2-366-01; Z-369-02; Z-416-03; Z-453-04; Z-461-04; Z-470-05; Z-478-05; Z-486-06 Spring 2006 v 1