HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 04-12-11 I
CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
SPECIAL. STUDIES COMMITTEE
DEPARTMENT REPORT
April 12, 2011
1. Docket No. 10120008 Z: The Bridges PUD
The applicant seeks approval to rezone 63.7 acres from S -2 /Residence to PUD/Planned Unit Development. The
site is located at 11405 Spring Mill Rd., at the southeast corner of 116` St. and Spring Mill Rd. Filed by Charlie
Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger, on behalf of G. B. Developers II, LLC.
The applicant seeks approval to rezone 63.7 acres from S -2 /Residence to PUD /Planned Unit Development. North of the
site is the Clarian North hospital devel"opnient, east of the site are office buildings, south/southwest of the site are single
family dwellings, and west of the site is proposed to be a church. The US 31 'Corridor Overlay Zone's west boundary is
that of future Illinois St. The propose&development is broken into three blocks: the commercial amenity use block, the
office and residential use block, and the corporate office use block. Please view the petitioner's information packet
for further detail on the PUD text, conceptual site plan, and conceptual character imagery.
March 29 Committee meeting recap: There was discussion about the development standards and land uses for the
commercial amenity use block and the corporate office use block, as well as discussion about appropriate transitioning.
The public also voiced comments and listed their outstanding concerns.
C3 Plan. Guidance: The Carmel-Clay .Comprehensive Plan "the C3 Plan"), adopted in May 2009, marks this site as an
area for'special study. To this date, no official C3 Plan special study of this specific site has been conducted or adopted;
however, there are several studies of"the US 31 Corridor and the Illinois Street Corridor that lend themselves to helping
guide development on this site. :Also, the C3' provides for a number of policy objectives which, in this instance, do
not offer concrete guidance, but they do help:
1. The. C3 Plan does provide a matrix showing land classification compatibility, showing Best Fit and Conditional Fit
(see pg. 3).
2. The C3Plan also provides an objective to be sensitive to connectivity and transition between adjacent areas.
3. While another objective is to promote mixed use, compact development in areas suitable for commercial
'development, the C3 Plan objectives also stress that we must protect residential areas from unsuitable commercial
development.
4. Another objective is to encourage diversity in housing types.
5. The C3 Plan also suggests that we .must continue to build upon the economic benefits of the US 31 corridor by
further maximizing its development potential by encouraging new buildings to be constructed at maximum building
heights and encourage parking areas to be structured.
6. The C3 Plan also suggests that every trip to the store should not be a mandatory drive in the car. Residents should be
able to access daily goods by bicycling.
7. The C3PIan lists high quality and well designed landscaping as an objective, along with requiring parking to be on
the rear and side of and to utilize' `green' building and low impact development.
All of these aspects sho ld ,be considered when reviewing this rezone petition.
Context'of the Subject Site
1: Clarian North Hospital Planned Unit Development PUD (north of site) (employment node, urban residential, attached
residential, and neighborhood•support center, neighborhood service node)
2. Fidelity Plaza office complex (east of site) (employment node)
3. Proposed Mormon Temple/Meetinghouse future suburban residential homes (west of site) (proposed institutional
node and suburban residential)
4. Residential neighborhoods (south, southwest, southeast, and northwest of site):
a) Williams Mill, zoned S -2, 47 lots on 20 acres density of 2.35 units /acre (suburban residential)
b) Spring Mill Place, zoned S -2, 51 lots on 50.6 acres density of 1 unit/acre (low intensity residential)
c) Meridian Suburban, zoned S -2, 57 lots on 26.2 acres density of 2.17 units /acre (suburban residential)
d) Estate land zoned S -2, on average 5 -10 acre parcels. (estate residential)
1
Transition (height, setback, land use, buffers):
Heights:
Single family detached homes to the south and west of the site are 1 -2 stor tall.
Office buildings east of the site are 6 stories tall, and additional buildings could be 150 -ft tall.
IU Health /Clarian North hospital is 6 -7 stories tall, and could be a maximum of 9 stories or 150 ft. and potential
additional buildings on the Clarian North site, along Springmill Rd., north of 116 St can be a maximum 40 -ft.
Proposed Mormon meeting house and temple west of the site is proposed to be 35 -ft tall, with 120 -ft tall spire.
The Bridges PUD proposes maximum building heights of 3 stories or 38 feet, when adjacent to Springmill Rd. or
111 St.
Setbacks:
US 31 Overlay for this area calls for build to l of 90 -ft from US 31, and along 116 Street the underlying zoning
dominates, where the building setbacks are: B6 .60 -ft and S2 =35 -ft.
Clarian North PUD calls for building setbacks of: 200 -ft from US 31 116 St for hospital, 20 -ft from Illinois St;
15 -ft side yard. Area 2A (near Springmill 116 15-ft front yard 30 -ft max. Area 2B, near Springmill Rd.&
116 St.: 15 -30 -ft front yard.
S -2 /Residence zoning calls for building setbacks of: 35 -ft front, 10 -ft side, 20 -ft rear.
The Bridges PUD proposes a minimum 50 -ft building setback from Springmill Rd. or 111 St. within the Office
Residential Use Block, closest to the Williams Mill Spring Mill Place neighborhoods.
w-r q 1, ^}e^t x t lr r K w". r e rr
Adjacent Land Uses Appropriate Land Uses: x
s 4,
gyp y a a "`s �u�`' prs'.
1 i to a l i s'' 4
Clarian North PUD: the land uses permitted west of 74 1..
p 'h t 7 r6 i d
wi g P.r�a 1, 1,
Illinois St., east of Springmill Rd, and north of 116 St, :4« Tc PiEma Z.�nd 3 a,�) 5 0. Ja tl likiil
known as areas 2 -A and 2 -B (see concept plan to the g y" r 4 r ,ta tt t.
right) are: g��` �y r
2 -A: Single family dwellings, two- family dwellings, eS,: 4 Y e' k J 4 4 i
l ally; r< 1
multifamily townhomes, home occupations, or an fi Z A1 +C
e to c I .R
assisted living facility. v im, r i�� x n, g
2 -B: Single family dwellings, two- family dwellings, N t l t $t t t t F
multifamily townhomes, assisted living facility, Child r �u 4 t� P m *l f Ikti -',11 K s, 6� r SM.a n r. ,f f.`
Care center, day nursery, medical office buildings, y
offices, general service (limited to ground floor or 1 ,CST F e 4,
basement), retail limited, food services. (Here is a '...,4 n� v 4.44.401
website link to the Clarian North PUD ordinance Z -409 r p yr ua �'A t
/gi b 4 a r. >ta' i y —t 4 L f `31V, t
http: /cocdocs:ci.carmel.in.us/ Weblink /O /doc /202192/Pagel.aspx) L 4- 0 f 4
S -2 Zoning: he S- 2/Residence zoning classification ril S
g ti
zoning g r g a `r` x 4 d
permits Single Family dwellings and a Public Service y 1 y��t�
Facility. Special Uses (uses looked upon favorably and ..E.,, 4 4 74 v i ..1 4:3 0 4 4,w,,,44,0
with BZA approval) would be Clinic or Medical Health Weal '2 t�
Center, Place of Worship, Library, Water Management s 8,
z .;k.r t
Facility College/School, Borrow Pit/Mineral 6 y :;;-..,<J_
l z r.`^� ,,,+�k l y Js x'a'y a e i s,.
Extraction, Greenhouse, Raising/Breeding s 0 ait,
O g of Non -farm cad Y�S ay L tR y t 1 �M
animals Recreational Facilities Lake Cemetery and t. J iz� fir: i
t, Jo T °.,a WIC 1 A yy�
7M'd -.4 4j 3fn +'4S s�� �3. 9r"....7Y$*a A
2
The C3 Plan: The Comprehensive Plan contains a chart showing the best fit and conditional fit land uses. "Best Fit"
are classifications that are most suited for adjacency. "Conditional Fit" indicates land classifications that are suitable
for adjacency if the building orientation, transitions, and architecture are implemented with sensitivity to the context.
The third category are those adjacent land classifications shown as blank, neither C or B, which represent
classifications that are not typically appropriate adjacent to the subject classification and shown as a blank box. (The
Z
a 4 43 r 1 74, a 4. 2
f):1 z
a E g
Parks and Recreation 17 4t "8 r 8'' •t. n >.8 N 8 g,t a', E 8 P
Estate Residential e iffe i;; C
tow Intensity Suburban Residential it B, =B ROM C e
Suburban Residential :l' w; tf,or iTos Bur c C :K;
Urban Residential r8 C WO AV e F *C h #,C •C 'uC
Attached Residential g Ba c. 4•40 r,1 8 B i MT.0 "42 {i gs. ...C.. ._,C }t
Neighborbood Support Center B C V 9 8N •t M
MC g C C
Neighborhood Service Node 8C C C B B a :4M s8 it
institutional Node >''.B 18 8 B r 38. 8 8 tom ac ii RCA
r
Community Vitality Node W'=19 C C ,i „6 Afild V, B B dx
Employment Node i 8 a 4kgP K8,3,g M B fi B
Regional Vitality Node Ra* C C Wift nitA
Core Support r:'a$ 4,: C a 8; w C 8 a s C C �2 Ali i M"''`-,
Secondary Core B G C Bra: C N201 B N §8
Primary Core 1 0 ;c WON 14, s 't? 8
k8 Best Fit
c Conditional Fit
neighborhoods surrounding the Bridges PUD -,site could be considered Suburban Residential or Estate Residential.)
2020 Vision Plan: (prior comprehensive. plan, where portions of the land use tmap still apply today in the southwest
Clay area). Per the 2020 Vision.Plan, low intensity neighborhood areas could serve as a transition use between
medium intensity residential and-very low intensity residential, or as a buffer between low intensity regional.
employment areas, neighborhood commercial, central business districts and very low intensity residential.
Buffering/Landscaping:
The Bridges PUD spells out specific bufferyards which meet will meet the Bufferyard Regulations of the Zoning
Ordinance Chapter 26.04.
Zoning Ordinance, Buffervards:. The Zoning. Ordinance Chapter 26' addresses.perimeter buffering to require"
planting areas and bufferyards between and surrounding landuses. Those regulations are summed up in the table
below:
3
TABLE FOR BUFFERYARD DETERI4IINAT ION'
c m E zo 114-E Ex .10 �n =Zom
P. 9 mg ml,,
n Zm gl m4 =3; x 3 im m
m x V c r- m o i t" 'a R?, 5 y: T m
g o .o o m 0 a 1
D gy m.
SINGLE FAMILY 8 C C 0 D D 0 D C D D' D
DEVELOPMENT
DUPLEX C A C B B. C C D 8 0 D D
DEVELOPMENT
MULTI- FAMILY C C 8 B B C' C D C .0 D 0
DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVE 0 8 B A C C C C B 0 D D
RECREATION
INSTITUTIONAL 0 B B C A 'A C ,C B 0 0 0
OFFICE: RETAIL 0 C C C A A C D 8 D 0 D
WAREHOUSE; D C C C C C A- B B 0 0 0
LT. INDUSTRY
HVY. INDUSTRY 0 D 0 C C D B 8 B 0
D
Bufferyard Design. Standards in the table below are stated in terms of minimum width and
number of plants required per one hundred linear foot increment.
BUFFERYARD MINIMUM YARD WIDTH SHADE TREES. -,ORNAMENTAL TREES SHRUBS"
FRONT &SIDE REAR
A 5' 10' 3 2 g.
B 5' 10' 3 3 15
C 10' 20' 3 4 �.1.'
D 15' 25' 5 5 27'
*Evergreen trees niay substitute in lieu of shrubbery, on a 1:3 basis (1 conifer equals three drabs)
C3 Plan, Objective 2.2: Promote a high quality employment corridor along U.S. 31 and I -465 and utilize zoning
overlays, parks, and parkways to help buffer strong residential areas. The C3 Plan stresses buffering adjacent
residential uses from retail. centers. Buffering can be anything from.plantings to a wall to just distance between
buildings. It can even be a transition of land uses.
C3 Plan, Street Features: This section conveys the primary design standards that make each street classification
unique. The standards include: right -of -way, maximum number 'of lanes, minimum lane width, curbs, sidewalks and
paths, on -street parking,. street trees, and buffer plantings. Certain Street classifications (as shown on the
Thoroughfare Plan Map) shall be buffered from properties with plantings, berms or walls, that front on them.
Springmill Rd. is considered a Collector Street, 116` St. is 'considered a Primary Arterial, and Illinois St. is considered
a Secondary Parkway.
C3 Plan, US 31. Corridor Buffering: The Comp Plan stresses respecting transitions to adjacent neighborhoods and
require appropriate buffering. One US 31 Corridor strategy listed is to extend Illinois Street from,106th to 11 lth
2 Story Home 3 Story Building) 10 Story Bulidtng 8' Story, Building
MaxnnUin He. When ad;acentto Ccmme,cla1
e 6(1 Maximum Between
106th Street and 111.h Street
-a a M rmim N e1 1 htWhen i iYi f:::. 1 m3
a aix .'TM x,. v im r°k k` o 't' ".r"'' �hr u e „i
0, h a "w z Y y One twitdl5tai betwe h� �a t
i t S ptlng M ,ARoad Y 4, a FL7if�Siarltebi,iiiiii S t 05.31 and701n 7 r s, u.s 1 3 r
t 3� tvrostreetR0.4YS 1lOW ot ItO.W q70) x
^tf� rt ;if t �a (IWf c IIGnoh Sl.andUS it 0::0, v,�, 4i... �a q
s+
.4
Street. As U.S. 31 is upgraded, Illinois Street will be necessary to provide north /south access to the employment
corridor on the west side of U.S. 31, as well as reduce traffic on Springmill Rd. Illinois Street also helps establish the
transition from intense office corridor to low density residential areas to the west. This diagram above suggests a scale
down of building height to the residential areas to the south and west, between 106` 111 Streets, but can be used
as a guide for this rezone.
Staffs outstanding comments:
Currently, the petitioner meets with the Forestry Dept., Engineering Dept, and Planning Dept. staff weekly, to address
review comments, the PUD text, and the conceptual site plan. Topics discussed are land uses, traffic flow, road
improvements, pedestrian and bicycle accessibility, site plan layout, screening of parking, landscaping and buffering,
building architecture, lighting, signage, and much more.
The Dept. is still working through a few of these comments and is waiting to receive the red line copy of the amended
PUD text revised concept plan, which will show the revisions after the petitioner collects comments from the public
during the public hearing and from the Plan Commission members. The Department understands that a red line copy of
the PUD ordinance text will be ready around April 22.
As of April 6, the Dept. received the petitioner's official response to the Planning Department's review comments. A copy
of that correspondence is part of the department report mailing to the Plan Commission Special Studies Committee
members.
Recommendation:
The Dept of Community Services (DOCS) recommends that the Committee reviews this rezone text and then continues it
to the Wednesday, May 4 Special Studies Committee meeting for further review and discussion.
Note: the entire C3 Plan (Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan) can be viewed online at:
www.ci.carmel.in.us/services/DOCS/DOCSCompPlan.htm
5
NELSON FRANKENBERGER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JAMES J. NELSON 3105 EAST 98TH STREET, SUITE 170 JANE B. MERRILL,
CHARLES D. FRANKENBERGER INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46280 Of Counsel
JAMES E. SHINAVER
LAWRENCE J. KEMPER PHONE: 317-844 -0106
JOHN B. FLATT FACSIMILE: 317 846 -8782 JON C. DOBOSIEWICZ,
FREDRIC LAWRENCE Land Use Professional
JAMES A. NICKLOY
CHRISTOPHER A. FERGUSON
April 6, 2011
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 /Zoning Department review comments (Angie Conn —Jan. 12, 2011):
1. Please provide copies of your correspondence with the TAC members and their
correspondence with you.: DOCS 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.
The Bridges Ur to A Conn DOCS response 040611
1 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
with DOCS 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.
11. 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 maximum sign area will
be added for a logo as requested.
12. Page 10, Section 3: please change the last part of the 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 be 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 in 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 -57 -1 -2417 and rboone @carmel.in.gov. 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.
17. Pg 14, Section 6.5: Amenities /Pedestrian Furniture. states that Amenities are permitted and
may include "without limitation Bike, Racks,: Pedestrian walkway trailway, Bike.
trailway... The City wants to see at least a minimum requirement, that meets City standards.
You could then go above and beyond those, but would at least be required to provide the
The Bridges Ltr to A Conn DOCS response 04061 I
2 of 11
base City standards. If you do not meet the City standards, then we need you to specify how
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 landscaping around ponds 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.
19. 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 real 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 area is generally and only along the eastern
perimeter of the real estate. This will be noted in the text.
20. Page 16 also 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 block. 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 -ft
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 word `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. As
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.
27. 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 Bridges Ltr to A Conn DOCS response 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 Standards 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 would 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 for filing necessary from a property owner when applications are filed.
33. Exhibit 2, page 1 of 1: attached are some proposed changes to the concept plan. As
discussed 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.
The Bndges Ltr to A Conn DOCS response 040611
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 typically 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. We have discussed these standards with the architect and they feel that this will
achieve 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 added. "Facades shall be articulated 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 page 5 of 9: part 6.B.4: remove the phrase `be encouraged to'. Also add
`windows and doors shall compromise a minimum of 70% of the first floor storefront
facade'. As discussed this standard is not intended to apply evenly across all building
facades (front, side and rear). We will provide additional text to clarify.
43. Exhibit 6 page 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. This
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 recycling 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 and would not be permitted. See response under signage
comments.
The Bridges Ltr to A Conn DOCS response 040611
5 of 11
49. Please spell -check the entire document, and where appropriate, change the word compliment
to complement throughout the document. OK
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. OK This will be considered as part of
the ADLS process.
51. Provide 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 Littlejohn will 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 on-
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 are waiting 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. The 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 overall height of sign
structure, 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 have
changeable copy. We do not feel it is necessary to have a sign at each corner of the
development and at each entrance to the development. We would prefer only signage at each
The Bridges Ltr to A Conn DOCS response 040611
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? Tenant Panels
7. Section 9.1 (If not 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
street style of sign was discussed and it was agreed that it was acceptable and a size limit of 6
square feet would beset for the street style of directional.
9. Section 9.3 CID 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.
11. 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 E 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 facade. 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
DOCS. 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 Bridges Ltr to A Conn 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.
15. Section 9.5 D This is covered by the Sign Chart, I don't believe it's necessary to have in
the text. The sign chart is not explicit in its wording and reference. This text states clearly
the application of the chart.
16. Section 9.5 I Drive thru 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.
Two signs will be permitted only for corner tenants as discussed. The area for awning sings
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 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 Bridges Ltr to A Conn DOCS response 040611
8 of11
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.
OK. the text will be amended so as not to preclude internal LED, only exposed LED.
23. Section 9.12 C Notin support of this item at all. Automobile_ service stations should choose
between permitted wall signs and ground signs. This item was discussed with DOCS. A
limit of one wall 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 fuel pump island canopy structure.
24. Section 9.13 Please add "less than 3' tall 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' and both sides of Illinois St. Please revise the plans' to include
The Bridges Ltr to A Conn DOCS response 040611
9ofll
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 PUD also requires compliance with these standards per Section 11. This change will
be reviewed at the DP stage of development once engineered construction plans are
submitted.
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. 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.
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. OK. This text will be added to section 1 1.2.
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. OK. David
Littlejohn will provide sample Text. This will be reviewed at the DP stage.
Urban Forester Review and Comments (December 29, 2010):
1. Section 7.1.A The ordinance should state minimum requirements, language like 'may be
considered' are not suitable. OK. This language will be changed to "is permitted".
2. Section 7.1.B 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.D 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.B 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. OK. 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 Bridges Ltr to A Conn DOCS response 040611
1 0ofll
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. OK. Overgrow shall be deleted and street
shall be maintained by the adjacent property owner.
Additional Review Comments Signage Rachel Boone (March 4, 2010):
1. I'm not sure if anyone else has made 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 feel of the site if it was an actual
street. But the drive seems to essentially disappear at the end of the site by the residential. I
think it would be safer if there were more streets designated through this part of the site. I
still 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 right -out along
1 11` 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 corner 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
feel 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. See
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 wall signs on commercial buildings, adjacent to Springmill, facing Springmill
Road.
5. There is a 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 Bridges Ltr to A Conn DOCS response 04061 I
11 of11