Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence MEMORANDUM TO: Carmel City Council FROM: Mike Hollibaugh Department of Community Services SUBJECT: Ordinance Z- 539 -10: Carmel SmartCode DATE: February 26, 2010 DOCS Recommended SmartCode Amendments The following amendments were presented to the Land Use, Annexation and Economic Development Committee at their meeting on February 23. The proposed amendments regarding waivers, "Succession" and appropriate transitions are a direct result of both public and Councilor comments. The other amendments reflect the Plan Commission's desire to preserve existing developer commitments as well as current ordinance requirements that relate to previously approved PUDs and Overlay Zones. Please note that the SmartCode would not allow any new PUDs to be proposed in the SmartCode area. The Department was advised to distribute these to the full Council for review in preparation for the March 1 Council meeting. This represents the consolidation of the two separate amendment proposal documents previously distributed to the Committee. They are arranged by subject and generally listed in the order in which they appear within the proposed SmartCode. s $a" c �S e c x F''c` r W s G 4y:. a I v i .,t;' c k';:.�+ t> x� ayC sa# r �w' �wrR. ,�'�i`� ru� �;�'C r �;tir� av�' f l COMMISSION WAI�VERS f��• e•,r,�ta. �11;`��' R=a�`rar.,Y A. Amend the %first sentence of Section,1 5.1 to read: DRAFT: PAGE 6 lines .17 -20 1.5.1 The Commission may, after a public hearing, grant a zoning waiver of any dimensional or quantitative requirement of this Code, by not greater than (i) ten percent (10 in the T-3 Transect Zone, (ii) twenty percent (20 in the T-4 Transect Zone, or (iii) thirty percent (30 in the T -5 or T -6 Transect Zone. [previously 35% in all zones] c� �S fa i` h-. ;:?rt,� t�4 ,sw'�,.. s3y ...k:'s s i r +r..�� r 2'4 .::t k s i u ti t e ^r a 'x�c �,ti �„�y ^'n �..�-r r s r k }�'S, Y� S.d t iE n f p ;2 ir i? t'� s$+f, r s C' ff i ."hR.' rtL: rt+ t x- pfx i* n. y.rxr a ,�4 iri %t.ja3s ;d',?" y "�'a �t$x`^$ z"v Y '1, fir" ft� '+,:t N'.� 2 LANG UAGE. WROO oa r g v *rt f lkt t cc r°u.:� 9s�-s .l2a.x"'.., A. Strike a11,'of Section 1.6'regarding "Succession DRAFT: PAGE 6, lines 37 -42 1.6 SUCCESSION NOT MORE THAT TWENTY YEARS AFTER THE APPROVAL OF A COMMUNITY REGULATING TRANSECT ZONE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXISTING PLANNING AND ZONING ORDINANCES. As x tz�"',2t1 -'awkk r�..Ra ''��`t i g r i, t ,v. i t s z 1z 5- 4 F 'x t ,n Y 3 DISTRICT STANDARDS �rw f ..t x :.x.::,..x�. ,s- asa+o.xir ...•w„'... i"x�� ,d «.,.'c�`Y ��'X.:.. cr,� a::,.e..,'.v A, Y �.'..at%x M ,sx..:., u A. Amend Section'3 l0. l: to read:: DRAFT: PAGE 16, lines 22 -28 PROPOSED DOCS AMENDMENTS, 02/26/2010 1 3.10.1 The Old Town District and the Historic Range Line Road Subdistrict, the Main Street Subdistrict and the Character Subdistrict thereof, the U.S. Highway 31 Meridian Street District, and-the Monon Greenway District and the Monon Greenway Natural Subdistrict and Monon Greenway Urban Subdistrict thereof and the Gramercy District shall be subject to the Special District /Subdistrict Standards noted on Table 14 (SmartCode Summary, page SC 53) and as may be indicated as Special Requirements on the Initial Community Regulating Plan or any other Community Regulating Plan adopted from time to time. B. Add Sections; 3.10.2; 3.10.14 to read: DRAFT: PAGE 16, line 29 3.10.2 WITHIN THE OLD TOWN DISTRICT: a. Demolitions to any Contributing Building shall occur per the Contributing Building provisions in Section 5.15.15. b. Additions and /or alterations to the exterior of Contributing Buildings will be of a design and material finish consistent with those found on the building when originally built. c. Building additions, except for open air porches, may not be added to the front of the building, except where a building is set back more than twenty (20) feet from the front Setback line of its nearest two neighbors. d. Any new residential construction, additions or alterations shall follow the Old Town District Architecture provisions in Section 5.15.16 e. Any construction within the Residential Character Commercial sub -area shall follow the Old Town District Architecture provisions in Section 5.15.16 f. The side and rear Setbacks shall be not less than five (5) feet. g. Adjusted Lot Width shall, at minimum, match that on the approved plat, or, at maximum be ninety (90) feet. h. No chain link fences are permitted. Driveway width shall be a maximum of twelve (12) feet between the Street and the point that is thirty (30) feet from the Street, and a maximum of twenty -four (24) feet beyond the point that is thirty (30) feet from the Street. 3.10.3 WITHIN THE CARMEL DRIVE RANGE LINE ROAD DISTRICT: a. Principal buildings must be faced on front and sides with brick, stone, stucco, or similarly detailed precast concrete and trimmed in metal, stone, precast concrete, wood, stucco, or brick. b. The Rear building Facade materials may vary; however, its material colors and compositions must be coordinated with the front and side Facades. c. Adjusted Lot Width shall be a minimum of sixty (60) feet and a maximum of ninety (90) feet. d. No chain link fences are permitted. 3.10.4 WITHIN THE U.S. HIGHWAY 31 MERIDIAN STREET DISTRICT: a. A minimum of three (3) materials shall be used for building exteriors, from the following list: stone, brick, architectural precast (panels or detailing), architectural metal panels, glass, and ornamental metal. Large expanses of glass are allowed, up to seventy percent (70 of the Facade area. The building may not be constructed entirely of a metal and glass curtain wall. Concrete block is not allowed as an exterior finish material. b. No restaurant drive throughs are permitted. c. The build -to line at U.S. 31 or 1 -465 shall be ninety (90) feet. d. The build -to line at Pennsylvania Street, Old Meridian Street, and Illinois Street shall be twenty (20) feet. e. The minimum gross square footage of a building shall be 15,000. PROPOSED DOCS AMENDMENTS, 02/26/2010 f. A minimum of eighty -five percent (85 of every Building or Plan shall comprise Commercial Office space. 3.10.5 WITHIN THE MONON GREENWAY DISTRICT: a. The following functions or uses are prohibited: mobile home court; penal or correctional institution; commercial sewage or garbage disposal plant; water management and use facility; lumber /building materials sales; automobile service station; restaurant with drive- through; automobile or boat sales; automobile or truck repair or maintenance; car wash; commercial kennel; dry cleaning plant; funeral home /mortuary/crematory; self service laundry; commercial laundry plant; veterinary hospital with commercial kennel; wholesale sales; warehousing; stadium or coliseum; feed store; grain elevator; shooting gallery; sexually oriented business; industrial uses (other than artisan light industrial). b. Access to the Monon Greenway shall be designed and built in accordance with a plan approved by the Commission and in accordance with standards of the Carmel Clay Parks Board, subject to the approval of the director of the Carmel Clay Parks Department. c. New principal buildings having more than 15,000 square feet of commercial space must include shower, changing, and locker facilities for employees and covered long term bicycle parking at a rate of one (1) space per every 1,000 square feet. d. General bicycle parking shall also be provided, at a rate equal to that twice the amount required in Section 27.06 of the Zoning Ordinance. e. Any above ground parking adjacent to the District shall be lined with non parking structures. f. Boundary markers and construction fences shall be in place throughout the construction period. 3.10.6 WITHIN THE MONON GREENWAY DISTRICT, NATURAL SUBDISTRICT: a. The front Setback shall be a minimum of sixty (60) feet from the Greenway. b. The maximum square footage of a building shall be 15,000. c. The maximum length of a Facade shall be eighty (80) feet. 3.10.7 WITHIN THE MONON GREENWAY DISTRICT, URBAN SUBDISTRICT: a. The front Setback shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet and a maximum of eighteen (18) feet from the Greenway. b. The front Setback may not be used for vehicle or bicycle parking. c. The side and rear Setbacks shall be not less than fifteen (15) feet. d. The maximum footprint of a building shall be 15,000 square feet. e. The maximum length of a Facade shall be eighty (80) feet. f. Shopfront Frontage on the Greenway is required. 3.10.8 WITHIN THE GRAMERCY DISTRICT: a. All Building and Lot Plans submitted for the development or improvement of private property must incorporate by reference the "Gramercy Bicycle Plan which Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit B and subtitled, "Gramercy PUD Commitments 'Exhibit B' City of Carmel August 21, 2006 b. The following functions or uses are prohibited in all Transect Zones: helicopter landing /service facility; cremation /funeral home; boarding or lodging house; commercial kennel; veterinary hospital with commercial kennel; elementary school; high school. c. Any school, trade, or business use shall be limited to a maximum of 20,000 square feet for each individual school, trade, or business. d. Any private club or lodge shall be limited to a maximum of 20,000 square feet for each individual private club or lodge. 3.10.9 WITHIN THE GRAMERCY DISTRICT, T -3 SUB -URBAN ZONE: PROPOSED •DOCS AMENDMENTS, 02/26/2010 a. The following functions or uses are prohibited: private swimming pool; recreational facility; community center; health /fitness facility; club or lodge; all uses prohibited by Section 3.10.8 above. b. A linear park of at least thirty (30) feet in width shall be provided between East Auman Drive and the westernmost row of buildings within the District. The linear park may be contained in whole or in part within (a) the right -of -way of East Auman Drive, (b) private property within the District, or (c) a combination thereof. The design of the linear park shall be subject to the review and approval of the Administrator. 3.10.10 WITHIN THE GRAMERCY DISTRICT, T -4 GENERAL URBAN ZONE: a. The following functions or uses are prohibited: bed and breakfast; nursing /retirement home; clinic or medical health center; hospital; surgery center; urgent care facility; rehabilitation facility; physical /occupational care facility; dry cleaning establishment (with on -site plant); drive through facility; food stand; roadside sales stand; veterinary hospital without commercial kennel; wholesale sales; religious assembly; outdoor commercial recreational facility; all uses prohibited by Section 3.10.8 above. 3.10.11 WITHIN THE GRAMERCY DISTRICT, T -5 URBAN CENTER ZONE: a. Any outdoor auditorium use shall be of a temporary nature and shall not be permitted as a permanent use. 3.10.12 EXCLUDE THE PARK PLACE PUD DISTRICT FROM ANY TRANSECT ZONE. 3.10.13 WITHIN THE 116TH /GUILFORD DISTRICT: a. The following functions or uses are prohibited: dry cleaning plant; drive through (except for a coffee shop); kennel; retail use in excess of 15,000 square feet; industrial; agricultural; recreational facility; transportation /communication uses. 3.10.14 WITHIN THE MERIDIAN /MAIN DISTRICT: a. One Building in the Plan may be 100% retail, so long as not more than 15% of the District comprises retail. 3.10.15 WITHIN THE ARDEN TOWNHOMES DISTRICT: a. Every Plan must include the construction by the applicant of the Cool Creek Trail Extension for a sum not to exceed $132,000.00. 4, APPROPRIATE TRANSITIONS: ..Ki r A.: Amend Section 5.2.3 to read.:' DRAFT: PAGE 18, lines.42 -43 Where buildings exist on adjacent Lots or Blocks, there shall be Appropriate Transition required between the existing buildings and a proposed building. [previously at Administrator's discretion] B. Amend the definition of Adjusted Height Standard to read: DRAFT: PAGE 27,! lines 9 -12 Adjusted Height Standard: a requirement that the lowest height standard of a Transect Zone shall apply to a proposed building in that Transect Zone; applies whenever (i) the proposed building adjoins a Lot or Block that lies in a lower numbered Transect Zone, and (ii) the lower numbered Transect Zone is T3 or T4. [previously included T -5 as well] C: Amend; the definition: ofAdjusted; Lot Width to read: DRAFT: PAGE 27, lines 13 -18 Adjusted Lot Width: the Lot Width selected for a proposed building or development that will have a Private Frontage that is adjacent to one or two existing buildings in the T -3 Transect Zone. The Adjusted Lot Width for PROPOSED DOCS AMENDMENTS, 02/26/2010 n the proposed building or development shall be not less than either (i) the same Lot Width as any adjacent, existing building, (ii) where there are two adjacent, existing buildings the average of the Lot Width of both existing buildings, (iii) the average of the Lot Width of all existing buildings on the same Block, or (iv) the median Lot Width of all existing buildings on the same Block. [options NO and (iv) are new] D. Amend the definition of Adjusted Setback to read:. DRAFT: PAGE 27, lines 21 -26 Adjusted Setback: the Setback selected for a proposed building or development that will have a Private Frontage that is adjacent to one or two existing buildings in the T -3 Transect Zone. The Adjusted Setback for the proposed building or development shall use either (i) the same front setback line as any adjacent, existing building, (ii) where there are two adjacent, existing buildings, the average of the front setback lines of both existing buildings, (iii) the average of the front setback lines of all existing buildings on the same Block, or (iv) the median front setback line of all existing buildings on the same Block. [options (iii) and (iv) are new] B. Amend the definition of Appropriate Transition to read:: DRAFT: PAGE 27, lines 38 -39 Appropriate Transition: the use of all of the following, where applicable: an Adjusted Height Standard, an Adjusted Lot Width, and an Adjusted Setback. [previously at Administrator's discretion] 5 BU =ILDING LOT REQUIREMENTS ea. 4 A. Add Sections 5 14 to read: 'DRAFT: PAGE 25, line 7 5.14 TREE PRESERVATION The construction and development of all buildings shall comply in all respects with the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. 5.15 CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS 5.15.1 CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS DEMOLITION No Contributing Building, or any part of it, may be demolished without the consent of the Administrator. The Administrator shall only consider the following when determining whether a Building or any part of it may be demolished: a. Structural conditions pose an imminent safety hazard. b. An advanced state of dilapidation or fire damage would make it unfeasible to repair the Building for any reasonable economic use. c. The architectural and historical significance of the structure individually, in relation to the street, and as a part of the District as a whole. These same considerations will be given to parts of the Building. The Administrator shall also consider how the loss of a Building, or portion thereof, will affect the character of the District, the neighboring buildings, and, in the case of partial Demolition, the Building itself. d. In making its determination of significance, the Administrator shall consider the following: (i) Table 16, Map of Contributing Buildings (ii) Architectural and historic information and significance. (iii) Information contained in the district's National Register nomination (if one exists). (iv) The Hamilton County Interim Report, as amended, published March 1992 by theHistoric Landmarks Foundation of Indiana PROPOSED DOCS AMENDMENTS, 02/26/2010 (v) Information contained in any other professionally conducted historic surveys pertaining to this district. (vi) The opinion of Staff. (vii) Evidence presented by the applicant. (viii) Evidence presented by recognized experts in architectural history. 5.15.2 REPLACEMENT Demolition of a structure may be justified when, in the opinion of theAdministrator, the proposed new development with which it will be replaced is of greater significance to the enhancement of the overlay district than retention of the existing structure. This will only be the case when the structure to be demolished is not of material significance, the loss of the structure will have minimal effect on the historic character of the district, and the new development will be compatible, appropriate and beneficial to the district. 5.15.3 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS To afford the Administrator the ability to consider demolition on the basis of replacement development, the applicant shall submit the following: a. information required per Section 23D.04 of the Zoning Ordinance; b. a scaled streetscape drawing showing the new development in its context, including at least two buildings on either side; and c. other pertinent documents deemed relevant by the Administrator. 5.15.4 WORK CONSIDERED DEMOLITION Some work that may otherwise be considered demolition may be considered rehabilitation, if done in conjunction with Building and Lot Plan Review. Examples of rehabilitation include: a. The removal or destruction of exterior siding and face material, exterior surface trim and portions or exterior walls. b. The removal or destruction of those elements which provide enclosure at openings in any exterior wall (e.g., window units, doors, panels. c. The removal or destruction of architectural, decorative or structural features and elements which are attached to the exterior of a structure (e.g., parapets,cornices, brackets, chimneys.) 5.15.5 WORK NOT CONSIDERED DEMOLITION Examples of work not included in demolition: a. Any work on the interior of a structure. b. The removal of exterior utility and mechanical equipment. c. The removal, when not structurally integrated with the main structure, of awnings, gutters, downspouts, light fixtures, open fire escapes, and other attachments. d. The removal of signs. e. The removal of paint. f. The removal of site improvement features such as fencing, sidewalks, driveways, curbs, alleys, landscaping and asphalt. g. The replacement of clear glass with no historic markings. 5.15.6 RECONSTRUCTION Where a building has been demolished due to fire or other accident or disaster that is customarily covered by insurance, the owner may reconstruct the property in accordance with the provisions of this code, or, in substantially the same design as existed prior to the accident, after receiving Building and Lot approval and a Letter of Grant from the Administrator. 5.16 OLD TOWN DISTRICT ARCHITECTURE The following standards shall apply to new construction, additions and renovations within the Old Town District. PROPOSED DOCS AMENDMENTS, 02/26/2010 ti a. All sides of Principal and Accessory Buildings must be clad in wood, brick, stone, or high quality vinyl siding. The same material must be used on all sides of the building. b. New Principal Buildings will be longer than they are wide, with the narrow dimension facing the street. c. Covered porches facing the street on the first or upper floor of the structure are strongly encouraged but not required d. New detached garages and other Accessory Buildings should use exterior materials and construction details which match those of the Principal Building. e. Windows must be wood or wood clad. f. Vertical, double -hung or casement windows are required. These may be used in multiple sets to create larger expanses of window area. g. Plate -glass picture windows, strip windows and arched windows are not allowed on the front facade h. Special windows are allowed (ovals, hexagon, etc.) as accents. i. Visible aluminum storm windows or storm doors are not allowed. j. Chimneys are to be brick or stone. k. Foundations must be split -face block, stone veneer or poured -in -place concrete. I. Roofs are to be asphalt, wood or slate shingles. m. The roof of the Principal Building and Accessory Buildings shall be gabled, multi gabled, or hipped, with a minimum pitch of eight to twelve (8:12). n. A roof over a porch or bay window may be flat or pitched. o. Alterations that reduce the roof pitch of an existing building more than five degrees (5 are not allowed. p. Additions may have a shed, gable, or hip roof. Porch additions may have a flat roof. q. Exterior guardrails, handrails and other stair details may be wood or wrought iron. r. Uncovered decks are not allowed in the front yard. B. Add definitions to Article 7. DEFINITIONS to read: DRAFT: PAGE 27 Contributing Building: a Building located in the Old Town District that has certain characteristics that are in keeping with historical construction in the District, including but not limited to the following: narrow house fronts compared to length; hip or gabled roofs; wood clapboard materials and wood or brick details; narrow, rectangular wood windows; detached garages in the rear of the Lot. Demolition: the razing, wrecking, or removal by any means of the entire or partial exterior of a structure. The following examples are meant to help define demolition and are not all- inclusive: razing, wrecking, or removal of a total structure; razing, wrecking, or removal of a part a structure, resulting in a reduction in its mass, height or volume; or razing, wrecking, or removal of an enclosed or open addition. 6. STAN DS TABLE S. r��;.,r 4!' x 5 A. Amend TABLE 12: Specific Function Use as indicated in attached redline: PAGE: SC51 The following categories would be affected: Hotel Outdoor Auditorium Light Industrial Facility Inn Religious Assembly Laboratory Facility Tavern/Bar /Liquor Sales Other -Child Care Mini Storage PROPOSED DOCS AMENDMENTS, 02/26/2010 CITY OF CARMEL SMARTCODE Carmel, Indiana TABLE 12: Specific Function Use. This table designates specific functions within the categories of Table 10 (Building Function, page SC49) across the various Transect Zones. pli a. RESIDENTIAL T3 T4 T5 T6 f OTHER: AGRICULTURE T3 T4 T5 T6 x' Mixed Use Block X 1 x x Grain Storage x f x 1 x x Flex Building x l X Livestock Pen x 1 x 1 x x 1 Apartment Building x I x Greenhouse X 1 X 1 X X 1 Live/Work Unit x X Stable X 1 X 1 X x 1 Row House x X X Kennel X 1 n 1 Duplex House X X X f. OTHER: MISCELLANEOUS Courtyard House X X X Gasoline x I X X 1 Sideyard House x x Auto Sales/Service wf lot X 1 X x X x 1 Cottage x X X Truck/Sales Maintenance x I x x X X 1 House x X X Drive Through Facility x 1 r X 1 Ydla X X X X ManufaciMabile Home Sales x 1 x X x X 1 Accessory Unit x X Roadside Stand 1 1 X x X X 1 Nursing 1 Retirement Home X Q X Boat 1 RV Sales 1 X 1 1 x x X X 1 Shopping Center 1 X 1 61 X X X X 1 g b. LODGING tr.- ce Shopping Mail 1 x 1 1 x X X X 1 Hotel (no room limit) x w r x Ml n (.OTH CNIL SUPPORT w Q IL I Inn (up to 12 rooms) X p X CI w Bed E Breakfast (up to S rooms) x Q 1 x 8 Fire Station x Q 1 1 1 1 1 Cr School Dormitory x 1 x 1 1 1 1 PoNce station x CC 1 x 1• 1• 1• 1 W d Q Cemetery x Q I l v l X l x 1 c. OFFICE 2 2 2 2-- Medical Office x I x f■ 1. 1 1 CrematioN Funeral Home x y x 1 I I cn Office Building x L 1 x 1• I• 1• 1 w Hospital x 1 X 1 x I 1 Medical Clinic x c i i x 1 1■ 1• O Veter Clinic x U I x U _v_ t3 f. OTHER EDUCATION Q d. RETAIL (SERVICES 1 College x 1 x 1 x 1 Q —i Open-Market Building x X i t High School X 1 X J r. T Retail Belle—TM W X W Trade School X Z 1 X X I w Display Gallery x X Elementary School X 1 1 Restaurant X X ec Other- Childcare Center X 1 I 1 12 Kiosk X Z X Z f.OTHER:INDUSTRIAL 7 Z Push Cart X O X X O Heavy Industrial Facility x Q 1 x x X X Q Personal Services X X W Light industrial Facility X aJ I X x ._X n -w Professional Services x Q X 4 Truck Depot X m E x X X x m Tavern/ Bad Liquor Sales X x X: D L aborato ry Facility X 1 X X Sexually Oriented Business x d X X X X d Water Supply Facility X ii 1 x x X 1 X 1 d e. CIVIC l am Sewer and Waste Facility x h 1 x x X 1 x 1 Bus Shelter x 1 o Electric Substation z 1 b 1 z Convention Center x x I X X 3 Telecommunications 1 X X X 1 X 1 Conference Center x x x Warehouse X X 1 X 1 X X 1, 1 Exhibition Center x x x x s Produce Storage x x 1 X 1 X X 1 X 1 Fountain or Public Art x Mini-Storage X x r X 1 X X' X Library x X Live Theater x X x BY RIGHT Movie Theater x x x SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY SPECIAL USE Museum x X X X PROHIBITED Outdoor Auditorium X 1719713.71-7571 Parking Structure x x r x x Passenger Terminal X x 1 X X s Drive through faciities, where permitted.shatl be located in the Third Lot Playground x 1 Layer and not be visible from a Frontage Sports Stadium x x 1 x X X Surface Parking Lot x x 1 X c Religious Assembly x 1 e VO65 19rpn gV www.tpudc.com V tl 1 F1 2009 Town Planning& Urban Design Collaborative tic: Article 6 Standards Tables SC51 vjfzo i o Keeling, Adrienne M From: Keeling, Adrienne M Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 5:25 PM To: Seidensticker, Eric; Accetturo, John V; Griffiths, Joe; Rider, Kevin D Cc: Sharp, Rick; Snyder, Luci; Carter, Ronald E; Hollibaugh, Mike P; John Molitor Subject: SmartCode amendments for consideration by Land Use Committee Attachments: One Page Amendment Revised.doc Land Use Committee members, Attached is one page of amendments which intends to address the public comment we've heard at the Committee. These adjustments primarily put further restrictions on Plan Commission Waivers and strengthens the language with respect to Appropriate Transitions. Hard copies are in your City Hall mailboxes. You may recall previously receiving draft amendments to the SmartCode. The attached is proposed to be in addition to the previous amendments; however, it is important to note that most of the changes previously suggested is existing language which we believe to be important to carry forth into SmartCode. We will also be prepared with exhibits to address some of the questions about transition scenarios and the advantages of SmartCode. Thank you, Adrienne Keeling Planning Administrator City of Carmel Dept of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 akeeling(cicarmel.in.gov 317- 571 -2417 317- 571 -2426 fax Please consider the environment before printing this e -mail 1 Recommended Smart Code Amendments A. Amend the first sentence of Section 1.5.1 to read: The Commission may, after a public hearing, grant a zoning waiver of any dimensional or quantitative requirement of this Code, by not greater than (1) ten percent (10 in the T -3 Transect Zone, (ii) twenty percent (20 in the T -4 Transect Zone, or (iii) thirty percent (30 in the T -5 or T -6 Transect Zone. [previously 35% in all zones] B. Amend Section 5.2.3 to read: Where buildings exist on adjacent Lots or Blocks, there shall be Appropriate Transition required between the existing buildings and a proposed building. [previously at Administrator's discretion] C. Amend the definition of Adjusted Height Standard to read: Adjusted Height Standard: a requirement that the lowest height standard of a Transect Zone shall apply to a proposed building in that Transect Zone; applies whenever (i) the proposed building adjoins a Lot or Block that lies in a lower numbered Transect Zone, and (ii) the lower numbered Transect Zone is T3 or T4. [previously included T -5 as well] D. Amend the definition of Adjusted Lot Width to read: Adjusted Lot Width: the Lot Width selected for a proposed building or development that will have a Private Frontage that is adjacent to one or two existing buildings in the T -3 Transect Zone. The Adjusted Lot Width for the proposed building or development shall be not Tess than either (i) the same Lot Width as any adjacent, existing building, (ii) where there are two adjacent, existing buildings, the average of the Lot Width of both existing buildings, (iii) the average of the Lot Width of all existing buildings on the same Block, or (iv) the median Lot Width of all existing buildings on the same Block. [options (iii) and (iv) are new] E. Amend the definition of Adjusted Setback to read: Adjusted Setback: the Setback selected for a proposed building or development that will have a Private Frontage that is adjacent to one or two existing buildings in the T -3 Transect Zone. The Adjusted Setback for the proposed building or development shall use either (i) the same front setback line as any adjacent, existing building, (ii) where there are two adjacent, existing buildings, the average of the front setback lines of both existing buildings, (iii) the average of the front setback lines of all existing buildings on the same Block, or (iv) the median front setback line of all existing buildings on the same Block. [options (iii) and (iv) are new] F. Amend the definition of Appropriate Transition to read: Appropriate Transition: the use of all of the following, where applicable: an Adjusted Height Standard, an Adjusted Lot Width, and an Adjusted Setback. [previously at Administrator's discretion] TO: CITY OF CARMEL CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION RE: CARMEL SMARTCODE PROPERTY ADDRESS: 613 EAST CARMEL DRIVE COMMENTS: Patsy M. Kunz is the owner of the property at 613 E. Carmel Drive which is the site of a Burger King Restaurant. The restaurant building was constructed on the site approximately 25 years ago and has been periodically upgraded. At present the restaurant is operated by Burger King's corporate offices. Our concern is that due to the age of the restaurant building and the fact that the building is a special purpose building that the new zoning will limit the uses which were available under the present B -6 zoning classification in the event that Burger King either decides not to continue to operate its restaurant on the site or desires to upgrade or "substantially change" the restaurant building. We are also concerned that the development standards proposed under the new zoning ordinance would require special use approval for "drive -thru" windows and signage which is a requirement of every fast food restaurant which could potentially eliminate future use as a fast food restaurant site if approvals were not forthcoming for redevelopment of the site and could discourage potential future owners or users of the site. According to your staff, the SmartCode Rezone is not intended to change existing use of the area being rezoned but in the case of the above referenced property, changes to the developmental standards will impose a change in use on the site. The area surrounding the Property at 613 E. Carmel Drive is clearly dominated by fast food restaurants. Ten of the adjoining properties have fast food restaurants on them currently and the property to the east is in the process of being redeveloped as a Taco Bell. 61 $910 rr? TO: CARMEL CITY COUNCIL r R ECE 20099 c FROM: GARY DOXTATER DATE: November 16, 2009 (UPDATED) DOGS co SUBJECT: REQUEST SUBMISSION OF COMMENTS FOR PUBLIC RECORD d%, I would like to submit the following discussion related to the recent draft of the SmartCode t.` �d 6 L 8 made part of the Public Record. My overall concern is to provide more specific references for the need of additional protection for our natural resources, primarily trees and wildlife habitat in the draft of the SmartCode Ordinance. I would like to site the following references from relevant Carmel documents to support and justify my concerns: CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, Part 2, Policy 7 Inspire Environmental Awareness: 7.1 (Page 25) Strive to protect woodlots, wetlands, and other valuable natural features. These features contribute to the District's rural character, but also provide habitat for plants, birds, and other animals. 7.13 (Page21) Reduce unnecessary removal of trees on lots, encourage preservation of mature trees, and require replacement of trees that have to be removed for development. 7.2 (Page 23) Tree areas should be conserved and should be evaluated as part of an overall urban forest network, especially in small parks and squares. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM REGARDING SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS, September 25, 2009 Objectives (paraphrased): To establish land development patterns which combat the commonly accepted negative impacts of suburban sprawl but not limited to: (relevant items listed below): Decrease in neighbor quality and character Decrease in land and water quantity and quality Decreased quality of life URBAN FORESTRY COMMITTEE "The Urban Forestry Committee has the responsibility to assist the City in the development and administration of a comprehensive community tree management program." The Committee "envisions a future Urban Forest a healthily, diverse, colorful, display of canopy trees lining the streets and throughout the City, which provides an environment which sustains wildlife and is accessible to every resident." 1 CARMEL RESIDENTS HAVING CERTIFIED BACKYARD WILDLIFE HABITATS 4fr The Indiana Wildlife Federation provides a certification program for private land owners, business, neighborhoods, parks, schools and Place of Worship lands. Carmel and Noblesville have 185 certified backyards. Nearby Zionsville and Whitestown have 210. This is an important part of the value that our residents place on our "Quality of Life." I am proud to point out that Kensington Place was the first in the State to become a Certified "Wildlife Friendly Neighborhood." To achieve this goal, all 15 of our Town Homes have Certified Backyards. SUMMARY OF ABOVE REFERENCES In review of the above citations from various Carmel documents, it is clear that the City of Carmel has taken a proactive approach in promoting the concept of Green Space. This is a very important aspect of why most of our population considers our natural resources to be a high priority. Trees, greenways, stream corridors, wetlands, ponds, parks and wildlife are all part of the "Quality of Life" that is desired and appreciated by Carmel residents. RECOMMENDATIONS for the proposed Carmel SmartCode The following suggestions of specific changes: (changes in BOLD) will strengthen the protection and restoration of our natural resources: 1.1 Authority 1.1.3 This Code.....health, safety, general welfare, and ADD: "QUALITY OF LIFE 1.3 Intent n. That architecture design and ADD: NATIVE SPECIES landscape design..... 1.4 Process 1.4.4 Should.....,the Zoning Administrator has the right to require the owner to stop, remove, and /or mitigate the violation. OMIT: or to secure a Variance to cover the violation. 1.5 Zoning Waivers/Variances 1.5.1 c. That the plan increased landscape, tree preservation, ADD: WILDLIFE HABITAT ENHANCEMENT, provisions..... I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments and request your consideration of the above suggestions. Respectfully submitted, Gary D. Doxtater 13559 Kensington Place Carmel, IN 46032 2 Martin, Candy From: c_hobbs@juno.com Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 3:42 PM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Martin, Candy Subject: [BULK] Fw: SMART CODE MONDAY COUNCIL MEETING Importance: Low Forwarded Message From: "c_hobbs @juno.com" <c_hobbs @juno.com> To: rsharp @carmel.in.gov Subject: SMART CODE MONDAY COUNCIL MEETING Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:31:40 GMT TO: CARMEL CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CHARLES HOBBS DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 2009 SUBJECT: CARMEL SMART CODE DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS MY WIFE AND I ATTENDED ALL PLAN COMMISSION /SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETINGS REGARDING THE SMART CODE ZONING. MY STREET WAS PLUGGED IN AS T -3 AND RANGELINE WAS T -4. THIS PROPOSED ZONING WAS CONCERNING TO US AS LARGE BUILDINGS TO THE WEST OF OUR PROPERTIES WOULD BLOCK ANY VIEW OTHER THAN THE BACK OF THESE BUILDINGS. I SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MY REASONING THAT FIRST AVE SE SHOULD BE T -4. AFTER CONSIDERING MY MEMO (SEPTEMBER 4TH 2009). THEY CHANGED 1ST AVENUE SE FROM 2ND STREET S.E. TO 4TH STREET S.E. TO T -4 (WE OWN THREE PROPERTIES IN THESE TWO BLOCKS). WE ARE NOW IN FLORIDA, WHERE WE RESIDE UNTIL APRIL. WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT A MEETING TOOK PLACE AT THE MASONIC LODGE IN CARMEL, ON NOVEMBER 16, 2009, FOR RESIDENTS OF OLD TOWN. WE UNDERSTAND THAT CAROL SHLEIF CONDUCTED THE MEETING, AND THAT ERIC SEIDENSTICKER WAS ALSO THERE. WE UNDERSTAND THAT APPROXIMATELY 20 PEOPLE ATTENDED, AND THEY ARE WANTING TO CHANGE AND HAVE THE SMART CODE VOTED DOWN. ACCORDING TO OUR INFORMATION ERIC SEIDENSTICKER STATED THAT HE HAS FOUR MEMBER VOTES AGAINST THE SMART CODE. WE WILL BE UNABLE, OF COURSE, TO ATTEND THE MEETING MONDAY, BUT WE WANT IT TO BE KNOWN THAT WE COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH THIS GROUP, AND AGREE WITH THE SMART CODE THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION. IF 1ST AVE SE FROM 2ND STREET TO 4TH STREET SE RETURNS TO T -3 MY THREE PROPERTIES WILL BE BOXED IN BY T -4 TO T -5 ZONING WITH NO HOPE FOR CHANGE FOR TWENTY YEARS, AND OUR PROPERTY VALUES WITH DECREASE. ALSO, WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW TWO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN PROJECT THEIR OPINION AND INFLUENCE PEOPLE ATTENDING THIS "SAVE OLD TOWN" MEETING. WE UNDERSTAND THAT APPROXIMATELY 189 NOTICES WENT OUT. TWO OF THE PEOPLE OWNING PROPERTY ON ST AVENUE SE ATTENDED, AND INFORMED THEM THAT WE DESIRE TO KEEP T4, AND DO NOT WANT TO HAVE IT CHANGED. THINK ABOUT THIS -WHERE WERE ALL OF THE OPPONENTS TO THE SMART CODE THIS SUMMER? SHOULD YOU LIKE TO CONTACT US, YOU CAN AT THE ABOVE E -MAIL ADDRESS OR CELL 317 437 -4392 1 TO: CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MEMBERS iwf FROM GARY DOXTATER NP DATE: October 13, 2009 e SUBJECT: REQUEST SUBMISSION OF COMMENTS FOR PUBLIC REC I would like to submit the, following discussion related to the SmartCode draft dated MVPSV be made part of the Public Record. My overall concern is to provide more specific references for the need of additional protection for our natural resources, primarily trees and wildlife habitat in the SmartCode Ordinance. I would like to site the following references from relevant Carmel documents to support and justify my concerns: CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, Part 2, Policy 7 Inspire Environmental Awareness: 7.1 (Page 25) Strive to protect woodlots, wetlands, and other valuable natural features. These features contribute to the District's rural character, but also provide habitat for plants, birds, and other animals. 7.13 (Page21) Reduce unnecessary removal of trees on lots, encourage preservation of mature trees, and require replacement of trees that have to be removed for development. 7.2 (Page 23) Tree areas should be conserved and should be evaluated as part of an overall urban forest network, especially in small parks and squares. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM REGARDING SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS, September 25, 2009 Objectives (paraphrased): To establish land development patterns which combat the commonly accepted negative impacts of suburban sprawl but not limited to: (relevant items listed below): Decrease in neighbor quality and character Decrease in land and water quantity and quality Decreased quality of life URBAN FORESTRY COMMITTEE "The Urban Forestry Committee has the responsibility to assist the City in the development and administration of a comprehensive community tree management program." The Committee "envisions a future Urban Forest a healthily, diverse, colorful, display of canopy trees lining the streets and throughout the City, which provides an environment which sustains wildlife and is accessible to every resident." 1 m CARMEL RESIDENTS HAVING CERTIFIED BACKYARD WILDLIFE HABITATS The Indiana Wildlife Federation provides a certification program for private land owners, business, neighborhoods, parks, schools and Place of Worship lands. Carmel and Noblesville have 185 certified backyards. Nearby Zionsville and Whitestown have 210. This is an important part of the value that our residents place on our "Quality of Life." I am proud to point out that Kensington Place was the first in the State to become a Certified "Wildlife Friendly Neighborhood." To achieve this goal, all 15 of our Town Homes have Certified Backyards. SUMMARY OF ABOVE REFERENCES In review of the above citations from various Cannel documents, it is clear that the City of Carmel has taken a proactive approach in promoting the concept of Green Space. This is a very important aspect of why most of our population considers our natural resources to be a high priority. Trees, greenways, stream corridors, wetlands, ponds, parks and wildlife are all part of the "Quality of Life" that is desired and appreciated by Carmel residents. RECOMMENDATIONS for the proposed Carmel SmartCode The following suggestions of specific changes: (changes in BOLD) will strengthen the protection and restoration of our natural resources: 1.1' Authority 1.1.3 This Code.....health, safety, general welfare, and ADD: "QUALITY OF LIFE 1.3 Intent n. That architecture design and ADD: NATIVE SPECIES landscape design..... 1.4 Process 1.4.4 Should.....,the Zoning Administrator has the right to require the owner to stop, remove, ADD: ASSESS FINES, and/or mitigate the violation. OMIT: or to secure a Variance to cover the violation. 1.5 Zoning Waivers/Variances 1.5.1 c. That the plan.....: increased landscape, tree preservation, ADD: WILDLIFE HABITAT ENHANCEMENT, provisions..... I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments and request your consideration of the above suggestions. Respectfully submitted, Gary D. Doxtater 13559 Kensington Place Carmel, IN 46032 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Hollibaugh, Mike P Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 7:01 PM To: Brad Grabow 'Carol Schleif'; Dan Dutcher; mjd6 @aol.com; Steve Stromquist Cc: Keeling, Adrienne M; Holmes, Christine B; Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Draft TPUDC Carmel Architectural Standards 10- 03- 09.doc Attachments: Draft TPUDC Carmel Architectural Standards 10- 03- 09.doc Dear Everybody; Attached is first draft of Architectural Standard per our discussion last Tuesday. This is a fairly beefy document, nine pages, partly based on our existing ordinances, partly based work by Carol and Christine, and part from Brian. It is also a pretty straight forward, broken down into sections for: Composition; Walls; Attachments Elements; Roofs; Openings Windows Doors; Storefronts; and, Miscellaneous. Of course we do not expect you to have this analyzed (or memorized) prior to our meeting Tuesday. We do hope you will have a little time to become familiar with it in case we find some time to get into that. Have a good weekend, Mike Hollibaugh 1 CAMPBELL KYLE PROFFITT LLP JOHN ATTORNEYS AT LAW OHN D. PROFFITT FRANK S. CAMPBELL JEFFREY S. NICKLOY (1880-1964) DEBORAH L. FARMER WILLIAM E. WENDLING, JR. FRANK W. CAMPBELL ANNE HENSLEY POINDEXTER (1916 -1991) ANDREW M. BARKER MICHAEL A. CASATI ROBERT F. CAMPBELL JOHN S. TERRY (1946-2004) RODNEY T. SARKOVICS SCOTT P. WYATT JOHN M. KYLE AMY E. HIGDON (1927-2006) STEPHENIE K. GOOKINS N. SCOTT SMITH KEVIN G. KLAUSING MATTHEW T. LEES September 30, 2009 Carmel Department of Community Services ATTN: Adrienne Keeling` One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 RECEIVED OCT -1 20119 RE: Gradle Property DOCS Dear Adrienne: Thank you for allowing me to express my clients' concern regarding the` application of the SmartCode Provisions to their property located at the Northeast corner of the intersection of Gradle Drive and 3 Avenue SW, Carmel, Indiana (the "Gradle Property As you know, the Gradle Property is presently zoned I -1. The list of uses for such classification clearly permits the present use of the property, which is multiple offices with attached warehouses. The "use" list of the SmartCode does not seem to adopt that operation in the T -6 land use classification section. In the event that my clients wish to sell the property in the future, they want the ability to sell it as it is presently being used. To accomplish that, we believe that the office warehouse use, as described in the present I -1 classification, should be added to the new SmartCode property classification T -6. Or, in the alternative, the section of the Code that addresses the continuation of a legal non- conforming use should be broadened to make sure that section allows the grandfathering of this property use to continue even though it is sold to new owners. Once again, thank you for giving me the opportunity to voice our concerns to the One Penn Mark 11595 North Meridian Street Suite 701 Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 846 -6514 FAX (317) 843 -8097 plan commission at sub committee meeting. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, William E. Wendling, Jr. WEW:cy cc: John Gradle 00608 -002 CAMPBELL KYLE PROFFITT LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW q COMMENTS ON SMART CODE REZONE When we initially spoke to Ms. Keeling regarding the impact which the adoption of the Smart Code would have on our property at 613 E. Carmel Drive, she stated that the Smart Code was not intended and would not change the permitted use of any of the properties within Transect Zones. I have reviewed the current B -6 zoning ordinance and the Schedule of Uses attached as Appendix A and have compared the permitted uses with those which are permitted in a T -5 Zone under the Smart Code and here are the differences: 1. The Smart Code does not permit "houses, cottages or villas" to be built in T -5 Zoning Classification while B -6 zoning permits any "single family dwelling." 2. No "auto- oriented" uses are permitted in the T -5 Zoning Classification including "gasoline" "automobile sales /service" while the current B -6 classification permits "automobile service stations," "automobile /boat sales," and "equipment sales /repair." 3. No taverns, bars or liquor sales are permitted in T -5 Zoning Classification while the present B -6 classification permits "Tavern /Nightclub" use and has no restriction on "liquor sales" in the "General Retail Sales" classification. 4. T -5 Zoning Classification does not permit "shopping centers" or "shopping malls" which currently exist within that the T -5 Transect Zone. 5. All "schools, trade or business" and "colleges" are permitted in B -6 zoning classification while the Smart Code permits only "elementary schools" in the T -5 classification which are not permitted in B -6 zoning classification. 6. This list is not exhaustive and there are many other changes in use other than those detailed above. The reason this is so important in the area impacted by the proposed T -5 zoning classification is that many of these prohibited uses presently exist within the area which is being classified as T -5 and due to the ages of many of the improvements within this area and the fact that they will of necessity be upgraded and will likely receive Substantial Modification in the near future, and, under the restrictions of the grandfathered use protection, many of the current uses will no longer be permitted. Not only will the existing use be unavailable but the new "developmental standards" imposed upon the T -5 zoning classification will be totally inconsistent with the existing structures and will limit parking to 3 per 1,000 sq. feet of space and new signage (installed after the adoption of the ordinance) will be limited to "externally illuminated" signs, except that signage within the Shopfront glazing may be neon lit." These new proposed restrictions will impose serious limitations on redevelopment of the properties within the existing B -6 Zoning Classification. The B -6 Zoning Classification was adopted "to provide a location for light commercial and office uses adjacent to limited access highways. The intent is to permit these uses to develop in an area of high commercial potential utilizing access roads and existing secondary streets and roads and buffering surrounding residential areas." The proposed change to the T -5 classification ignores the intent of the current zoning classification and the fact that Carmel Drive intersects Keystone Avenue, a limited access highway. Most of the discussion which I have heard centers around discussions of a "carless" society where everyone will walk to restaurants and small retail shops. Carmel Drive is not such an area and to impose the T -5 zoning classification on it is an unfair taking without compensation to the owners of properties in this area. If vehicles are still to be permitted in the area of Carmel Drive, then it is penalizing current owners who have to upgrade their properties and whose properties will likely require "Substantial Modification" within the near future. CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA SMARTCODE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM REGARDING SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS September 25, 2009 This Technical Memorandum is provided on behalf of the Department of Community Services (DOCS) in response to the comments provided by the Subdivision Committee of the Carmel Plan Commission regarding the Smart Code Draft dated as of July 21, 2009. General The two primary objectives of the Carmel SmartCode are: 1. to protect function and character of existing single family residential neighborhoods from higher density encroachments; and, 2. to provide a consistent set of rules for walkable, compact, development and redevelopment of quality design and with a mix of uses in areas where retail, commercial, office and other functions make sense for our community. These objectives are set forth to clearly define growth areas and patterns for the future; to create places and new neighborhoods for people; as well as to establish land development patterns which combat the commonly accepted negative impacts of suburban sprawl including but not limited to: Increased vehicle pollution and reliance on fossil fuel Increase in traffic and traffic related injuries Increased personal transportation costs Increased obesity, and obesity related illnesses Decrease in neighborhood quality and character Decrease in land and water quantity and quality Increased infrastructure costs Decreased quality of life The Smart Code area is proposed for the North Central Carmel study area in two different ways, depending upon whether or not an area is an existing single use, single family neighborhood. Carmel residents, the Plan Commission and DOCS all have expressed a strong desire for existing single use, single family neighborhoods to remain as such. This will be accomplished by assigning Transect Zone T3 (Sub- urban) to those areas. T3 will provide for Building Types, including Building Disposition (how the building is situated on the lot, including setbacks) (see Table 9), Building Configuration (massing, roof 1 type and height) (see Table 8A, Building Configuration Height and Table 7A, Private Frontage) and Building Function (use) (see Table 12, Specific Function and Use, and Table 10, Building Function) consistent with single family neighborhoods the Villa, House, Cottage, Sideyard House, and Courtyard House (See Table 8B, Building Types). The T3 standards for each of those elements will be based on the best examples of existing historic and new single family development in those neighborhoods and throughout the city, including overlay standards where appropriate. Note that these are actual standards, not mere "guidelines Finally, it should be noted that no Commercial, Retail, Office, Mixed or multifamily Residential Functions or Building Types will be prescribed for within existing single family T3 residential neighborhoods. In contrast, other areas of the North Central Carmel area in which Commercial, Retail, Office, Multifamily Residential and Light Industrial zoning and uses are applicable will be assigned to Transect Zones T4 (General Urban), T5 (Urban Center), T6 (Urban Core) or SD (Special District.) Again, the standards for these 3 Transect Zones and special districts will be derived from the best examples of similar areas in the community and /or Carmel's region that will provide compact, walkable, mixed use and high quality environments. Optional Availability of the SmartCode Outside the Central Carmel Area An important aspect for layout of the Transect Zones is to carefully study the character of the overall community. We do this to help make sure the zones relate well to each other, and to ensure that new development is respectful of its context, and allows for smooth transitions to adjoining property. Some cities believe it is valuable to make the Code an option that may be chosen for their entire city, instead of permitting further development pursuant to conventional zoning regulations. From a planning perspective, TPUDC has recommended that the City make the Code available as an option outside the North Central Carmel Area, not only because that possibility was raised by citizens during the charrette as a quality alternative to PUDs. We believe the result from using the Smart Code will improve on quality and character of development, and will lead to a healthier and overall more sustainable environment. However, if the City does not desire that option at this time, it will have no major effect on the use of the Smart Code in the North Central Carmel Area. Transition Between T3 T4 Conventional zoning codes are based on separated development "pods" of uses and densities, with little regard for the resulting built environment or the desires of the citizens. Historically, conventional zoning has left the built environment of a City up to a developer's discretion with limited regulation and oversight as to the physical outcome. Use -based zoning was originally intended to protect people from proximity to noxious emissions and deadly pollutants, irrespective of whether they were complementary or incompatible. Because conventional development regulations do 2 not effectively regulate form, buffers have been applied to mitigate the incompatibility flowing from the ineffective conventional regulation of use -based codes. The Smart Code is based on the Transect, which provides for a continuous range of character including complementary uses and densities. At the lower end of T4 and the higher end of T3, they are very similar in height, scale, and massing. As a consequence, the difficulties created by conventional regulation that requires buffers between zones is not present under the SmartCode. It is one of the essential concepts on which the Code is based. "Normal" Neighborhoods This term has been used to refer to single family residential subdivisions with no mixed retail, office, commercial or multifamily component. While this type of neighborhood has spread across the country, it is an invention of the past fifty years. This development pattern of separation by use and income, which is auto dominated with disconnected street networks, front loaded garages and inefficient allocation of infrastructure expense, was unheard of for the entirety of all prior human settlement throughout the millennia, and primarily was a response to accommodating automobiles. Therefore, the time tested pattern of pedestrian oriented development created under the SmartCode actually should be considered the normal neighborhood form. Under commonly accepted Smart Growth principles, even predominantly single family residential neighborhoods are better served if there is at least some minimum degree of these other land use elements to enhance walkability and vibrance within the built environment as well as alleviating environmental and traffic issues. For instance, proximity to a corner store can significantly reduce automobile trips and positively impact convenience for people of all ages and stages of life. However, the input received to date seems to indicate that the majority of residents within Carmel's existing single family residential neighborhoods do not desire to allow even as much as a corner store within these neighborhoods. Based on that input, the T3 Zone has been customized for Carmel to provide for it to be single family residential only, with none of the other functions typically prescribed in T3. Administrative Approval vs. Planning Commission and City Council Approval One of the great advantages to a form based code like the SmartCode is that it prescribes all of the elements of development and building that are necessary to create an excellent built environment. If these standards are met, the outcome is predictably good. If a Plan submission for a project meets the standards of the Code and does not require any Variances, the approval of that Plan becomes an administrative function. This is one of the key benefits of the code which allows for a more streamlined review process, and which frees the Commission and City Council for more important matters. All of the elements of development will have been approved by these bodies in connection with the adoption of the Code, so it is not necessary for those standards and their application to a complying plan be revisited each time a project is proposed. Projects that require Variances or are otherwise non- complying will be subject to approval of a Variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals as 3 under current laws and ordinances or of a Zoning Waiver by the Zoning Administrator as delegate of the Plan Commission Infill Development The Smart Code uses the term "Infill" to mean "new development on land that has been previously developed, including most Greyfield and Brownfield sites and cleared land within Urbanized areas This is in contrast to "Greenfield which means "an area that consists of open or wooded land or farmland that has not been previously developed The 2 terms are mutually exclusive. Infill does not always mean razing of all structures and replacing them with multifamily or commercial development. Infill can mean anything from a couple of acres within a previously developed area to a larger such site. Under the Smart Code, all development, both Infill and Greenfield, must comply with the standards of the Code for the applicable Transect Zone which have been carefully crafted to complement existing development. It is these standards and the application of the Code to all development that protect existing neighborhoods. Presently, other than conventional regulation, a patchwork of overlays, and the threat of a PUD, there is no protection of this sort. Walkability and Connectivity Essential in creating vibrant pedestrian friendly places is the efficient circulation of vehicles, public and private frontages and connected streets. Cul de sacs are an element of conventional suburban automobile- oriented development devised by engineers and developers laying out subdivisions in an effort to squeeze as many Tots as possible in to a development without regard to character, circulation or the impact to the city as a whole. Sometimes cul de sacs are seen as a way to prevent fast moving, through traffic on streets that were designed for speeds too fast for neighborhood travel. These streets were poorly designed to begin with using oversized suburban standards requiring wide streets which caused the problem of speeding traffic. However, the use of cul -de -sacs also has the effect of forcing vehicular traffic to a limited number of access points to connect to larger roads, so that those limited points become congested as well as the adjacent streets surrounding the subdivision. This is due to the fact that all of the traffic is dumped on to a limited number of collector roads. In addition, cul de sacs prevent pedestrians from moving from one area to another because sidewalks end where streets end. Even if a path were provided to allow pedestrians to continue walking at the head of a cul de sac, they tend to be reluctant to do so, as a result of the ambiguous relationship of public to private property. Finally, emergency service providers regularly complain of the negative impact to their response time caused by disconnected street networks and cul du sacs. The effects of the recent suburban creation of the cul du sac have an overall negative impact to the quality of life and safety of all of the citizens of Carmel as a result of the desire of the developers who build them and the few residents who live on them. Therefore, any use of disconnected thoroughfares should be carefully considered and should be avoided except where necessary due to topography or other physical site 4 conditions. Attention should be given instead to properly designed streets over which vehicles will travel at lower speeds and providing pedestrians with an acceptable means of moving about. User Friendliness /Legalese /Sentence Structure /Definitions Several suggestions have been made to make the SmartCode easier to use, including references to section titles, table names and page numbers. These ideas will be implemented in the final version of the Code. A comment was received that the Code contains "legalese" and paragraphs with multiple phrases. While every effort has been made to keep the Code as accessible as possible to users with a wide range backgrounds, because it is a document that must be legally enforceable, in certain instances, the use of legal terminology is unavoidable. There are legal concepts that must be conveyed and /or addressed by using certain language in order to cover them properly. It is often the case in legal documents that provisions which are conditional or applicable in certain situations require sentences with multiple phrases that may seem duplicative, convoluted or even grammatically incorrect run -ons. Some instances of this are found in the Smart Code however, upon further review by the TPUDC team's coding and legal expert as well as the Plan Commission's attorney; these instances withstand legal and grammatical scrutiny and have been deemed necessary for the legal enforceability of the Smart Code. Every effort has been made to make these as easy to understand as possible. It should be noted that the Smart Code is being used successfully by a number of users with no legal background, such as laypersons, planners, architects, city personnel, planning commissioners, council persons and contractors. A suggestion was made to limit terms used in the Code to those found in the dictionary. Other than legal terms and terms in common use by architects and planners, the only known word in the Code that is not listed in the dictionary is "enfront While this word is useful throughout to refer to a particular concept and relationship between certain elements, this will be changed to "along" throughout the Code. With respect to other terms defined specifically in the Code, the protocol of placing definitions of frequently used complex concepts in a single place is intended to reduce the length and complexity of sentences and the overall document by providing a short way to refer to those concepts. For instance, by defining the term "Transect Zone" in a single place, the 59 words necessary to express that concept can be reduced to 2 words each time it is used. Even within the definition of Transect Zone itself, there are 4 other defined terms, which in turn have multiple word definitions that include other defined terms, etc. In a similar way, the Tables of the Code are placed in a single place, such as in Article 7 Definition of Terms, because they are used throughout the Code. For example, 5 Table 14 is referred to dozens of times, so it is not practical for it to appear with each reference to it. Hopefully, the expanded Table, Section and Page reference protocol described above will enhance the usability of the Code. Neighborhood Guidelines See the discussion under "Infill Development" above. As noted, the Code itself will include the standards that will protect existing neighborhoods. Presently, except in overlay areas, there is no such protection. The final version of the Code will include standards that are based on the existing historic and new neighborhoods, enhanced with the important overlay standards where applicable. These standards will be much more than "guidelines they will be enforceable standards that must be followed. The existing neighborhoods, therefore, will not need to be exempted from the Code; instead, the Code will protect them. Understandable Code It is anticipated that the referencing protocol described under "User Friendliness, etc." above will help individuals who desire to understand the Code to do so. As a point of comparison, the SmartCode would seem to be more "understandable" than the 100's of pages of the existing conventional code and multiple overlays. Presumably, few of the members of the public who have expressed an inability to understand the Code actually have undertaken to read the existing regulations or the SmartCode. In any event, there will be explanatory materials in the form of a "users guide" available to anyone who desires to gain a better understanding of the Code. If someone genuinely is interested in understanding the Code, they need to read it in its entirety and the explanatory materials. Across the country, individuals who have approached the Code in that way have found it readily understandable. It cannot be understood by flipping through the Tables and trying to find a specific lot on the proposed Initial Community Regulating Plan. Thoroughfare Map /A B Grids The Thoroughfare Map will be provided. It reflects the existing Thoroughfares and several recommended Thoroughfares which, if the City decides to provide for them, will need to be approved in the same manner as any other new road or street in the City. Any additional Thoroughfares that would be proposed in connection with a development would need to be proposed by an owner in a Community Regulating Plan the elements of which, including the Thoroughfare standards, would be required to comply with and be approved under the Code. The final draft of the Code will categorize all streets as A Grid only, with all Thoroughfares held to the same standards. Sector Map The final version of the Code will not contain an option for areas outside of the North Central area to be developed under the Code, (see discussion above under "Optional Availability etc. and will not include provisions regulating at the Sector Scale so there 6 will not be a Sector Plan. The Sector provisions were included initially based on inclusion of such an optional provision. Rather than using a Sector Plan to identify permanently protected areas, the Initial Community Regulating Plan will handle that concern by assigning those areas to T -1 Natural Zone or Civic Zone. Overlay Maps Where applicable, the Overlay standards of OId Town will be incorporated into the Code as special requirements. It is anticipated that standards for all other overlay areas will be blended with and /or replaced by the standards of the Code, and that the Old Town Overlay Area will be designated on the Initial Community Regulating Plan. Contributing Buildings Map Updating the Contributing Buildings Map is not specifically a part of the SmartCode adoption process. However, Contributing Buildings and the special treatment accorded to them will be included in the Code by reference to the existing map, designations and requirements. Contributing Buildings will replace the concept of "Buildings of Value" in the final version of the Smart Code. Design Standards Architectural Residential Design and Landscape Residential Design standards or guidelines can be incorporated by reference or by grafting into Article 5 of the Code if the City desires to include them to supplement the standards in the Code. Sections Between T3 and T4 Please see discussion above under "Transition Between T3 and T4" for additional information regarding this issue. Axonometric Sections have been provided in the transect transition study poster. It should be noted, however, that the City's existing codes do not regulate development and buildings relative to sight lines (other than perhaps for traffic safety purposes) or sun angles. There is some question whether such regulation would be enforceable in the absence of a private grant of specific air rights, sight or sunlight easements. Overlay Areas Please see discussion above under "Overlay Maps" and "Neighborhood Guidelines Existing Overlay Areas will be assigned their appropriate Transect Zone assignments, similar to the manner in which they presently are part of a conventional zoning district. In all overlay areas other than the Old Town Area, the standards for the various Transect Zones that will be prescribed by the Code will provide the standards by use of the standards of the Transect Zones to which they are assigned. In the Old Town Area, where an OId Town overlay standard is determined to be preferable to the standard that otherwise would be prescribed by the Code for the applicable Transect Zone, it will be handled by applying a Special Requirement, designated by the Community Regulating Plan. Land Use Matrix 7 The Code provides Residential, Lodging, Office, Retail /Service, Civic and Other as general categories of Functions. Each of these has certain specific Functions identified where it is necessary to prescribe or prohibit those specific Functions within a Transect Zone. Even these specific Functions are broader than some of the specific Functions in the existing code. Many of the existing regulation's distinctions among various uses are unnecessary in the context of a form -based code. The existing code hyper- focuses on use because that essentially is its basic means of regulation. That is not the case with form -based codes like the Smart Code. While Functions are regulated in a form -based Code, it is only one of several aspects regulated in the standards for Building Type. The Smart Code regulates not only Building Function but also Building Disposition and Building Configuration. See discussion above under "General However, for ease of administration and use, the final version of the Code will contain all of the existing conventional regulation's uses under the definitions of each of the general Function categories. The Specific Functions table also will be expanded or contracted, as necessary, to prescribe or prohibit specific Functions within the general categories across the Transect. Monon Trail Sections Since the initial draft, the Monon has been provided for with a special Multi -modal Path assembly that has been added to the Thoroughfare Assemblies. The two available Monon Trail sections currently available will be added to the Smart Code Thoroughfare Assemblies. Existing Neighborhood and Historic Neighborhood Protection Please see above under "General "Infill" and "Neighborhood Guidelines" regarding this topic. Prohibition of Assembly of Lots in Existing Neighborhoods It would be unconstitutional under both the Federal and State constitutions to prohibit the purchase or sale of private property based on its location with a neighborhood or subdivision. Smart Code as Option Outside of the Central Carmel Area. Please see discussion regarding this topic under "Optional Availability" above. This topic should be given further consideration and a determination made by the City whether to adopt this strategy. Removal of Transect Zones not Applicable within the Central Carmel Area This can be addressed based on the City's decision regarding use of the SmartCode as an option outside of the Central Carmel Area. The T1 Zone will need to be retained if the Code will be applicable within the Central Carmel Area in lieu of using 0-1 Preserved Open Sector on a Sector Plan to designate permanently protected areas. The other Transect Zones that are not applicable in Central Carmel will be left blank as placeholders as recommended. 8 Table 4B The suggested change will be made. Explanation of How a Buffer is not Required between T3 and T4 See discussion above under "Transition Between T3 and T4" and "Sections Between T3 and T4 Buffers are a product of single use Euclidean zoning where uses deemed incompatible are juxtaposed. They are not required other than by conventional land regulations. The Smart Code specifically does not require them, irrespective of any requirement in the City's conventional regulation. The point is well taken, however, that the reference in the Code to "appropriate transitions without buffers" may be difficult to enforce, and that will be redrafted in the final version of the Code. However, there is no legal requirement that buffers be provided between different zones and it follows that it is unnecessary to require sections to justify not providing buffers. Therefore, other than addressing the "appropriate transitions" language, there should not be anything further required to legally enforce this provision. As noted above, the Smart Code's Transect Zone standards for the various elements of design provide much more than "guidelines" for transitions. The elements themselves are carefully crafted within overlapping ranges to assure that they are compatible at their points of adjacency. T3 Lot Widths The Planning Department is reviewing these standards and they will be adjusted as appropriate in the final version of the Code. Spell Checking The final version of the Code will be spell checked further. Specific Edit Comments The specific edits that have been submitted have been reviewed and considered carefully. In many of the instances, they have been used as the basis for revising the applicable provision. In a number of cases, the edits have not been made based on the rationale and explanations set out above. 9 TO: CARMEL SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ADRIENNE KEELING COMMUNITY SERVICES JOHN MOLITOR LEGAL COUNSEL BILL WRIGHT CONSULTANT BRIAN WRIGHT CONSULTANT FROM: CHARLES BARBARA HOBBS DATE: SEPTEMBER 4, 2009 SUBJECT: SMART CODE NEW ZONING DISTRICTS AS I VOICED DURING THE SEPTEMBER 1ST MEETING, WE ARE NOT PLEASED WITH THE PROPOSED T -3 DESIGNATION FOR 1 AV S.E.. WE RESIDE AT 220 I AV S. E. AND WOULD BASICALLY (OTHER THAN CARMEL VIEW) BE SURROUNDED BY T -4 AND T -5 ZONING DISTRICTS. WE ALSO OWN TWO OTHER PROPERTIES FROM 2 ST TO 4TFi ST. AND ARE CONCERNED WITH THE RAMIFICATIONS OF HIGH BUILDINGS IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST OF THE ALLY IN WHICH VIEWS TO THE WEST WOULD BE BLOCKED. ALSO, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO RESALE VALUES- -WHO WOULD WANT TO LIVE BEHIND TALL BUILDINGS? PLEASE NOTICE THE PROPERTY PROFILE I HAVE INCLUDED. FROM 2 ST TO 4'" ST EAST OF THE ALLY. THERE ARE 11 PROPERTIES, OF WHICH ONLY 36% ARE TRUE RESIDENTIAL. WHY THEN T -3, AND WHY NOT T -4? T -4 WOULD ALLOW THIS AREA TO TRANSITION TO A MIX OF HOUSES, TOWNHOMES, BOTIQUES, AND SMALL SHOPS. SORT OF HOMEY RIGHT? 1 INVITE EACH OF YOU TO TAKE A DRIVE ON I AV S.E FROM 2 ST TO 4'F' ST, AND ALSO DOWN THE ALLY TO BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. i Xi c>. *.o.... ,--5 4 d 7 t. t ,./3 ,..1) A 2 A, s s --1 7r„,*, X (41 -4) f. ti 1 It V J• e 4t, PIA 11 NP A ■4 VA I 0 'd ___.3 -1: i 01 2 (tett I G g 1 4 Ci V 0 3' 4' Z pw,, i I 1 .e JSANZ V) W t. 4 l 1 I ht. tp CZe 1 b2. 0 Q V 0 3,. 'e•-.... Itt) ...0" e-t el. 4' i d i5 41 4 C 1 I 1* 0 1 cir; 1 1.- ty_.... 7g/? c/v0/7 9...z 3 s ..i.s. TY) C IS l c I CA) v i ve 3 cfP 00 •C\l '1' •-%04, k 0 r ill ‘^ii 3 v i NI W rn 1 TO: CITY OF CARMEL CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION RE: CARMEL SMARTCODE PROPERTY ADDRESS: 613 EAST CARMEL DRIVE COMMENTS: Patsy M. Kunz is the owner of the property at 613 E. Carmel Drive which is the site of a Burger King Restaurant. The restaurant building was constructed on the site approximately 25 years ago and has been periodically upgraded. At present the restaurant is operated by Burger King's corporate offices. Our concern is that due to the age of the restaurant building and the fact that the building is a special purpose building that the new zoning will limit the uses which were available under the present B -6 zoning classification in the event that Burger King either decides not to continue to operate its restaurant on the site or desires to upgrade or "substantially change" the restaurant building. We are also concerned that the development standards proposed under the new zoning ordinance would require special use approval for "drive -thru" windows and signage which is a requirement of every fast food restaurant which could potentially eliminate future use as a fast food restaurant site if approvals were not forthcoming for redevelopment of the site and could discourage potential future owners or users of the site. According to your staff, the SmartCode Rezone is not intended to change existing use of the area being rezoned but in the case of the above referenced property, changes to the developmental standards will impose a change in use on the site. The area surrounding the Property at 613 E. Carmel Drive is clearly dominated by fast food restaurants. Ten of the adjoining properties have fast food restaurants on them currently and the property to the east is in the process of being redeveloped as a Taco Bell. Keeling, Adrienne M From: Andy Wheeler awheeler ©edgewoodbuildingsupply.com] Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 10:53 AM To: Keeling, Adrienne M Subject: Smart Code Outside storage Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: SmartCode Adrienne, Thank you so much for taking my call this morning. As you are aware, my concern regards outside storage. Our company owns the vacant lot on Carmel Drive at Gradle Drive. Currently we occupy the neighboring property and have future plans to use this property for business expansion which requires outside storage of brick. I would appreciate having this issue addressed in your staff meetings. Thanks Andy Wheeler Edgewood Building Supply 430 West Carmel Drive Carmel, In 46032 awheeler @aedgewoodbuildingsupply.com 317 843 -4108 Fax 317 846 -6219 1 PROPOSED CITY OF CARMEL SMARTCODE Comments by Gary Doxtater 13559 Kensington Place Carmel, IN 46032 August 30, 2009 Primary Concern: The Proposed Smart Code Ordinance does not recognize the importance of trees and wildlife with the omission of T1 Natural and T2 Rural areas within the Proposed Zoning Map Districts. A search of the web site www.carmelsmartcode.com indicates "Your search yielded no results" for the following terms: Tree or Trees Tree Preservation Area, Tree Preservation Easement, Tree Buffer Zone Forestry Wildlife Habitat Quality of Life The following references have been taken from various Carmel City documents which show the intended commitment that Carmel has made for our natural resources: "It is the City's intent to encourage the preservation of trees for thefuture of the City of Carmel." The City of Carmel has qualified for the "Tree City USA for over 14 years and the (Tree) Growth Award for over 12 years. Carmel has touted its Urban Forestry Program for many years. "The Urban Forestry Committee has the responsibility to assist the City in the development and administration of a comprehensive community tree management program." The Committee "envisions a future of the Urban Forest as a healthy, diverse, colorful, display of canopy trees lining the streets and throughout the City, which provides an environment which sustains wildlife and is accessible to every resident." One of the objectives of the Urban Forestry Committee is "To continue to help Carmel /Clay Township be a desirable location for business and home by strenthening its successful and recognized Urban Forestry Program." Trees, greenways, stream corridors, ponds, parks and wildlife are all a part of the "quality -of- life" that is desired and appreciated by Carmel residents. Kensington Place Town Homes was the first Wildlife Friendly Neighborhood in the State of Indiana to be Certified by the Indiana Wildlife Federation (2005). 1 The above references and statements certainly address the importance that Carmel has placed on the protection and restoration of the natural resources within the City. This is the GOOD NEWS! The BAD NEWS is that Hamilton County is the eighth fastest growing county in the U.S. and first in the Midwest, which results in a severe impact on our natural resources. Along with this "progress" comes an obligation to protect and preserve our natural resources. Our SmartCode must be designed to protect what we have left. Comments on SmartCode specifics: Article 2.3 (0 -1) PRESERVED OPEN SPACES SECTOR 2.3.1 "Protected from development in perpetuity COMMENT: THIS IS GOOD, BUT WE MUST HAVE A LAW OR REGULATION FOR PROTECTION. THIS IS TOO RESTRICTIVE AS NOT MANY AREAS IN CARMEL ARE PROTECTED BY LAWS PROTECTING NATURAL RESOURCES. 2.3.2 "categories" COMMENT: ADD TREE PRESERVATION AREAS TO THE LIST AND INCLUDE THE CARMEL "TREE PRESERVATION AREA GUIDELINES" (presently in draft) FOR PROTECTION BY LAW. THIS SECTION SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING CLASSIFICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN USED IN THE PAST SUCH AS TREE PRESERVATION EASEMENT AND TREE BUFFER ZONE. USE ONE STANDARD TERM SUCH AS TREE PRESERVATION AREA AS IN DRAFT GUIDELINES. 2.3.3 "any development or construction within the preserved open sector.... and approval of, the City Council." COMMENT: THE SMARTCODE USES THE TERM "IN PERPETUITY." NO ONE, INCLUDING THE CITY COUNCIL, SHOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GIVE A VARIANCE FOR THIS CATEGORY WITHOUT CHANGING THE LAW. DELETE SECTION 2.3.3. Article 2.4 (0 -2) RESERVED OPEN SECTOR 2.4.1 "The reserved open sector shall consist of land in Section 2.3.2 and therefore is not protected by any binding method." 2 COMMENT: THERE MUST BE SOME OF THESE AREAS WITHIN THE SMARTCODE DISTRICT. WHY NOT? MAYBE THERE ISN'T A NEED FOR THE SECTION AS EVERY CATEGORY LISTED COULD BE COVERED IN 2.3 ABOVE- -THE PRESERVED OPEN SPACE SECTION. PUTTING ALL OF THESE LAND CATEGORIES IN 2.3 WOULD THEN PROTECT THEM BY "CARMEL LAW." Article 5.0 BUILDING..... 5.5 Specific to Ti Natural Zone 5.5.1 "No building except by use of variance approved by the Board." COMMENT ADD "AND THE CARMEL CITY COUNCIL." I attended several of the public input charrettes and was able to address my concerns about wildlife and tree preservation. I appreciate the opportunity to provide my comments to the Plan Commission. Your consideration and feedback would be appreciated. Please feel free to give me a call (317- 640 -1558 cell or 317 -575 -8818 home) if you have questions. 3 t R 4 s (4.--1/ 0 i f A' t../ vt)t))(i II)/ 1 i a 0 a Vi 12(-1e--(-4-' C I-j C(( frl 1/7/2 r I PROPOSED ZONI rG MAP Plan Commission Docket Number 0907001:: v For detailed informatioia on each of the proposed districts, you may vievi t,, 1, e prop 0, t SrnartCode Ordinance at cvww.carmelsmart I 2 2,„.... 1 1 13135 St. .rx...-- 1 T- --r--- f r r tl tt:r tikt'tz 1 t I t T' I t I t 1.9tftrt ''""le;="' 1 „T 4-1 I 74 0 i main i 133. st _.j_L_...--,.'...--', 1 T 1 r i _...1.--k 0 :.sillcu i ,,,i).., varet 7.,,, 1 ...i 1:::'7. 1 Pia il i -1 '1 126th St City i 1 3 Center Dr. 1 014."'""' 'I 1 1 1 1 1 LI z 1 1 1 I 4 i 'I x St, 0 11E r 7 1 4 Urban General Zone so sp Di M T Ur -5 ban Center Zone Iiil',/ CS Civic Space T-8 Urban Core Zone Pilo Planned Urban Development (Emoting: For detailed information on each of the proposed districts, you may view the proposed SrnartCode Ord in,-Ance 2 t www.carmelsmartcode. co tn.