Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence: DOCS Comments w/Petitioner ResponsesConn, Angelina V From: jaydorman @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 9:12 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: Fwd: Development at 116th and Springmill Please add these remarks to the file. Thanks. Original Message From: Alka Kapur <alkal.kapur @gmail.com> To: jaydorman @aol.com Sent: Tue, May 17, 2011 9:02 am Subject: Development at 116th and Springmill Hello Jay, You are probably aware there is a petition circulating about the development, and there is a couple of "concerned citizens" from Clay township doing the rounds. I am letting you know that I signed it, and Rahul too would have, had he been home. I really believe that Carmel is being over developed, and that we are losing the balance between progress and character. The relentless development of farm property is being taken too far, and we are losing the charm which has made Carmel such a great place to live in. I feel as if we have gone beyond community needs and have chosen to turn our town over to commercial interests. I should mention that both Rahul and I come from a strong business background, and have our feet firmly planted in the "realities" of both economics and financial management. I write to you as a council member who has a say in the advancement of this particular proposal. We already have "Big boxes" not far away, and plenty of shopping opportunities a couple minuts away for most of us. As for the residential homes in the area, the modifications in the petition sound`good to me. But I would ask you to ensure that we do in reality need the housing especially at a time when there is so much vacancy and foreclosure of properties. Has the council really looked at (realistic) projections of future housing trends? Many thanks for listening. Alka Kapur 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 11:26 AM To: Conn, Angelina V; Greg .Noyes @hamiltoncounty.in.gov'; 'David Lucas'; Littlejohn, David W; Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M. Cc: Redden, Nick Subject: RE: May 17 plan commission meeting items Good morning Angie. Sorry for the delay in getting these out. Docket No. 11030008 PP: First and Sixth NW Primary Plat The Department supports the proposed primary plat conditioned on the provision of detention and storm water quality facilities in the event that the land disturbance associated with the improvements to the lot do not exceed -acre. The Department also reserves the right to review the final plans for the improvements to the lot to ensure that there are no standard and /or code violations associated with the improvements. This includes, but is not limited to grading and drainage and construction phase erosion and sediment control. Docket No. 10110012 DP /ADLS: Legacy PUD Turkey Hill Minit Market Tabled Docket No. 11040003 DP Amend: Walnut Creek Drive Extension Amend [Need to Review Latest Plans and any previously and recently issued comment letters] Docket No. 10100006 DP /ADLS:. AutoZone Park Northwestern, Lot 1 To my knowledge, there has been no response to my comments dated November 17 2010 and emailed to Mr. Kittle on November 17, 2010. Approval of the entrance closest to Michigan Road remains unresolved. The Department will not support the proposed entrance and this matter has not been brought to the Board of Public Works and Safety. I am uncertain how the issue of compliance with the Alternative Transportation Plan has been resolved. Docket No. 11020013 DP /ADLS: Woodland Terrace CCRC All previous comments have been satisfactorily addressed. The following is restated from the last staff report for the benefit of the Plan Commission: The Department has no comment related to the access from 136th Street for deliveries and for emergency access. Traffic associated with deliveries is expected to be low volume. As previously determined for this use, a traffic study is not required. The use is expected to generate less traffic than the uses anticipated during initial approval of the overall Pro -Med development. The Department is still working through the drainage approval; but the overall management plan is consistent with the master plan of the Pro -Med development. The development will need to dedicate a small amount of additional right of way along the 136th Street frontage. The Department and the Petitioner have discussed compliance with the City's 20 -year Thoroughfare Plan. These discussions are on- going. The Department supports the removal of the "cul -de- bulb The Department supports the location of the path on the east side of Pro -Med Lane. Provided that the proposed signage at the entrance does not affect safe stopping sight distance, the Department will support the location of the sign within the existing right -of -way. The petitioner has indicated that they will consider pursuing vacation of the right -of -way associated with the "cul -de- bulb I believe that if such right -of -way is vacated, the sign will not encroach in the right -of -way. The Stormwater Quality plan is consistent with the previous version of this plan. We are still working through approval of the proposed system. Docket No. 10120008 Z: The Bridges PUD All previous comments have been satisfactorily addressed. The Department will continue to work with the petitioner to resolve issues associated with compliance with the City's 20 -Year Thoroughfare Plan. 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 2:27 PM To: 'Kelly DeFoe' Cc: 'gdbyers @gmail.com' Subject: RE: Gordon Byers Bridges PUD Gordon Here is a.link to the latest redline copy of the PUD ordinance online: http: /cocdocs.ci.carmel.in.us /weblink /0 /doc /588986 /Pagel.aspx Any future redline versions will be posted online at: http: cocdocs .ci.carmel.in.us /weblink /0 /fol /88026 /Rowl.aspx however, once this petition leaves the plan commission and goes to city council, you will then have to work with the clerk- treasurer's office and look at the city council website which has their meeting agendas and info packets posted http: /www.ci.carmel.in.us/ government/ civiccalendar /councilschedulell.html -Angie Conn, Planning Administrator From: Kelly DeFoe [mailto :kdefoegdb@}yahoo.coml Sent: ,Monday, May 09, 2011 2:09 PM To:-Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Gordon Byers Bridges PUD Could please send me the latest redline 'version of the Bridges PUD Ordinance? Also, if there are any future redlines prior to the May Plan Commission hearing, could you please forward them to me? Gordon D. Byers Attorney at Law P.O. Box 27 Noblesville, IN 46061 317- 773 -3221 FAX: 317- 773 -3274 On Fri, 4/22/11, Conn, Angelina V <Aconn @carmel.in.Qov> wrote: From: Conn, Angelina V <Aconn @carm.el.in.gov> Subject: RE: Gordon Byers Bridges PUD To: "Kelly DeFoe" <kdefoegdb@yahoo.com> Cc: gdbyers @gmail.com Date: Friday, April 22, 2011, 12:51 PM Will do. -Angie Conn, Planning Administrator 1 JAMES J. NELSON CHARLES D. FRANKENBERGER JAMES E. SHINAVER LAWRENCE J. KEMPER JOHN B. FLATT FREDRIC LAWRENCE JAMES A. NICKLOY CHRISTOPHER A. FERGUSON Rachel Boone City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 RE: The Bridges Docket Nos. 10120008 Z Dear Rachel: The Bridges Ltr to R Boone DOCS response 042811 NELSON FRANKENBERGER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3105 EAST 98TH STREET, SUITE 170 INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46280 PHONE: 317- 844 -0106 FACSIMILE: 317- 846 -8782 April 28, 2011 1 of 3 recd JANE B. MERRILL, Of Counsel JON C. DOBOSIEWICZ, Land Use Professional Below please see the agreed upon changes to the remaining comments regarding signage that we discussed on April 25 1. Page 9: Definition of Sign Face: Logos may be a maximum of twenty-five percent of the maximum sign area. This should be total sign area. Maximum makes me think maximum square footage allowed, even if the sign itself is not that large. We have removed the work "maximum" as requested. Page 14: Section 6.5: decorative poles with fabric banners, tables and umbrellas, advertising panels and. ATM enclosures: It should be included in this section that any signs on the above mentioned items shall be 3 sq. ft. or less to be considered incidental signage.. Section 6.5 has been reduced to a cross reference to Exhibit 6, Part 14 to avoid duplication as agreed. Notes on standards have been added to Exhibit 6, Part 14 as requested. 3. Page 14: Section 6.5: There is a conflict with terms re "decorative poles with fabric banners "banners" in section 9.11, and "incidental decorative banners" in section 9.14. The "decorative banners" I am assuming are for advertising purposes versus what the Sign Ordinance allows (section 9.11) are very different things. Please use the same language and clarify. Section 6.5 has been reduced to a cross reference to Exhibit 6, Part. 14 to avoid duplication as agreed. "Incidental decorative banners" noted in 9.14 has been changed to "Decorative poles with fabric banners" consistent with the text of Exhibit 6, Part 14 as requested. In addition a reference to Section 9.13 and 9.14 has been added to the item as agreed. (In. laser- Page 14: Section 6.5: Advertising panels these are not defined anywhere. Is this what you mean by murals in Section 9.9? If so, please change advertising panels to murals. Murals is the correct term. Section 6.5 has been reduced to a cross reference to Exhibit 6, Part 14 to avoid duplication and the noted inconsistency. 5. Page 14: Section 6.5: Please see number 14 below. Please change for consistency. Section 6.5 has been reduced to a cross reference to Exhibit 6, Part 14 to avoid duplication and any inconsistency as agreed. 6. Page 21: Section 9 Signage Requirements: Can it be added here that all signage shall be approved by the Plan Commission as part of a DP /ADLS? This would prevent the need to include it in every section. "subject to ADLS approval" has been added to the Section 9 as requested. As discussed it is required already per the ADLS process. This addition of text is intended to provide consistency and avoid any confusion on the requirement. 7. Page 22: Section 9.3: Directory signs: "street sign" style can this be included in the definitions section? Or a drawing provided to be included in the PUD? I know we discussed what it meant, but I would like a concrete definition and/or illustration for future reference. A rendering has been added to Exhibit 13 as requested. 8. Page 24: Section 9.5: Commercial Building Signs H.: Does this mean if the building is located 201' from the centerline signs can still face Spring Mill Rd.? Yes, it may. No change was requested. 9. Page 25: Section 9.9: Window signs, Portable Signs and Murals: This section is too broad /open -ended even though they have been limited to 10 murals at 100 sq. ft. each. Without having buildings in place to see where the murals will go,. it is hard to support the concept. Also, I am completely against the off premise advertising concept. Clay Terrace is only allowed to have murals that pertain to tenants /businesses within the complex. There was also a condition applied that the month of June July 4th will be donated for advertising for Carmel Fest. Has The Bridges offered to do the same? I think if they can say that murals are allowed in the PUD, that is fine. But we should let the Plan Commission determine what and on which buildings they are appropriate at the appropriate time when the buildings are there, with limitations similar to those at Clay Terrace: a) Require Plan Commission ADLS Amendment approval b) Signs pertain only "to tenants/businesses located within the property no off premise advertising c) Signs are not oriented towards any public streets only visible to the interior of the property d) Signs are not illuminated e) Signs do not interfere with architectural elements of the building Section 9.9.B.1 has been amended to permit not more than 3 murals of this type as requested. The Bridges Ltr to R Boon DOCS response 042811 2 of 3 10. Page 26: Section 9.12 C.: Should keep ground signs at 6' tall for consistency throughout the PUD language. This change has been made as requested. 11. Page 26: Section 9.13: This section should refer back to Section 6.5 if that is in fact what it is referring to for clarity. As discuss this refers to all signs of Tess than 3 square feet in area. A reference is being added to Exhibit 6, Part 14 to Section 9.13a.s requested. 12. Page 26: Section 9.14: Incidental decorative banners: Can we have a definition of this included in the definitions section? I also think this statement about signs are limited to three square feet in area should be included in section 6.5. Section 6.5 has been reduced to a cross reference to Exhibit 6, Part 14 to avoid duplication as agreed. "Incidental decorative banners" noted in 9.14 has been changed to "Decorative poles with fabric banners" consistent with the text of Exhibit 6, Part 14 as requested. In addition a reference to Section 9.13 and 9.14 has been added to the item as agreed. -13. Page 29: Section 13.1 Public Art: Public Art is not defined in the PUD nor in the Zoning Ordinance. I want to make sure this category is not open to interpretation i.e. the murals are public art and they can go anywhere the DP approves them. Clarification has been added to Section 13.1 indicating that public art shall not be a sign as regulated by the Bridges PUD. 14. Exhibit 6 page 9 of 10: Number 12, 15 and 18 have been changed here, but not in the PUD Section 6.5. Please make the changes consistent. Section 6.5 has been reduced to a cross reference to Exhibit 6, Part 14 to avoid duplication and any inconsistency as agreed. 15. Definition of Conceptual Character Imagery: Remove "actually constructed" from the last sentence of the definition as DOCS is not reviewing buildings as constructed but rather as illustrated in the ADLS submittal. This change has been made as requested. 16. Text in the architectural ;requirements is redundant. Specifically Parts 11.B, 12.B and 13.B. This text has been deleted as requested. The Bridges Ltr to R Boone ROCS response 042811 3 of3 Conn, Angelina V From: Jon Dobosiewicz [jond @NF- LAW.COM] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 10:01 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Charlie Frankenberger Subject: RE: Meeting today at 10:30 OK on the cancelation. I will get Rachel a letter today with the changes and a revised copy of the PUD by Monday, likely Friday. I will do a redline just to show the impact of the changes we are making to address the items we discussed Monday. 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, 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. 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 [mailto:AconnOcarmel.in.gov] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 9:53 AM To: Jon Dobosiewicz Subject: RE: Meeting today at 10:30 No, nothing new. let's cancel the meeting. Also, when will you get a revised copy of the pud to Rachel, with all the signage revisions and the 2 items that mike requested? -Angie Conn, Angelina V From: Boone, Rachel M. Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:17 AM To: Jon Dobosiewicz Cc: Charlie Frankenberger; Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Bridges comments Sounds great. Thank you. 2ct:cheli 13aane' Sign Permit Specialist City of Carmel Department of Community Services 317 -571 -2417 From: Jon Dobosiewicz [mailto:jond©NF-LAW.COM] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 8:14 AM To: Boone, Rachel M. Cc: Charlie Frankenberger Subject: RE: Bridges comments Thanks. I will prepare a response that illustrates the changes we agreed to make to the PUD and forward you a copy `r prior to the Committee meeting. I will include the two items Mike raised as well. 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) jonPnf- 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. 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Boone, Rachel M. Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 6:06 PM To: Jon Dobosiewicz Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Conn, Angelina V; Charlie Frankenberger Subject: RE: Bridges comments Hi Jon, Here are the comments from our meeting today. (I did not make any changes.) Thanks, Rachel 1. Page 9: Definition of Sign Face: Logos may be a maximum of twenty -five percent of the maximum sign area. This should be total sign area. Maximum makes me think maximum square footage allowed, even if the sign itself is not that large. 2. Page 14: Section 6.5: decorative poles with fabric banners, tables and umbrellas, advertising panels and ATM enclosures: It should be included in this section that any signs on the above mentioned items shall be 3 sq. ft. or less be considered incidental signage. 3. Page 14: Section 6.5: There is a conflict with terms re "decorative poles with fabric banners "banners" in section 9.11, and "incidental decorative banners" in section 9.14. The "decorative banners" I am assuming are for advertising purposes versus what the Sign Ordinance allows (section 9.11) are very different things. Please use the same language and clarify. 4. Page 14: Section 6.5: Advertising panels —these are not defined anywhere. Is this what you mean by murals in Section 9.9? If so, please change advertising panels to murals. 5. Page 14: Section 6.5: Please see number 14 below. Please change for consistency. 6. Page 21: Section 9 Signage Requirements: Can it be added here that all signage shall be approved by the Plan Commission as part of a DP /ADLS? This would prevent the need to include it in every section. 7. Page 22: Section 9.3: Directory signs: "street sign" style can this be included in the definitions section? Or a drawing provided to be included in the PUD? I know we discussed what it meant, but 1 would like a concrete definition and /or illustration for future reference. 8. Page 24: Section 9.5: Commercial Building Signs H.: Does this mean if the building is located 201' from the centerline signs can still face Spring Mill Rd.? 9. Page 25: Section 9.9: Window signs, Portable Signs and Murals: This section is too broad /open -ended even though they have been limited to 10 murals at 100 sq. ft. each. Without having buildings in place to see where the murals will go, it is hard to support the concept. Also, I am completely against the off premise advertising concept. Clay Terrace is only allowed to have murals that pertain to tenants /businesses within the complex. There was alsoa condition applied that the month of June —July 4`` will be donated for advertising for Carmel Fest. Has The Bridges offered to do the same? I think if they can say that murals are allowed in the PUD, that is fine. But we should let the Plan Commission determine what and on which buildings they are appropriate at the appropriate time when the buildings are there, with limitations similar to those at Clay Terrace: a) Require Plan Commission ADLS Amendment approval b) Signs pertain only to tenants /businesses located within the property no off premise advertising c) Signs are not oriented towards any public streets only visible to the interior of the property d) Signs are not illuminated e) Signs do not interfere with architectural elements of the building 10. Page 26: Section 9.12 C.: Should keep ground signs at 6' tall for consistency throughout the PUD language. 11. Page 26: Section 9.13: This section should refer back to Section 6.5 if that is in fact what it is referring to for clarity. 1. Thanks, Rachel 12. Page 26: Section 9.14: Incidental decorative banners: Can we have a definition of this included in the definitions section? I also think this statement about signs are limited to three square feet in area should be included in section 6.5. 13. Page 29: Section 13.1 Public Art: Public Art is not defined in the PUD nor in the Zoning Ordinance. I want to make sure this category is not open to interpretation i.e. the murals are public art and they can go anywhere the DP approves them. 14. Exhibit 6 page 9 of 10: Number 12, 15 and 18 have been changed here, but not in the PUD Section 6.5. Please make the changes consistent. Z a chel oonei Sign Permit Specialist City of Carmel Department of Community Services 3rd Floor One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317.571.2417 317.571.2426 fax http: /www.ci.carmel.in.us /services /communitvservice.html Please consider the environment before printing this e -mail 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Sent: To: Subject: Boone, Rachel M. Monday, April 25, 2011 11:21 AM Hollibaugh, Mike P; Conn, Angelina V Bridges signage comments Mike and Angie, Here are my final comments and concerns regarding signage for the bridges. Most are just for clarifying purposes. Perhaps you guys can explain to me some of these questions if they have been addressed. Again, I apologize not getting these comments in sooner. �1. Page 9: Definition of Sign Face: Logos may be a maximum of twenty -five percent of the maximum sign area. This should be total sign area. Maximum makes me think maximum square footage allowed, even if the sign itself is not that large. Page 14: Section 6.5: decorative poles with fabric banners, tables and umbrellas, advertising panels and ATM enclosures: It should be included in this section that any signs on the above mentioned items shall be 3 sq. ft. or less to be considered incidental signage. 3. Page 14: Section 6.5: There is a conflict with terms re "decorative poles with fabric banners "banners" in section 9.11, and "incidental decorative banners" in section 9.14. The "decorative banners" I am assuming are for advertising purposes versus what the Sign Ordinance allows (section 9.11) are very different things. Please use the same language and clarify. 4. Page 14: Section 6.5: Advertising panels these are not defined anywhere. Is this what you mean by murals in Section 9.9? If so, please change advertising panels to murals. 5. Page 14: Section 6.5: Please see number 15 below. Please change for consistency. 6. Page 21: Section 9 Signage Requirements: Can it be added here that all signage shall be approved by the Plan Commission as part of a DP /ADLS? This would prevent the need to include it in every section. Page 22: Section 9.3: Directory signs: "street sign" style can this be included in the definitions section? Or a drawing provided to be included in the PUD? I know we discussed what it meant, but I would like a concrete definition and /or illustration for future reference. 8. Page 23: Section 9.4 D -E: I want to make sure everyone is comfortable with a possible of 8 signs on each office building, or up to 12 signs, depending on how many entrances there are. This seems to be excessive. Were there any talks of reducing this or addressing signs facing south towards the homes along 111 St.? 9. Page 24: Section 9.5: Commercial Building Signs H.: Does this mean if the building is located 201' from the centerline signs can still face Spring Mill Rd.? Page 25: Section 9.9: Window signs, Portable Signs and Murals: This section is too broad /open -ended even though they have been limited to 10 murals at 100 sq. ft, each. Without having buildings in place to see where the murals will go, it is hard to support the concept. Also, I am completely against the off premise advertising concept. Clay Terrace is only allowed to have murals that pertain to tenants /businesses within the complex. There was also a condition applied that the month of June —July 4th will be donated for advertising for Carmel Fest. Has The Bridges offered to do the same? I don't just think they should get these murals for nothing especially off premise advertising. I think if they can say that murals are allowed in the PUD, that is fine. But we should let the Plan Commission determine what and on which buildings they are appropriate at the appropriate time when the buildings are there, with limitations similar to those at Clay Terrace: a) Require Plan Commission ADLS Amendment approval b) Signs pertain only to tenants /businesses located within the property no off premise advertising c) Signs are not oriented towards any public streets only visible to the interior of the property d) Signs are not illuminated P -\-e.4_ e) Signs do not interfere with architectural elements of the building 11. Page 26: Section 9.12 C.: Should keep ground signs at 6' tall for consistency throughout the PUD language. 12. Page 26: Section 9.13: This section should refer back to Section 6.5 if that is in fact what it is referring to for clarity. 1 s_eL Thanks, Rachel 13. Page 26: Section 9.14: Incidental decorative banners: Can we have a definition of this included in the definitions section? I also think this statement about signs are limited to three square feet in area should be included in section 6.5. 14. Page 29: Section 13.1 Public Art: Public Art is not defined in the PUD nor in the Zoning Ordinance. I want to make sure this category is not open to interpretation i.e. the murals are public art and they can go anywhere the DP approves them. 15. Exhibit 6 page 9 of 10: Number 12, 15 and 18 have been changed here, but not in the PUD Section 6.5. Please make the changes consistent. As far as my previous comments being addressed, from their letter dated April 6: numbers 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 21 and 23 from January were talked about but no changes were made in the PUD language. Number 21 murals comment: they agreed to limiting it "for stores or businesses on the property such as the signs at Clay Terrace But this language was not included in the redline version. Comments 2, 3, 4 from March also had no changes made in the PUD language itself. I understand they do not have to make the changes I suggested. But I want to make sure I am being as thorough as possible for us to not be "stuck" with a PUD that we are not happy with. I also think since the day is getting away from us rather quickly, we should postpone the meeting with them until later in the week. That way we can review the comments without being rushed before sending onto them. You guys agree? What times on Wed. or Thursday would work? 2a.chell Boone/ Sign Permit Specialist City of Carmel Department of Community Services 3rd Floor One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317.571.2417 317.571.2426 fax http: /www.ci.carmel.in.us /services /communitvservice.htmi A Please consider the environment before printing this e -mail 2 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 Re: Dear Angie: Enclosures NELSON FRANKENBERGER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3105 EAST 98TH STREET, SUITE 170 INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46280 PHONE: 317- 844 -0106 FACSIMILE: 317- 846 -8782 April 22, 2011 The Bridges PUD Docket No. 10120008 Z May 4, 2011 Special Studies Committee Meeting Enclosed you will find 8 copies of the following: In addition I have enclosed a digital copy of the same on the enclosed CD. Should you have any questions regarding this, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, NELSON FRANKENBERGER, P.C. tim4 Jon C. Dobosiewicz Land Use Professional JANE B. MERRILL, Of Counsel JON C. DOBOSIEWICZ, Land Use Professional 1. Updated copy of The Bridges PUD; 2. Redline copy of The Bridges PUD; 3. Updated Concept Plan (also included under Exhibit 2 of the PUD), and 4. Cover letter to the Special Studies Committee regarding the updated information. Hancock,, Ramona B From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 10:25 AM To: Forwarding E -mail, Dierckman, Leo; 'Susan Westermeier'; Rider, Kevin D; Kestner, Nick; 'Steve Stromquist; Hancock, Ramona B Cc: 'John Molitor'; Hollibaugh, Mike P; jay dorman'; 'indianaacepnick @sbcglobal.net' Subject: FW: Bridges PUD for SS committee members from Jay. Dorman Dear, Special Studies Committee Members: Please read below, the email from Jay Dorman. (Ramona please mail out paper copies of this with the committee meeting agenda this Friday.) Thanks, Angie Conn, Planning Administrator 571 -2281 From: jay dorman Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 8:56 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: Bridges message for the SS committee members Dear Special Studies Committee members, First, thank you for allowing me to insert a few comments at the end of the Tuesday, April 12, subcommittee meeting. I wish to suggest a few ideas for your consideration. While these ideas primarily concern "Phase 2 (Apartments)" they might apply elsewhere in Bridges. In general, as an editorial comment, I found the size, scale and scope of the original conceptual plan as too massive. 1. The original traffic study supposedly modeled only 300 Apartment units a. This should be confirmed as the Developer discussed 350 units as being the minimum desired b. How many units could/should be permitted in this section? c. Are these identified as "attached dwelling units" and if so will they be owner occupied or truly rentals? 2. I'm not in favor of 3 story apartments adjacent to 111th or Springmill Road. I would prefer only two story, with/without buffering. This would go a long way to addressing the nearby residents concerns. And, I know from discussion on April 12, you're concerned about the configuration of the greenbelt buffer. This is good discussion, keep at it. 3. There are 4 apartment buildings proposed around the pool in the middle of Phase 2. Perhaps consideration should be given to allow another 3 story building (a 5th building) around the pool area IF the ones next to 111th and Springmill down size to two stories. 4. In addition, I highly recommend that after Phase I is completed and prior to Phase 2 being approved, another traffic study be conducted to determine the impact of Phase 1 and model potential impact of Phase 2 and /or other future phases. This study should be mandatory with the City becoming the contracting and responsible entity (Developer should fund most, if not all, of the cost). I view this "Gate /Threshold" as necessary table stakes to protect all parties. And, traffic should be one benchmark/gate /threshold which the Developer would have to satisfy before receiving approval for future phases. Why? As the Developer stated during the April 12 Special Studies meeting, he cannot predict the future...of retail. And, likewise we cannot model the impact of other future developments surrounding the Bridges project such as the Church, the 4/18/7611 Page 1 of 2 Page 2 of 2 Clarian property, impacts of US31 construction and /or other variables that could be considered. Therefore, on going "measurements" such as Traffic impact should be reviewed periodically. These "measurements and criteria" would have to be written into the PUD. Creative and determined minds possessing a win -win mentality can make it happen. 5. In the case of the Apartments, perhaps 300 units should be approved with an "incentive" provided for an additional 50 units should specific "gates /thresholds/benchmarks" be achieved? Again, this could be written into this PUD. 6. Notwthstanding the previous comments about Apartments, I would rather see 2 story office buildings instead. Those office buidlings would be occupied in more of an 8 AM to 5 PM time frame; not 24x7 like an apartment. And seriously ask yourself, who really wants to look at the back of 2 or 3 story apartment buildings as one drives on Springmill Road? 7. Finally, does the use and implementation of "gates /thresholds/benchmarks" present too many constraints relative to other developments we've approved? Yes perhaps. However in this "sensitive" area and given the proposed size, scope, and scale of this development, it makes good business sense to me. This type of approach is common in other areas of business. Recommendations for implementation of such can be made by your group or included in our ultimate recommendation to City Council. Thanks again for your commitment of time and energy. You're tackling a large project and I commend you for your dedication and objectivity. I have the upmost regard for your desire to collaborate with all interested parties. Best wishes to determine an optimal recommendation for the CPC as you continue to move through your process. Respectfully submitted, Jay Dorman 4/18/2011 Conn, Angelina V From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Candy and Jesse I went ahead and found all the info for you: The CCRZ letter dated 3/24 is on LaserFiche online, at: http: /cocdocs .ci.carmel.in.us /Weblink /0 /doc /577458 /Pagel.aspx, around page 30. And attached is Judy's email /review comments, as well as the item handed out at last night's committee meeting listing the pud revisions in response from nearby property owners. (Connie please add the revisions in response to neighbors to LaserFiche. thanks!) -Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Original Message From: Pohlman, Jesse M. mailto :Jesse.PohlmanPbakerd.coml Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 9:38 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: The Bridges 1 Correspondence Angie I had a copy faxed to your attention already earlier this morning, please let me know if you don't receive it and I can bring a hardcopy in this afternoon. Jess -Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Angie Conn, Angelina V Wednesday, April 13, 2011 10:05 AM 'Pohlman, Jesse M.'; Martin, Candy Tingley, Connie S RE: The Bridges 1 Correspondence request docket no 10120008 Z Judy Hagan letter,review comments.pdf; revisions in response to neighbors 4- 12- 11.pdf Original Message From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn@carmel.in.govl Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 9:37 AM To: Pohlman, Jesse M. Subject: RE: The Bridges 1 Correspondence Yes fill it out and hand it to Candy Martin in our office. Original Message From: Pohlman, Jesse M. mailto :Jesse.Pohlmantbakerd.coml Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 7:28 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: The Bridges 1 Correspondence I found the PDF online, is that what I need to fill out? Who should I send it to? If I fill out and send this morning, is that something I might be able to get this afternoon when we come in? 1 Jesse Original Message From: Conn, Angelina V rmailto:Aconngcarmel.in.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 7:26 AM To: Pohlman, Jesse M. Subject: Re: The Bridges Correspondence Just fill out the DOCS request for info, online! (or stop by) Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone Reply message From: "Pohlman, Jesse M." <Jesse.Pohlman(bakerd.com> Date: Wed, Apr 13, 2011 7:21 am Subject: The Bridges 1 Correspondence To: "Conn, Angelina V" <Aconn(carmel.in.gov> Angie As a follow -up to last night's committee meeting, what is the best way to obtain a copy of the following as submitted for the Plan Commission last night: CCRZ letter; Judy Hagan's e -mail; and Petitioner's list of agreed upon changes per neighbors' requests. Thank you! JESSE M. POHLMAN LAND USE CONSULTANT T: 317.569.4836 1 F: 317.237.8476,! MAIN: 317.569.9600 BAKER DANIELS LLP 1 WWW.BAKERDANIELS.COM CARMEL OFFICE (mailing address) 1 600 E. 96TH STREET, SUITE 600 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46240 NOBLESVILLE OFFICE 1 23 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET 1 NOBLESVILLE, IN 46060 Responses to questions from Mike Hollibaugh: 1. Restrict change in size of Use Blocks to (i) 15 from 20 (ii) only between the Commercial Amenity Use Block and Office and Residential Use Block, (iii) only in area within 600' of Illinois Street, (iv) no changes to the Corporate Office Use Block other that adjusting with location of Illinois Street. 2. Tighten the Conceptual Character Imagery text. 3. Cap permitted Retail and Service and Cultural /Entertainment uses at 15% of gross floor area of a building (maximum of 30% for any one building) in the Corporate Office and Office and Residential Use Blocks. Currently the PUD allows this standard for each of the two use categories (Retail and Service, Cultural /Entertainment) 4. Change the cap on General Retail Sales of 250,000 square feet to the same cap on all Retail and Service Uses in the Commercial Amenity Use Block. 5. Make some additional adjustments to the "Modifications by the Plan Commission" section. 3 Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 1:28 PM To: 'gdbyers @gmail.com' Subject: Clarian PUD weblink Gordon here is a website link to the Clarian PUD text concept plan (Z- 409 -03): http: cocdocs .ci.carmel.in.us /Weblink /0 /doc /202192 /Pagel.aspx You can also print this to .pdf. See you tonight. 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 I F: 317- 571 -2426 I E: aconn @carmel.in.aov W: www.carmel.in.gov /services /DOCS /DOCSDOPZ.htm Please consider the environment before printing this e -mail Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 10:33 AM To: 'Dierckman, Leo'; 'nkrental@aol.com'; Rider, Kevin D; 'Stromquist, Steve'; 'Suewestermeier ©aol.com' Cc: Hancock, Ramona B;' jmolitor @prodigy.net'; Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: Additional Bridges PUD review comments from Jay Additional Bridges PUD review comments from Jay. (Ramona, Please make paper copies of this and hand out at the committee meeting. thanks!) Thanks. From: jay dorman Jmailto:dorman.iavCa�gmail.com1 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, 1 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 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 12:50 PM To: 'Jon Dobosiewicz' Subject: FW!Bndges Jon please see below, specifically about the drive thru menu board signage... see bold text below. -Angie Conn, Planning Administrator From: Boone, Rachel M. Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 12:47 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Bridges menu board section Sure thing. ctche.L From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 12:47 PM To: Boone, Rachel M. Subject: RE: Bridges menu board section That sounds good to me. Can I send this to Jon? -Angie From: Boone, Rachel M. Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 12 :45 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: Bridges menu board section 1 Burger King US 421: 30.88 sq. ft. menu board, no preview board Taco Bell Carmel Dr.: 45.45 sq. ft. menu board, no preview board KFC /Taco Bell US 421: 36.96 sq. ft. menu board, 9.53 sq. ft. preview board Angie, I've looked through the menu board variances from the past and this is what I have found. If you can remember any more, please let me know. Right now the PUD language states: "Drive -thru service menu signs shall be permitted and shall be of a number, area and height approved by the Plan commission as part of an ADLS." The Sign Ordinance states: "Fast food operations with drive through service located on properties zoned B -1, B -2, B -3, B- 4, B -5, B -7, B -8, I -1, M -1, M -2, M -3, in addition to other permitted signs, may also display a menu sign with a maximum sign area of 16 sq. ft. and a maximum height of 6 feet for a ground sign. I would be ok with allowing a 30 sq. ft. menu board and a 16 sq. ft. or less preview board. What do you think? Pleace let rne. know. Thanks, Rachel So perhaps the new PUD language could menu ground o ft be 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Mindham, Daren Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 3:38 PM To: Conn, Angelina V; Littlejohn, David W; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K Cc: Boone, Rachel M.; Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: RE: Bridge PUD: petitioner's 2 -10 -2011 response to DOCS I got all ok's on my comments, so I should be good with the project for now. 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 Original Message From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 1:46 PM To: Mindham, Daren; Littlejohn, David W; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K Cc: Boone, Rachel M.; Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: Bridge PUD: petitioner's 2 -10 -2011 response to DOCS All Attached is Jon's preliminary response to all of our review comments we sent to him about the Bridges PUD. Please look this over, and let me know what outstanding questions or comments you have for him (besides the fact that we need to review a revised Bridges PUD ordinance.)! Then, I will assemble them all and send to him, and perhaps we can go over these this Thursday at our weekly meeting with the Bridges PUD people. (Rachel, I have your comments.) Thanks! Angie 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Due By: Flag Status: Boone, Rachel M. Friday, March 04, 2011 4:31 PM Conn, Angelina V Bridges comments Follow up Thursday, March 10, 2011 9:30 AM Flagged Hi Angie, Here are a few more comments in response to Jon's comments from 2/10/11. 1. Ok 2. 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. 1 think it would be safer if there were more streets designated through this part of the site. 1 still realize this is conceptual, but it would be nice to know you are also thinking this way for safety and aesthetics. 3. Ok 4. Ok, thank you 5. Still do not feel it is necessary to have a sign at every corner of the site and at every entrance. 6. Ok 7. OK, thank you 8. Agreed. 9. OK. 10. 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. 11. I am concerned about signs facing the interior of the project toward the residential and toward the south residential. Can we safeguard against that? 12. OK. 13. See number 10. 14. See number 10. 15. Ok. 16. I am working on this language for you. 17. Ok, thank you. 18. Ok. 19. OK. 20. 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. 21. OK. 22. Ok, thank you. 23. Ok, thank you. 24. Ok. 25. Ok. 26. Ok. 27. Ok. 28. Ok. Thanks, Rachel a.che,L oone/ Sign Permit Specialist City of Carmel Department of Community Services 3rd Floor One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317.571.2417 317.571.2426 fax http: /www.ci.carmel.in.us /services /com munitvservice. html A Please consider the ens >ironment before printing this.e -mail 2 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 Illinois Street. That right -of- way for future modifications to the existing roundabouts at 116 Street and Springmili 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 Springrnill Road and Illinois Street if the traffic at these intersections is expected to satisfyy the warrants for a traffic signal at "build out" conditions. 6. The Department is concerned with the proximity 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 perimeter streets. 7. The developer shall 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 revised as follows: a. 116 Street: Please indicate "Existing It is apparent that the existing right-of-way is consistent with or greater than the 75-foot half 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 Street. c. As it will be necessary for Illinois Street to be constructed simultaneously with this development in 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. 9. 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 full access intersection providing access to the future development of the Valinet property. 10. The Department does not support the stop controlled intersection recommended for 111th Street and lilinais Street in the Traffic Study. The. Thoroughfare Plan stipulates a roundabout intersection which will be necessary at development buildout and connection of Illinois Street south to 111t 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. The Department recommends aright -in /right out access from the development 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 (*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. 50 feet separatton 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 1. 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 if 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 internal traffic pattern changes. 3. Please include a right -in /right -out only access on111th Street between Springmill. Road and Springmill Lane. Response to DOCS Comments DRAFT 2 -10 -11 2 Below please see the response to the questions included in the DOCS review of The Bridges PUD. Preliminary Planning /Zoning Department review comments. (Angie Conn): 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 will be provided on February 11 as requested in the docket assignment. 3. Provide the filled out Notice of Public Hearing page of the application. This will be 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 will be 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 will be provided on February 11 with items 2 thru 4 noted above. 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. They 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. The Bridges Ltr to A Conn response DRAFT 021011 1 of 10 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 -571 -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 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. The Bridges Ltr to A Conn response DRAFT 021011 2 of 10 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. We will meet with the Urban Forester to look at examples and discuss further. 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. 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 The Bridges Ltr to A Conn response DRAFT 021011 3 of 10 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. 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. The Bridges Ltr to A Conn response DRAFT 021011 4 of 10 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. 49. Please spell -check the entire document, and where appropriate, change the word compliment to complement throughout the document. OK lease 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. The Bridges Ltr to A Conn response DRAFT 021011 5 of 10 Comments form Rachel Boone: 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 considered to address this request per discussion at the meeting with staff on February 3. 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 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 identify for the district and will not include tenant identification. 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 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 Bridges Ltr to A Conn response DRAFT 021011 6 of 10 the described building positioning and site lines from Illinois Street. In addition some of the buildings do not face a public street. 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. 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. 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. The Bridges Ltr to A Conn response DRAFT 021011 7 of 10 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 Staff may still be opposed to this concept. 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 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 Not in 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 The Bridges Ltr to A Conn response DRAFT 021011 8 of 10 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: 1. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan requires the construction of a 10' asphalt path along 11 St, 116 St, Springmill Rd, and both sides of Illinois St. Please revise the plans to include 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. lease 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 11.2. 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: 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 The Bridges Ltr to A Conn response DRAFT 021011 9 of 10 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 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. The Bridges Ltr to A Conn response DRAFT 021011 10 of 10 Preliminary Planning/Zoning Department review comments: Please provide copies of your correspondence with the TAC members and their correspondence with you. Provide the filled out and notarized Affidavit of Notice of Public Hearing page of the application. 3. Provide the filled out Notice of Public Hearing page of the application. Provide the filled out and notarized Public Notice Sign Placement Affidavit page of the application. S: Provide a copy of the Official List of Adjacent Property Owners from Hamilton County Auditor's Office. Provide digital files of the final approved plans and elevations, in addition to paper copies. Please provide a draft copy of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. \11cw 61 4-- 8. In the Definitions section, define "Minor Alterations and Minor Material Alterations." Sae Z. v 9. Page 8 gross floor area: would this include the garages? @J 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... 75' oy, SIV-0 c colu t4,0 "k 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. 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... .1Page 10, Section 4.1 please mark these uses as permitted in the perhaps with an asterisk. Page 1 of 7 Page 14, section 6.5: please as `recycling receptacles' to this paragraph, too. as well, somehow, Page 12, Section 5.1.B: perhaps these Uses can be shown as permitted in the Use Table, too. Rachel Boone, Sign Permits Officer, will soon issue review comments on your proposed signage requirements. Her contact info is 317 -571 -2417 and rboone @carmel.in.gov. 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 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...). X 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'. �a\,���e- L L `s 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. b0 M Qom reD9Zt113 tAMQ. COO Page 16 also add the widths of these three bufferyard areas. Q% j Page 16, section 7.3 please include buffering requirements between office and residential use block and the commercial amenity use block. \i,)& VAA ZULp,(5 k 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. 11 ik,as sf gh 2 tef)r u y` Q C v,J 4 Ls. ckL( tx., -(Ailf Page 17, section 7.5.A please remove the word `the' after "ten feet in depth from the Building perimeter Page 17, section 7.5.C.1: `Turf' should not be considered a primary landscape material.... Page 18, section 7.5.E: the Dept. does not support foundation plantings helping fulfill and count toward he buffer planting requirements. EsIAI0USAN, age 18, section 7.6.A: please change the number of parking spaces from 18 to 9. 0./v30 v `4' `2S7„ Page 19, section 8.2: please add that the site lights should have 90- degree cut off and /or;pla lenses. q,Z.G 28. Page 20, sectioni.2.G: where you state `reasonably required for security purposes', please set a quantity for this, otherwise is hard to enforce. Add something like: .1 horizontal foot candles at grade level." V� c 2 l b 0y\ a. Page 2 of 7 Page 26, section 11: Please add the statement that "sidewalks shall be installed on both sides of the street." P r s cuk 1 W l 0 o 03 Page 26, section 13: Add mechanical equipment, gas meter, and electric meter screening to "Additional Requirements and Standards O Page 27, Section 13.8 these proposed road rights of way do not meet the Comprehensive Plan Thoroughfare Plan's. Cr O."WUAM age 29, section 16: how would the city enforce this? require an approval /consent letter from he controlling developer before we issue an ILP? 33. Exhibit 2, page 1 of 1: attached are some proposed changes to the concept plan. Exhibit 6- page 1 of 9- Part 2.b: please change the word `architectural' to `architecture'. xhibit 6 page 2 of 9: you state you will follow a consistent architectur 1 theme, but perhaps you should narrow it down to one or two, such as prairie style. \S\ xhibit 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. ■\1 c up\ xhibit 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. Exhibit 6 page 3 of 9: D. add that all primary facade shall have operable windows. 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. 01• \Exhibit 6 page 3 of 9: H: the paragraph does not have a finished sentence at the end.... Exhibit 6 page 4 of 9: part 5.A.1: describe in more detail how the facades will be articulated. u a 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'. vVst,' w� 0•KaR ►o� 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? xhibit 6 page 7 of 9: part 10.B: Please add the requirement to have windows on all facades. Stti \15 5PCi 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. Page 3 of 7 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. Exhibit 6 page 8 of 9: Part 14.b: please add recycling receptacles and a permitted amenity. 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. Wc4JL L3/ e &a, Please spell -check the entire document, and where appropriate, change the word compliment to complement throughout the document. lease 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 parkin. area, bioswales, etc. Green List is attached, for reference. W =w\ 2(3.N• Q. 0 6 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.). Things to consider: Bike lockers, locker room and showers (in the offices), and long term bike parking (for residents): WA\ W U 53. ome 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. Comments form Rachel Boone: 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. 2. I think there should be tree -lined landscaped medians down the center street of the development? OA +Q t \(Jci-tt_d a a a t 0 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 In Definitions section: Sign, Height of Ground please change to overall height of sign structure, not highest point of sign face. retc uie..S use agoit i CG(L& ■C 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 entrance to the development. cam\ CO` -Q Page 4 of 7 Q e,02c1 c•A Wo o v\ )6, In Sections 9.1 9.2, by changeable copy, do you mean tenant panels or information messages? 3 5 Section 9.1 (If not deleted/changed) 90 sq. ft. for a sign that does not have changeable copy CV is entirely too large. 75 sq. ft. should be the maximum square footage allowed. �bv` Section 9.3 B. What is "street sign style Directory signs do not need to be 9' tall. P Goh 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. `1'Q 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. `NNN. 9.4 D Only ok with two signs er frontage if it is public street frontage, and if C is deleted. \NO( S Sa"` 1 Section 9.4 E why is this necessary? Directory signs can provide ample identification. .,,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. Section 9.5 C Again, signs should face public street frontages. Section 9.5 D This is covered by the Sign Chart, I don't believe it's necessary to have in the text. ection 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. ,e.X `NONAPt, 11.0.40c- S, 7 ef e.viuw 1 wAT wu. Section 9.8 Suspended (ground) signs should only be utilized in pedestrian areas. This site c plan does not lend well for use of suspended (ground) signs. Please remove from sign types allowed. 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. C',*(0) 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 60 the awning allowed to be covered. Awning signage should be whatever square footage is eft over from the wall sign allotment. %\osk_. ckAt),-c) ,APL a c am- 504-e koP Page 5 of 7 portable signs. C \J 20. Section 9.9 B —Not in favor of ns. I Alternative Transportation Review and Comments: Page 6 of 7 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? 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. Section 9.12 C Not in support of this item at all. Automobile service stations should choose between permitted wall signs and ground signs. 5�(J c�� V On-r2 L& U 22. Section 9.13 Please add "less than 3' tall Which buildings do you foresee needing incidental signs? What type of incidental signs? \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? 6. 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 sa time? Are corporate flags allowed? Is there a size limitation? c 1 s \Part 14 B. 15. Any signage on umbrellas should be 3 sq. ft. or less 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. 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. 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. Urban Forester Review and Comments: Section 7.1.A The ordinance should state minimum requirements, language like `may be considered' are not suitable. o Section 7.1.B Near here would be a great place to add wordage about the City of Carmel Planting detail usage. -�v o 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.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. Cli) 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 contra ice 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. Page 7 of 7 Conn, Angelina V From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Conn, Angelina V Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:34 AM 'Jon Dobosiewicz' 'Charlie Frankenberger' FW: signage review comments for docket no. 10120008 Z: The Bridges PUD Jon Additional review comments are below. They are mostly signage (and a few general) review comments. Again, we can meet to discuss these items, as well.. 1 From: Boone, Rachel M. Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 3:51 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: review comments for docket no. 10120008 Z: The Bridges PUD Angie, Here are my comments. Please review first and let me know if you agree. 1. 1 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. 2. I think there should be tree -lined landscaped medians down the center street of the development? 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 4. In Definitions section: Sign, Height of Ground please change to overall height of sign structure, not highest point of sign face. 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 entrance to the development. 6. In Sections 9.1 9.2, by changeable copy, do you mean tenant panels or information messages? 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. 8. Section 9.3 B. What is "street sign style Directory signs do not need to be 9' tall. 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. 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. 11. Section 9.4 D Only ok with two signs per frontage if it is public street frontage, and if C is deleted. 12. Section 9.4 E why is this necessary? Directory signs can provide ample identification. 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. 14. Section 9.5 C Again, signs should face public street frontages. 15. Section 9.5 D -This is covered by the Sign Chart, I don't believe it's necessary to have in the text. 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. 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. 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. 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. 20. Section 9.9 B Not in favor of portable signs. 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? 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. 23. Section 9.12 C Not in support of this item at all. Automobile service stations should choose between permitted wall signs and ground signs. 24. Section 9.13 Please add "less than 3' tall Which buildings do you foresee needing incidental signs? What type of incidental signs? 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? 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? 27. Part 14 B. 15. Any signage on umbrellas should be 3 sq. ft. or less 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. Thanks, 12a:cheA/3 Sign Permit Specialist City of Carmel Department of Community Services 317 571 -2417 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject; Attachments: t C-EDVVI Mein Conn, Angelina V Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:17 AM 'Jon Dobosiewicz' 'Charlie Frankenberger'; Boone, Rachel M.; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K review comments for docket no. 10120008 Z: The Bridges PUD Carmel Green Building Checklist.doc; Concept Plan Changes 2.pdf; Concept Plan Changes 1.pdf Good Morning, Jon. Please reply to each of the preliminary review comments for the Bridges PUD rezone application via email or letter correspondence on or before Jan. 31. Additional review comments May be voiced at the Jan. 19 TAC meeting. Also, our Department would like to schedule a meeting with you and your clients, to further discuss this petition and the concept plan. Thank you. Preliminary Planning/Zoning Dept. Review Comments: 1. Please provide copies of your correspondence with the TAC members and their correspondence with you. 2. Provide the filled out and notarized Affidavit of Notice of Public Hearing page of the application. 3. Provide the filled out Notice of Public Hearing page of the application. 4. Provide the filled out and notarized Public Notice Sign Placement Affidavit page of the application. 5. Provide a copy of the Official List of Adjacent Property Owners from Hamilton County Auditor's Office. 6. Provide digital files of the final approved plans and elevations, in addition to paper copies. 7. Please provide a draft copy of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. 8. In the Definitions section, define "Minor Alterations and Minor Material Alterations." 9. Page 8 gross floor area: would this include the garages? 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... 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. 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... 13. Page 10, Section 4.1 please mark these uses as permitted in the use table as well, somehow, perhaps with an asterisk. 14. Page 12, Section 5.1.B: perhaps these Uses can be shown as permitted in the Use Table, too. 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 @carmel.in.gov. 16. Page 14, section 6.5: please as `recycling receptacles' to this paragraph, too. 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 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...). 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'. 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. 20. Page 16 also add the widths of these three bufferyard areas. 21. Page 16, section 7.3 please include buffering requirements between office and residential use block and the commercial amenity use block. 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. 23. Page 17, section 7.5.A please remove the word `the' after "ten feet in depth from the Building perimeter 24. Page 17, section 7.5.C.1: `Turf' should not be considered a primary landscape material.... 25. Page 18, section 7.5.E: the Dept. does not support foundation plantings helping fulfill and count toward he buffer planting requirements. 26. Page 18, section 7.6.A: please change the number of parking spaces from 18 to 9. 27. Page 19, section 8.2: please add that the site lights should have 90- degree cut off and/or plat lenses. 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." 29. Page 26; section 11: Please add the statement that "sidewalks shall be installed on both sides of the street." 30. Page 26, section 13: Add mechanical equipment, gas meter, and electric meter screening to "Additional Requirements and Standards 31, Page 27, Section 13.8: these proposed road rights of way do not meet the Comprehensive Plan Thoroughfare Plan's. 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? 33. Exhibit 2, page 1 of 1: attached are some proposed changes to the concept plan. 34. Exhibit 6- page 1 of 9- Part 2.b: please change the word `architectural' to `architecture'. 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. 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. 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. 38. Exhibit 6 page 3 of 9: D. add that all primary facade shall have operable windows. 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. 40. Exhibit 6 page 3 of 9: H: the paragraph does not have a finished sentence at the end.... 41. Exhibit 6 page 4 of 9: part 5.A.1: describe in more detail how the facades will be articulated. 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'. 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? 44. Exhibit 6 page 7 of 9: part 10.B: Please add the requirement to have windows on all facades. 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. 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. 47. Exhibit 6 page 8 of 9: Part 14.b: please add recycling receptacles and a permitted amenity. 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. 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. 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.). 52. Things to consider: Bike lockers, locker room and showers (in the offices), and long term bike parking (for residents). 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. Thank you, 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 I F: 317 -571 -2426 I E: aconn@carmel.in.gov 2 CARMEL GREEN BUILDING /RENOVATION CHECKLIST These items are not required by the current Zoning Ordinance or Building Code, but are strongly recommended by the Department of Community Services. Green building and design saves energy and money while providing for a more sustainable community. NEW CONSTRUCTION n Bicycle lockers /changing rooms /showers (Best Management Practices for stormwater Native landscaping /tree preservation Connectivit to adjacent sites CPedestrian ❑Vehicular ['Green roof CWhite membrane /high albedo roof ['Porous pavers /permeable pavement in parking lot Recycling areas onsite [Internal recycling areas ['External recycling areas ❑Parkin islands landscaped to provide shade within 5 years ❑High- efficiency lighting inside and outside Building and finishing materials sourced from within 500 miles EWater-efficient fixtures throughout ❑Use of recycled materials in construction and fit -out ['Operable windows for cross ventilation and light fHigh- efficiency HVAC systems Use of Energy Star or similar appliances Low VOC paints, coatings, and sealants Low -E glass [Low VOC flooring materials [Li and motion sensors for lighting and water fixtures ['Wind turbine and/or photovoltaic panels, placed to maximize efficiency and minimize visual impact. RENOVATION Same as above plus: CBuildin reuse ❑Site materials reuse ['Increase in green space /landscaping EReduction of runoff