HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence: all other Format Dynamics C1eanPrint http: /www.indystar.. corn /article /20110620 /LOCAL01 /1... Page 1 of 2
I DysT R rom
Carmel council Crowley sought to rezone 64 acres at
116th Street and Spring Mill Road from a
The Bridges residential to a planned -use development
designation, to create The Bridges a
multiuse $100 million mix of retail, office and
residential apartments.
development Although the development had been
plagued by neighbors' criticism that it will
add too much traffic to an already over
burdened Spring Mil Road and lower their
property values, Councilman Rick Sharp
said last- minute concessions made by the
Written by developer raising a berm to six feet to
hide much of the development and paying
Robert Annis
$1 0,000 per developed acre for road
8:30 PM, Jun. 20, 20111 improvements seem to ease some of
their concerns.
The Carmel City Council paved the way for
a controversial Carmel multiuse development "This is not going to be built overnight,"
Monday night, much to the discontent of Sharp said. "There are going to be many
some nearby residents who fear the opportunities for the neighbors to work
project will mark the end of their quiet with the developer, as they come back to
suburban neighborhoods. the city for additional approvals."
Developer More than a dozen residents from the
nearby Williams Mill and Spring Mill Place
Advertisement
C k
Print Powered By addEprinat Dynamics
http: /www.indystar.com /fdcp/ ?unique 1308665433581 6/21/2011
Format Dynamics CleanPrint http: /www.indystar.com/article /20110620 /LOCAL01 /1... Page 2 of 2
)."YS: ZACONA
neighborhoods were on hand at the Although neighbors argue that traffic will
meting, but none spoke. increase, city officials say the planned
extension of Illinois Street through the
Still, at least one neighbor remained development down to 106th Street will
unhappy. render their concerns moot. Sharp said
construction of the Illinois extension would
"This is all going to change down the road, be fast tracked, likely beginning next year
just you watch," said Kevin Williams in an and being completed in 2013.
interview. "Their compromises were
meager. Lowering the number of Call Star reporter Robert Annis at (317)
apartments from 360 to 300? Raising the 444 -6031.
berm two or three feet? That's not going to
make me happy. There should only be Get Listed Here
owner- occupied housing and some small Ads by Pulse 360
office or retail; no big box stores or
supermarkets. Hot Stock Pick OWE New Issue, Obscene Jeans Inc Explosive Investment
Potential
The council voted 6 -1 to approve the www.ObsceneJeans.com
rezoning request, with Councilman Ron Unemployed or Laid Off?
Carter the lone dissenting vote. Go Back to school. Take College Classes Online, On
Your Own Time.
The council's decision was expected; the www.YourDegree.com
Carmel Plan Commission voted 8 -2 last Carmel:Mom Makes Botox Doctors Furious
Mom Reveals Clever $4 Wrinkle Therapy That Makes
month to send a favorable Botox Doctors Furious
recommendation to the City Council and the ConsumerLifeOnline.com
project is backed by most city officials and
the "Carmel Chamberof.
The Bridges will likely be built in phases advertisement
over the next 15 years with construction lk!
of a retail area anchored by a grocery and
i restaurants beginning as early as next
year.
Crowley has admitted that details of the
project are subject to change based on
market demand, such as converting the
apartments to senior housing, for example,
or changing the square footage of office
space.
Print Powered By -ear`rn tDynamics'”
http: /www.indystar.e:om /fdcp /?unique= 1308665433581 6/21/2011
Format Dynamics CleanPrint http: /www.indystar. coin /article /20110516/LOCAL010... Page 1 of 3
n 1N, ..A 'COM
k, $1 $lcorniu and Noblesville's Hamilton Town Center.
It gaining support as a westward
LI- causes expansion of Carmel's lucrative U.S. 31
-Q affluent Carmel business corridor, but also opposition from
a group of Spring Mill -area homeowners.
neighborhood They plan to argue against the project at a
Carmel Plan Commission meeting Tuesday,
saying it will increase traffic in the area and
depress their property.
Zx Ed Skarbeck, managing partner at an
4 Indianapolis investment firm, says he liked
Written by the idea when he thought it was limited to a
grocery and a few small stores not the
Robert Annis 250,000 square feet of retail, 800,000
robert.annis @indystar.com square feet of office space and 300
6:25 AM, May. 16, 20111 apartments for which the developer will
seek preliminary zoning approval.
CARMEL, Ind. A $100 million mix of
restaurants, retail, apartments and offices He fears looking out his front door in Spring
potentially one of the area's biggest Mill 'Place where houses tend to sell for
developments since the recession could $300,000 or more and seeing a 10-
begin taking shape as early as next year story building.
near some of Carmel's most affluent
neighborhoods. "If approved." Skarbeck said, "this would
be one of the largest developments in
Carmel business leaders and city planners
are backing a proposal for The Bridges, a Advertisement
64 -acre multiuse development on the Y
southeast corner of 1 16th Street and
Spring Mill Road. The mostly residential e` a
area is already in line tor change, with 4x
r r ¢.i n fi "Y wpm 1
a a 9 r g P �p� a� z s 114,4:
Indiana University Health planning to
1 V
develop the northeast corner and a
Mormon temple proposed on the 5, r
southwest.
ti ti
"N as
But the proposal from Indian 1 1 N :a
developer Gershman Brown Crowley calls for 7` le
development on a scale with two of its R 4
C) Lea
bi.•est e ro'ects, Carmel's Cla Terrace i r v,...,, „i
Print Powered By G r- s =r byrr1Pr i s2
http: /www.indystar. corn /fdcp ?unique 1305553691483 5/16/2011
Format Dynamics CleanPrint http: /www.indystar. corn /article /20110516/LOCAL010... Page 2 of 3 4
-.1 y
s i a, c 0 t 0
Carmel with some of the largest buildings Mike Hollibaugh, who heads Carmel's
in Carmel. There are some pretty intense planning department, said the city wasn't
uses permitted that we don't feel are taking any chances on a project that it sees
appropriate." as a westward expansion of the U.S. 31
corridor a business property -tax gold
It's the area's high property values that mine that has helped to pay for massive
make it ripe for this kind of development. public redevelopment under Carmel Mayor
Jim Brainard.
"You won't find more high income
individuals in a five -mile radius anywhere "It's an important corner to the community,
else in the state," said Ross Reller, director especially with the improvements
of land services at Colliers International. happening on U.S. 31," Hollibaugh said.
"This is going to change the landscape
"In addition, you're right across the street going into the future, and we don't want to
from one of the largest hospitals in Indiana do anything that will cheapen it The
and minutes from several million square price of the ground and the materials
feet of office space along the U.S. 31 they'll be using dictate its going to be an
corridor. Despite all this, it's relatively expensive project"
underserved by restaurants and hospitality
businesses. With Hollibaugh's endorsement and
backing from the Carmel Chamber of
"This has the highest likelihood of success Commerce, the plans are headed for an
of anything I've seen in the past 24 to 36 initial review by the Plan Commission; the
months." final say belongs to the Carmel City Council,
which next meets in early June.
Gershman Brown Crowley principal Tom
Crowley said The Bridges named for Crowley said that if the project wins
stone bridges that would span small
waterways needed for drainage on the site Advert�se�,ent
also will meet the needs of nearby '''''R'' PrOtect Yourwojne.;=4
i
homeowners who have to drive three miles -`4, x r '6
or more into Indianapolis to buy groceries. 7 s,�
He said it wil'i meet the strict standards m
required in Carmel. s: p t
$1.-vol, 94d !o 4� ,Y,3 6' C pb
i rr�h i� x,ela a x f
"Show me one thing they've allowed in X r
Carmel that's diminished property values,' ry
he said Thursday. "Show me one. You're
not going to do anything here unless it's If ;-.:74;;Z"-..? k
done the right way. C i here ikw.xv j
o :L r",
xx. r Na n
Print Powered By r r n Dyrrar°nics
http:// www.indystar.com/fdcp ?unique= 1305553691483 5/16/2011
Format Dynamics CleanPrint http:// www. indystar. com /article /2011051.6/LOCAL010... Page 3 of 3
approval, he doesn't expect to break Mill. But he doesn't see a decline in
ground before mid -2012. property values.
He cautioned that the entire development "Carmel's shown a history of conscientious
would take at least 15 years to build out, zoning control over developments like this,"
with some details still subject to change Pacilio said. The apartments, like the rest
converting the apartments to senior of the development, look to be very high-
housing, for example, or changing the end and command higher rents. The
square footage of office space to meet access to convenient shopping and
market demand. groceries is only a positive.
That's what worries Carter Jerman, "I see it as a selling point, just like the
president of the homeowners association in Monon Trail and Clay Terrace are selling
nearby Williams Mill. points for nearby homes. Over time, they'll
see the benefits."
"The whole plan is conceptual; nothing's set
in stone," Jerman said. "Everything is so v Call Star reporter Robert Annis at (317)
ague. We like the prairie -style 444- 6031.
architecture, but who's going to stop him
(Crowley) from selling off bits and pieces
after its rezoned to different people who'll
build what they want?
Skarbeck hopes to make his case to the
Plan Commission and, if necessary, the City
Council.
"What's their responsibility to the city and
Its citizens Skarbeck asked, referring to Advertisement
commission and council members. "Do they fi ,P c no m t
just say to the developer who wants to
spend millions of dollars, Have at It I e 2 P 47 "A r a i
1 r am i t
p l 'k r r. k
tl ad
Do they allow that developer to build IIp�' x
hundreds of apartments, add to the traffic
congestion and eventually hurt our property I k tEk Pir
values?"
Like everyone else, Carmel real estate i tr4t f
agent John Pacilio can only speculate about 1, r r
what might happen at 116th and Spring x i r, tt Lear M ore'
Print Powered By _or r r 1 ynarritc
http://www.indystar.com/fdcp/?unique=1305553691483 5/16/2011
NELSON FRANKENBERGER
JAMES J. NLI.SON
CHARLES D. FRANKENBERGER
JAMES E. SHINAVER
LAWRENCE J. KEMPER
.JOHN B. FLATT
FREDRIC LAWRENCE
JAMES A. NICKLOY
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3105 EAST 98TH STREET, SUITE 170
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46280
PHONE: 317- 844 -0106
FACSIMILE: 317- 846 -8782
JANE B. MERRILL,
Of Counsel
JON C. DOBOSIEWICZ,
Land Use Professional
May 6, 2011
City of Carmel
Plan Commission
I Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
RE: The Bridges Docket No. 10120008 Z
Dear Plan Commissioner:
By way of general background, GB Developers, an affiliate of Gershman Brown Crowley, filed a
petition for a zoning amendment to allow an upscale, mixed -use development on approximately 63 acres
located in the southwest quadrant of U.S. Highway 31 and 116`" Street, north of 11I Street and east of
Springmill Road. To this end, the public hearing before the Plan Commission occurred in February of this
year and was followed by four very thorough meetings of the Special Studies Committee.
Since filing in December, we have had numerous meetings with the Department of Engineering
and we have had continuous, weekly meetings with the Department of Community Services during which
the PUD Ordinance was closely reviewed and during which we received the Staff's helpful input and
guidance. We have reached consensus with the Department of Community Services on all comments, now
comprising well over 100 points.
At the conclusion of our 4` Committee meeting, we were returned with a favorable
recommendation to the Plan Commission meeting of May 17, 2011. Further to this, we have included with
this letter a submittal comprising a clean copy of the updated PUD, containing all revisions, and a redlined
copy of the PUD, identifying all revisions. All of these revisions represent considerable and careful effort
of the Committee, the Department of Community Services, and the Department of Engineering.
We look forward to returning to the Plan Commission on May 17, 2011.
Respectfully submitted,
NELSON FRANKENBERGER, P.C.
Charles D. Frankenberger
Jon Dobosiew' z
CDF /JD /bjt
L[r to Carmel PC 050611
Conn, Angelina V
From: Mindham, Daren
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: RE: Responses to DOCS questions and comments for The Bridges
No additional comments.
Daren Mindham
Urban Forester
City of Carmel
Department of Community Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Office: 317 571 -2283
*The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit. Nelson Henderson
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 10:02 AM
To: Littlejohn, David W; Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M.
Cc: Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Hollibaugh, Mike P
Subject: FW: Responses to DOCS questions and comments for The Bridges
All
Please look over Jon's official response to our review comments, and let me know if you have any additional concerns or
questions.
Thanks,
-Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
From: Jon Dobosiewicz jmailto:iond(a)NF- LAW.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 11:03 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Cc: Charlie Frankenberger
Subject: Responses to DOCS questions and comments for The Bridges
Angie,
Please find attached the response letter to DOCS questions and comments on The Bridges. As we discussed please
include this letter with the information forwarded to the Plan Commission Committee so that they have an opportunity to
review in advance of the meeting on April 12.
Thanks,
Jon
Jon C. Dobosiewicz
Land Use Professional
Nelson Frankenberger. PC'
3105 East 98th Street, Suite 170
Indianapolis. IN 46280
From: Conn, Angelina V
Please distribute
From: jay dorrnan [mailto:dorman.jay @gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 8:32 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: Re: April 12 Special Meeting, Special Studies Committee Dept Report
Angie,
Use of laserfiche site is very challenging. Either petitioner needs to provide Word version or
perhaps department can print and scan to create a Word version where track changes or insertion
of comments is feasible?
In addition to the recommendations of the CCRZ, I would also desire clarity about hours of
operation of some of the proposed uses.
Also what is access route for supply trucks (large trucks including semi tractor trailers) for
loading /unloading and trash pick up? Access route for such supply trucks should be directed
to "Illinois" rather than entrance /exit via Springmill Rd. Resupply and trash pick up should
occur only during "normal hours of operation
Thanks.
Conn, Angelina V
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 12:32 PM
To: 'Steve Stromquist'
Cc: Hancock, Ramona B; Rider, Kevin D; Westermeier, Susan; 'jmolitor @prodigy. -et'• Hollibaugh,
Mike P; Forwarding E -mail, Dierckman, Leo; Kestner, Nick
Subject: Bridges PUD comments from Jay Dorman
FYI
Original Message----
From: jay dorman Finailto.
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 8:39 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: RE: April 12 Special Meeting, Plan Commission Special Studies Committee
Angie, have not had time to review PUD due to vacation and lack of computer access. Unless
you hear from me by mid day Friday, April 8, please communicate to Ste:e Stromquist that for
now I favor changes recommended by CCRZ which seek to reduce the size, scale and scope of
Bridges and increase buffering. However, I would add that "thresholds- gates- benchmarks" can
also be put in place to allow for changes. For example, periodic traffic studies should
occur to test initial assumptions about whatever form the final PUD takes. (If, for example,
traffic impact meets certain criteria, then the scope could expand or possibly be reduced).
Other thresholds could established in addition to traffic to create win, win, win. I will
not have PC access until early Friday at best. Thx. Jay.
a VS o) c� ar t"
�eS I
ue }r uck_%
c-, hours 0E-
a C U 5 S r C) -k2
Conn, Angelina V
From:
Jon Dobosiewicz [fond @NF- LAW.COM]
Sent:
Thursday, April 07, 2011 12:58 PM
To:
Conn Angelina V
Cc:
Boone, Rachel M.
Subject:
RE: Bridges menu board section
Angie,
Thanks. I will use the following in the PUD:
A Drive -thru service menu ground sign shall be permitted up to 30 sq. ft. and 6' tall. A "preview" menu ground sign
shall also be permitted up to 16 sq. ft. and 6' tall. Both signs shall require ADLS approval."
Thanks,
Jon
Jon C. Dobosiewicz
Land Use Professional
Nelson Frankenberger, PC
3105 East 98th Street, Suite 170
Indianapolis, IN 46280
317 844 -0106 (Office)
317 428 -8393 (Cell)
317 846 -8782 (Fax)
ion @nf- law.com
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY
This E -mail message and its attachments (if any) are intended solely for the use of the addressee hereof. In addition, this message and
the attachments (if any) may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If
you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are prohibited from reading, d isclosing, reproducing, distributing.
disseminating or otherwise using, this transmission. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient is not
intended to waive any right or privilege. If you have received this message in error, please promptly notify the sender by reply E -mail
and inunediately delete this message from your system.
x$%�X��KyeY,C:KytYR�K�Kye. gcA ��g c c q eY, cY e% R% eY ,e% k• 1e: K�X%� Y,eJ k i <�;�K:KJf�f Akre% R% R��k: KyG*% K%:. k* ft:; e�: Xt�K %�ye8= %�:Kk%�:K%f:%�Y,eY,el:: KKK *�K: KKK% KY, t% �Y, e�X< M: k:KY,tYFq(%��F�K�f�K�KY,�Y,:YC Yf *�k�
ZeKY:�•l'�:k;C ZY *:K�at>,e Yt %E��:K �c •1t �jt xc
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
From: Conn, Angelina V fmailto:Aconn@)carmel.in.aov
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 12:50 PM
To: Jon Dobosiewicz
Subject: FW: Bridges menu board section
Jon please see below, specifically about the drive thru menu board signage... see bold text below.
-Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
Conn, Angelina V
From: Jon Dobosiewicz Bond@NF- LAW.COM]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 12:24 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V; Littlejohn David W
Subject: RE: Responses to DOCS questions and comments for The Bridges
David,
Thanks for the note. We will provide text in the PUD based on the text you referred me to last week. I will forward you the
text once we review it next week.
Thanks,
Jon
Jon C. Dobosiewicz
Land Use Professional
Nelson Frankenberger. PC
3105 East 98th Street. Suite 170
Indianapolis. IN 46280
317 -844 -0106 (Office)
317 -428 -8393 (CeII)
317 -846 -8782 (Fax)
jon@nf- law.com
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY
This E -mail message and its attachments (if any) are intended solely for the use of the addressee hereof. In addition, this message and
the attachments (if any) may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If
you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are prohibited from reading, disclosing, reproducing, distributing.
disseminating or otherwise using this transmission. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient is not
intended to waive any right or privilege. If you have received this message in error. please promptly notify the sender by reply E -mail
and immediately delete this message from your system.
:�:�x, x: x�x��: �xrx :r�x:k�z:<xx:x<z��a��z�X:�x, •x, z: x�z�z�z���: x: z��z�x�x�z�s��x���z�z�s�s�������x�z����z��x�z�% z��z�x�s���- �.x���s��%��x�x�����:s�x, xr.<
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
From: Conn, Angelina V fmailto:Aconn@carmel.in.govl
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 12:17 PM
To: Littlejohn, David W
Cc: Jon Dobosiewicz
Subject: RE: Responses to DOCS questions and comments for The Bridges
Thanks, David.
-Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
Conn, Angelina V
From: Littlejohn, David W
Sent: Thursday, Apr] 07, 2011 12:15 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: RE: Responses to DOCS questions and comments for The Bridges
Angie,
The only thing that I see that could be changed in the Alternative Transportation comments is in point 5. They indicate
that this will be addressed at the DP stage, but I think it could be included in the PUD. This would ensure that the
requested facilities will be included prior to the DP stage and will give more leverage to request the facilities (if they are
not included) at the DP stage. Let me know if you need anything else.
Sincerely,
David Littlejohn, A.CP
Alternative Transporation Coordinato
Department of Communty Serv'ces
City of Carmel
One Civic Sq
Carmel. IN 46032
(317) 571 -2306
A 3wase consider the environment before printing this a -mail
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 10:02 AM
To: Littlejohn, David W; Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M.
Cc: Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Hollibaugh, Mike P
Subject: FW: Responses to DOCS questions and comments for The Bridges
All
Please look over Jon's official response to our review comments, and let me know if you have any additional concerns or
questions.
Thanks,
-Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
From: Jon Dobosiewicz jmailto:iond(@NF- LAW.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 11:03 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Cc: Charlie Frankenberger
Subject: Responses to DOCS questions and comments for The Bridges
Angie,
Please find attached the response letter to DOCS questions and comments on The Bridges. As we discussed please
include this letter with the information forwarded to the Plan Commission Committee so that they have an opportunity to
review in advance of the meeting on April 12.
Thanks,
NELSON FRANKENBERGER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
.ZANIES J. NELSON
3105 EAST 98TH STREET, SUITE 170
JANE B- MERRILL.
CHARLES D. FRANKENBERGER
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46280
ofconnsel
JAMES E. SHINAVER
LAWRF-NCF J. KFMPFR
PHONE: 317 844 -0106
JOIIN B. FLAT r
FACSIMILE: 317 -846 -8782
JON C. DOBOSIEWICZ.
FRFDRIC LAWRENCE
Land Ilse Professional
JAMES A. NICKLOY
CIIRISlOPII[- R A. FFRGUSON
April 6, 201
Angie Conn
City of Carmel
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
RE: The Bridges
Docket Nos. 10120008 Z
Carmel Plan Commission February 15, 2011
Special Studies Committee March 1, 2011
Special Studies Committee March 29, 2011
Dear Angie:
Below please see the response to the questions included in the numerous review comments
received from DOCS regarding the Bridges PUD.
Preliminary Planning, Zonin Department review comments (Angie Conn Jan. 12 2011).
1. Piease provide copies of your correspondence with the TAC members and their
correspondence with you. DOGS has been copied on all TAC correspondence.
2. Provide the filled out and notarized Affidavit of Notice of Public Hearing page of the
application. This was provided on February 11 as requested in the docket assignment.
3. Provide the filled out Notice of Public Hearing page of the application. This was provided on
February 11 as requested in the docket assignment.
4. Provide the filled out and notarized Public Notice Sign Placement Affidavit page of the
application. This was provided on February 11 as requested in the docket assignment.
5. Provide a copy of the Official List of Adjacent Property Owners from Hamilton County
Auditor's Office. This was provided on February 11 with items 2 thru 4 noted above.
1 firer tdndScs Ltr to A Cmtn DOCS response 040611
I of 1 1
6. Provide digital files of the final approved plans and elevations, in addition to paper copies.
This will be provided post approval as requested.
7. Please provide a draft copy of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. As discussed
wan u(_)�L S these items are produced at the Development Plan stage and afterward. It will be
provided at that time as requested.
8. In the Definitions section, define "Minor Alterations and Minor Material Alterations." Minor
Alteration is defined in the Zoning Ordinance. We will delete the use of "Minor Material
Alteration" as it is not necessary to define.
9. Page 8 gross floor area: would this include the garages? Yes
10. Page 8- Parking Space definition: please amend this definition. It is a little unclear with the
width requirement and how supporting columns can occupy that width... The Definition will
be amended based on the discussion with DOCS and Engineering. A minimum opening of
7.5 feet will be added.
1. Page 9 sign face: for sign area, you state that this does not include a logo. The Carmel Sign
ordinance does include the logo in the area of a sign. Please change, or at least limit the size
of the logo, such as 25% of the sign area. A limitation of 25% of the i►raxii;rtirn sign area will
be added Ir ogo as requested.
Page 10, Section 3: please change the last part ofihe sentence to: shall have on all sides
the same architectural features, construction materials, and be architecturally compatible with
the principal building... This change will be made. An exception for fuel station canopy
will oe noted as discussed.
13. Page 10, Section 4.1 please mark these uses as permitted in the use table as well, somehow,
perhaps with an asterisk. The use categories will be marked on the Use Table and a footnote
added to the Table.
14. Page 12, Section 5.1.B: perhaps these Uses can be shown as permitted its the Use Table, too.
See response to item 13 above.
15. Rachel Boone, Sign Permits Officer, will soon issue review comments on your proposed
signage requirements. Her contact info is 317 -571 -2417 and rboone(d carm_ el.in.eov See
comments and responses below.
16. Page 14, section 6.5, please as `recycling receptacles' to this paragraph, too. This will be
added as requested.
1 Pg 14, Section 6.5: Amenities/Pedestrian Furniture. states that Amenities are permitted and
may include "without limitation Bike Racks, Pedestrian walkwayltrailway, Bike
trailway... The City wants to see at least a minimum requirement, that meets City standards.
You could then go above a ;d beyond those, but m ould at least be required to provide 0 ,1e
The Bndges Ltr to A Conn DOGS respotm 03061;
2 of 11
base City standards. If you do not meet the City standards, then we need you to specify ]low
you will provide bicycle parking (location, rack type, etc...). This will be amended to state
that the minimum requirements for the noted amenities will also meet the standards
contained within the PUD or zoning ordinance as applicable.
18. Page 15, section 7.2: please add Retention Ponds to areas to be landscaped, so that they end
up looking more natural and not `engineered'. Text will be added in the landscape section of
the PUD addressing landsc-, ing around ,ands and their design to be undulating and not
geometric in shape so they appear more natural. We will review the addition of text with the
Urban Forester prior to finalizing.
9. Page 15, section 7.3.A: when `portions of the Real Estate' is referred to, what does that
mean? The Dept. would want to see a greenbelt buffer along all of the rea: estate. Also,
please increase the buffer to 10 or 15 -ft for portions of real estate not abutting a street right
of way. As discussed with DOCS this .-.ea is generally and only along the eastern
perimeter of the real estate. This will be noted in the text.
20. Page 16 a'.so add the widths of these three bufferyard areas. As discussed with DOCS the
widths are already noted in the Landscape section.
21. Page 16, section 7.3 please include buffering requirements between office and residential
use block and the commercial amenity use bock. A 10' bufferyard will be added and
required between the noted use blocks
22. Page 16, section 7.4.A it is suggested that the street trees be planted a minimum of 15 -tt
and a max of 40 -ft on center. The text will be changed reduce the minimum to 15' and 40'
on average by not to require they be evenly spaced..
23. Page 17, section 7.5.A please remove the m ord `the' after "ten feet in depth from the
Building perimeter OK
24. Page 17, section 7.5.C.1: `Turf should not be considered a primary landscape material....
Turf will be removed as a primary landscape material as discussed.
25. Page 18, section 7.5.E: the Dept. does not support foundation plantings helping fulfill and
count toward the buffer planting requirements. Text will be added to the section to set a
standard where the two areas coincide so that the count is not cumulative.
26. Page 18, section 7.6.A: please change the number of parking spaces from 18 to 9. A,
discussed with DOCS the intent is to limit the size of the parking fields where possible.
Increasing this standard is counter to the idea of reducing the size of parking areas.
2 Page 19, section 8.2: please add that the site lights should have 90- degree cut off and/or plat
lenses. This will be noted as requested.
The Bndga Ltr to A Cotm DOGS raponu 040611
3 of 11
28. Page 20, section8.2.G: where you state `reasonably required for security purposes', please
set a quantity for this, otherwise it is hard to enforce. Add something like: "0.1 horizontal
foot candles at grade level." A percentage of the site lighting to be turned off will be added.
As discussed we are contemplating leaving 25 -50 percent of the light on.
29. Page 26, section 11: Please add the statement that "sidewalks shall be installed on both sides
of the street." As discussed this will be noted. A provision may be added to allow a
reduction based on the approval of the City Engineer.
30. Page 26, section 13: Add mechanical equipment, gas meter, and electric meter screening to
"Additional Requirements and Sta,idards This will be added as requested. A note will be
added to address potential conflicts with building code requirements.
31. Page 27, Section 13.8 these proposed road rights of way do not meet the Comprehensive
Plan Thoroughfare Plan's. As discussed Engineering will review and comment on the
necessary widths to identify in the PUD.
32. Page 29, section 16 how woWd the city enforce this'? require an approval /consent letter from
the controlling developer before we issue an ILP? A letter of consent will be required similar
to the consent tai° thing necessary from a property owner when applications are filed.
33. Exhibit 2, page I of 1: attached are some proposed changes to the concept plan. As
dis,._ssed with DOCS the parking area between the main buildings in the Commercial
Amenity Use block is being reviewed to provide one way traffic movement and angled
parking. This should provide additional space for interior landscaping and make the traffic
pattern function more like a street layout. Engineering also prefers a one way pattern in this
area to assist the operation of the round -a- bouts. The location of the office building in this
area is helps to contain the public space as designed. Moving the building out toward
Springmill Road detaches it from the rest of the commercial activity which is not desirable.
34. Exhibit 6- page 1 of 9- Part 2.b: please change the word `architectural' to `architecture'. OK
35. Exhibit 6 page 2 of 9: you state you will follow a consistent architectural theme, but
perhaps you should narrow it down to one or two, such as prairie style. The prairie style of
design will be noted.
36. Exhibit 6 page 2 of 9: add a requirement that buildings should be designed to have a
defined base, a middle, and a top formed by an articulated cornice and roof appropriate to the
building style. The proposed prairie style of design is not consistent with these requested
featured. As discussed it was not the intent of DOCS to restrict the prairie style.
37. Exhibit 6 page 2 of 9: the Dept suggests you to limit the usage of EIFS and perhaps
stucco) to be 10% of a facade or to only use it at least 8 -ft above grade. The use of EIFS will
be restricted to 8' and above.
Tim Bndges Ur a A Comp D(X.S response 0.10611
4 of 11
38. Exhibit 6 page 3 of 9: D. add that all primary facade shall have operable windows. As
discussed operable windows are not typical! used in commercial applications (retail, office,
and restaurant).
39. Exhibit 6 page 3 of 9: D E: Also, we would like to discuss the facades and the
requirements you state for how far they can extend. 2 x average height and 3 x average
height. i Aese standards with tht, .It,u Ltivy feel thitt UIiJ WM
sieve adequate breaks in the facades.
40. Exhibit 6 page 3 of 9: H: the paragraph does not have a finished sentence at the end....
.'attached at the top only for authenticity" will be added to complete the sentence.
41. Exhibit 6 page 4 of 9: part 5.A.1: describe in more detail how the facades will be
articulated. The following detail will be auuciu. 1 ak aueS wiaii uc at Lttrutated through the use
of changes in the wall plane, through the use of varying materials on the facades, changes in
color of materials, through variation in the fenestration and patterning of the framing for the
glazing."
42. Exhibit 6 -age 5 of 9: part 6.B.4: remove the phrase `be encouraged to'. A:so add
`windows z�nd doors shall compromise a minimum of 70 o of the first floor storefront
facade'. As uiscusscu this starit aru is a mt ititcnCieu to apply enemy across all building
facades (front, side and rear). We will provide additional text to clarify.
43. Exhibit 6 pcge 6 of 9: does prototype identity mean franchise? Who determines if their
identify is compatible with the rest of the development? the City? Yes and Plan Commission
via ADLS review.
44. Exhibit 6 page 7 of 9: part 10.B: Please add the requirement to have windows on all
facades. This will be added.
45. Exhibit 6 page 8 of 9: Part 12.B please add something about eliminating Box buildings,
similar to what is written in the US 421 Overlay requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. .'his
will be addressed in a similar manner to the standards noted for other building types.
46- Exhibit 6 page 8 of 9: Part 13: add the requirements that any canopies over the fueling
pumps shall be compatible with the Bridges District and incorporate materials and
architectural features of the primary building. OK
47. Exhibit 6 page 8 of 9: Part 14.b: please add reci-cling receptacles and a permitted amenity.
OK
48. Exhibit 6 page 8 of 9: Part 14.b.18: the Dept needs more detail on these advertising panels.
These might be considered a sign urd ould not be permitted. See response under signage
comments.
The Bndges Ltr to A Co DMS respon 0.10611
5 of 11
49. Please spell -check the entire document, and where appropriate, change the word compliment
to complement throughout the document.
50. Please consider incorporating LEED or `green' building practices into the PUD requirements,
such as a white roof, solar panels, pervious pavers in all or part of the parking area,
bioswales, etc. Green List is attached, for reference. jr, i nis will ue constaered as part of
51. ProN� ide a bike and pedestrian plan to maximize the direct sidewalk/path connectivity within
the site (it looks like there are a lot of missed opportunities.). As discussed this is the
concept plan and specific review of connectivity will occur at DP stage. With the said
adjustments will be made to the concept plan to reflect the paths and connectivity discussed
With DOCS.
52. Things to consider: Bike lockers, locker room and showers (in the offices), and long term
bike parking (for residents). OK David Little,, sill provide sample Text. This will be
reviewed at the DP stage
53. Some of the parking areas could be changed to boulevards (in the middle of the site) with ozi-
street parking or changed into landscape buffers between parking lots, rather than having one
giant parking lot in between buildings. This item was discussed at our meeting on February
3 and we z— vv-- ig to make adjustments to the specific area between the buildings noted
previously. We anticipate comments from Engineering on the round -a -bouts areas.
Comments form Rachel Boone January 12, 2011):
1. I think there should be more mixed use and restaurants more centrally located within the site.
It would be great if it was within walking distance of both the residential and the business
crowd. i'he mix of proposed uses and location of buildings was discussed with DOCS. The
PUD requires pedestrian connectivity and all areas of the plan will be connected.
2, I think there should be tree -lined landscaped medians down the center street of the
development? This comment is address in other responses. As indicated modifications are
being made to address this request per discussion at the meeting with staff. As discussed the
drives will be made one way and a landscape areas will be added down the middle.
3. Within Sections 9.6 A B, 9.7 A B, 9.9 A, 9.10 and 9.11: it says "Article" 25.7.02,
This should be "Section OK. This change will be made.
4. In Definitions section. Sign, Height of Ground please change to o`erall height of sign
stricture, not highest point of sign face. OK. This change will be made.
5. Sections 9.1 9.2 Not in favor of both sign types. Center ID ground signs can haN e
changeable copy. We do not feel it is necessary to have a sign at each corner of the
development anui at each entrance to the development. We would prefer only signage at each
The Bndgcs Ltr to A Cotm DOCS rmpa 0406,
6 of 11
entrance to the development. This item was discussed at the meeting with DOCS on
February 3. The Center signs area in place to establish an identity for the district and will not
include tenant identification. In addition the applicant agreed to exclude tenant names
(changeable copy) from entrance signs along Springmill Road.
6. In Sections 9.1 9.2, by changeable copy, do you mean tenant panels or information
messages ?'enant Panels
7. Section 9.1 ('f deleted /changed) 90 sq. ft. for a sign that does not have changeable copy
is entirely too large. 75 sq. ft. should be the maximum square footage allowed. OK. This
change will be made.
8. Section 9.3 B. What is "street sign style Directory signs do not need to be 9' tall. The
.sul,%.A DLYJI. iii jibli VVa3 1.11ak.A63LU ariu fi way ari%,V U ritai ii vvuo ....pLable and a size limit of 6
square feet would be set for the street style of directional.
9. Section 9.3 C/D The number and location should be limited to only multi- tenant /multi -level
buildings that have 7 or more tenants. This item was discussed with DOCS and it was agreed
that the proposed text was acceptable. It is important for a development of this type to
provide a complete wayfinding system for customers.
10. Section 9.4 C The Dept. is not ok with signs not facing street frontages. The preliminary
layout of the buildings should provide for enough signage to face public streets. This item
was discussed with DOCS and it was agreed that the proposed text was acceptable based on
the described building positioning and site lines from Illinois Street. In addition, as discussed
many buildings may not face a public street. Rather, they may face interior courtyards,
parking areas, and interior (non public) drives. If there is a concern raised at the
Development Plan phase regarding a specific building at a specific location there is an
opportunity to address it at that time.
1 1. Section 9.4 D Only ok with two signs per frontage if it is public street frontage, and if C is
deleted. This item was discussed with DOCS and it was agreed that the proposed text was
acceptable. See item 10.
12. Section 9.4 F why is this necessary? Directory signs can provide ample identification.
Entrance signs assist in identification of the appropriate building entrance for patrons to
access in larger office buildings.
13. Section 9.5 B Not in favor of one sign per fagade. This is how sign clutter is created. One
sign per public street frontage should be enough. The Dept. would be in favor of something
small for the rear of the building, if that is how the building is accessed, but this item makes
me think no signs are allowed at the rear. Please clarify. This item was discussed with
DOGS. it was noted that the buildings in the development are intended to be seen from all
vantage points and the no public streets are proposed other than existing and Illinois Street
affording insufficient signage for the purpose of identifying buildings and uses from interior
spaces, parking areas and drives. See notes in #10 above as well.
The Bndges Ur to A Cam DOCS response 040611
7 of 11
14. Section 9.5 C Again, signs should face public street frontages. It was noted that the
buildings in the development are intended to be seen from all vantage points and the no
public streets are proposed other than existing and Illinois Street affording insufficient
signage for the purpose of identifying buildings and uses from interior spaces, parking areas
and drives. In addition many buildings may not face a public street. Rather, they may face
interior courtyards, parking areas, and interior (non public) drives. If we were to follow your
recommendation many businesses would not be permitted a sign at all as they do not have
frontage on a public street.
e 5. Section 9.5 D This is covered by the Sign Chart, I don't believe it's necessary to have in
the text. f'he sign chart is not explicit in its wording and reference. This text states clearly
,ne application of the chart.
16. Section 9.5 I Drive thr a signs will have to comply with the Sign Ordinance according to
this item. And if so, that section of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance should be cited here. This
item was discussed and it was agreed that DOCS will provide text as a base line or definitive
allowance based on past variance and ADLS experience. If acceptable the text will be added
to this section of the PUD.
17. Section 9.8 Suspended (ground) signs should only be utilized in pedestrian areas. This site
plan does not lend well for use of suspended (ground) signs. Please remove from sign types
allowed. OK. Suspended signs will be deleted and removed from the section.
18. Section 9.8 B Two suspended, projecting, porch or awning signs is too much. Only one
would be necessary unless they are located on a corner with a lot of pedestrian activity.
Awning signs should not exceed the maximum sign area allowed for the main wall sign.
i wo signs rill be permiaeci only for corner tenants as discussed. The area for awning snags
will be reduced to 10% of the overall forward face of the subject tenant's awnings as seen in
elevation view.
19. Section 9.8 C Maximum projecting sign size for a sign in addition to a wall sign should not
exceed 5 sq. ft. and be installed at least 8' above ground. Not in favor of 30 o of the awning
allowed to be covered. Awning signage should be whatever square footage is left over from
the wall sign allotment. OK. 8' will be added as the minimum distance from grade. The area
for awning sings will be reduced to 10% of the overall face of the subject tenant's awnings.
20. Section 9.9 B Not in favor of portable signs. This item was discussed with DOCS and
described as sandwich board style of signs (2' wide by 5' tall maximum) used to advertise to
pedestrians the "specials of the day Per the request from DOCS dated March 4 this sign
type will be removed form the request (see notes below under Additional Review Comments
Signage Rachel Boone (March 4, 2010):))
21. Section 9.9 C 1. Murals This would be off premise advertising. Only willing to allow
advertising for stores or businesses within the premises. 2. Why does it have to have indirect
lighting? Can it just not have lighting at all? The advertising would be for stores or
The Bndges Ltr to.4 Conn D0C5 response 0.1061 I
S% of 11
businesses on the property such as the signs at Clay Terrace. However, a limit to the square
footage will be set and a maximum number determined and included in the PUD text.
Lighting if any will be indirect. We will provide a photographic example.
22. Section 9.12 B add "exposed" to the sentence: "This system does not include an exposed
LED lighting source..." If they would like to use LED lighting, which is more energy
efficient, we should allow that. We only do not want exposed LED pricing signs. Perhaps an
exhibit showing this type of signage should be included in the PUD, so there is no confusion.
texi .il be amended not to preclude it.=...ilial LED, only exposed LED.
23. Section 9.12 C Not in support of this item at all. Automobile service stations should choose
between permitted wail signs and ground signs. This item was discussed with DOCS. A
limit of one waii sign shall be set for this use and a size limitation of 5' tall and 30 square
feet in area set for the 2 ground signs. in addition the text will state that the wall signag shall
not be located on the fiuel pump island canopy structure.
24, Section 9.13 Please add "less than 3' tali Which buildings do you foresee needing
incidental signs'? What type of incidental signs'? OK. The text will specify that the
maximum height of a ground mounted incidental sign be 3'. In addition text regarding
banners will be added for banners with any message or copy.
25. Part 14 B. 4. How big will these fabric banners be? What will they say? When do they get
approved? Where will they be installed? The size, location and review of the same will be
done as part of the ADLS review for the site. The banners are not a sign unless they have
copy or a message on them. If they have a sign on them they will be regulated as incidental
signs as noted above in item 24.
26. Part 14 B. 12. Where will flag poles be allowed? Are they freestanding or attached to a
building? Will they be allowed to have more than one flag on the pole at the same time'? Are
corporate flags allowed? Is there a size limitation? Yes, Both, Yes, Yes, and Yes
respectively. The Zoning Ordinance standards with respect to flags will be noted in the sign
section of the PUD and a reference place next to this item. The maximum area for corporate
flage in the Zoning Ordinance will be used.
27. Part 14 B. 15 Any signage on umbrellas should be 3 sq. ft. or less OK.
28. Part 14 B. 18. What advertising panels are these? Where are they going? What will they
say'? How big will they be'? Please keep in mind we are not ok with off premise advertising.
This will be changed to Murals and Section 9.9.0 will be referenced. See response on item
21 above.
Alternative Transportation Review and Comments (January 13, 2011):
1. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan requires the construction of a 10' asphalt path along 111"'
St, 116"' St, Springmill Rd, and both sides of Illinois St. Please revise the plans to include
Thr Bndgrs Ltr to A Conn ROCS response 040611
9 of 1 I
and label these facilities. OK the concept plan will be adjusted to illustrate these. Note that
the PUD also requires compliance with these standards per Section 11.
2. Please connect all internal sidewalks to each other, provide a sidewalk on both sides of all of
the entrances to the development. Please revise the plans to reflect these changes. OK. Note
that the t }utj also requires compliance with these standards per 5ectioii 11. 1 his change will
be reviewed at the DP stage of development once engineered construction plans are
submitted.
3 Please change Section 1.1 of the PUD to read that Sidewalks and paths within public street
right -of -way shah meel, the requirements of the Thoroughfare Plan and the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan. OK. It is our understanding that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is a part of
the Thoroughfare Plan. We will add this and state it explicitly.
Please change Section 11.2 of the PUD to read Sidewalks and paths and walkways shall be
provided on both sides of all interior streets and shall allow for pedestrian mobility with the
Bridges District. OK. This text will be added -ction 1.2
5. Please consider providing '.ong term covered bicycling parking for the apartments and
including shower and locker room facilities within tine commercial buildings. If this is
already in consideration please provide details on how this will be provided. OK. David
Littlejohn vt %ita puv)ut„ 6saiieNtC next. This will oc tcv,, aweu at Lfie DP stage.
Urban Forester Review and Comments (December 29, 2010):
1. Section T LA The ordinance should state minimum requirements, language like `may be
considered' are not suitable. Ott. This language will be changed to "is permitted
2. Section 7. 1.13 Near here would be a great place to add wordage about the City of Carmel
Planting detail usage. OK. This reference will be added.
3. Section 7.5.13 The ordinance should state minimum requirements, language like `also
encouraged' are not suitable. OK. This text will be deleted.
4. Section 7.5.E Requirements will need to be written in each specific area to be landscaped.
One requirement will not be allowed to fulfill other requirements. OK. This language will
be changed to establish a maximum allowance so that it is not cumulative in the number of
plantings. See item 25 in the first section of comments above.
5. Section 7.6.13 Low wall or fence will not be allowed in lieu of 100% of the plantings. I
suggest that notes stating that a wall or fence may be used in lieu of 50% of the required
landscaping or so=mething of that sort. :)K. The maximum will be set at 50%.
6 Section 7.8 `Overgrown' this word is an indication that the design is flawed before it was
even designed I would like to see this word removed or at least limited as to replace if a
The Bndges Ltr to A Conn DOGS response 0306)
10 of 11
safety hazard. Because it may be `overgrown' does not mean it needs to be removed. Also in
this section, the last sentence `Street trees shall be maintained by the City'; I believe this is
contradicted of section 7.4.0 and 7A.E. If these trees are to be installed and maintained it
would be in the best interest of the development to maintain all the trees installed for the
project according to the mentioned requirements. OK. Overgrow shall be deleted and street
strati ue maintaineu uy trle adjacent property owner.
Additional Review Comments Shmap-e Rachel Boone (March 4, 2010):
1. I'm not sure if anyone else has r this point, but it would be nice if the drive down the
center of the project was more like a boulevard. It appears to just be a parking isle drive
throughout the site. I think it would enhance the campus feei of the site if it was an actual
street. But the drive seems lo essentially disappear at the end of the site by the res'dential. I
think it would be safer if there were more streets designated through this part of the site. I
st *11 realize this is conceptual, but it would be nice to know you are also thinking this way for
safety and aesthetics. The Concept Plan will be revised to add a right -in i right -ou_ ong
111 Street as requested and the drive between this point and the Commercial Amenity Use
Block will be refined and include pedestrian facilities including sidewalk. We will also
coordinate with the Alternative Transportation Coordinator at the time Development Plans
are prepared to adequately address both pedestrian and vehicular circulation patterns. Safety
and aesthetics are part of our site design and traffic and pedestrian circulation discussions.
2. Still do not feel it is necessary to have a sign at every confer of the site and at every entrance.
Additional restrictions have been added to signs along Springmill Road and regarding sign
lighting. See response under item #5 of comments from Rachel Book Dated January 12,
2011)
3. I do understand with the possible layout most signs may not face a public street. But I do still
feei there should be a hierarchy of allowable signs that identify the front entrance of a store
versus a back or secondary entrance or a part of the building with no entrance at all.
response under item #10 of comments from Rachel Book Dated January 12, 2011
4. I am concerned about signs facing the interior of the project toward the residential and
toward the south residential. Can we safeguard against that? Restrictions are provided
regarding gall signs on commercial buildings, adjacent to Springmill, facing Springmill
Road.
5. There is i fine line for these Sandwich board signs. They are technically not allowed
anywhere in Carmel. I do not feel we should start allowing them now. This sign type has
been removed.
The Bndges Ltr to A Conn DOCS response 0.40611
11 of 11
Conn, ADc elina_V
From: Ephraim Wilfong [ephraimwilfong @gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 10:20 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: Fie: April 12 Special Meeting, Special Studies Committee Dept Report
Hi Angie, I have read through the PUD, I do not have any issue or questions. FYI so you know I did go through
it.
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Conn, Angelina V Aconn @carrnel.in.kov wrote:
Good Morning, Plan Commissioners:
Attached in 2 file formats are the department reports for the Tuesday, April 12, Special Meeting of the Plan
Commission Special Studies Committee Also attached is the petitioner's responses to DOCS's review comments.
Paper copies of this and supplemental info will be mailed to you today.
If you have not yet read the Bridges PUD text and sub itted questions or comments to me, please do so by
Monday, April 11. The Bridges PUD Ordinance text can be found online at:
litterIcocdocs.ci. carmel. in. us 1weblink /O /fol /88026IRowl.aspxx
As always, the info packets can be viewed online at:
http:/ /c:ocdocs.ci.carmel.in.us /weblink /0 /fol /19877 /Rowl.aspx just refer to each docket no. on the agenda to
find them. The first 2 numbers of a docket no. signifies the year, where 11 =2011 and 10 =2010.
Sincerely,
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
City of Carmel Planning Zoning Division
Dept. of Community Services
1 Civic Square, 3rd Fir.
Carmel, IN 46032
0: 317- 571 -2417 F: 317 571 -2426 1 E: aconn0carmel.in.gov
W: www. carmel. in. gov /services /DOCS /DOCSDOPZ.htni
Conn, Angelina V
From: Littlejohn, David W
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 1:30 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: FW: The Bridges
Attachments: ZO Ch 23H Monon Greenway Overlay Zone (Spring 2008 v1).pdf
Angie,
FYI I spoke with Jon about this on Friday after I sent this email to him. He said he is comfortable with including this in
his PUD and that they would like to cap the amount of bike storage facilities to accommodate 20 bikes. He was fine with
one space for every 5,000 sq ft, but thought that if there wasn't a cap that there would be too many spaces. I think 20
lockers sounds reasonable, and if they get popular there's always the opportunity to add more. Let me know if you
have any questions or comments.
Thanks,
David Littlejohn, AICP
Alternative Transportation Coordinator
Department of Community Services
City of Carmel
One Civic Sq
Carmel, IN 46032
(317) 571 -2306
A Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
From: Littlejohn, David W
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 1:55 PM
To: 'Jon Dobosiewicz'
Cc: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: RE: The Bridges
=on,
Our Monon Overlay has some language similar to what you might use. At the bottom of the 4 t page of the attachment
you can see how we addressed this issue(23H.09.02 Building Requirements). One thing to note is that since the office
buildings in the Bridges PUD will more than likely house multiple tenants it will be important to mention that the
facilities will be available for all employees within each building.
David Littlejohn AICP
Alternative Transportation Coordinator
Department of Community Services
City of Carmel
One Civic Sq
Carmel, IN 46032
(317) 571 -2306
GA Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
From: Jon Dobosiewicz jmailto:jond@ NF- LAW.COMI
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 1:09 PM
Conn, Angelina V
From:
Littlejohn, David W
Sent:
Friday April 01, 2011 1:55 PM
To:
'Jon Dobosiewicz'
Cc:
Conn, Angelina V
Subject:
RE: The Bridges
Attachments:
ZO Ch 23H Monon Greenway Overlay Zone (Spring 2008 vl ).pdf
Jon,
Our Monon Overlay has some language similar to what you might use. At the bottom of the 4 th page of the attachment
you can see how we addressed this issue(23H.09.02 Building Requirements). One thing to note is that since the office
buildings in the Bridges PUD will more than likely house multiple tenants it will be important to mention that the
facilities will be available for all employees within each building.
David Littlejohn, AICP
Alternative Transpo tat*on Coordinator
Department of Commun*ty Services
City of Carmel
One Civic Sq
Carmel IN 46032
317) 571 -2306
]e se co is,der he ens ro n i t e ore printing this e -mail
From: Jon Dobosiewicz [mailto:iond@NF- LAW.COM]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 1:09 PM
To: Littlejohn, David W
Subject: The Bridges
David,
I hope you are doing well.
You have mentioned in our previous discussions that you could get us some language to consideration on Bike
lockers, locker room and showers (in the offices), and long term bike parking (for residents).
Can you forward this to me? We are ready to forward replies back and wanted to incorporate it if possible.
Thanks,
Jon
Ton C. Dobosiewicz
Land Use Professional
Nelson Frankenberger, PC
3105 East 98th Street, Suite 170
Indianapolis, IN 46280
317 -844 -0106 (Office
317 -428 -8393 (Cell
317- 846- 8782(Fax)
ion @nf- law.com
M OFCARNIEL ZONI\
Yard requirements established by other applicable Overlay Zones or their
underlying Toning di,tricts.
23H.06 Greenway Access Points
23H.06.01 Greenway Access Points, for new residential or commercial construction, shall be designed
and built in accordance with an approved Plan and to Parks Board Standards, Access Points from
existing buildings must receive the approval of the Director of Carmel Clay Parks. Connection
intervals shall be approved by the Director of Carmel Clay Parks. All access points shall be
constructed of durable materials and shall be designed as to not impede drainage ,vays. Where
determined appropriate, a non- access agreement may be required to be recorded.
23H.07 Building Orientation Footprint
23H.07.01 Urban Section
A, Orientation: Every parcel with frontage on the Monon Greenway must have at least one
building elevation that fronts on the Greenway.
B. Maximum Building Footprint: 15,000 square feet.
C. Maximum Fagade Length: 150 feet.
23'_ 1.07.02 Natural Section
A. Maximum Building Footprint: 15,000 square feet.
B. Maximum Facade Length: No fagade greater than 80 feet in length shall be parallel with
the Greenway. Longer facades must be oriented at an angle greater than or
equal to 60 degrees from the property line abutting the Greenway.
23H.08 Building Heim
23H.08.01 Urban Section
A. 'Minimum Height: None.
B. Maximum Height: Sixty feet (60'), or as permitted in the primary underlying zoning
district.
1. When used, facade step backs shall be at least twenty feet (20') in depth and shall be
constructed as usable outdoor space, such as a rooftop patio or garden.
23H.08.02 Natural Section
A. Minimum Height: None.
B. Maximum Heiglit: As pennitted in the primary underlying zoning district or
applicable Overlay Zone.
21H.09 Building Requirement~
23H.09.01 New principal buildings with a gross floor area containing more than 15,000 non residential
square feet shall contain a shower, changing and locker facility accessible for employee use.
23H.09.02 New principal buildings with a gross floor area containing more than 15,000 square feet shall
provide covered, long tern bicycle parking at a rate of one space per 5,000 square feet. Long
term bicycle parking may include an indoor storage area and/or exterior bicycle lockers, as
appro% ed as part of an ADLS plan.
Chapter 23H: Monon Greenway Overlay Zone
23H -4
as adopted per Z- 515 -07
Spnng 2008 l
Co nn, Angelina V
From: Snyder, Luci
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 9:49 AM
To: rlchreis; Seidensticker, Eric; Sharp, Rick; Accetturo, John V; Griffiths, Joe; Carter, Ronald E;
Conn, Angelina V
Cc: ccrzoning @yahoo.com
Subject: RE: The Bridges PUD
Ms. Chrelst,
Thank you for your comments of the project. I have met with some of your neighbors and listened to their
comments and concerns as well.
i will look carefully at whatever project eventually comes to the Council from the Plan Commission and at that
time, can comment more specifically.
Luci Snyder
Carmel City Council District 5
Isnyder@ carmel.in.clov
(C) 513 -0242 (H) 846 -4754
From: rlchreis Lmailto :rlchreis @aol.coml
Sent: Wed 3/30/20118:16 PM
To: Seidensticker, Eric; Sharp, Rick; Accetturo, John V; Griffiths, Joe; Snyder, Luci; Carter, Ronald E; Conn, Angelina V
Cc: ccrzoning @vahoo.com
Subject: The Bridges PUD
Dear Plan Commission members and City Council members:
The purpose of this e-mail is to ask that you refuse to approve The Briidges PUD as it is constituted at this time. While
development of the property bordered by Illinois, Spring Mill, and 116th and 111 th Streets is perhaps inevitable, the
planned construction is far too dense to be compatible with the residential areas surrounding it.
Please consider approving the following changes to the PUD:
A green belt buffer on the west and south sides of the property, and a setback of 150 feet from the street for all structures
No lighting within 200 feet of any single- family property
No drive- through restaurants or garages
No buildings over 70,000 sq. feet
No apartment buildings
A maximum building height on the west and south sides of the property of two stories
No curb cuts on Spring Mill, which already experiences heavy traffic flow and backups during rush hours
Thank you for your interest in these concerns.
Sincerely,
Conn, Angelina V
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 2:28 PM
To: 'Ron F Houck'
Subject: RE: March 29th Special Studies Committee agenda
Hi, Ron I will know more after I meet with the petitioner Thursday morning, but I believe they will go over the Bridge
PUD development standards, land uses, etc. for at least 2 of the blocks, such as the commercial amenity use block and
the corporate office use block. Basically going through the PUD ordinance itself maybe even page by page.... Please
check back with me Thursday afternoon.
-Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
From: Ron F Houck [mailto:HO00K RON KILILLY.COMI
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 20112:22 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: March 29th Special Studies Committee agenda
Angie,
Can you detail what will be the scope of the March 29th Specia. Studies Committee meeting? What all will be considered
as part of Design and Architecture?
Ron
Conn, Angelina V
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 1:19 PM
To: 'Ron F Houck'
Subject: RE: March 29 Special Studies Committee agenda
Hi, Ron
I do not have any specific details yet, but it will most likely be about the development standards within the PUD text
itself, and them diving into what each of the 3 blocks will be like, relating to scale, bulk /area, setbacks, etc., perhaps
beginning with phase 1 and phase 2 (residential and retail), and, if there is time that same night, on to phase 3 (office).
What does not get covered will be discussed at the next committee meeting, and that could possibly be a
special /additional committee meeting that is not on the regular meeting schedule. That is up to the committee.
If you send me an email next Friday, I will probably have some specifics for you on this.
Have a nice weekend,
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
City of Carmel Planning Zoning Division
Dept. of Community Services
1 Civic Square, 3rd Flr.
Carmel, IN 46032
0: 317 571 -2417 1 F: 317 571 -2426 1 E: aconn @carmel.in.gov
W: www.carmel.in.00v /services /DOCS /DOCSDQPZ.htm
Please consrde he environment before printing this e-mail
From: Ron F Houck jmailto:H000K RON F @LILLY.COM1
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 1:09 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: March 29 Special Studies Committee agenda
Angie,
Can you give some details about the range of material to be covered on the March 29th Special Studies committee
meeting? The topic was stated as Design and Architecture, but I want to know what all will be covered under that topic.
F.Ter,
Conn, Angelina V
From: Ephraim Wilfong [ephraimwilfong @gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 1:57 PM
To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Conn, Angelina V; Hancock, Ramona B; John Molitor
Subject: Fwd: US31 111th St Bridge Question
Everyone, I forgot to forward this response to you guys when I received it last week. I did forward it to Steve
Stromquist the Special Studies chair.At the Public Hearing, two separate residents announced INDOT had
decided to eliminate the 111th St Bridge that will cross US31.One of my continents to the petitioner was to
follow up on this claim. Since I have a contact with the construction group there, I went ahead and followed up
as well.
Forwarded message
From: Jason Rowley JRowley@rwa.com
Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:56 AM
Subject: RE: US31 111th St Bridge Question
To: Ephraim Wilfong ephraimwilfong @gmail.cotn
Cc: GPENCE @indot.IN. ,qov GPENCE@i;idot.in.gov Steven Fleming SFleminQ @rwa.com Lisa Tellus
lisa.tellus @boishoff.biz
Ephraim,
Thanks for the inquiry. The residents that mentioned this have been misinformed. We are NOT planning to eliminate
this bridge and it is still scheduled to be built in 2017. ff you talk to these residents again, please let them know that
INDOT is willing to meet with their homeowners association, church, or other group to answer any questions they may
have about the project. Public outreach team members are available to present to groups of 20+ persons in Hamilton
County. If their group or organization would like a presentation about the US 31 Hamilton County project, please let us
laiow While. availability is somewhat limited, efforts will be made to accommodate all requests. We encourage everyone
to visit our website http /us31harniltoncounty.in.gov to subscribe to mailing lists, receive project updates, ask
questions, or just learn more about the project. Feel free to contact me or Lisa Tellus 317.631.6400 if you have any
other questions,
Jason Rowley, P.E.
Project Manager
300 S. Meridian St., Indianapolis, IN 46225
DIR +1.317.786.0461 H TF +1.800.321.6959 016
MOB +1.317.605.7860 FAX +1.317.788.0957
jrowley @rwa.com rwArmstrong.com
From: Ephraim Wilfong mailto ephraimwilfong@Cmail.com l
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 10:07 AM
To: Jason Rowley
Subject: LJS31 11 1th St Bridge Question
Conn, Angelina V
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 11:33 AM
To: 'Dierckman, Leo'; 'n krental aol.com'; 'Strom q u ist, Steve'; 'S ueweste rm ei er aol.com'; Rider,
Kevin D
Cc: Hancock, Ramona B; 'jay@goweighless.com'; 'brad grabow'; Hagan, Judy;'Heather Monroe
Irizarry; Lawson, Steve; 'Ephraim Wilfong'; 'John Molitor'; Hollibaugh, Mike P
Subject: FW: Office and Retail Vacancy Reports for the Meridian Commercial Corridor (Related to
Bridges PUD petition)
Attachments: Joe Heidt.vcf; Commercial Land For Sale 2.13.11.pdf; Retail Lease Meridian Corridor Map (2)
2.13.11.pdf; Office Lease 2.13.11.pdf; Office Lease (2) 2.13.11.pdf; Office Lease Map (1)
2.13.11.pdf; Office Lease Map (2) 2.13.11.pdf; Office Lease Map (3) 2.13.11.pdf; Retail Lease
Merdian Corridor Summary 2.13.11 .pdf; Retail Lease Meridian Corridor 2.13.11 .pdf; Retail
Lease Meridian Corridor Map (1) 2.13.11 pdf
Good morning, Special Studies Committee members:
Joe Heidt, who spoke at plan commission public hearing a few weeks ago, about office vacancies (as it relates to Carmel
and the Bridges PUD) asked that I send this info to you, and it is the same info that was projected on the projection
screen from his laptop. His email below summarizes that info. A few paper copies of all of this will be circulated at the
committee meeting tonight.
See you tonight,
-Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
571 -2281
From: Joe Heidt Lmailto:iheidt @perhs.orql
Sent: Monday, February 28, 20116:44 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: Office and Retail Vacancy Reports for the Meridian Commercial Corridor
Hello Angie,
Per our conversation, attached is the Office and Retail Vacancy Reports for the Meridian Commercial Corridor that was
presented during the public hearing.
As discussed, please request the committee charged with reviewing the potential traffic impact of the proposed
development to take into consideration the additional impact of the future traffic caused by the absorption (leasing) of
the current office and retail vacancies, in addition to the commercial land currently for sale.
The current total commercial vacancy within close proximity -2 mile radius within Carmel City limits) of the proposed
development is as follows:
889,767/SF of Office Space
213,394/SF of Retail Space
4,383,007/SF +100 acres) of Vacant Land currently for sale that is zoned for commercial use
Please note that the total square footage of the Se Pro Tower, located at 11550 N. Meridian, is 93,355/SF. The current
office vacancies equates to nine (9) vacant Se Pro Towers.
It is also note worthy that the total square footage of Clay Terrace is 504,000/SF. The current commercial vacancies
equates to nearly 60% of Clay Terrace being vacant.
The Bridges development proposes the following additional square footage:
340,000/SF of Retail Development
350,000 /SF of Apartment Development
800,000 /SF of Office Development
All to be located on a 62 acre site, which is comparable in size to the land site size of Clay Terrace (504,000 /SF)
1 hope'this is. helpful In recogniz!ng tha development ntonlunction with
the curr ent office and retail
a y s.oz k x a a, g y .z..�`t i a r"�s�"` p 4 "b^' -gg -�"i tio ,itt, t'"IY 3 ti, a M.s
vacancies results m{ a mcreasein,traffc_upontcamplen and=absorpton
Sincerely,
Joe Heidt
ti V
e f Providence Cristo Rey High School I
e Pr e aid ent
I -(31). 85tl -1Qgg c lark l
1 36 3 7 S flobile
t `F jheidt @perrh ,«rg J
75 R.:, $efleview ..PiaCe
1 Indiap puliw, -IN±� .i622t
i °7i t hl_,tp J Ai; /i' .piths org
i'
2
1
Go sic maps
To see all the details that are visible on the
screen, use the "Print" link next to the map.
http: /maps.google.com /maps ?hl =en &tab =wl 1/31/2011
C)
00
cr-
T
T
O
N
N
N
m
N
UL
C
E
Z
W
c 4
0
O N
M
0 N
c
Z
CO
N u
0
=z 0 1 1 3
-TUTU
V
.j
uJ
d0 c
CL
J
M o
acv
W
U
a
M
C)
00
cr-
T
T
O
N
N
N
m
N
UL
C
E
CL oUM
U�
c
L-
ccov
0
O N
N
0 0 ED
N M N
CD
-TUTU
O
L
LT O 0
C. L
T a�
M
N
c�
L N
.,r N
(D
O
CO N
T
T
•C O L
cn�c
C N O7
.-.o
a) 0 c
0 3 0
T CM
T
N U
p v,
o..
0)v
v 0 c
N tm m
w cc
O a "0 N
O U
o w t
0 0 3
E cn
L N r, U
C. C
C-4 a-
C
O
J
U d
C
in a
C
O
E
U
tD
m
(D O N
L I :3 5
w-
L N
o
O O C
E
Q.
E ,4
U o
L C C
ca ch
CD
N L
L C
w
C C
U 'O L
O L
a�
N
3 3
CL m C
N
0 0
o
O (n CD
=p E c
co
(n L
Q
CD
O cc
N
M
00
U i
O 'S
C N U
O
d c
0 cv a
Page I of 1
Phil Conkin
From: "pence. Gary" <GPENCE @indot IN gov
To: "Ph Conklin <pconkhn @quest net=
Sent: Wednesday, February 16 20',' 1? 48 PM
Subject: RE
iii Jv rn 'A
`lave beer. cep Omti -c Gi." e' sibs '.:i is `ne 46 s ree' areas.
From: Phi( Conklin [mailto:pconklin iquest net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 12.39 PM
To: Pence Gary
Subject:
Mr Pence
In mid summer of 2010 your U S. 31 bollet,n, as I recall, indicated that plans were not finalized for the
intersection of 111th Street and US 31 whether there would be a bridge or an over and under
intersection I was also advised that this subject would not materialize until approximately 2017
1 own a house at 11 West 111th Street that may be affected by your plans.
Is there any more current information.
Thank you
Phil Conklin
2`2L2011 I
IPM
IV
Bridges PUD
Department of Engineering Traffic Comments'
02/15/11
1. The Department of Engineering suggests the development of a master pedestrian circulation plan.
2. The proposed internal street roundabouts shall exhibit functionality, standard geometry, signage and striping
of a modern roundabout. Splitter islands with pedestrian refuges shall be provided on each leg of each of the
proposed internal roundabouts.
3. The Department of Engineering does not support the proposed roundabouts with five entry legs. The
proposed inscribed diameter will only safely support four entry legs.
4 Dedication of right -of way shall be required for future roundabout intersections at 111 Street and Springmill
Road and 111` Street and Ill :nols Street. That right -of -way for future modifications to the existing
roundabouts at 116`" Street and Springmill Road and 116 Street and Illinois Street shall also be dedicated.
5. The Engineering Department requires right -of -way dedication sufficient to accommodate future roundabouts
at the intersections on Springmill Road and II'inois Street if the traffic at these intersections is expected to
satisfy the warrants for a traffic signal at "bu'Id out" conditions.
6. The Department is concerned with the prox mity of the first access points of the internal roadways to 116'
Street and Illinois Street as the proposed configuration could result in traffic stacking out onto the per meter
streets.
7. The deve.oper sha¢i ensure that adequate sight distance is provided for Entrance F.
8 The Department suggests that proposed rights-of-way widths indicated in the PUD be rev °sed as f6lows-
a 116 Street. P:ease'ndicate "Existing It is apparent that the existing right -of -way ;s consistent with
or greater than the 75 -foot half requ red by the Thoroughfare Plan.
b 111 Street West: Please indicate a 50 -foot half right -of way to be consistent with the existing
platted right -of -way on the south side of this segment of 111,h Street.
c. As it will be necessary for Illinois Street to be constructed simultaneously with this development n
order to accommodate necessary access to each phase of the development, it is feasible for Illinois
Street to be constructed within a 100 -foot right -of -way provided that the Illinois Street contractor is
allowed right -of -entry by the adjacent property owner.
0. The Department requires that Entrance B be restricted to right in /right out access only, the combination and
alignment of Entrances D and E and that Entrance F be a ful access intersect:on prov :d.ng access to the future
development of the Valinet property.
10. The Department does not support the stop controlled intersection recommended for 111th Street and Illinois
Street *n the Traffic Study. The Thoroughfare Plan stipulates a roundabout intersection which will be necessary
at development buildout and connection of Illinois Street south to 111 Street.
11. As discussed, the Department is requesting certain improvements be made to the Intersection of 116th Street
and US -31 to accommodate additional development traffic.
12. 'he Department recommends a right -in /right -out access from the deve opment to 111'` Street near the
midpoint between Springmill Road and the future Illinois Street.
13. The Department suggests that Entrance G be eliminated in the long -term in favor of shared access with the
Valinet property when it develops.
Bridges PUD
Department of Engineering PUD Ordinance Comments
02/15/11
1. Will the development install the street trees in the Illinois Street right -of -way?
2. Street lights in perimeter road rights -of -way shall be City standard and reviewed by City.
3. The lighting of the interior roundabouts shall be consistent with City standards.
4. No landscaping or tree preservation easements shall be overlaid with utility, drainage, signage or other use
easements. Such easements shall be reserved solely for landscaping and tree preservation and shall not
provide any others right to use such easements.
5. PUD Section 10.1(1). The elimination of the curbing shall be subject to review and approval by Engineering to
ensure that elimination of curbing is indeed necessary for the proper function of the proposed storm water
treatment system. Also, do we want to require parking bumpers in instances where curb is deleted?
6. Pedestrian connectivity shall be provided for all internal east -west streets. A minimum of three east -west
pedestrian connections shall be provided in the Development Plan.
7. 10 -foot multi -use path shall be constructed along the entire perimeter of the site. Pedestrian connectivity to
this perimeter path from the internal pedestrian system shall be provided at as many points as reasonable.
8. As we have discussed, we will need to review the proximity of any detention facilities to the right -of -way. SO-
feet separation or a barrier is required by the current City Standards.
9. The pedestrian access at the northeast corner of Springmill Road and 111` Street cannot direct persons
diagonally into the intersection.
10. With the future plans for a median along Springmill Road, there is no need for the proposed "pork chop" at
Entrance I.
11. The Department requests that the entrance to the parking field south of the E -W street from Entrance D/E and
east of Illinois Street be moved as far to the east as possible.
Bridges PUD
Department of Engineering Traffic Study Comments
02/15/11
1. Please compare the difference in traffic volumes from the development if developed under the current S -2
zoning and :f developed as proposed.
2. Please evaluate the impact to the LOS at various entrances due to the recommended access reconfiguration
on Illinois Street and the other interna' traffic pattern changes.
3 Please include a right -in /right -out on y access on 111th Street between Springm:r, Road and Spr ngmill Lane.
Conn, Angelina V
From:
Duncan, Gary R
Sent:
Tuesday, February 15, 2011 1:29 PM
To:
Conn, Angelina V
Cc:
Hollibaugh, Mike P; McBride, Mike T
Subject:
Bridges PUD Staff Report
Angie,
For the meeting tonight, our report is follows:
We have had regular meetings with the petitioner to discuss and resolve issues raised during our review and the process
is moving forward. We are pleased with the progress so far. We assume this will go to committee and Engineering has
no issues with this project being sent to committee.
Thanks so much,
Gary
Gary R. Duncan, Jr., PE
Assistant City Engineer
City of Carmel
Department of Engineering
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
(317) 571 -2441
(317) 571 -2439 (fax)
Rduncan@carmel.in.gov
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
Conn, Angelina V
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 12:26 PM
To: Carter Jerman
Cc: Bill Jacobson; Bob Lynn Chreist; David Mary Jordan; Edward Jane Brune- Gerald
Danquist; Marty Meisenheimer; John Molitor; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Hancock, Ramona B
Subject: RE: Bridges PUD
Good afternoon, Carter
The Plan Commission members each received a copy of your letter a while ago, but have not
tabled the item thus far. I am not sure if they will discuss tabling the item at the
beginning of the Feb. 15 Plan Commission meeting or not. However, I am positive that they
are aware of your concerns and will take them into consideration, along with other public
comments they receive on Feb. 15. So, for now, I would say that they will go ahead and hold
the public hearing on this item on Feb. 15 and then send the item to the March 1 Special
Studies Committee meeting for further review and discussion, while keeping the public hearing
portion open at that meeting as well. Most likely, this item will be held at the committee
level for at least 2 -3 months.
Again, if you cannot attend these meetings, please feel free to send our Dept. additional
written comments, and we will be sure to get those to the Plan Commission members.
-Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
Original Message----
From: Carter Jerman fmailto:cierman(@fisco.bizl
Sent: Sat 2/5/2011 7:47 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Cc: Bill Jacobson; Bob Lynn Chreist; David Mary Jordan; Edward Jane Brune; Gerald
Danquist; Marty Meisenheimer; John Molitor; Hollibaugh, Mike P
Subject: RE: Bridges PUD
Angie: Has there been any decision made to table the Bridges PUD per my letter of January 8,
2011.
Carter Jerman
President
Williams Mill HOA
Original Message----
From: Conn, Angelina V fmailto:Aconn@acarmel.in.govl
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 9:33 AM
To: Carter Jerman
Cc: Bill Jacobson; Bob Lynn Chreist; David Mary Jordan; Edward Jane Brune; Gerald
Danquist; Marty Meisenheimer; John Molitor; Hollibaugh, Mike P
Subject: RE: Bridges PUD
Carter:
Thank you for the email. We will make copies of this letter and distribute to the Plan
Commission members this week.
Sincerely,
1
Conn, Angelina V
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 3:52 PM
To: 'Ron Houck'
Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; 'rfhouck@ hotmail.com'
Subject: traffic impact analysis for Clarian North PUD Z- 409 -03
Tracking: Recipient Delivery
'Ron Houck'
Hollibaugh, Mike P Delivered: 1/28/2011 3:52 PM
'rfhouck hotmail.com'
Hi, Ron I just got your VM message. If you click on these links below, it will take you to the Clarian north hospital
rezone and dp /adls files. In that, you will see the traffic impact analysis. Does this work for you?
http: /cocdocs.ci.carmel. in.us /weblink /0/fol/291448/Row1 aspx docket no 29 -03 Z rezone.
http://cocdocs.ci.carme1.in.us/webIink/`O/fo1/90897/Rowl.asox docket no 30 -03 dp /adls site plan, architecture, etc.
...and the clarian north PUD Z- 409 -03 is also online at: http://cocdocs.ci.carmel.in.us/weblink/O/doc/291456/
let me know if you need anything else.
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
City of Carmel Planning Zoning Division
Dept. of Community Services
1 Civic Square, 3rd Fir.
Carmel, IN 46032
O: 317 -571 -2417 1 F: 317 -571 -2426 1 E: aconn@carmel.in.aov
W: www.carmel.in.00v/services/DOCS/DOCSDOPZ.htm
NELSON FRANKENBERGER
JAMES J. NELSON
CHARLES D. FRANKENBERGER
JAMES E. SHINAVER
LAWRENCE J. KEMPER
JOI IN B. FLATT
FREDRIC LAWRENCE
JAMES A. NICKLOY
CHRISTOPHER A. FERGUSON
Michael McBride, P.E.
City of Carmel
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3105 EAST 98TH STREET, SUITE 170
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46280
PHONE: 317- 844 -0106
FACSIMILE: 317- 846 -8782
January 19, 2011
Re: The proposed Bridges PUD District
Docket No. 10120008 Z
Dear Mike:
RECEIVED
JAN 19 2011
DOCS
JANE B. MERRILL,
Of Counsel
JON C. DOBOSIEWICZ,
Land Use Professional
Enclosed you will find two copies of a Traffic Impact Analysis and associated appendix
prepared for the proposed Bridges PUD District.
We will soon be conferring with you to discuss the Analysis. Should you have any
questions please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
NELSON FRANKENBERGER, P.C.
Jon C. Dobosiewicz
Land Use Professional
Enclosure
The Bridges Lir to M McBride 011911
Conn, Angelina V
From: Mindham, Daren
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 1:45 PM
To: Jon C. Dobosiewicz (E -mail)
Cc: Conn, Angelina V; 'Charlie Frankenberger'; TCrowley @GershmanBrownCrowley.com';
'steve pittman part ners.com'
Subject: RE: Docket No. Assignment: 10120008 Z The Bridges PUD
Attachments: Species Diversity for Developments.pdf; Street Tree List.pdf; Treedetail- Carmel.pdf;
Evergreendetail Carmel.pdf; Shrubdetail Carmel.pdf
Jon,
The following email represents comments for this project specifically addressing the area of urban forestry. I
have reviewed the PUD ordinance and offer the following comments:
URBAN FORESTRY REVIEW COMMENTS
1) 1 would like to have the attached Carmel planting details used in City of Carmel projects.
2) 1 have attached the street tree list noted in the PUD Ordinance (attached portion)
3) There is also a guide for species diversity attached for Carmel Deve;opments.
4) Below are comment for The Bridges PUD Ordinance document (see attachment for more notes):
Section 7.1.A
The ordinance should state minimum requirements, language like 'may be considered' are not suitable.
Section 7.1.13
Near here would be a great place to add wordage about t.,e C`t of Carmel Plant, -g detail usage.
Section 7.5.D
The ordinance should state minimum requirements, language like 'also encouraged' are not suitable.
Section 7.5.E
Requirements will need to be written in each specific area to be landscaped. One requirement will not
be allowed to fulfill other requirements.
Section 7.6.6
Low wall or fence will not be allowed in lieu of 100% of the plantings. I suggest that notes stating that a
wall or fence may be used in lieu of 50% of the required landscaping or something of that sort.
Section 7.8
'Overgrown' —this word is an indication that the design is flawed before it was even designed. I would
like to see this word removed or at least limited as to replace if a safety hazard. Because it may be 'overgrown'
does not mean it needs to be removed.
Also in this section, the last sentence 'Street trees shall be maintained by the City'; I believe this is
contradicted of section 7.4.0 and 7.4.E. If these trees are to be installed and maintained it would be in the best
interest of the development to maintain all the trees installed for the project according to the mentioned
requirements.
The City will make sure if there are trees on City property that lack of maintenance does not cause an
issue with safety.
Please illustrate how these comments will be addressed by letter or revised document. If you have any
questions, feel free to contact me. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Daren Mindham
Urban Forester
City of Carmel
Department of Community Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Office: 317 571 -2283
*The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit. Nelson Henderson
Conn, Angelina V
Senti Tu sday, December 21, 2010 10:21 AM
To: Boone, hel M.; Blanchard, Jim E; Mindham, Daren; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Hancock, fiamona B; Hollibaugh,
Mike P; Keeling, ienne M; Littlejohn, David W; Martin, Candy; Mindham, Daren; Stewart, Lisa M; Tingley, Connie S;
Barnes, David R; Dun Gary R; Haney, Douglas C; Perkins, Tom D; 'John Molitor'
Cc: 'Jon Dobosiewicz'; Ch ie Frankenberger; 'Steve Pittman'; TCrowley @GershmanSrownCrowley.com'
Subject: Docket No. Assign t: 10120008 Z The Bridges PUD
have issued the Docket Numberlo(T e Bridges PUD. It is the following:
Docket No. 10120008 Z: The Bridges PUD f
The applicant seeks approval to rezone 63.7 a from S- 2 /Resi nce to PUD /Planned Unit Development. The site is
located at 11405 Spring Mill Rd., at the southeast er of 116 St. and Spring Mill Rd.
Filed by Char'ie Frankenberger of Nelson Franken r, be half of G. B. Developers II LLC.
Mr. Jon Dobosrewicz, land use specialist, and Mr.
project attorney, can be contacted at 317- 844 -0106.
FEE
PUD Ordinance/ $10,454.00
Rezone Filing Fee (based on 63.7 acre
Total fee due: $10,454.0
1. This Item will be on the Ja .19, 2011 agenda of the Technical Advisory Co ee. If not done a ready, the
petitioner must submit p ns and review materials to all TAC members ASAP via and /or mail. The updated
TAC members iist is ine at: http://www.ci.carmel.in.us/services/DOCS/DOCSTAOR004,htm.
2. Mailed and Publis d Public Notice needs to occur no later than Jan. 21, 2011. Publis d n ice is required
within the India polis Star. Try to get the public notice ad to the IndyStar by Noon, two s p r to the pubic
notice deadl *06 in order for them to publish it on time. Also, the p acement of a public hearin sig on the
property is r quired; see application.
3. The Fili Fee and Fifteen (15) Informational Packets must be delivered to Plan Commission Secr ry
Ramo a Hancock no later than Noon, Friday, Feb. 4, 2011.
4. PT6f of Notice will need to be received by this Department no later than Noon, Friday, Feb. 11, 2011. Failui
tp submit Proof of Notice by this time will result in the tabling of the pet'tion.
5,, This item will appear or. the Feb. 15, 2011 meeting agenda of the Plan Commission (under "Public Hearings"
<�hich begins at 6 pm. (A representative must be present.)
Conn, Angelina V
From: Littlejohn, David W
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 1:52 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: RE: Bridges PUD for SEC of 116th /Springmill docket no 10120008 Z
Angie,
After a quick review I have a few comments:
Part 14. Amenities /Pedestrian Furniture B. states that Amenities are permitted and may include "without
mitation
Bike Racks
Pedestrian walkway /t railway
Bike trailway
Do we want to have at least minimum requirements (that meet city standards;... They could then go above and
beyond those but would at least be required to provide cAy standards
If they do not meet the city standards we need them to specify how they w1li provide bicycle parking (location,
rack type, etc...)
Provide a bike and ped plan to maximize the direct sidewalk /path connectivity within the site (looks like there
are a'ot of missed opportunities at this po'nt)
''wings :o consider:
Bike lockers
Locker room and showers (in the offices)
Long term bike parking (for residents)
Thoughts:
It looks like there is a iot of parking... Would we really require this much or are they being safe at this
po'nt.
Some of the parking could be changed to bivds (in the middle of the site) with on street parking
or into 'andscape buffers between parking lots rather than having one giant parking lot in
between buildings.
Let me know if you have any questions or need anything else.
David Utt'ejohn, AICP
Alternative Transportation Coordinator
Department of Community Serv'ces
City of Carmel
One Civic Sq
Carmel, IN 46032
(317) 571 -2306
gA Please con der the environment before printing this e-mail
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:42 AM
To: Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Keeling, Adrienne M, Boone, Rachel M.; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Littlejohn, David W
P
cr
N
m
O
M-
0
N
A
R
n
0
U
M 0 Z
s
n .-fin z
Z
m
X+
M
c
z
r
0
CA
M
L
NELSON FRANKENBERGER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JAMES J. NELSON
CHARLES D. FRANKENBERGER
JAMES E. SHINAVER
LAWRENCE J. KEMPER
JOHN B. FLATT
FREDRIC LAWRENCE
JAMES A. NICKLOY
CHRISTOPHER A. FERGUSON
3105 EAST 98TH STREET, SUITE 170
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46280
PHONE: 317- 844 -0106
FACSIMILE: 317- 846 -8782
December 17, 2010
Carmel TAC Member
Re: The proposed Bridges PUD —116 Street and Springmill Road
Rezone request filed with the City of Carmel, IN
Dear TAC Member:
,DO
Enclosed you will find a copy of (i) a Rezone application and (ii) the proposed Bridges
PUD Ordinance. This distribution is being made in advance of the January 19, 2011 Carmel
TAC meeting.
Should you have any questions regarding this or would like to meet in advance of the
TAC meeting, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
NELSON FRANKENBERGER, P.C.
G
Jon C. Dobosiewicz
Land Use Professional
Enclosures
JANE B. MERRILL,
Of Counsel
JON C. DOBOSIEWICZ,
Land Use Professional
r V\ q y
The Bridges Ltr to Carmel TAC Members 121710 lP
4
Lift
B �r� u n.rM1 r
Lift Lift Lefthand Feed
Angie Conn/Alexia Donohue -Wold
Dept. of Community Services Daren Mindham
Planning/Zoning Urban Forester -DOGS
One Civic Square, 3` Mr. One Civic Square, 3 Mr.
Carmel, IN 46032 Carmel, IN 46032
Bill Akers Dave Huffman
Carmel Clay Communications Dept. Carmel Street Dept.
31 First Avenue NW 3400 W. 131st Street
Carmel, IN 46032 Carmel, IN 46074
Greg Hoyes Gregory Ilko, PE
Hamilton County Surveyor's Office CrossRoad Engineers
1 Hamilton Co. Sq., Suite 188 3417 S. Sherman Dr.
Noblesville, IN 46060 Beech Grove, IN 46107
David Lucas Bill Hohlt/Jim Blanchard
Hamilton Co. Highway Dept. Carmel Bldg. Code Services Dept
1700 S. 10" Street One Civic Square, l Flr.
Noblesville, IN 46060 Carmel, IN 46032
Tim Green
Chris Ellison
Office of Police Chief
Office of Fire Chief, Fire Station #1
K Three Civic Square
Two Civic Square
o Carmel, IN 46032
Carmel, IN 46032
a
V
Mark Westermeier
Jason Lemaster
n
r) Carmel/Clay Parks Dept.
Hamilton County Health Dept.
n 1411 E. 116'' St.
18030 Foundation Dr., Ste A
Carmel, IN 46032
Noblesville, IN 46060
Jason Kirkman Shirley Hunter
Brighthouse Networks Duke Energy
3030 Roosevelt Ave. 16475 Southpark Dr.
Indianapolis, IN 46218 Westfield, IN 46074
Joanie Clark Dan Davenport
Vectren Energy Indianapolis Power Light Co.
P.O. Box 1700 1230 W. Morris Str.
Noblesville, IN 46061 Indianapolis, IN 46221
Ron Farrand Ryan Hartman
Carmel/Clay Schools Clay Twp. Regional Waste District
5185 E. Main Street 10701 N. College Ave., Ste A.
Carmel, IN 46033 Indianapolis, IN 46280
Postmaster c/o Doland Wise Steven Krebs
Carmel Post Office Carmel AT &T Engineer
United States Postal Service
275 Medical Dr. 5858 N. College Ave.
Carmel, IN 46032 Indianapolis, IN 46220
un un
David Littlejohn
Alternative Transportation Systems
-DOCS
One Civic Square, 3` Floor
Carmel, IN 46032
John Thomas
Carmel Engineering Dept. Storm Water
Administrator
One Civic Square, 0 Floor
Carmel, IN 46032
Gary Duncan/Nick Redden
Carmel Engineering Dept.
One Civic Square, I" FIr.
Carmel, IN 46032
John Duffy
Carmel City Utilities Dept.
760 Third Avenue SW
Carmel, IN 46032
Terry Krueskamp
City of Carmel Information
Systems Dept.
Three Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
Brooke Gajownik
Hamilton County Sheriff's Office
18100 Cumberland Road
Noblesville, IN 46060
Gary McNamee
Duke Energy, Asset Protection
Associate
2727 Central Avenue
Columbus, IN 47201
Duane Whiting
Indianapolis Water Co.
1220 Waterway Blvd.
Indianapolis, IN 46202
Troy Yackle
Panhandle Eastern Pipeline/
Trunkline Gas Co.
9371 Zionsville Road
Indianapolis, IN 46268
Lin paa.4 pue414BIM
Indianapo is Wa Review Comm from Duane Whiting 01 -1'. -20;1
CARMEL TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTFE
MEETING AGENDA
Date: Wednesday_ January 19, 2011
Place: Dept. of Community Services Conference Room, 3` Floor, Can City Hall.
Time: 9:00 a,11t.
9:00 —in in Docket No. 10120002 PP Amend: Replat of North Augusta, lots 20 29A
The applicant seeks primary plat amendment approval to create 5 lots from 2, on 3.14 acres.
The sites are located at 3802 W 96"' St. and 9640 N. Augusta Dr. They are zoned B -5 and B -7/
Business, both within the US 421 Michigan Rd. Overlay Zone. Filed by William Niemier
for Sand Capital IX. LLC.
9:15 a. m. Docket No. 10120008 Z: The Bridges Pi1D
The applicant seeks approval to rezone 63.7 acres from S- 2/Residence to PUD /Planned Unit
Deveioptnent. The site is located at 11405 Spring Mill Rd., at the southeast corner of 1 16` St.
and Spring Mill Rd. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger, on behalf of
G B. Developers 11, LLC
9:30 a.m Docket No. 10120011 ADLS Amend: Penn Circle (former Meridian Pointe site)
The applicant seeks site plan and design approval amendments for a 173 -unit multi- family
development. The site is located at 12346 Old Meridian St. It is zoned OM /O Old Meridian
District, Office. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger, on behalf of G.
B. Developers 11, LLC.
Veolia Water Indianapolis (VWI) is the contract operator for the Indianapolis Water
(IW) utility. And as such has reviewed the three petitions as stated in the above
referenced TAC Agenda Topics, IW's response to each petition is as follows:
Docket No. 10120002 PP Amend: Replat of North Augusta, lots 20 29A
No Objection to the Replat Amendment
Note: the property addressed as 3802 W. 96 St. has available water service
from an existing IW water main in W. 96 St., however will eventually be
transitioned to Carmel Utilities. See attached MapGuide drawing.
Docket No. 10120008 Z: The Bridges PUD
No Objection to the PUD /Planned Unit Development
Note: the property addressed as 11405 Spring Mill Rd. has available water service
from an existing IW water main in Spring Mill Rd. and 111 St., however will
eventually be transitioned to Carmel Utilities. See attached MapGuide drawing.
Docket No. 10120011 ADLS Amend: Penn Circle (former Meridian Pointe site)
No Objection for site plan and design approval amendments for the development
Note: the property addressed as 12346 Old Meridian St. has available water
service from an existing IW water mains in Old Meridian St. and Pennsylvania St.,
however will eventually be transitioned to Carmel Utilities. See attached
MapGuide drawing.
hic. 1AC2011 -0119 doc
Page 1 of I
ONE Civic SQ. CARMEL IN 46032 (317) 571 -2417
Docket No. 10120008 Z: The Bridges PUD
,rya s:
24913
US
t,io CSS�ep F
.f5 Liowj p
0 -249 I 5
-24914
mcNe.,. i i
5 5oro W V
i
7,pap ah W
l
l
2
2d R-83
1,S C
CAR 37
r L-1
t�T
ONSA N
J r� ns,ap4 Z
Uj
luw.. �I oroaw
0.6591
I} I h-W q.b
W
tt,'A,Yr�NN
0-6590 ,:an"w•.
0 -6584 I I ,ro5f
4
94
D -6583
I i 114�i s'I MTH 51
SCALE 1 :6,451
r
500 0 500 1 000 .500
FEET
N
Tuesday, January 11, 20118:22 AM
I i 114�i s'I MTH 51
SCALE 1 :6,451
r
500 0 500 1 000 .500
FEET
N
Tuesday, January 11, 20118:22 AM
OF CA
s
C ity of arme
t R H
/NDIAUN DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
January 13, 2011
Mr. Jon Dobosiewicz
Nelson Frankenberger
3105 East 98 St, ste 170
Indianapolis, IN 46280
RE: The BridEes
Dear Mr. Dobosiewicz:
The following letter represents comments for this project specifically addressing the area of
alternative transportation. I have reviewed the project submitted for the January 19, 2011
Technical Advisory Committee meeting, and offer the following comments:
Alternative Transportation Review and Comments
1) The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan requires the construction of a 10' asphalt path along
111' St, 116 St, Springmill Rd, and both sides of Illinois St. Please revise the plans
to include and label these facilities.
2) Please connect all internal sidewalks to each other, provide a sidewalk on both sides
of all of the entrances to the development. Please revise the plans to reflect these
changes.
3) Please change Section 11.1 of the PUD to read that Sidewalks and paths within public
street right -of -way shall meet the requirements of the Thoroughfare Plan and the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
4) Please change Section 11.2 of the PUD to read Sidewalks and paths and walkways
shall be provided on both sides of all interior streets and shall allow for pedestrian
mobility with the Bridges District.
Page 1
ONE CIVIC SQU CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
NC Rsy���
C ity of arme
F M
i
/NMON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
5) Please consider providing long term covered bicycling parking for the apartments and
including shower and locker room facilities within the commercial buildings. If this
is already in consideration please provide details on how this will be provided.
We request that all responses to our comments be provided in writing. Failure to provide written
responses may result in delay of the review process.
It is critical that this office be made aware of all modification made on the plans being re-
submitted, particularly if any such changes are considered "new" or fall outside of our previous
reviews. Please provide revised plans indicating all revisions Please notify us of any changes
and specifically state any changes, including changes resulting from Plan Commission, Special
Studies or other committee meetings.
The Department of Community Services reserves the right to provide additional comments based
on subsequent reviews.
If you have questions, please contact me at 571 -2417.
Sincerely,
David Littlejohn
Alternative Transportation Coordinator
Department of Community Services
cc: Angie Conn, Department of Community Services
Engineering Department Review
Project File
Page 2
ONE CIN SQUARE Cr1RMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
January 13, 2011
SVsv FY 0 OFF�C
Xenton C. `Ward, C'"FM
Surveyor of .Hamilton County
'P(►one (317) 776 -6495
'Fax (317) 776 -9628
Nelson Frankenberger
ATTN: Jon Dobosiewicz
3105 East 98 °i Street, Suite 170
Indianapolis, IN 46280
VIA E -MAIL: Jon a,NF- LAW.com
RE: Bridges PUD
Dear Mr. Dobosiewicz
Suite 188
One Namilton County Square
Aoblemdlle, Indiana 46o6o -223o
We have reviewed the PUD and concept plan submitted to the Hamilton County Surveyor's
Office on December 20, 2010, for this project and have the following comments:
1. The proposed project falls in the incorporated area and MS4 jurisdiction of the City o'
Carmel.
2. The proposed project DOES NOT fall in a City of Carmel Wellhead Protection Zone.
3. The proposed project falls in the Meridian Suburban Regulated Drain Watershed and
the Williams Creek Watershed.
4. The Hamilton County Surveyor's Office has no comments regarding the PUD.
5. Please submit complete construction plans and drainage calculations to this office
when they become available.
Should you have any questions, I can be reached at 317- 776 -8495.
Sincerely,
I
Greg Hoyes, AC, CFM, CPESC
Plan Reviewer
CC: Angie Conn Carmel DOGS, John Thomas Carmel Engineering
Dave Barne- Carmel Engineering, Greg Ilko Crossroad Engineers
Carmel Plan Commission Q�G
City Hall
Carmel, IN 46032
Re: tabling request for Bridges PUD
Ladies and Gentlemen:
January 9, 2011
An application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to be named The Bridges is proposed for
the property north of 111 Street and east of Sprint Mill Road. The PUD is slated for
presentation at a Plan Commission meeting scheduled on February 15, 2011.
The Williams Mill subdivision is directly across Spring Mill Road from the land on which the
PUD is proposed to be located. Williams Mill is a community of 47 homes, opened in the late
1990's with single family, detached, zero lot -line houses. The appeal of the neighborhood is the
quality of the homes and the residential nature of the area. The residents are largely senior
citizens, many retired. Many residents travel to warmer climates during the winter months.
Williams Mill resident, rely on the Homeowners Association Board of Directors to manage the
affairs of the Association. The Board of Directors is a voluntary board of varying skills, and
members serve for staggered three -year terms. All residents are expected to serve a term.
The purpose of this letier is to request that the Plan Commission table the consideration of the
PUD until its April or May meeting for the following reasons:
The proposed development is a wide departure from the residential character of the
surrounding neighborhood. In fact, there are no commercial developments on either side
of Spring Mill Road from Kessler Boulevard in Indianapolis to and through Carmel to its
north boundary. We would like to be in the position of supporting a development, but it
is believed that many of the elements of the proposal will need to be discussed at some
length with the developer and others to create a development that is in greater harmony
with the surrounding residential area.
2. We only were made aware of this application at a meeting on Tuesday, November 23,
2010 (the week including Thanksgiving). Thomas Crowley of the firm Gershman Brown
Crowley and Steve Pittman, whose family owns the land, met with three members of the
Williams Mill Association. The PUD application was filed effective Monday, December
20, 2010. As you are aware, the time between Thanksgiving and Christmas is often taken
up with planning for the holidays and taking care of year -end business and personal
matters. Attention is often diverted from other matters. The length and detail in the PUD
application imply that this application had been prepared after many weeks of work. We
ask that the Plan Commission allow sufficient time for our Board to review the
application and prepare for the`Leti.
3. As stated above, many of our residents spend several months during the winter in warmer
climates. I am aware that about a dozen of our neighbors (25 have already left or are
leaving shortly for Florida and other places. Others that I am not aware of may also be
gone for extended periods. In many cases, they will not be fully apprised of the proposed
PUD until they return.
4. More importantly, the Board President (the writer) and last year's Vice President (this
year's Treasurer), the most senior class of directors, leave shortly for North Carolina and
Florida. This year's Vice President has only been a board member since our annual
meeting in October 2010. Other members of the Board have been helpful, but they are
less active. Without the two most senior board members, Williams Mill would be at a
severe disadvantage at the February Plan Commission meeting and/or in meetings with
the developer.
For the above reasons, we ask that the Plan Commission table discussion and action on the PUD
until your April or May meeting.
Thank you for your attention and response to this request. You may reach me at the telephone
numbers or the e -mail address below.
Sincerely,
Carter .lerman, President
Williams Mill Homeowners Association
ciermali@fiscobiz.com
Home 317 -575 -8575
Cell 812 350 -1253
NELSON FR.ANKENBERGER
JAMES J. NELSON
CHARLES D.FRANKENBERGER
JAMES E. SHINAVER
LAWRENCE J. KEMPER
JOHN B. FLATT
FREDRIC LAWRENCE
JAMES A. NICKLOY
CHRISTOPHER A. FERGUSON
Angie Conn
City of Carmel
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
December 17, 2010
Re: Rezone Application for the proposed Bridges PUD District
Dear Angie:
JANE B. MERRILL,
Of Counsel
JON C. DOBOSIEWICZ,
Land Use Professional
RFC �IV&D
2010
Do
Enclosed you will find (i) a Rezone Application for the proposed Bridges PUD District,
(ii) The Bridges PUD district ordinance, and (iii) a TAC distribution letter and mailing list. Our
anticipated schedule is as follows:
January 19 TAC
February 15 Plan Commission Public Hearing
March 1 Special Studies Committee
Plan Commission (when forwarded out of committee)
We will soon be conferring with you to discuss the request. Should you have any
questions please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
NELSON FRANKENBERGER, P.C.
Enclosures
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3105 EAST 98TH STREET, SUITE 170
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46280
PHONE: 317 844 -0106
FACSIMILE: 317- 846 -8782
Jon C. Dobosiewicz
Land Use Professional
The Bridges Ltr to A Conn 121710 M LU
NELSON FRANKENBERGER
JAMES J. NELSON
CHARLES D. FRANKENBERGER
JAMES E. SHINAVER
LAWRENCE J. KEMPER
JOHN B. FLATT
FREDRIC LAWRENCE
JAMES A. NICKLOY
CHRISTOPHER A. FERGUSON
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3105 EAST 98TH STREET, SUITE 170
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46280
PHONE: 317- 844 -0106
FACSIMILE: 317- 846 -8782
JANE B. MERRILL,
Of Counsel
JON C. DOBOSIEWICZ,
Land Use Professional
December 17, 2010
Carmel TAC Member
Re: The proposed Bridges PUD —116 Street and Springmill Road
Rezone request filed with the City of Carmel, IN
Dear TAC Member:
Enclosed you will find a copy of (i) a Rezone application and (ii) the proposed Bridges
PUD Ordinance. This distribution is being made in advance of the January 19, 2011 Carmel
TAC meeting.
Should you have any questions regarding this or would like to meet in advance of the
TAC meeting, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
NELSON FRANKENBERGER, P.C.
hl
Jon C. Dobosiewicz
Land Use Professional
Enclosures
The Bridges Ur to Carmel TAC Members 121710
Conn, Angelina V
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 11:31 AM
To: 'Rlchreis @aol.com'
Cc: cjerman@fisco.biz
Subject: RE: Pittman property at 111th and Spring Mill Road (The Bridges PUD)
Attachments: TheBridgesPUD 12- 20- 2010.pdf
Hi. Bob:
Yes, the application was filed on Friday. Please see attached. It is the first draft of the proposed PUD ordinance.
Also, within a few days we will begin posting additional items relating to this petition on LaserFiche Online,
under docket no. 10120008, at htt p:// cocdocs .ci.carmel.in.us /weblink/0 /fol /394210 /Rowl.ast)x You can print
items to .pdf. You can also view all the paper contents of the file at our office, Monday Friday, 8 am to
4:45pm.
A public hearing filing deadline is around 60 days prior to the actual plan commission meeting date.
Tentatively, this item will be heard at the Feb. 15, 2011 plan commission meeting, which begins at 6pm. Then,
it will be sent to the March 1 committee meeting for further review and discussion.
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
City of Carmel Planning Zoning Division
Dept. of Community Services
1 Civic Square, 3rd Fir.
Carmel, IN 46032
0:317- 571 -2417 1 F: 317 571 -2426 1 E: aconn0carmel.in.gov
W: www.carmel.in.gov /services /DOCS /DOCSDOPZ,htm
Please consider the environment before p•inting this e-mail
From: Richreis(&aol.com rmailto:Rlchreis aol.coml
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 11:10 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Cc: cjerman @fisco.biz
Subject: Pittman property at 111th and Spring Mill Road
Good morning Angie,
A few weeks ago, members of of the Williams Mill Homeowners Association board met with a Tom Crowley and Steve
Pittman. Mr. Pittman's family owns the property immediately to the east of our subdivision. At that meeting, Mr. Crowley
indicated that his firm was planning to purchase the land from the Pittman family and file an application for a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) on the property. He said that his firm planned to do so on or about December 15. Our board has the
following questions:
1. Has this PUD been filed? If so, is it possible for us to have access to the application?
2. After an application of this sort is filed, when would it be docketed for a meeting of the Plan Commission? I other
words, how many days before a scheduled Plan Commission meeting must the application be filed?
We are having a board of directors meeting this Wednesday evening, December 22, and would appreciate any
information you can give us.
Thanks very much.
Bob Chreist
Conn, Angelina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments
Please see attached.
Conn, Angelina V
Monday, December 20, 2010 11:12 AM
'Pohlman, Jesse M.'
RE: SEC 116th /Spring Mill Filing
TheBridgesPUD 12- 20- 2010.pdf
Also, within a few days we will begin posting all this on LaserFiche online, under docket no 10120008, at
http://cocdocs.ci.carmel.in.us/Weblink/O/fol/394210/Rowl.aspx
-Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
From: Pohlman, Jesse M. jmailto :Jesse.Pohlman(&bakerd.coml
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 9:57 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: RE: SEC 116th /Spring Mill Filing
If scanning is okay, that would be the most convenient for me if you are able to do that today. Otherwise, I'm still happy
to stop in and get copies later this afternoon. Just let me know what is the most convenient for you.
From: Conn, Angelina V rmailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov]
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 9:56 AM
To: Pohlman, Jesse M.
Subject: RE: SEC 116th /Spring Mill Filing
Yes.
You can drop by anytime today before 4:45 pm to get copies of what you need, or I can scan and email some stuff to
you!
-Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
From: Pohlman, Jesse M. jmailto:Jesse. Pohl man@ )bakerd.coml
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 9:54 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: SEC 116th /Spring Mill Filing
Good morning Angie
I hope you had a great weekend. I was just following up to our e-mail exchange from earlier last week to see if the
rezoning was filed for the southeast corner of 116` Street and Spring Mill on Friday, and if so, if I could coordinate
getting a copy of the filed materials today?
Thank you!
Jesse
JESSE M. POHLMAN
LAND USE CO .SULTAN
T: 317.569.4836 F: 317.237 8476 MAIN: 317.569.9600