HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCM-11-07-11Office of the
Clerk- Treasurer
City of C
rmel
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
1. INVOCATION
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. RECOGNITION OF CITY EMPLOYEES AND OUTSTANDING CITIZENS
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
(e
COMMON COUNCIL
MEETING AGENDA
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2011 6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS /CITY HALL/01\ E CIVIC SQUARE
a. October 17, 2011 Regular Meeting
b. October 19, 2011 Special Meeting
5. RECOGNITION OF PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL
6. COUNCIL, MAYORAL AND CLERK- TREASURER COMMENTS /OBSERVATIONS
7. ACTION ON MAYORAL VETOES
Ordinance D- 2055 -11; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana,
Amending Chapter 6 by Adding to Article 4 a New Section Identified as 6 -69 (Possession of
Deadly Weapons and Destructive Devices Prohibited in. City Hall) to the Carmel City Code;
Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Griffiths, Seidensticker, Sharp and Snyder. ADOPTED 4 -2 ON
OCTOBER 19, 2011(COUNC1LORS ACCETTURO AND RIDER OPPOSED,
COUNCILOR CARTER NOT PRESENT)
8. CLAIMS
a. Payroll
b. General Claims
c. Retirement
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/671 -2414
1
9. COMMITTEE REPORTS
a. Finance, Administration and Rules Committee
b. Land Use, Annexation and Economic Development Committee
c. Parks, Recreation and. Arts Committee
d. Utilities, Transportation and Public Safety Committee
e. Report from the Council Appointee to the Redevelopment Commission
10. OLD BUSINESS
a. Fifth Reading of Ordinance D- 2051 -11; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 2, Article 3, Division II, Section 2 -40
(Compensation) of the Carmel City Code; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Seidensticker and
Rider. Remains in the Finance, Administration and Rules Committee (11/17/11).
b. Third Reacting of Ordinance D- 2057 -11; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Limiting the Purposes of Encumbered Funds (Amending Section
2 -203 Encumbrances); Sponsor: Councilor Seidensticker.
c. Third Reading of Ordinance D- 2058 -11; An Ordinance of the Common Council of
City of Carmel, Indiana, Fixing Salaries of Elected Officials of the City of Carmel,
Indiana, for the Year 2012; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Griffiths, Seidensticker, Sharp and
Snyder.
Third Reading of Ordinance D- 2059 -11; An. Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Authorizing an Amendment to the 2006 COIT Bond and
Transferring Proceeds to paving ($3,000,000); Sponsor: Councilor Seidensticker.
e. Third Reading of Ordinance D- 2060 -11; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Cannel, Indiana, By the Carmel Economic Development Commission
($130,000,000 The Barrington of Carmel Project); Sponsor: Councilor Snyder.
Remains in the Finance, Administration and Rules Committee (11/17/11).
f. Third Reading of Ordinance D- 2061 -11; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Adding Chapter 8, Article 5, Section 8 -51 (Backing Into Parking
Spaces Prohibited) to the Carmel City Code and Amending Chapter 8, Article 5, Section
8 -45 (General Provisions); Sponsor: Councilor Sharp. Remains in the Utilities,
Transportation and Public Safety Committee (11/14/11).
g.
Second Reading of Ordinance D- 2062 -11; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Authorizing and Approving an Additional Appropriation of
Funds from the Operating Balance of the General Fund ($159, 000 Police Department;
Gasoline /Humane Society Services); Sponsor: Councilor Rider.
h. Second Reading of Ordinance 0- 2063 -11; An Ordinance of the Common council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Modifying and Restating of Carmel City Code Chapter 8, Article
6, Section 8 -58 (Additional Roadway Weight Limitations); Sponsor: Councilor Snyder.
Sent to the Utilities, Transportation and Public Safety Committee (11/14/11).
2
i. Fourth Reading of Ordinance Z- 551 -11; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Removing the Sunset Provision of the Carmel Drive -Range Line
Road Overlay Zone in the Carmel Zoning Ordinance; Sponsor: Councilor Rider.
j. Fourth Reading of Ordinance Z- 552 -11; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Extending the Sunset Provision on the Process for Demolition of
Contributing Buildings of the Old Town District Overlay Zone in the Carmel Zoning
Ordinance; Sponsor: Councilor Rider.
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. First Reading of Ordinance Z- 553 -11; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Establishing the Silvara Planned Unit Development District (281
Acres located northwest of 116 Street and Spring Mill Road, from S -1 and S -2 /Residence
to PUD /Planned Unit Development); Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Rider, Griffiths and
Seidensticker.
12. NEW BUSINESS
a. First Reading of Ordinance D- 2065 -11; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Calinel, Indiana, Requiring the Coordination of Solid Waste Collection and
Disposal Services and Mandating Recycling Service; Sponsor: Councilor Sharp.
Recycling.
b. First Reading of Ordinance D- 2066 -11; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 3, Article I, Division II Section 3 -27
(Approval /Disapproval by Mayor of all Council Ordinances), of the Carmel City Code
Regarding Override of Mayoral Vetoes; Sponsor: Councilor Sharp.
c. First Reading of Ordinance D- 2067 -11; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Enacting and Adopting the Recodification of Chapter 2, of the
Code of Ordinances of the City of Carmel, Indiana; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Accetturo,
Seidensticker, Sharp and Snyder.
d. First Reading of Ordinance D- 2068 -11; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending, Chapter 9, Article 2, Section 9 -55 (Monthly Metered
Rates, Monthly Base Charges, Minimum Charges and Private Fire Protection) and
Restating the Schedule of Rates and Charges Collected by the Water Utility; Sponsor:
Councilor Snyder.
e. First Reading of Ordinance D- 2069 -11; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 9, Article 3, Division V, Section 9 -171
(Sewer Charges) of the Carmel City Code; Sponsor: Councilor Snyder.
f. First Reading of Ordinance D- 2070 -11; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Concerning the Construction of Additions and Improvements to
the Waterworks of the City, and the Refunding of its Waterworks Revenue Bonds of 2002,
3
g
1 1 /07/1 1 CC Meeting Agenda
Series A, Waterworks Revenue Bonds of 2002, Series B and Waterworks Revenue Bonds
of 2003, Series A; and Authorizing the Issuance of Revenue Bonds ($27,000,000);
Sponsor: Councilor Snyder.
First Reading of Ordinance D- 2071 -11; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Authorizing the Acquisition, Construction and Installation of
Certain Improvements for the Sewage Works System of the City of Carmel, Indiana; The
Issuance of Revenue Bonds to Provide the Cost, The Collection, Segregation and
Distribution of the Revenue of such System.. Including the Issuance of Notes in
Anticipation of such Bonds, and Repealing Ordinances Inconsistent ($11,200,000);
Sponsor: Councilor Snyder.
h. First Reading of Ordinance 0- 2072 -11.; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving an Amendment to Lease Agreement Between the City
of Cannel Redevelopment Authority and the City of Carmel Redevelopment Commission,
and the Issuance of Refunding Bonds Designated as "City of Carmel Redevelopment
Authority Lease Rental Revenue Refunding Bonds of 2011 in the Aggregate Principal
Amount not to Exceed ($29,500,000). Sponsor: Councilor Snyder.
J.
First Reading of Ordinance D- 2073 -11; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of the City of Carmel, Indiana,
COIT Revenue Refunding Bonds to Procure Funds to be Applied to the Refunding of
Certain Outstanding Obligations, Including Costs and Expenses ($7,500,000) in
Connection with the Issuance of the Bonds; Sponsor: Councilor Snyder.
First Reading of Ordinance A- 97 -11; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City
of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 9, Article 2, Division IV, Sections 9 -44
(Application Fees for Water Service); 9 -45 (Service Charge and Installation Fee); 9 -51
(Water Meter Pit Accessibility: Inspection); 9 -52 (Cross Connection Control); 9 -58
(Tapping Fees); 9 -62 (Disconnection for Non Payment: Returned Checks); 9 -65 (Rates
and Charges for Recurring Sales of Raw Water (Untreated) Water $225 per million
Gallons); 9 -75 (Hydrant Meters) of the Camel City Code; Sponsor: Councilor Snyder.
k. First Reading of Ordinance S- 73 -11; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City
of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 9, Article 4, Sections 9 -196 (Availability Costs);
9 -199 (Oversizing); 9 -200 (Individual Connection Inside and Outside of City); 9 -207
(Allocation of Receipts) and Deleting Section 9 -205 (Individual Connections Cost
(Developed Areas) of the Carmel City Code; Sponsor: Councilor Snyder.
13. OTHER BUSINESS
14. ANNOUNCEMENTS
15. EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS
16. ADJOURNMENT
4
1
1
1
COMMON COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2011 6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS /CITY HALL /ONE CIVIC SQUARE
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mayor James Brainard, Council President W. Eric Seidensticker, Council Members John V. Accetturo,
Joseph C. Griffiths, Luci Snyder, Ronald E. Carter, Kevin Rider, Clerk- Treasurer Diana L. Cordray and
Deputy Clerk Treasurer Lois Fine.
Councilor Sharp was not in attendance.
Mayor Brainard called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Pastor George Ferch, Bethlehem Lutheran Church, pronounced the Invocation.
Mayor Brainard led the Pledge of Allegiance.
RECOGNITION OF CITY EMPLOYEES AND OUTSTANDING CITIZENS:
There were none.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Councilor Griffiths made a motion to approve minutes from the October 17, 2011 Regular Meeting.
Councilor Snyder seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President Seidensticker called
for the vote. Minutes were approved 6 -0.
Councilor Griffiths made a motion to approve minutes from the October 19, 2011 Special Meeting.
Councilor Rider seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President Seidensticker called for
the vote. Minutes were approved 6 -0.
RECOGNITION OF PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL:
There were none.
COUNCIL, MAYORAL AND CLERK- TREASURER COMMENTS /OBSERVATIONS:
Councilor Snyder addressed the Council regarding the Hamilton County Humane Society.
Councilor Carter addressed the Council regarding the Winter Market at City Center every Saturday from
9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. starting November 19, 2011 through March 17, 2011 with the exception of
December 24 and December 31
1
1
1
1
ACTION ON MAYORAL VETOES:
Council President Seidensticker announced Ordinance D- 2055 -11; An Ordinance of the Common
Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 6 by Adding to Article 4 a New Section
Identified as 6 -69 (Possession of Deadly Weapons and Destructive Devices Prohibited in City Hall) to
the Carmel City Code; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Griffiths, Seidensticker, Sharp and Snyder. ADOPTED
4 -2, OCTOBER 19, 2011(COUNCILORS ACCETTURO AND RIDER OPPOSED, COUNCILOR
CARTER NOT PRESENT). A memo from Mayor Brainard was delivered to all Council.
Members and the Clerk- Treasurer with an explanation for his veto of this Ordinance. There was brief
Council discussion. Council President Seidensticker called for the vote to approve Ordinance D- 2055 -11.
The motion Failed 3 -3 (Councilors Griffiths, Seidensticker and Snyder voted Aye; Councilors Accetturo,
Carter and Rider voted Nay).
CLAIMS:
Councilor Griffiths made a motion to approve claims in the amount of $1,665,459.64. Councilor Snyder
seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President Seidensticker called for the vote. Claims
were approved 6 -0.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Councilor Snyder reported that the Finance, Administration and Rules Committee had met and discussed
Ordinance D- 2057 -11, Ordinance D- 2058 -11, Ordinance D- 2059 -11 and. Ordinance D- 2062 -11. The
Committee report will be given when the item appears on the agenda.
Councilor Rider reported that the Land Use, Annexation and Economic Development Committee had met
and discussed Ordinance Z- 551 -11 which was forwarded back to the Council with a proposed
Amendment. Ordinance Z- 553 -11 was discussed and was forwarded back to the Council with a favorable
recommendation.
Councilor Carter reported that the Parks, Recreation and Arts Committee had not met.
Councilor Griffiths reported that the Utilities, Transportation and Public Safety Committee had not met.
The next meeting will be held on Monday, November 14, 2011 at 5:30 p.m.
Dave Bowers, Council representative on the Carmel Redevelopment Commission, was available for
questions of the Council regarding the financial activities of the Carmel Redevelopment Commission.
There was brief Council discussion.
OLD BUSINESS
Council President Seidensticker announced the Fifth Reading of Ordinance D- 2051 -11; An Ordinance
of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 2, Article 3, Division II,
Section 2 -40 (Compensation) of the Carmel City Code; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Seidensticker and
Rider. Remains in the Finance, Administration and Rules Committee (11/17/11). This item was not
discussed.
2
1
1
1
Council President Seidensticker announced the Third Reading of Ordinance D- 2057 -11; An Ordinance
of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Limiting the Purposes of Encumbered Funds
(Amending Section 2 -203 Encumbrances). Councilor Snyder presented the Finance, Administration and
Rules Committee report to the Council. This item was referred back to the Council with a 4 -0
unfavorable recommendation. There was no Council discussion. Council President Seidensticker called
for the question. Ordinance D- 2057 -11 Failed 1 -5 (Councilors Accetturo, Griffiths, Snyder, Carter and
Rider opposed).
Council President Seidensticker announced the Third Reading of Ordinance D- 2058 -11; An Ordinance
of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Fixing Salaries of Elected Officials of the City of
Carmel, Indiana, for the Year 2012. Councilor Snyder presented the Finance, Administration and Rules
Committee report to the Council and made a motion to present Ordinance D- 2058 -11 As Amended,
VERSION A 10 /20 /11 to the Council for discussion. Councilor Rider seconded. There was no Council
discussion. Council President Seidensticker called for the vote. The motion to amend this Ordinance to
not allow 3% raises to the Council was approved 6 -0. Councilor Griffiths made a motion to approve
Ordinance D- 2058 -11 As Amended. Councilor Snyder seconded. There was brief Council discussion.
Council President Seidensticker called for the vote. Ordinance D- 2058 -11 As Amended was adopted 5-
1 (Councilor Accetturo opposed).
Council President Seidensticker announced the Third Reading of Ordinance D- 2059 -11; An Ordinance
of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Authorizing an Amendment to the 2006 COIT
Bond and Transferring Proceeds to paving ($3,000,000). Councilor Snyder presented the Finance,
Administration and Rules Committee report to the Council. This item was referred back to the Council
with a 4 -0 unfavorable recommendation. There was brief Council discussion. Mayor Brainard addressed
the Council. Councilor Rider made a motion to table this item. The motion failed due to the lack of a
second. Council President Seidensticker called for the question. Ordinance D- 2059 -11 Failed 0 -6 (all
Councilors opposed).
Council President Seidensticker announced the Third Reading of Ordinance D- 2060 -11; An Ordinance
of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, By the Carmel Economic Development
Commission ($130,000,000 The Barrington of Carmel Project); Sponsor: Councilor Snyder. Remains
in the Finance, Administration and Rules Committee (11/17/11). This item was not discussed.
Council President Seidensticker announced the Third Reading of Ordinance D- 2061 -11; An Ordinance
of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Adding Chapter 8, Article 5, Section 8 -51.
(Backing Into Parking Spaces Prohibited) to the Carmel City Code and Amending Chapter 8, Article 5,
Section 8 -45 (General Provisions); Sponsor: Councilor Sharp. Remains in the Utilities, Transportation
and Public Safety Committee (11/14/11). This item was not discussed.
Council President Seidensticker announced the Second Reading of Ordinance D- 2062 -11; An
Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Authorizing and Approving an.
Additional Appropriation of Funds from the Operating Balance of the General Fund ($159,000 Police
Department; Gasoline /Humane Society Services). Councilor Snyder presented the Finance,
Administration and Rules Committee report to the Council. This item was referred back to the Council
with a 4 -0 favorable recommendation. Councilor Rider made a motion to approve Ordinance D- 2062 -11.
Councilor Griffiths seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President Seidensticker called
for the vote. Ordinance D- 2062 -11 was adopted 6 -0.
3
Council. President Seidensticker announced the Second Reading of Ordinance D- 2063 -11; An
Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Modifying and Restating of Carmel
City Code Chapter 8, Article 6, Section 8 -58 (Additional Roadway Weight Limitations); Sponsor:
Councilor Snyder. Sent to the Utilities, Transportation and Public Safety Committee (11/14/11). This
item was not discussed.
Council President Seidensticker announced the Fourth Reading of Ordinance Z- 551 -11; An Ordinance
of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Removing the Sunset Provision of the Carmel
Drive -Range Line Road Overlay Zone in the Carmel Zoning Ordinance. Councilor Rider presented the
Land Use, Annexation and Economic Development Committee report to the Council. This item was
referred back to the Council with a 3 -0 favorable recommendation. Councilor Rider made a motion to
present Ordinance Z- 551 -11 As Amended, VERSION A 11 /01 /11 to the Council for discussion. Mayor
Brainard addressed the Council. Councilor Rider referred to City Attorney, Doug Haney, to address the
Council. Councilor Griffiths seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President
Seidensticker called for the vote. The motion to amend Ordinance Z- 551 -11 was approved 5 -1 (Councilor
Carter opposed). Councilor Griffiths made a motion to approve Ordinance Z- 551 -11 As Amended.
Councilor Snyder seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President Seidensticker called
for the vote. Ordinance Z- 551 -11 As Amended was adopted 6 -0.
Council President Seidensticker announced the Fourth Reading of Ordinance Z- 552 -11; An Ordinance
of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Extending the Sunset Provision on the Process for
Demolition of Contributing Buildings of the Old Town District Overlay Zone in the Carmel. Zoning
Ordinance. Councilor Rider presented the Land Use, Annexation and Economic Development Committee
report to the Council. Councilor Griffiths made a motion to approve Ordinance Z- 552 -11. Councilor
Rider seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President Seidensticker called for the vote.
Ordinance Z- 552 -11 was adopted 6 -0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Council President Seidensticker announced the First Reading of Ordinance Z- 553 -11; An Ordinance of
the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Establishing the Silvara Planned Unit Development
District (281 Acres located northwest of 116` Street and Spring Mill Road, from. S -1 and S -2 /Residence to
PUD /Planned Unit Development). Councilor Griffiths made a motion to move this item into business.
Councilor Rider seconded and presented this item to the Council. Councilor Rider referred to Steve
Hardin, Attorney, Baker Daniels, 600 E. 96 Street #600 to address the Council. Otto Frenzel, 11960
Spring Mill Road addressed the Council. Larry Boone, Republic Development addressed the Council.
There was no Council discussion. Council President Seidensticker opened the Public Hearing at 7:31
p.m.
The following individual addressed the Council in favor of Ordinance Z- 553 -11:
Randy Sherman, Architect, 6201 N. Carrollton, Broad Ripple, Indiana
Weaver, Sherman Design.
The following individuals, representing CWIC II, addressed the Council opposed to Ordinance Z- 553 -1.1:
Marilyn Anderson
Jeff Kimbell
Mary Ellen Bormett
Dee Fox
3884 Shelborne Court, Carmel, IN
3940 W. 121 Street, Carmel, IN
2430 Hopwood Court, Carmel, IN
11389 Royal Court, Cannel, IN
4
The following individuals addressed the Council in favor of Ordinance Z -553 -11:
The
Mack McNaught
Allan Weihe
Andy Gerdom
Brian Brunner
John McKenzie
Max Meiser
Michael Hannigan
Jeff Keck.
Gary Ritz
Mike Gould.
Michael Stikeleather
Doug Kelly
Philip Martini
Bob Foley
Alexa Stetler
Allison. Brown
Rich Gochnauer
Dave Walsh
Allen Breier
Richard Scott
Jill Meisenheimer
Jim Dillon
Kathy Stetter
NEW BUSINESS
425 McLaren Lane, Carmel, 1N
11055 Winding Brook Lane, Carmel, IN
13520 Shakamac Drive, Carmel, IN
3525 W. 131 Street, Carmel, IN
15620 Hidden Oaks Court, Carmel, IN
12512 Windsor Drive, Carmel, IN
16 Cool Creek Court, Carmel, IN
14547 Stonegate Court, Carmel, IN
4303 Powderhorn Court, Cannel, IN
3249 Whispering Pines Lane, Carmel, IN
3476 Homestretch Drive, Carmel, IN
13315 Mercer Street, Carmel, IN
ollowing individuals addressed the Council opposed to Ordinance Z- 553 -11:
12883 Brighton Circle, Carmel, IN
660 Suffolk Lane, Carmel, IN
349 Mallard Court, Carmel, IN
600 W. 106 Street, Carmel, IN
13071 Southampton Court, Carmel, IN
12183 Teal Lane, Carmel, IN
648 Suffolk Lane, Carmel, IN
12838 Norfolk Circle, Carmel, IN
471 Burlington, Carmel, IN
507 Cornwall Court, Carmel, IN
349 Mallard Court, Carmel, IN
Seeing no one else who wished to speak, Council President Seidensticker closed the Public Hearing at
9:27 p.m. There was brief Council discussion. Councilor Griffiths referred to Mike Hollibaugh, Director
of the Department of Community Services, to address the Council. Council President Seidensticker
referred Ordinance Z- 553 -11 to the Land Use, Annexation and Economic Development Committee for
further review and consideration.
Council President Seidensticker announced the First Reading of Ordinance D- 2065 -11; An Ordinance
of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Requiring the Coordination of Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal Services and Mandating Recycling Service. Councilor Griffiths made a motion
to move this item into business. Councilor Snyder seconded. Councilor Seidensticker presented this item
to the Council. There was no Council discussion. Council President Seidensticker referred. Ordinance
D- 2065 -11 to the Utilities, Transportation and Public Safety Committee for further review and
consideration.
Council President Seidensticker announced the First Reading of Ordinance D- 2066 -11; An Ordinance
of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 3, Article I, Division II
Section 3 -27 (Approval /Disapproval by Mayor of all Council Ordinances), of the Carmel City Code
5
Regarding Override of Mayoral Vetoes. Councilor Griffiths made a motion to move this item into
business. Councilor Snyder seconded. Councilor Seidensticker presented this item to the Council.
There was no Council discussion. Council President Seidensticker referred Ordinance D- 2066 -11 to the
Finance, Administration and Rules Committee for further review and consideration.
Council President Seidensticker announced the First Reading of Ordinance D- 2067 -11; An Ordinance
of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Enacting and Adopting the Recodification of
Chapter 2, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Carmel, Indiana. Councilor Griffiths made a motion
to move this item into business. Councilor Snyder seconded and presented this item to the Council.
Councilor Snyder made a motion to suspend the rules and not send this item to committee and vote this
evening. Councilor Griffiths seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President
Seidensticker called for the vote. The motion was approved 6 -0. Councilor Griffiths made a motion to
approve Ordinance D- 2067 -11. Councilor Rider seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council.
President Seidensticker called for the vote. Ordinance D- 2067 -11 was adopted 6 -0.
Council President Seidensticker announced the First Reading of Ordinance D- 2068 -11; An Ordinance
of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending, Chapter 9, Article 2, Section 9 -55
(Monthly Metered Rates, Monthly Base Charges, Minimum Charges and Private Fire Protection) and
Restating the Schedule of Rates and Charges Collected by the Water Utility. Councilor Griffiths made a
motion to move this item into business. Councilor Snyder seconded and presented this item to the
Council. Councilor Snyder referred to John Duffy, Director, Carmel Utilities, to address the Council. Jim
Higgins, London Witte Group, Financial Advisor to the Utility Department addressed the Council. There
was brief Council discussion. Mayor Brainard addressed the Council. Council President Seidensticker
referred Ordinance D- 2068 -11 to the Finance, Administration and Rules Committee for further review
and consideration.
Council President Seidensticker announced the First Reading of Ordinance D-2069-11; An Ordinance
of the Common Council of the City of Cannel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 9, Article 3, Division V,
Section 9 -171 (Sewer Charges) of the Carmel City Code. Councilor Griffiths made a motion to move this
item into business. Councilor Rider seconded. Councilor Snyder presented this item to the Council.
Councilor Snyder referred to John Duffy, Director, Carmel Utilities, to address the Council. John Skomp,
Crowe Horwath, addressed the Council. There was no Council discussion. Council President
Seidensticker referred Ordinance D- 2069 -11 to the Finance, Administration and Rules Committee for
further review and consideration.
Council President Seidensticker announced the First Reading of Ordinance D- 2070 -11; An Ordinance
of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Concerning the Construction of Additions and
Improvements to the Waterworks of the City, and the Refunding of its Waterworks Revenue Bonds of
2002, Series A, Waterworks Revenue Bonds of 2002, Series B and Waterworks Revenue Bonds of 2003,
Series A; and Authorizing the Issuance of Revenue Bonds ($27,000,000). Councilor Griffiths made a
motion to move this item into business. Councilor Snyder seconded and presented this item to the
Council. Councilor Snyder referred to John Duffy, Director, Carrnel Utilities, to address the Council.
There was no Council discussion. Council President Seidensticker referred Ordinance D- 2070 -11 to the
Finance, Administration and Rules Committee for further review and consideration.
Council President Seidensticker announced the First Reading of Ordinance D- 2071 -11; An Ordinance
of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Authorizing the Acquisition, Construction and
Installation of Certain Improvements for the Sewage Works System of the City of Carmel, Indiana; The
6
Issuance of Revenue Bonds to Provide the Cost, The Collection, Segregation and Distribution of the
Revenue of such System. Including the Issuance of Notes in Anticipation of such Bonds, and Repealing
Ordinances Inconsistent ($11,200,000). Councilor Griffiths made a motion to move this item into
business. Councilor Rider seconded. Councilor Snyder referred to John Duffy, Director, Carmel
Utilities, to present this item to the Council. There was no Council discussion. Council President
Seidensticker referred Ordinance D- 2071 -11 to the Finance, Administration and Rules Committee for
further review and consideration.
Council President Seidensticker announced the First Reading of Ordinance D- 2072 -11; An Ordinance
of the Common. Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving an Amendment to Lease Agreement
Between the City of Carmel Redevelopment Authority and the City of Carmel Redevelopment
Commission, and the Issuance of Refunding Bonds Designated as "City of Carmel Redevelopment
Authority Lease Rental Revenue Refunding Bonds of 2011", in the Aggregate Principal Amount not to
Exceed (529,500,000), Councilor Griffiths made a motion to move this item into business. Councilor
Snyder seconded and presented this item to the Council. Councilor Snyder referred to Bruce Donaldson,
Barnes Thornburg, to address the Council. There was brief Council discussion. Council President
Seidensticker referred Ordinance D- 2072 -11 to the Finance, Administration and Rules Committee for
further review and consideration.
Council President Seidensticker announced the First Reading of Ordinance D-2073-11; An Ordinance
of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of the City of
Carmel, Indiana, COIT Revenue Refunding Bonds to Procure Funds to be Applied to the Refunding of
Certain Outstanding Obligations, Including Costs and Expenses ($7,500,000) in Connection with the
Issuance of the Bonds. Councilor Griffiths made a motion to move this item into business. Councilor
Rider seconded. Councilor Snyder presented this item to the Council. Bruce Donaldson, Barnes
Thornburg, addressed the Council. There was no Council discussion. Council President Seidensticker
referred Ordinance D- 2073 -11 to the Finance, Administration and Rules Committee for further review
and consideration.
Council President Seidensticker announced the First Reading of Ordinance A- 97 -11; An Ordinance of
the Common Council of the City of Cannel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 9, Article 2, Division IV,
Sections 9 -44 (Application Fees for Water Service); 9 -45 (Service Charge and Installation Fee); 9 -51
(Water Meter Pit Accessibility: Inspection); 9 -52 (Cross Connection Control); 9 -58 (Tapping Fees); 9 -62
(Disconnection for Non Payment: Returned Checks); 9 -65 (Rates and Charges for Recurring Sales of
Raw Water (Untreated) Water $225 per million Gallons); 9 -75 (Hydrant Meters) of the Carmel City
Code. Councilor Griffiths made a motion to move this item into business. Councilor Snyder seconded
and presented this item to the Council. Councilor Snyder referred to John Duffy, Director, Carmel
Utilities, to address the Council. There was no Council discussion. Council President Seidensticker
referred Ordinance A -97 -11 to the Utilities, Transportation and Public Safety Committee for further
review and consideration.
Council President Seidensticker announced the First Reading of Ordinance S- 73 -11; An Ordinance of
the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 9, Article 4, Sections 9 -196
(Availability Costs); 9 -199 (Oversizing); 9 -200 (Individual Connection Inside and Outside of City); 9 -207
(Allocation of Receipts) and Deleting Section 9 -205 (Individual Connections Cost Developed Areas) of
the Carmel City Code. Councilor Griffiths made a motion to move this item into business. Councilor
Rider seconded. Councilor Snyder presented this item to the Council and referred to John Duffy,
Director, Carmel Utilities, to address the Council. There was no Council discussion. Council. President
7
Seidensticker referred Ordinance S -73 -11 to the Utilities, Transportation and Public Safety Committee for
further review and consideration.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was none.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were none.
EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Brainard adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
ATTEST:
Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk- surer
11/07/] 1 CC Meeting Agenda
id
Clerk- Treasurer Diana L. Cordray, IAMC
Approved,
8
es Brainard, Mayor
CRC Meetings
2. The Palladium (Parcel #7 -A)
CARMEL REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
November 7, 2011
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
(Prepared for David Bowers and Brad Meyer 10 /26/11)
The CRC held their regularly scheduled public meeting on Wednesday, September 21 at 6:30 p.m.
Upcoming Meetings:
o Tuesday, November 1, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. Special Meeting
o Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. Regular Meeting
Financial Matters:
The end of month September CRC Operating Balance is $397,669
CRC Public/Private Partnerships:
1. City Center CRC/Pedcor LLC (Parcel #5)
a. Please see attached report from Signature Construction (Distributed at 10 /19 /11 CRC meeting).
b. All three fountains on the motor court are complete and operational.
e. Uber Boutique and Addendum are now open to the public.
d. Divvy, Mangia and Eggshell Bistro are under construction and moving along nicely.
e. Gibraltar has made great progress on the Motor Court Exterior wall. Brick facade is continuing
to be installed with a completion date around Thanksgiving, weather permitting.
a. The green roof has been installed at the north roof with finishing touches being completed.
Final coordination of the green roof and landscaping along the streetscape is being coordinated
by the landscape architect of the City Street Department.
b. We continue to acquire quotes for miscellaneous equipment for the Palladium. This
information will come to the Commission's attention as well as the finance sub committee.
3. Energy Center Piping Extensions to City Buildings (Parcel #7 -C)
a. The final underground work will be completed by the end of October.
b. The IT Department has temporarily relocated to Suite #250 in the Lurie Building during the
remodeling of their space on the 3rd floor of the Police Station. The ceiling in the Police
Station on the 3rd floor is poorly insulated and this is causing heat to escape in the winter and
vice versa in the summer. The insulation work is scheduled to begin 10/18/11 and the IT
Department should be able to move back into their space by the end of the month.
1
c. Work in all three buildings is progressing according to schedule. City Hall has been phased
completely so the work is done in one area at a time. Work is currently occurring in the 2nd
Floor area around the Council Chambers and is progressing well. The Police Station and Fire
Station are both on schedule as well, and equipment is beginning to arrive.
4. Tarkington Studio Theaters CRC, REI, Pedcor LLC and Signature Construction (Parcel
#7C -1)
a. Punch list items are being worked on and are nearly complete.
b. Miscellaneous equipment is being procured by the CRC staff at the direction of the Finance
Committee.
5. Arts District Lofts Shoppes CRC/Keystone Development (Parcel #47)
a. Work on the first phase of the west side of the Monon Trail is underway with an expected
completion date around the middle of November
b. The apartments are 60% leased.
c. The retail space available is 50% leased.
d. Due to an error with the concrete pour, grinding in the courtyard is ongoing. The contractors
will grind down 3 -6" of concrete in order to properly install the rubber water proof membrane
and brick pavers. This will make the garage "weather tight THIS IS STILL ONGOING with
a hopeful completion date of the end of October. The CRC will not accept the garage until it is
"weatherproofed" and passes inspection from all of the different consultants.
e. City of Carmel bike parking is now in place in the garage as well as the streetscape.
Signage is also in place at Parcel #47 (CRC Signage parking garage, public restrooms, and
"No Idling
6. Miscellaneous Projects
a. Way- finding Signage was recently installed at four places in the A &DD. This signage points
visitors of the District towards public parking, public restrooms, art galleries, restaurants, and
retail. There were a few errors made on a couple of the signs that will be corrected at no charge
to the Commission.
b. The sculpture pad at the roundabout at 136th Street and Range Line Roaad is installed and ready
for the sculpture. Installation of the landscaping, utilities and fencing is ongoing. The potential
sculpture unveiling will occur on 11/12/11. Details and information on the unveiling will be
forthcoming.
7. Recovery of Funds Update
a. Palladium Water Damage The Palladium water damage claim will be sent out sometime in the
near future. Staff has been working with all of the parties involved and is confident that the
responsible parties have been identified.
2
b. Palladium Roof Damage CRC's counsel is setting up initial court dates and meeting with
Walter P. Moore to identify the list of defendants.
c. Parcel #47 Streetscape Bust The CRC Staff will be meeting with Mike McBride and
CrossRoad Engineers to discuss the situation. At this time, we believe CrossRoad is the
responsible party and this will be our first meeting with them to discuss a potential resolution.
Marketing Public Relations Update:
1. News and Events
a. Members of staff have been working in partnership with the City on preparations for select
events, including the Oktoberfest event in Merchant's Square as well as the Veteran's Day
Ceremony. Oktoberfest took place on Friday, October 14 from 5 -10 p.m. and was a huge
success for the businesses in that area. The Veteran's Day Ceremony will take place on
Thursday, November 10, 12:00 p.m. at Tarkington Theater to honor local veterans.
b. The Arts Design District parking map is complete and has been printed for distribution. The
map is being distributed to District and local businesses and is also available on the Arts
Design District website. In addition, the Hamilton County Convention Visitor's Bureau will
include a link to the map on their website.
c. IU Health North Hospital filmed a commercial within the Arts Design District on October 13
18 as part of a series spotlighting patients. This particular commercial focused on a bariatric
patient whose life was changed by the surgery. Filming took place in and surrounding the
Carmel Old Town Antique Mall and Eye on Art Gallery.
d. Upcoming Arts Design District events include:
Saturday, November 12, 5 -10 p.m. IU Health North Hospital Gallery Walk
ii. Saturday, December 10, 2 -6 p.m. lU Health North Hospital Holiday in the Arts District
5 10 p.m. IU Health North Hospital Gallery Walk
3
TIF Payments /Interest
Total Expenditures
ENDING OPERATING BALANCE
2005 PA0 60401
rno n.n Purchase Payments
Administrative and other
Miscellaneous
Debt Service
nn -Par nein crevice
I Arch /Engineering
a Cer
Marketing Communications
Marketing/Bus.. Development
Professional Fees
inovl
40110 Grants
Partiny ,rvrnue shortfall
Operations and Mont.
I Construction Projects' RPAC
A0 Consultant 81115
Parcel 5 City Center
Parcel 9 -28 Party Time
Parcel 9 -31 Chaos land acquisition
Parcel 105haplros
Parcel 14 Harrill P,operry Purchase
Parcel 47 Arts 6.56001 Lobs and 5hoppes
Parcel 73 Streetscape
es OTS (96 vanndswire_ 0.1
Other land acquisitions and lease
Other construction
Parcel 4811 Interest Tees
Par cel? other lira] expenses
rrl7 anertaranr
EXPENDITURES:
Land Acquisitions and Leases
Enemy Cenrr,
Miscellaneous revenue
Total Revenues
Parcel 7c -2 revenue
Interest
Parcel 92 Apostolic Church
Energy consumption
8017a rope repair reimbursement
Parcel 16- 01d Town Shops II
Parral -1 [inn Ruildine Condos
I Reimbursements
4CDC Grant
sorn nl Assets
Other Receipts:
Fra Rene e. menu
u eav m.
Harris Bank
wa yam,. 'Filers, Center
OPERATING BALANCE
403C Grants
it City Rank
i TT372 63 5699030 pa51na8 1
Carmel
an Redevelopment Fund 1902)
C
11 INC Monthly Proietted Sources ]C.6 Balances1
61,566,198
92,198,743
60,535
5,811
668.021
7,582
37,704
28.135
4.578
93.213
543,030
19,000
2,436
10,000
49,134
17 019
11.772
5416,480
404,703
O1
Actual
lanuxry
33.348,461
0
52,634,318
8570,323
770,692
21,545
4,846
151,348
99,418
1 26,918
1,460
41,720
57,006
992,789
111,047
190,021
19,000
2,436
7,000
10.000
72,07
1,037
57,752
59101
12,291
51,005,898
394,486
599,118
Actual
February
52,198,743
51,991,080
5799,077
532,538
6,323
5,188
90,585
30,722
4 459
22,104
113,983
I 85,710
852,301
46,247
112422
19,000
2,936
2,000
19,000
20,778
26.285
8,000
52,219,835
296.264
975,627
Actual
March
$520,323
997,945
42,318,800
5476,574
46,250
200
3,669
42,301
1 25,017
2,934
12,530
69,711
87,326
1,636,264
120,363
163,655
19,000
2,436
1,000
10,000
11,856
30,630
33,457
47,527
$1,996,298
256,336
1,082,672
Actual
April
4799,077
609,761
01,607,175
0156,635
389,858
19,460
18,312
113
14,970
24,187
74,680
764,324
19,006
2,436
10.000
144,684
43,464
81,687
51,287,130
54.760
697,375
Actual
May
$476,574
635,000
54,592,810
56,789,090
7,460,000
305,0
25,078
1,401
687,077
81,776
14,910
30,52.1
77.234
107,692
147,350
268,983
49,419
19,00(]
2,436
1,000
10.000
345,68'9
33,075
81,626
1
511,215,384
11,127,5541
86211
Actual
lune
5156,515
54,955,069
61,741.999
2,065,129
6,377
19,298
1124,171
31,503
19,548
35,729
19,132
143,414
136,569
390,817
40,530
19,000
2,436
1,000
10,000
783,602
33,373
5,865
51,179
(592,022)
11,
272,438
3662060635
Am,
1enlad
5648,670
91,038,839
250,936
22,349
2,130
28,783
14,387
42,928
9.150
109.018
89,761
123,959
32,029
19.000
7,436
2,000
10,000
21,030
5,740
52,931
5149,510
91,623
Actual
August
51,741,999.89
1,076,622
3397,669
306.569
16332
32,161
53,935
59,991
40,127
20,123
63,721
92,658
100,810
1 31,321
19,000
2.436
1,000
10,000
82,480
21,306
15,8001
35,518
5435,453
435.201
Actual
September
51,036,831395
1,107,206
3849,115
484,365
37,807
20,686
54,624
5.938
14,032
9,150
28,247
68,953
114,413
25,388
19,000
2,436
13,141
10.000
70,459
20,597
5,396
52,054
61,558,652
40,025
I
1,126,045
57,577.37
PROJECTED
October
5397469_
4,078,826
5600,680
246,825
6.995
12.000
50,000
37.037
75,000
18,006
80,000
95,000
30,000
19.000
2,436
1.000
10,000
24,482
35,235
3000
101,033
19,360
106,391
2,787,5(10
63,830,391 I
40,025
1,250,000
57,57737
PROJEC3E0
November
$849,115
2482,764 -50,
57.0713,079
53,130,388
2.460.[00
302,306
6,995
32,000
483,773
50,000
37,037
25,000
18.006
80,0017
95,000
30,000
]9.000
7,436
1,000
10,000
24.482
35,235
5,000
101,033
19,360
1. C77
1 106.391
7,783,500
511.607,788
9,027.397
57,577.37
PRO5EC7113
December
9600,680
2,482,784.50
533,844,854
4,930,000
5,721,066
150,1870
133,850
642,438 1
400,000
248.759
200,000
866,271
1,123,536
5,777,00
516,344
728,0001
26,231
30,141
120,000
1.580,815
50,000
375,1%10
10,000
359,000
38,770
500,000
135,626,781
n
36 1
73
,x1.n75
335,1100
435 ,201
t
Total
plus forecast
7,108,275
536434,587
4,926,000
8.897,795
150,000
550,000
3,835,072
500,000 I
400,000
500,000
600,000
1
800,000
2,981,000
375.010
Q
1,521,000
500,000
375,000
R R R
QwQ
100,000
350000
38.720
2,450,000
228.000
g8
1
5,575,000
530,963,281
4 71
1,072,0001
230,150
3,000000
835,000 I
675,000
2011 Budget
ignature
onstructoon
City Progress Report 10/13/11
Signature Construction is pleased to provide a brief list of highlighted activities being
completed in Carmel within the last month for the P111 Waterproofing and Pavers,
Parcel 73 Streetscape, Parcel 5 Motor Court Brick Veneer, Parcel 5 P112 Site Amenities
and Tenant information at Indiana Design Center as well as Carmel City Center
Buildings A B.
1. Parcel 73 Streetscape Project
A site inspection and completion list was provided by the architect. The
contractor is nearly complete with all items.
2. P -111 Waterproofing, Mud Slab and Pavers
The Motor Court pavers are complete as well as the Motor Court Fountain.
The Hanover Square fountain is installed. Paver installation is nearly
complete and the fountain will be operational by the end of October.
3. Parcel 5 Motor Court Brick Veneer
The contractor has mobilized and materials are on site.
A mock up will be built in place next week for the architect to review.
4. Parcel 5 P112 Site Amenities
Pole base wiring continues and cores were completed at bases for conduit and
bolt placement. Light poles should arrive at the beginning of November.
Precast planters have arrived. The balance of the planters will be delivered
this month once the pavers at the Hanover Fountain are set.
Signage submittals are approved and signs are in production.
5. Indiana Design Center Tenant Spaces
The total leasable square footage for Indiana Design Center is 82,975 square
feet. Currently, 74,685 square feet is leased.
6. Carmel City Center Tenant Spaces
The total Ieasable space for Carmel City Center Phase 1 is 78,427 square feet.
Currently, 33,471 square feet is leased.
1
CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT REPORT
July 19, 2011
1. Docket No. 11050013 Z: Silvara PUD
The applicant seeks approval to rezone approximately 300 acres from S- 1/S -2/ Residence West 116 Street
Overlay Zone to PUD/Planned Unit Development. The site is located at 11960 Spring Mill Rd. at the
northwest corner of l 16 St. and Spring Mill Rd. Filed by Steve Hardin of Baker Daniels LLP.
The applicant seeks approval to rezone approximately 304 acres from S -1 /Residence S -2 /Residence to PUD/Planned
Unit Development. The site lies partially within the West 116 Street Overlay Zone. The proposed development is broken
into 9 planning areas, ranging from single family residential to a neighborhood service /commercial node. Proposed land
uses include mostly large lot single family detached homes, senior housing, townhomes, apartments, and some
neighborhood retail /office. A maximum of 950 dwellings is proposed. Please view the petitioner's information packet for
further detail on the PUD text, conceptual site plan, and conceptual character imagery.
Topics of discussion at the committee level
should be transition, land uses, traffic flow,
road improvements, pedestrian and bicycle
accessibility, site plan layout, landscaping
and buffering, building architecture,
lighting, and signage, among other things.
Staff thinks that this project will be a good
transition of land uses from east to west,
given the nature of the proposed
developments that will be built east of
Spring Mill Rd, along 116 Street. The
Comp Plan and its policies, as a whole,
support this type of development. If road
improvements can be implemented in this
immediate area to alleviate any traffic
concerns, then Staff can support this project.
Context of Subject Site:
Surrounding zoning classifications are S -1
to the north, south, and west, S -2 to the east
and south, and PUD to the east and
southeast.
East Clarian North (IU Health) Hospital
Planned Unit Development PUD
(employment node, urban residential,
attached residential, and neighborhood
support center, neighborhood service node). This PUD has a mix of single family dwellings, two family dwellings, multi-
family townhomes, an assisted living facility, medical office buildings, retail/ commercial uses, etc. Also, east are the
Spring Lake Estates Subdivision and Williams Creek Farms Subdivision. (suburban residential)
South Ladder Day Saints Mormon Temple Meeting House future suburban residential homes (institutional node
and proposed suburban residential), Williams Creek Manor Subdivision, and several large lot single family residences of
estate land, zoned S -2, with an average 5 -10 acre parcel size. (estate residential)
Southeast= recently approved Bridges PUD (mix of commercial /office /residential uses)
West Clay Springs Subdivision and Claridge Farms Subdivision (suburban residential)
North Claybridge at Springmill, Springmill Streams, and Springmill Ridge Subdivisions. (suburban residential)
C3 Plan (Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan) Guidance:
The Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan "the C3 Plan guides growth in the city. There are many policies and objectives
listed that offer concrete guidance. Please view the C3Plan's city-wide policies and objectives online at:
http: /www.ci.cannel.in.us/ services /DOCS /.DOCSCompPlan.htm. The main policies are:
1. Manage Community Form achieve a superior quality built and natural environment where people reside, work, and
recreate.
2. Be a Leading Edge City a community with broad name recognition, notable culture, positive image, diversity in
housing, broad employment range, business vitality, sense of place, architectural presence, environmental awareness,
effective public transportation, and a desirable quality of life.
3. Perpetuate Economic vitality job growth, quantity of jobs, investment in property, redevelopment, length of
commitment, and degree of risk being taken.
4. Be a City of Neighborhoods to help build and/or reinforce the fabric of a city. Determined by major physical
boundaries, mix of housing styles, within walking distance to neighborhood service center.
5. Be an Adaptable City adapt to local, regional, and national influences.
6. Inspire Community Character to help build local pride, encourage investment, and improve quality of life.
7. Inspire Environmental Awareness protect natural areas, use native plant material, reduce energy consumption, utilize
`green' building materials to lessen the impact on the environment.
8. Inspire Healthful Living as a response to several disease rates in Indiana, such as obesity, heart disease, etc.
There are even policies and objectives that are in place, specifically for West Carmel. This proposed project meets most
all of those policies and deviates from only one or two aspects of the entire Comp Plan, such as the West Cannel
Objective 6.1: Residential intensity can exist, but generally should not be obviously portrayed from perimeter roads and
West Cannel Objective 6.4: Require large setbacks and lot sizes, and only residential, institutional, and park uses along
116th Street from Spring Mill Road west to the Boone County Line. Utilize the existing zoning ordinance overlay to
implement.
Also, the Comp Plan Land Classification Plan Map, adopted in May 2009, depicts this area as remaining Estate
Residential in character, in a conceptual manner. The C3 Plan states that this map should not be construed as representing
the precise location of land classifications, but used as a foundation for support and influence with land use and
development form decisions and zoning map changes. The Land Classification Map does not establish the right to a
certain density or intensity. The C3 Plan is a broadbrush approach to future land planning. Each development proposal
should be reviewed with consideration of all sections of the C3 Plan in addition to site features, context, design standards,
transition, buffering, and development standards. The creek can be viewed as a boundary instead of Springmill Rd.
Lastly, the C3 Plan's US 31 Corridor Plan (part 5) shows this area west of Springmill Rd. as residential preservation area.
Land Uses: Best Fit vs. Conditional Fit: The Comprehensive Plan contains a chart showing best fit and conditional fit
land uses. "Best Fit" are classifications that are most suited for adjacency. "Conditional Fit" indicates land classifications
that are suitable for adjacency if the building orientation, transitions, and architecture are implemented with sensitivity to
the context. The third category are those adjacent land classifications shown as blank, neither C or B, which represent
classifications that are not typically appropriate adjacent to the subject classification and shown as a blank box. (The
neighborhoods surrounding the Bridges PUD site could be considered Suburban Residential or Estate Residential.)
Again, this rezone proposal should be reviewed with consideration of all sections of the C3 Plan in addition to site
features, context, design standards, transition, buffering, and development standards (see graph below.)
The C3 Plan describes the purpose of Estate Residential areas (large lots with single family detached homes) as areas to
establish and protect residential housing opportunities for people who desire a large residential lot, enjoy secluded living,
or prefer living integrally with nature, and who require minimal city conveniences. The C3 Plan Land Classification Plan
describes the Intensity/Density of Estate Residential land uses to be development as less than 1.0 dwelling unit per acre, or
1 u /a. Examples of this are Bridlebourne (northeast of 106th St. and Shelbourne Rd.) and Laurelwood (southeast of 106th
St. and Ditch Rd.). Appropriate adjacent land classifications that are Best Fit are Parks and Recreation, Estate Residential,
and Low Intensity Suburban Residential. Appropriate adjacent land classifications that are Conditional Fits are Suburban
Residential and Institutional Node. Structure features of Estate Residential areas have a maximum of three stories, have
gable and hip roofs, where structures are generally wider than they are deep, and the front facade generally faces a public
right -of -way. Structure orientation on site would be a centralized building envelope. Other C3Plan Development Features
2
for Estate Residential perception of substantial
open space should pedestrian connectivity;
3) to protect existing detached facilities are
permissible.
Transition (Heights., Setbacks, Land uses, Buffers):
Heights:
Single family detached homes surrounding the site are 1 -2 stories tall.
IU Health /Clarian North hospital is 6 -7 stories tall, and could be a maximum of 9 stories or 150 ft., and potential
additional buildings on the Clarian North site, along Springmill Rd., north of 1 l 6°i St can be a maximum 40 -ft tall.
M.onnon meetinghouse and temple south of the site are proposed to be 35 -ft tall, with 120 -ft tall spire.
The Bridges PUD proposes maximum building heights of 3 stories or 38 feet, when adjacent to Springmill Rd., and
maximum building heights of 60 feet, when adjacent to 116 St., within the Commercial Amenity Use Block which
is closest to the intersection of 1 16 St. and Spring Mill Rd.
Setbacks:
S -1 /Residence zoning calls for building setbacks of: 40 -ft front, 10 -ft side, 20 -ft rear.
S -2 /Residence zoning calls for building setbacks of: 35 -ft front, 10 -ft side, 20 -ft rear.
West 116th Street Overlay Zone calls for 100 -ft front yard building setbacks along 116 Street (within 990 -ft of 116th
Street's centerline), and other setbacks default to the underlying zoning of S -1 or S -2.
The Clarian North PUD calls for building setbacks of: 200 -ft from US 31 116 St for hospital, 20 -ft from Illinois
St; 15 -ft side yard. Area 2A (near Springmill Rd 116 St): 15 -ft front yard 30 -ft max. Area 2B, near Springmill
Rd. 1 16 St.: 15 -30 -ft front yard.
The Bridges PUD proposes a minimum 30 -ft building setback from Springmill Rd. and minimum 20 -ft setback from
116 St., within the Commercial Amenity Use Block, closest to the intersection of 1 16 /Springmill Rd (see chart
below).
3
Parks and Recreation
Estate Residential
Low Intensity Suburban Residential
Suburban Residential
Urban Residential
Attached Residental
Neighborhood Support Center
Neighborhood Sen ce Node
Institutional Node
Community Vitality Node
Employment Node
Regional Vitality Node
troddnS e
0J03 IlrepuOoa
wog uunidI
Parts and Recreation
8
8
a
8
8
8
8
8
B
B
8
8
8
8
B
Estate Residential
8
8
8
C
C
Low Intensity Suburban Residential
B
a
e
8
C
c
Suburban Residential
8
e
e
B
C
C
8
C
C
C
C
Urban Residential
B
C
B
8
B
C
C
8
C
6
C
Attached Residential
e
c
B
s
8
B
e
8
6
e
B
c
c
Neighborhood Support Center
8
c
8
e.
8
8
8
Neighborhood Service Node
8
C
C
B
B
it
8
8
C
C
Institutional Node
B
6
C
C
C
8
8
8
8
8
8
e
8
B
8
Community Vitality Node
8
c
e
B
8
8
8
B
B
B
Employment Node
8
C
C
c
B
B
B
8
e
c
c
Regional Vitality Node
8
C
c
s
B
B
B
C
Core Support
s
c
8
C
8
c
C
e
a
e
Secondary Core
8
C
C
B
C
8
8
8
Primary Core
e
8
8
s
8
B
Best Fit
Conditional Fit
8
for Estate Residential perception of substantial
open space should pedestrian connectivity;
3) to protect existing detached facilities are
permissible.
Transition (Heights., Setbacks, Land uses, Buffers):
Heights:
Single family detached homes surrounding the site are 1 -2 stories tall.
IU Health /Clarian North hospital is 6 -7 stories tall, and could be a maximum of 9 stories or 150 ft., and potential
additional buildings on the Clarian North site, along Springmill Rd., north of 1 l 6°i St can be a maximum 40 -ft tall.
M.onnon meetinghouse and temple south of the site are proposed to be 35 -ft tall, with 120 -ft tall spire.
The Bridges PUD proposes maximum building heights of 3 stories or 38 feet, when adjacent to Springmill Rd., and
maximum building heights of 60 feet, when adjacent to 116 St., within the Commercial Amenity Use Block which
is closest to the intersection of 1 16 St. and Spring Mill Rd.
Setbacks:
S -1 /Residence zoning calls for building setbacks of: 40 -ft front, 10 -ft side, 20 -ft rear.
S -2 /Residence zoning calls for building setbacks of: 35 -ft front, 10 -ft side, 20 -ft rear.
West 116th Street Overlay Zone calls for 100 -ft front yard building setbacks along 116 Street (within 990 -ft of 116th
Street's centerline), and other setbacks default to the underlying zoning of S -1 or S -2.
The Clarian North PUD calls for building setbacks of: 200 -ft from US 31 116 St for hospital, 20 -ft from Illinois
St; 15 -ft side yard. Area 2A (near Springmill Rd 116 St): 15 -ft front yard 30 -ft max. Area 2B, near Springmill
Rd. 1 16 St.: 15 -30 -ft front yard.
The Bridges PUD proposes a minimum 30 -ft building setback from Springmill Rd. and minimum 20 -ft setback from
116 St., within the Commercial Amenity Use Block, closest to the intersection of 1 16 /Springmill Rd (see chart
below).
3
Adjacent Land Uses Appropriate Land Uses:
Land Uses, Best Fit vs. Conditional Fit: (see C3Plan section above.)
Clarian North PUD: The land uses permitted west of Illinois St., east of Springmill Rd, and north of 116` St.,
known as areas 2 -A and 2 -B are:
2 -A: (Area parallel and adjacent to Spring Mill Rd.) Single family dwellings, two family dwellings, multifamily
townhomes, home occupations, or an assisted living facility.
2 -B: (Area parallel and adjacent to Illinois St.) Single family dwellings, two- family dwellings, multifamily
townhomes, assisted living facility, child care center, day nursery, medical office buildings, offices, general service
(limited to ground floor or basement), retail limited, food services. (Here is a website link to the Clarian North PUD
ordinance Z- 409 -03: http://cocdocs.ci.carmel.in.us/Weblink/O/doc/202192/Pagel.aspx)
S -1 S -2 Residential District, Additional Standards:
S -1 Zoning: The S -2 /Residence zoning classification permits Single Family dwellings and a Public Service Facility.
Special Uses (uses looked upon favorably and with BZA approval) would be: Clinic or Medical Health Center, Place
of Worship, Library, Water Management Facility, College /School, Borrow Pit/Ivlineral Extraction, Greenhouse,
Raising/Breeding of Non -farm animals, Recreational Facilities, Lake, Cemetery, and Tower.
4
Corporate Office
Use Block
Office and
Residential
Use Block
Commercial
Amenity
Use Block
*Minimum Tract. Size for DP
3 Acres
3 acres
3 Acres
Minimum Building Setback from 116
Street and Illinois Street
20'
20'
20'
Minimum Building Setback from
Springmill Road and 111 Street
20'
50'
30'
*Min. Side/Rear Yard Building Setback
15'
nla
nla
Minimum Building Height when Building
is not adjacent to 111 Street
38' or 3 floors
n/a
n /a.
Minimum Building Height when Building
is adjacent to 111 Street
nla
n/a
n/a
Maximum Building Height when Building
is not adjacent to Springmill. Road or 111
Street
the lesser of
90' or 6 floors
60'
60'
Maximum Building Height when Building
is adjacent to Springmill Road or 111
Street
the lesser of
38' or 3 floors
the lesser of
38' or 3 floors
the lesser of
38' or 3 floors
Minimum Building Gross Floor Area
(GFA) when Building is not adjacent to
Springmill Road or 111 Street
15,000 s.f.
nra
*s2,500 s.f.
Minimum GFA when Building is adjacent
to Sprinwr>ill Road or 111` Street
7,500 s.f.
nla
n/a
Maximum Building Gross. Floor Area
n/a
nla
120,000 s.f.
Minimum Distance Between Buildings
30'
15'
n/a
Adjacent Land Uses Appropriate Land Uses:
Land Uses, Best Fit vs. Conditional Fit: (see C3Plan section above.)
Clarian North PUD: The land uses permitted west of Illinois St., east of Springmill Rd, and north of 116` St.,
known as areas 2 -A and 2 -B are:
2 -A: (Area parallel and adjacent to Spring Mill Rd.) Single family dwellings, two family dwellings, multifamily
townhomes, home occupations, or an assisted living facility.
2 -B: (Area parallel and adjacent to Illinois St.) Single family dwellings, two- family dwellings, multifamily
townhomes, assisted living facility, child care center, day nursery, medical office buildings, offices, general service
(limited to ground floor or basement), retail limited, food services. (Here is a website link to the Clarian North PUD
ordinance Z- 409 -03: http://cocdocs.ci.carmel.in.us/Weblink/O/doc/202192/Pagel.aspx)
S -1 S -2 Residential District, Additional Standards:
S -1 Zoning: The S -2 /Residence zoning classification permits Single Family dwellings and a Public Service Facility.
Special Uses (uses looked upon favorably and with BZA approval) would be: Clinic or Medical Health Center, Place
of Worship, Library, Water Management Facility, College /School, Borrow Pit/Ivlineral Extraction, Greenhouse,
Raising/Breeding of Non -farm animals, Recreational Facilities, Lake, Cemetery, and Tower.
4
TABLE FOR BUFFERYARD DETERM1NATION
s -I
SINGLE FAMILY
DUPLEX
MULTI FAMILY
ACTIVE
RECREATION
1VOU.ltLLLSNl
OFFICE;
RETAIL
WAREHOUSE;
LT. INDUSTRY
HEAVY
INDUSTRY
COLLECTOR
STREET
PARKWAY
(Prim. or Son)
ARTERIAL
Prim. or San)
EXPRESSWAY
OR
INTERSTANTE
HIGHWAY
SINGLE FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT
B
C
C
D
D
13
D
D
C
D
D
0
DUPLEX
DEVELOPMENT
C
A
C
B
B
C
C
0
B
0
D
0
MULTIFAMILY
DEVELOPMENT
C
C
B
B
B
C
C
D
C
0
D
D
ACTIVE
RECREATION
D
13
B
A
C
C
C
0
B
0
D
D
INSTITUTIONAL
0
B
B
C
A
A
C
C
B
D
D
D
OFFICE; RETAIL
0
C
C
C
A
A
C
D
13
D
0
0
WAREHOUSE;
LT. INDUSTRY
0
C
C
0
C
C
A
B
B
D
D
0
HVY. INDUSTRY
D
D
13
C
C
D
B
B
13
D
0
D
Bufferyard Design Standards in the table below are stated in terms of minimum width and
number of plants required per one hundred linear foot increment.
BUFFERYARD
MINIMUM YARD WIDTH
FRONT SIDE REAR
SHADE TREES
ORNAMENTAL TREES
SHRUBS*
A
5'
10'
3
2
9
B
5'
10'
3
3
15
C
10'
20'
3
4
21
D
15'
25'
5
5
27
`Evergreen trees may substitute in lieu of shrubbery, on a 1.3 basis (1 conifer equals three shrubs)
Zoning
s -I
S -2
Lot Area (sq ft)
well septic
43,560
43,560
water septic
35,000
35,000
well sewer
25,000
20,000
water sewer
15,000
12,000
Front Yard
40'
35'
Side Yard
Single- family
10'
I0'
other
20'
20'
Aggregate Side Yard
Single- family
30'
25'
other
50'
40'
Rear Yard
Single family
20'
20'
other
15'
15'
Lot Width
Single family
120'
100'
other
200'
200'
Lot Coverage (max)
35%
35%
Ground Floor Area
One -Story
1,000
1,100
Two -Story
800
800
S-2 Zoning: The S-2/Residence zoning classification permits
Single Family dwellings and a Public Service Facility. Special uses
(uses looked upon favorably and with BZA approval) would be:
Clinic or Medical Health Center, Place of Worship, Library, Water
Management Facility, College /School, Borrow Pit /Mineral
Extraction, Greenhouse, Raising /Breeding of Non -farm anilnals,
Recreational Facilities, Lake, Cemetery, and Tower.
The West 11.6 Street Overlay calls for a minimum lot area of 3
acres and a minimum 100 -ft front building setback. Portions of a
parcel that extend beyond a depth of 990 feet are exempt from the
requirements of this overlay.
SCO Chapter 7: Residential Open Space Standards (ROSO):
The Subdivision Control Ordinance's Open Space Subdivision
design approach has been adopted to ensure a minimum amount of
neighborhood open space is integrated within all Major
Subdivisions that are 5acres or more in size. Open Space should be
set aside for active or passive uses, and provide a network of open
space. The open space requirements emphasize the protection of
natural areas, such as flood zones and woodlands, but also allow for
more structured open spaces, such as parks or squares, as well as for
agricultural open space in the form of fields or pasture. Open space
should be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies set forth
in the Comprehensive Plan. Areas zoned S -1 and S -2 that are proposing residential plats must provide at least
open space. The base density for this type of qualifying subdivision is 1 unit per acre.
Buffering/
Landscaping:
The Silvara PUD spells
out specific bufferyards
which meet will meet
the Bufferyard
Regulations of the
Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 26.04.
Zoning Ordinance,
Bufferyards: The
Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 26 addresses
perimeter buffering to
require planting areas
and bufferyards
between and
surrounding land uses.
Those regulations are
summed up in the
table to the right.
C3 Plan, Oblcctive
2.2: The C3 Plan
stresses buffering
adjacent residential
15%
5
uses from retail centers. Buffering can be anything from plantings, a wall, a transition of land uses, or just distance
between buildings.
C3 Plan, Street Features: This section conveys the primary design standards that make each street classification
unique. The standards include: right -of -way, maximum number of lanes, minimum lane width, curbs, sidewalks and
paths, on- street parking, street trees, and buffer plantings. Certain Street classifications (as shown on the
Thoroughfare Plan Map) shall be buffered from properties with plantings, beans or walls, that front on them.
Springmill Rd. is considered a Collector Street (90 -ft wide right of way) and 116`" St. is considered a Primary Arterial
(150 ftwide right of way).
Staff's Comments:
During the past few months, the petitioner met with the Forestry Dept., Engineering Dept, and Planning Dept. staff on a
regular basis, to address review comments, the PUD text, and the conceptual site plan. Topics discussed were land uses,
traffic flow, road improvements, pedestrian and bicycle accessibility, site plan layout, landscaping and buffering, building
architecture, lighting, signage, and much more. There are only a few outstanding comments left, and the Department looks
forward to receiving a redline copy of the PUD with revisions, after input is taken from the public and from the Plan
Commission.
The top four things that Staff sees as positives of this project are 1.) The commercial center is of a small /neighborhood
scale that makes is an amenity for all surrounding neighborhoods, 2.) the robust preservation of trees and natural areas, 3.)
the diversity of housing types, and 4.) many opportunities /connections for pedestrian and bike traffic.
The top four things that Staff sees as negatives of this project are 1.) cul -de -sacs when there should be through streets or
connections to adjacent neighborhoods, to provide a more grid street system, 2.) there is only one cast /west connector
street, and that one does not provide a direct path to Clay Center Rd., 3) some of the tree preservation areas are not `no
mow' so wooded areas cannot rejuvenate, and 4.) there are not wider sidewalks around the commercial area.
Overall, Staff thinks this project will be a good transition of land uses from east to west, given the nature of the proposed
developments that will be built east of Spring Mill Rd, along 1 16 Street. The Comp Plan and its policies, as a whole,
support this type of development. If road improvements can be implemented in this area to alleviate any traffic concerns,
then Staff can support this project.
Recommendation:
The Dept of Community Services (DOCS) is inclined to support the PUD, subject to final review and comment by the
Committee, and after outstanding issues and public concerns have been addressed to the Committee's satisfaction. DOCS
recommends that this rezone item is forwarded to the August 2 Special. Studies Committee meeting for further review and
discussion.
6
CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE
DEPARTMENT REPORT
AUGUST 2, 2011
5. Docket No. 11050013 Z: Silvara PU.D
The applicant seeks approval to rezone approximately 300 acres from S- 1 /S -2/ Residence West 116 Street
Overlay Zone to PUD /Planned Unit Development. The site is located at 11960 Spring Mill Rd. at the northwest
corner of 116 St. and Spring Mill Rd. Filed by Steve Hardin of Baker Daniels LLP.
The applicant seeks approval to rezone approximately 304 acres from S -1 /Residence S -2 /Residence to PUD/Planned
Unit Development. The site lies partially within the West 116 Street Overlay Zone. The proposed development is broken
into 9 planning areas, ranging from single family residential to a neighborhood service /commercial node. Proposed land
uses include mostly large lot single family detached homes, senior housing, townhomes, apartments, and some
neighborhood retail /office. A maximum of 950 dwellings is proposed. Please view the petitioner's information packet for
further detail on the PUD text, conceptual site plan, and conceptual character imagery.
Topics of discussion at the committee level
should be transition, land uses, traffic flow,
road improvements, pedestrian and bicycle
accessibility, site plan layout, landscaping
and buffering, building architecture,
lighting, and signage, among other things.
Staff thinks that this project will be a good
transition of land uses from east to west,
given the nature of the proposed
developments that will be built east of
Spring Mill Rd, along :116` Street. The
Comp Plan and its policies, as a whole,
support this type of development. If road
improvements can be implemented in this
immediate area to alleviate any traffic
concerns, then Staff can support this project.
Context of Subiect Site:
Surrounding zoning classifications are S -1
to the north, south, and west, S -2 to the east
and south, and PUD to the east and
southeast.
East Clarian North (IU Health) Hospital
Planned Unit Development PUD
(employment node, urban residential,
attached residential, and neighborhood
support center, neighborhood service node). This PUD has a mix of single family dwellings, two family dwellings, multi-
family townhomes, an assisted living facility, medical office buildings, retail/ commercial uses, etc. Also, east are the
Spring Lake Estates Subdivision and Williams Creek Fauns Subdivision. (suburban residential)
South Ladder Day Saints Mormon Temple Meeting House future suburban residential homes (institutional node
and proposed suburban residential), Williams Creek Manor Subdivision, and several large lot single family residences of
estate land, zoned S -2, with an average 5 -10 acre parcel size. (estate residential)
Southeast= recently approved Bridges PUD (mix of commercial /office /residential uses)
West Clay Springs Subdivision and Claridge Farms Subdivision (low intensity suburban residential)
North Claybridge at Springmill and Springmill Streams (both estate residential), and Springmill Ridge Subdivision
(suburban residential).
6
C3 Plan (Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan) Guidance:
The Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan "the C3 Plan guides growth in the city. There are many policies and objectives
listed that offer concrete guidance. Please view the C3Plan's city-wide policies and objectives online at:
http: /www.ci.carmel.in.us/ services /DOCS /DOCSCompPlan.htm. The main policies are:
1. Manage Community Form achieve a superior quality built and natural environment where people reside, work, and
recreate.
2. Be a Leading Edge City a community with broad name recognition, notable culture, positive image, diversity in
housing, broad employment range, business vitality, sense of place, architectural presence, environmental awareness,
effective public transportation, and a desirable quality of life.
3. Perpetuate Economic Vitality job growth, quantity of jobs, investment in property, redevelopment, length of
commitment, and degree of risk being taken.
4. Be a City of Neighborhoods to help build and/or reinforce the fabric of a city. Determined by major physical
boundaries, mix of housing styles, within walking distance to neighborhood service center.
5. Be an Adaptable City adapt to local, regional, and national influences.
6. Inspire Community Character to help build local pride, encourage investment, and improve quality of life.
7. Inspire Environmental Awareness protect natural areas, use native plant material, reduce energy consumption, utilize
`green' building materials to lessen the impact on the environment.
8. Inspire Healthful Living as a response to several disease rates in Indiana, such as obesity, heart disease, etc.
There are even policies and objectives that are in place, specifically for West Carmel. This proposed project meets most
all of those policies and deviates from only one or two aspects of the entire Comp Plan, such as the West Carmel
Objective 6.1: Residential intensity can exist, but generally should not be obviously portrayed from perimeter roads and
West Carmel Objective 6.4: Require large setbacks and lot sizes, and only residential, institutional, and park uses along
116th Street from Spring Mill Road west to the Boone County Line. Utilize the existing zoning ordinance overlay to
implement.
Also, the Comp Plan Land Classification Plan Map, adopted in May 2009, depicts this area as remaining Estate
Residential in character, in a conceptual manner. The C3 Plan states that this map should not be construed as
representing the precise location of land classifications, but used as a foundation for support and influence with
land use and development form decisions and zoning map changes. The Land Classification Map does not establish
the right to a certain density or intensity. The C3 Plan is a broadbrush approach to future land planning. Each
development proposal should be reviewed with consideration of all sections of the C3 Plan in addition to site features,
context, design standards, transition, buffering, and development standards. The creek can be viewed as a boundary
instead of Springmill Rd.
Lastly, the C3 Plan's US 31 Corridor Plan (part 5) shows this area west of Springmill Rd. as residential preservation area.
C3 Plan Land Uses: Best Fit vs. Conditional Fit: The Comprehensive Plan contains a chart showing best fit and
conditional fit land uses. "Best Fit" are classifications that are most suited for adjacency. "Conditional Fit" indicates land
classifications that are suitable for adjacency if the building orientation, transitions, and architecture are implemented with
sensitivity to the context. The third category are those adjacent land classifications shown as blank, neither C or B, which
represent classifications that are not typically appropriate adjacent to the subject classification and shown as a blank box.
(The neighborhoods surrounding the Bridges PUD site could be considered Suburban Residential or Estate Residential.)
Again, this rezone proposal should be reviewed with consideration of all sections of the C3 Plan in addition to site
features, context, design standards, transition, buffering, and development standards (see graph below.)
The C3 Plan describes the purpose of Estate Residential areas (large lots with single family detached homes) as areas to
establish and protect residential housing opportunities for people who desire a large residential lot, enjoy secluded living,
or prefer living integrally with nature, and who require minimal city conveniences. The C3 Plan Land Classification Plan
describes the Intensity /Density of Estate Residential land uses to be development as less than 1.0 dwelling unit per acre, or
1 u /a.:Examples of this are Bridlebourne (northeast of 106th St. and Shelbourne Rd.) and Laurelwood (southeast of 106th
St. and Ditch Rd.). Appropriate adjacent land classifications that are Best Fit are Parks and Recreation, Estate Residential,
and Low Intensity Suburban Residential. Appropriate adjacent land classifications that are Conditional Fits are Suburban
Residential and Institutional Node. Structure features of Estate Residential areas have a maximum of three stories, have
gable and hip roofs, where structures are generally wider than they are deep, and the front facade generally faces a public
right -of -way. Structure orientation on site would be a centralized building envelope. Other C3Plan Development Features
7
for Estate Residential perception of substantial
open space should pedestrian connectivity;
3) to protect existing detached facilities are
permissible.
Transition (Heights, Setbacks, Land uses, Buffers):
Heights:
Single family detached homes surrounding the site are 1 -2 stories tall.
IU Health /Clarian North hospital is 6 -7 stories tall, and could be a maximum of 9 stories or 150 ft., and potential
additional buildings on the Clarian North site, along Springmill Rd., north of 116 St can be a maximum 40 -ft tall.
Mormon meetinghouse and temple south of the site are proposed to be 35 -ft tall, with 120 -ft tall spire.
The Bridges PUD proposes maximum building heights of 3 stories or 38 feet, when adjacent to Springrill Rd., and
maximum building heights of 60 feet, when adjacent to 116` St., within the Commercial Amenity Use Block which
is closest to the intersection of 116 St. and Spring Mill Rd.
Setbacks:
S -1 /Residence zoning calls for building setbacks of: 40 -ft front, 10-ft side, 20 -ft rear.
S -2 /Residence zoning calls for building setbacks of: 35 -ft front, 10 -ft side, 20 -ft rear.
West 116th Street Overlay Zone calls for 100 -ft front yard building setbacks along 116 Street (within 990 -ft of 116th
Street's centerline), and other setbacks default to the underlying zoning of S -1 or S -2.
The Clarian North PUD calls for building setbacks of: 200 -ft from US 31 116 St for hospital, 20 -ft from Illinois
St; 15 -ft side yard. Area 2A (near Springmill Rd 1 16` St ):.l 5 -ft front yard 30 -ft max. Area 2B, near Springmill
Rd. 116 St.: 15 -30 -ft front yard.
The Bridges PUD proposes a minimum 30 -ft building setback from Springmill Rd. and minimum 20 -ft setback from
116 St., within the Commercial Amenity Use Block, closest to the intersection of 116 /Springmill Rd (see chart
below).
8
uarleesrag pue Sr4ied
I�!weptse8 eta3
tow Intensity Suburban Residential
Suburban Residential
Urban Residential
leguaplse8 peyaeuV
Neighborhood Support Center
OPON eaureS peeytogI6;eN
°PON IeUODU9Sel
Community Vitality Node
Employment Node
Regional Vitality Node
Core Support
0103 Au epeoaaS
0403 1[reuwd
Paris and Recreation
8
8
8
B
B
6
B
B
0
8
8
8
8
B
B
Estate Residential
a
tow Intensity Suburban Residential
0
8
0
8
C
C
Suburban Residential
a
e
B
8
C
C
8
C
C
C
c
Urban Residential
a
c
e
B
B
c
c
c
C
c
C
Attached Residential
e
c
a
a
B
a
8
B
C
c
8
e
c
Neighborhood Support Center
B
C
B
e
B
8
e
Neighborhood Service Node
B
C
G
8
8
8
a
8.
C
C
Institutional Node
e
c
c
c
C
8
B
a
B
B
B
8
8
8
a
Community Vitality Node
B
C
C
e
8
a
8
B
8
B
Employment Node
B
c
c
c
B
e
B
a
a
c
C
Regional Vitality Node
B
e
c
a
B
B,
a
8
Core Support
8
C
e
C
B
e
c
B
e
8
Secondary Core
B
8
8
e
C
8
8
a
Primary 'Core
8
C
0
8
B
B
Best Fit
Conditional At
a
c
for Estate Residential perception of substantial
open space should pedestrian connectivity;
3) to protect existing detached facilities are
permissible.
Transition (Heights, Setbacks, Land uses, Buffers):
Heights:
Single family detached homes surrounding the site are 1 -2 stories tall.
IU Health /Clarian North hospital is 6 -7 stories tall, and could be a maximum of 9 stories or 150 ft., and potential
additional buildings on the Clarian North site, along Springmill Rd., north of 116 St can be a maximum 40 -ft tall.
Mormon meetinghouse and temple south of the site are proposed to be 35 -ft tall, with 120 -ft tall spire.
The Bridges PUD proposes maximum building heights of 3 stories or 38 feet, when adjacent to Springrill Rd., and
maximum building heights of 60 feet, when adjacent to 116` St., within the Commercial Amenity Use Block which
is closest to the intersection of 116 St. and Spring Mill Rd.
Setbacks:
S -1 /Residence zoning calls for building setbacks of: 40 -ft front, 10-ft side, 20 -ft rear.
S -2 /Residence zoning calls for building setbacks of: 35 -ft front, 10 -ft side, 20 -ft rear.
West 116th Street Overlay Zone calls for 100 -ft front yard building setbacks along 116 Street (within 990 -ft of 116th
Street's centerline), and other setbacks default to the underlying zoning of S -1 or S -2.
The Clarian North PUD calls for building setbacks of: 200 -ft from US 31 116 St for hospital, 20 -ft from Illinois
St; 15 -ft side yard. Area 2A (near Springmill Rd 1 16` St ):.l 5 -ft front yard 30 -ft max. Area 2B, near Springmill
Rd. 116 St.: 15 -30 -ft front yard.
The Bridges PUD proposes a minimum 30 -ft building setback from Springmill Rd. and minimum 20 -ft setback from
116 St., within the Commercial Amenity Use Block, closest to the intersection of 116 /Springmill Rd (see chart
below).
8
Adjacent Land Uses Appropriate Land Uses:
Land Uses, Best Fit vs. Conditional Fit: (see C3Plan section above.)
6 Clarian North PUD: The land uses permitted west of Illinois St., east of Springrnill Rd, and north of 116`" St.,
known as areas 2 -A and 2 -B are:
2 A: (Area parallel and adjacent to Spring Mill Rd.) Single family dwellings, two family dwellings, multifamily
townhomes, home occupations, or an assisted living facility.
2 B: (Area parallel and adjacent to Illinois St.) Single family dwellings, two family dwellings, multifamily
townhomes, assisted living facility, child care center, day nursery, medical office buildings, offices, general service
(limited to ground floor or basement), retail limited, food services. (Here is a website link to the Clarian North PUD
ordinance Z- 409 -03: htto://cocdocs.ci.cannel.in.us/WeblinkJO/doc/202192/Pagel.aspx)
S 1 S 2 Residential District, Additional Standards:
S Zoning: The S -2 /Residence zoning classification pen Single Family dwellings and a Public Service Facility.
Special Uses (uses looked upon favorably and with BZA approval) would be: Clinic or Medical Health Center, Place
of Worship, Library, Water Management Facility, College /School, Borrow Pit/Mineral Extraction, Greenhouse,
Raising/Breeding of Non-farm animals, Recreational Facilities, Lake, Cemetery, and Tower.
9
Corporate Office
Use Block
Office and
Residential
Use Block
Commercial
Amenity
Use Block
*Minimum Tract Size for DP
3 Acres
3 acres
3 Acres
Minimum Building Setback from 116
Street and Illinois Street
20'
20'
20'
Minimum Building Setback from
Springmill Road and 111 Street
20'
50'
30'
*Min. Side/Rear Yard Building Setback
15'
n/a
n/a
Minimum Building Height when Building
is not adjacent to 111 Street
38' or 3 floors
n/a
n/a
Minimum Building Height when Building
is adjacent to 111 Street
n/a
n/a
n/a
Maximum Building Height when Building
is not adjacent to Springmill Road or 111
Street
the lesser of
90' or 6 floors
60'
60'
Maximum Building Height when Building
is adjacent to Springmill Road or 111
Street
the lesser of
38' or 3 floors
the lesser of
38' or 3 floors
the lesser of
38' or 3 floors
Minimum Building Gross Floor Area
(GFA) when Building is not adjacent to
Springmill Road or 111 Street
15,000 s.f.
n/a.
*2,500 s.f.
Minimum GFA when Building is adjacent
to Springmill Road or 111 Street
7,500 s.f
n/a
n /a.
Maximum Building Gross Floor Area
nla
n/a.
120,000 s.f.
Minimum Distance. Between Buildings
30'
15'
n/a
Adjacent Land Uses Appropriate Land Uses:
Land Uses, Best Fit vs. Conditional Fit: (see C3Plan section above.)
6 Clarian North PUD: The land uses permitted west of Illinois St., east of Springrnill Rd, and north of 116`" St.,
known as areas 2 -A and 2 -B are:
2 A: (Area parallel and adjacent to Spring Mill Rd.) Single family dwellings, two family dwellings, multifamily
townhomes, home occupations, or an assisted living facility.
2 B: (Area parallel and adjacent to Illinois St.) Single family dwellings, two family dwellings, multifamily
townhomes, assisted living facility, child care center, day nursery, medical office buildings, offices, general service
(limited to ground floor or basement), retail limited, food services. (Here is a website link to the Clarian North PUD
ordinance Z- 409 -03: htto://cocdocs.ci.cannel.in.us/WeblinkJO/doc/202192/Pagel.aspx)
S 1 S 2 Residential District, Additional Standards:
S Zoning: The S -2 /Residence zoning classification pen Single Family dwellings and a Public Service Facility.
Special Uses (uses looked upon favorably and with BZA approval) would be: Clinic or Medical Health Center, Place
of Worship, Library, Water Management Facility, College /School, Borrow Pit/Mineral Extraction, Greenhouse,
Raising/Breeding of Non-farm animals, Recreational Facilities, Lake, Cemetery, and Tower.
9
TABLE FOR BUFFERYARD DETER14IINATION
S -1
SINGLE FAMILY
DUPLEX
MULTI- FAMILY
ACTIVE
RECREATION
INSTITIUTIDAL
OFFICE;
RETAIL
WAREHOUSE;
LT. INDUSTRY
HEAVY
INDUSTRY
COLLECTOR
STREET
PARKWAY
(Prtm. or Sot)
ARTERIAL
(Prim. or Set)
EXPRESSWAY
OR
INTERSTANTE
HIGHWAY
SINGLE FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT
8
C
C
D
0
D
D
D
C
D
D
D
DUPLEX
DEVELOPMENT
C
A
C
B
8
C
C
D
B
D
0
D
MULTI-FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT
C
C
8
B
8
C
C
D
C
o
0
D
ACTIVE
RECREATION
D
e
0
A
C
C
C
C
B
D
0
D
INSTITUTIONAL
D
e
8
C
A
A
C
C
B
D
0
D
OFFICE; RETAIL
0
C
C
C
A
A
C
D
B
D
0
D
WAREHOUSE;
LT. iNDUSTRY
D
C
C
C
C
C
A
B
B
0
0
D
HVY. INDUSTRY
D
D
D
C
C
D
8
B
B
D
0
D
Bufferyard Design Standards in the table below are stated in terms of minimum width and
number of plants required per one hundred linear foot increment.
BUFFERYARD
MINIMUM YARD WIDTH
FRONT SIDE REAR
SHADE TREES
ORNAMENTAL TREES
SHRUBS*
A
5'
10'
3
2
9
B
5'
10'
3
3
15
C
10'
20'
3
4
21
D
15'
25'
5
5
27
*Evergreen trees may substitute in lieu of shrubbery, on a 1.3 basis (1 conifer equals three shrubs)
Zoning
S -1
S -2
Lot Area (sq ft)
well septic
43,560
43,560
water septic
35,000
35,000
well sewer
25,000
20,000
water sewer
15,000
12,000
Front Yard
40'
35'
Side Yard
Single- family
10'
10'
other
20'
20'
Aggregate Side Yard
Single- family
30'
25'
other
50'
40'
Rear Yard
Single fancily
20'
20'
other
15'
15'
Lot Width
Single family
120'
100'
other
200'
200'
Lot Coverage (max)
35%
35%
Ground Floor Area
One -Story
1,000
1,100
Two -Story
800
800
S Zoning: The S-2/Residence zoning classification perrnits
Ingle Family dwellings and a Public service Facility. Special Uses
(uses looked upon favorably and with BZA approval) would be:
Clinic or Medical Health Center, Place of Worship, Library, Water
Management Facility, College /School, Borrow Pit/Mineral
Extraction, Greenhouse, Raising/Breeding of Non -farm animals,
Recreational Facilities, Lake, Cemetery, and Tower.
The West 116` Street Overlay calls for a minimum lot area of 3
acres and a minimum 100 -ft front building setback. Portions of a
parcel that extend beyond a depth of 990 feet are exempt from the
requirements of this overlay.
SCO Chapter 7: Residential Open Space Standards (ROSO):
The Subdivision Control Ordinance's Open Space Subdivision
design approach has been adopted to ensure a minimum amount of
neighborhood open space is integrated within all. Major
Subdivisions that are 5acres or more in size. Open Space should be
set aside for active or passive uses, and provide a network of open
space. The open space requirements emphasize the protection of
natural areas, such as flood zones and woodlands, but also allow for
more structured open spaces, such as parks or squares, as well as for
agricultural open space in the form of fields or pasture. Open space
should be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies set forth
in the Comprehensive Plan. Areas zoned S -1 and S -2 that are proposing residential plats must provide at least 15%
open space. The base density for this type of qualifying subdivision is 1 unit per acre.
Buffering/
Landscaping:
The Silvara PUD spells
out specific bufferyards
which meet will meet
the Bufferyard
Regulations of the
Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 26.04.
Zoning Ordinance,
Bufferyards: The
Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 26 addresses
perimeter buffering to
require planting areas
and bufferyards
between and
surrounding land uses.
Those regulations are
summed up in the
table to the right.
C3 Plan, Objective
2.2: The C3 Plan
stresses buffering
adjacent residential
10
uses from retail centers. Buffering can be anything from plantings, a wall, a transition of land uses, or just distance
between buildings.
C3 Plan, Street Features: This section conveys the primary design standards that make each street classification
unique. The standards include: right -of -way, maximum number of lanes, minimum lane width, curbs, sidewalks and
paths, on- street parking, street trees, and buffer plantings. Certain Street classifications (as shown on the
Thoroughfare Plan Map) shall be buffered from properties with plantings, berms or walls, that front on them.
Springmill Rd. is considered a Collector Street (90 -ft wide right of way) and 116 St. is considered a Primary Arterial
(150- ftwide right of way).
Public Comments from July 19 Public Hearing Meeting:
DOCS staff has tallied the `opposed' public comments made at the public hearing and made by email correspondence. The top
5 most repeated issues /concerns that should be addressed by the petitioner are:
I) Density: This project is too dense. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shows this site as being at least] unit/acre,
with single family homes only.
2) Transition: the perimeter lots of this development need to match the perimeter lot sizes of the adjacent neighborhoods.
Also, there should be increased setbacks and increased buffers along the perimeter roads.
3) Commercial use: No commercial uses west of Spring Mill Rd.
4) Traffic: There needs to be a comprehensive traffic study for this area. Current traffic is terrible. This project will make
worse traffic.
5) Quality of life: Need to preserve the tranquil character, aesthetics quality life of this area. Concern about lowered
property values.
Staff's Comments:
During the past few months, the petitioner met with the Forestry Dept., Engineering Dept, and Planning Dept. staff on a
regular basis, to address review comments, the PUD text, and the conceptual site plan. Topics discussed were land uses,
traffic flow, road improvements, pedestrian and bicycle accessibility, site plan layout, landscaping and buffering, building
architecture, lighting, signagc, and much more. There are only a few outstanding continents left, and the Department looks
forward to receiving a redline copy of the PUD with revisions, after input is taken from the public and from the Plan
Commission.
The top four things that Staff sees as positives of this project are 1.) The commercial center is of a small /neighborhood
scale that makes is an amenity for all surrounding neighborhoods, 2.) the robust preservation of trees and natural areas, 3.)
the diversity of housing types, and 4.) many opportunities /connections for pedestrian and bike traffic.
The top four things that Staff sees as negatives of this project are 1.) cul -de -sacs when there should be through streets or
connections to adjacent neighborhoods, to provide a more grid street system, 2.) there is only one east /west connector
street, and that one does not provide a direct path to Clay Center Rd., 3) some of the tree preservation areas are not `no
mow' so wooded areas cannot rejuvenate, and 4.) there are not wider sidewalks around the commercial area.
Overall, Staff thinks this project will be a good transition of land uses from east to west, given the nature of the proposed
developments that will be built east of Spring Mill Rd, along 116` Street. The Comp Plan and its policies, as a whole,
support this type of development. If road improvements can be implemented in this area to alleviate any traffic concerns,
then. Staff can support this project.
Recommendation:
The Dept of Community Services (DOCS) is inclined to support the PUD, subject to final review and comment by the
Committee, and after outstanding issues and public concerns have been addressed to the Conunittee's satisfaction. DOCS
recommends that this rezone be discussed further at a special meeting of the Special Studies Committee, either on
Tuesday, August 23 or Tuesday, August 30, to begin at 6pm.
11
CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE
DEPARTMENT REPORT
OCTOBER 4, 2011
Docket No. 11050013 Z: Silvara PUD
The applicant seeks approval to rezone 304 acres from S- 1 /S -2/ Residence West 116` Street Overlay Zone to
PUD/Planned Unit Development. The site is located at 11960 Spring Mill Rd. at the northwest corner of 116 St.
and Spring Mill Rd. Filed by Steve Hardin of Baker Daniels LLP.
The main topics of discussion at the Oct. 4 Committee meeting will be the development and design standards.
The petitioner has provided the following for the October 4 committee meeting:
Redlined PUD Ordinance showing all changes made since the original filing;
Planning Area Map comparison exhibit showing the changes to the Planning Areas (location, densities, uses)
since the original filing; and
A summary of the project's compliance with the C3 Plan.
If anyone had an opportunity to review the redlined version of the ordinance the petitioner submitted prior to the last
committee meeting, it should be noted the primary changes are:
Reduced commercial down to 35,000 SF;
Reduced overall number of units to 685;
Elimination of apartment use (no longer permitted); and
Added standards to newly added Exhibit L (active adult /empty nester standards).
As a result, the other new changes in the redline copy of the PUD generally are centered around the technical revisions to
accommodate these modifications.
For now, the Dept of Community Services' (DOCS) department report remains unchanged from the last August 30
version. But, to address a few of the questions brought up at the last committee meeting on Aug. 30:
a. What is the setback along Springmill Rd. for the Spring Lake Estates Subdivision? There is a 20 -ft wide
common area along the length of this subdivision along Springmill Rd. Then, there is a 20 -ft wide building
setback line adjacent to that, creating essentially a 40 -ft wide setback from the Springmill Rd. right of way.
b. What is the density of the Village of WestClay? The approximate density, overall, is 2.54 units per acre.
c. How many units are in the apartments at the northeast corner of 146' St. and Springmill Rd.? The Village
on Springmill Apartments has 400 units on 40 acres, for a density of 10 units per acre.
Recommendation:
The Dept of Community Services (DOCS) is inclined to support the PUD, subject to final review and comment by the
Committee, and after outstanding issues and public concerns have been addressed to the Committee's satisfaction. DOCS
recommends that this rezone be discussed and then continued to the November 1 Special Studies Committee meeting,
which begins at 6pm.
4
CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT REPORT
OCTOBER 18, 2011
10. Docket No. 11050013 Z: Silvara PUD.
The applicant seeks approval to rezone 304 (now 281) acres from S-1/S-2/ Residence to PUD /Planned Unit
Development. The site is located at 11960 Spring Mill Rd. at the northwest corner of 116` St. and Spring Mill
Rd. Filed by Steve Hardin of Baker Daniels LLP.
The PUD what's changed since July 19:
Below is a brief summary of the primary modifications to the proposal since the public hearing that are a result of the
Committee meetings, public input at those Committee meetings, and additional outreach meetings the Petitioner had with
interested parties over the last several months:
1. Commercial uses are removed (21 acres on the northwest corner of 116th St. and Spring Mill
Rd. are withdrawn from the petition);
2. Apartments are removed as a permitted use;
3. Overall density is reduced by almost 40% (down to 2.15 units /acre, from 3.1 u /ac);
4. Overall number of units is reduced to 605 (from 950);
5. Perimeter bufferyard landscaping is increased; and
6. Added standards to newly added Exhibit L (active adult /empty nester standards).
Please view the petitioner's revised information packet for further detail on the PUD text, conceptual site plan,
and conceptual character imagery.
Oct. 4 Committee meeting recap:
At the very beginning of the committee meeting, the petitioner told the Committee that they have decided to remove the
southern 21 acres of the site (at the northwest corner of 116` St. and Spring Mill Rd.) from this rezone petition. This
would remove all retail use from the rezone request. Also, apartment uses have been removed from the rezone request.
The overall density would now be 2.15 units per acre. The Committee had additional discussion, and members asked a
few questions about pedestrian/bike /vehicular connectivity, street cuts /entrances, rental units, and more. Also, more
public comments were voiced. There were questions about rental units, multi- family uses, density of the proposal,
buffers, senior housing, nearby densities of neighborhoods, and more. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Committee
voted 3 -1 to send this rezone item to the full Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation.
Planning Dept's Comments:
The Planning Zoning Dept. has reviewed the latest version of the PUD ordinance text exhibits and is satisfied with
the changes made, however thinks that the small scale neighborhood commercial center would have been a great amenity
for all surrounding neighborhoods had it been kept as part of this rezone petition.
The Planning Dept. also thinks that now that the southern 21 acres are removed from this rezone, the NWC of
116` /Springmill area will not have paths put in as part of the rezone approval, hence a gap in connectivity for pedestrians
and cyclists.
The top three things that Staff sees as positives of this project are 1.) the robust preservation of trees and natural areas,
2.) the diversity of housing types, and 3.) many opportunities /connections for pedestrian and bike traffic.
The top three things that Staff sees as negatives of this project are 1.) cul -de -sacs when there should be through streets or
connections to adjacent neighborhoods, to provide a more grid street system, 2.) there is only one east /west connector
street, and that one does not provide a direct path to Clay Center Rd., and 3.) now that the southern 21 acres are removed
from this rezone, the NWC of 116t mill area will not have paths put in as part of the rezone approval, hence a gap
in connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists.
8
Overall, Staff thinks that this project will be a good transition of land uses from east to west, given the nature of the
proposed developments that will be built east of Spring Mill Rd, along 116 Street. The Comprehensive Plan and its
policies, as a whole, support this type of development. if road improvements can be implemented in this immediate area
to alleviate any traffic concerns, then Staff can support this project.
Lastly, the Comprehensive Plan Land Classification Plan Map, adopted in May 2009, depicts this area as remaining
Estate Residential in character, in a conceptual manner. The C3 Plan states that this map should not be construed as
representing the precise location of land classifications, but used as a foundation for support and influence with
land use and development form decisions and zoning map changes. The Land Classification Map does not
establish the right to a certain density or intensity. The C3 Plan is a broadbrush approach to future land planning.
Each development proposal should be reviewed with consideration of all sections of the C3 Plan in addition to site
features, context, design standards, transition, buffering, and development standards. The creek can be viewed as a
boundary, possibly, instead of Springmill Rd.
Recommendation:
The Dept of Community Services (DOCS) that the Plan Commission forwards this rezone on to the City Council with a
favorable recommendation and a condition that the petitioner install the path (or pay monies to) along Spring Mill Rd. all
the way down to the 116 Street intersection.
(Additional info from Previous Dept. Reports)
Overview:
The applicant.
approximately
1 /Residence
PUD /Planned
seeks approval to rezone
281 acres from S-
S -2 /Residence to
Unit Development. The
proposed development is broken into 5
planning areas. Proposed land uses include
mostly large lot single family detached
homes, senior housing, and townhomes. A
maximum of 605 dwellings is now
proposed.
Topics of discussion at the committee level
included transition, land uses, traffic flow,
road improvements, pedestrian and bicycle
accessibility, site plan layout, landscaping
and buffering, and building architecture,
among other things.
Public Comments from duly 19 Public
Hearing Meeting:
DOCS staff tallied the `opposed' public
comments made at the public hearing and
made by email correspondence. The top 5
most repeated issues /concerns that were
addressed by the petitioner in following committee meetings are:
1) Density: This project is too dense. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shows this site as being at leastl
9
unit/acre, with single family homes only.
2) Transition: the perimeter lots of this development need to match the perimeter lot sizes of the adjacent
neighborhoods. Also, there should be increased setbacks and increased buffers along the perimeter roads.
3) Commercial use: No commercial uses west of Spring Mill Rd.
4) Traffic: There needs to be a comprehensive traffic study for this area. Current traffic is terrible. This project will
make worse traffic.
5) Quality of life: Need to preserve the tranquil character, aesthetics quality life of this area. Concern about lowered
property values.
Context of Subject Site:
Surrounding zoning classifications are S -I to the north, south, and west, S -2 to the east and south, and PUD to the east
and southeast,
East Clarian North (IU Health) Hospital Planned Unit Development PUD (employment node, urban residential,
attached residential, and neighborhood support center, neighborhood service node). This PUD has a mix of single family
dwellings, two family dwellings, multi family townhomes, an assisted living facility, medical office buildings, retail/
commercial uses, etc. Also, east are the Spring Lake Estates Subdivision and Williams Creek Farms Subdivision.
(suburban residential)
South Ladder Day Saints Mormon Temple Meeting House future suburban residential homes (institutional node
and proposed suburban residential), Williams Creek Manor Subdivision, and several large lot single family residences of
estate land, zoned S -2, with an average 5 -10 acre parcel size. (estate residential)
Southeast= recently approved Bridges PUD (mix of commercial /office /residential uses)
West Clay Springs Subdivision and Claridge Farms Subdivision (low intensity suburban residential)
North Claybridge at Springmill and Springmill Streams (both estate residential), and Spring hill Ridge Subdivision
(suburban residential).
C3 Plan (Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan) Guidance:
The Carmel. Clay Comprehensive Plan "the C3 Plan guides growth in the city. There are many policies and objectives
listed that offer concrete guidance. Please view the C3Plan's city-wide policies and objectives online at:
http: /www.ci.carmel.in.us/ services /DOCS /DOCSCompPlan.htm. The main policies are:
1. Manage Community Form achieve a superior quality built and natural environment where people reside, work,
and recreate.
2. Be a Leading Edge City a community with broad name recognition, notable culture, positive image, diversity in
housing, broad employment range, business vitality, sense of place, architectural presence, environmental awareness,
effective public transportation, and a desirable quality of life.
3. Perpetuate Economic Vitality job growth, quantity of jobs, investment in property, redevelopment, length of
commitment, and degree of risk being taken.
4. Be a City of Neighborhoods to help build and /or reinforce the fabric of a city. Determined by major physical
boundaries, mix of housing styles, within walking distance to neighborhood service center.
5. Be 011 Adaptable City adapt to local, regional, and national influences.
6. Inspire Community Character to help build local pride, encourage investment, and improve quality of life.
7. Inspire Environmental Awareness protect natural areas, use native plant material, reduce energy consumption,
utilize `green' building materials to lessen the impact on the environment.
8. Inspire Healthful Living as a response to several disease rates in Indiana, such as obesity, heart disease, etc.
10
There are even policies and objectives that arc in place, specifically for West Carmel. This proposed project meets most
of those policies and deviates from only one or two aspects of the entire Comp Plan, such as the West Cannel Objective
6.1: Residential m perimeter roads and West
Carmel Objective 6.4: Require large setbacks and lot sizes, and only residential, institutional, and park uses along 116th
Street from Spring Mill Road west to the Boone County Line. Utilize the existing zoning ordinance overlay to implement.
To reiterate, the Comp Plan Land Classification Plan Map, adopted in May 2009, depicts this area as remaining Estate
Residential in character, in a conceptual manner. The C3 Plan states that this map should not be construed as
representing the precise location of land classifications, but used as a foundation for support and influence with
land use and development form decisions and zoning map changes. The Land Classification Map does not
establish the right to a certain density or intensity. The C3 Plan is a broadbrush approach to future land planning.
Each development proposal should be reviewed with consideration of all sections of the C3 Plan in addition to site
features, context, design standards, transition, buffering, and development standards. The creek can be viewed as a
boundary instead of Springmill Rd.
Lastly, the C3 Plan's US 31 Corridor Plan (part 5) shows this area west of Springmill Rd. as residential preservation area.
C3 Plan Land Uses: Best Fit vs. Conditional Fit: The Comprehensive Plan contains a chart showing best fit and
conditional fit land uses. "Best Fit" are classifications that are most suited for adjacency. "Conditional Fit" indicates
land classifications that are suitable for adjacency if the building orientation, transitions, and architecture are
implemented with sensitivity to the context. The third category are those adjacent land classifications shown as blank,
neither C or 13, which represent classifications that are not typically appropriate adjacent to the subject classification and
shown as a blank box. (The neighborhoods surrounding the Bridges PUD site could be considered Suburban Residential
or Estate Residential.)
Again, this
rezone proposal
should be
reviewed with
consideration of
all sections of
the C3 Plan in
addition to site
features,
context, design
standards,
transition,
buffering, and
development
standards (see
graph below.)
The C3 Plan
describes the
purpose of
Estate
Residential
areas (large lots
with single
family
detached
homes) as areas to establish and protect residential housing opportunities for people who desire a large residential lot,
11
Parks and Recreation
{e?wePrseU e4
Low Intensity Suburban Residential
Suburban Residential
Urban Residential
Inguaplseu petpauv
Neighborhood Support Center
Neighborhood Service Node
Institutional Node
BPoN A VJEMJl AuunwwoJ
opoN tuewAOldw3
Regional Vitality Node
uoddnS eto3
®ro3 uo5
8103 AA2WUd
Parks and Recreation
8
a
B
8
8
B
B
8
8
6
8
B
6
8
B
Estate Residential
B
B
8
C
c
Low Intensity Suburban Residential
8
8
a
8
C
C
Suburban Residential
BC
B
B
C
C
B
C
C
C
C
Urban Residential
8
C
B
B
B
C
CC
C
C
C
Attached Residential
8
C
8
a
B
8
8
B
C
C
B
C
C
Neighborhood Support Center
8
C
B
B
B
BB
Neighborhood Service Node
e
c
c
8
e
8
8
6
c
C
Institutional Node
a
C
C
C
C
8
8
BB
6
B
B
B
B
B
Community Vitality Node
8
C
C
813
8
8
8
8
B
Employment Node
8
8
C
C
8
8
B
8
B
C
C
Regional Vitality Node
o
c
c
B
8
B
8
C
Core Support
8
C
8
C
B
C
C
B
B
B
Secondary Core
8
C
C
8
C
8
8
8
Primary Core
9
C
8
B
8
8
Best Fit
Conditional Rt
8=
c
There are even policies and objectives that arc in place, specifically for West Carmel. This proposed project meets most
of those policies and deviates from only one or two aspects of the entire Comp Plan, such as the West Cannel Objective
6.1: Residential m perimeter roads and West
Carmel Objective 6.4: Require large setbacks and lot sizes, and only residential, institutional, and park uses along 116th
Street from Spring Mill Road west to the Boone County Line. Utilize the existing zoning ordinance overlay to implement.
To reiterate, the Comp Plan Land Classification Plan Map, adopted in May 2009, depicts this area as remaining Estate
Residential in character, in a conceptual manner. The C3 Plan states that this map should not be construed as
representing the precise location of land classifications, but used as a foundation for support and influence with
land use and development form decisions and zoning map changes. The Land Classification Map does not
establish the right to a certain density or intensity. The C3 Plan is a broadbrush approach to future land planning.
Each development proposal should be reviewed with consideration of all sections of the C3 Plan in addition to site
features, context, design standards, transition, buffering, and development standards. The creek can be viewed as a
boundary instead of Springmill Rd.
Lastly, the C3 Plan's US 31 Corridor Plan (part 5) shows this area west of Springmill Rd. as residential preservation area.
C3 Plan Land Uses: Best Fit vs. Conditional Fit: The Comprehensive Plan contains a chart showing best fit and
conditional fit land uses. "Best Fit" are classifications that are most suited for adjacency. "Conditional Fit" indicates
land classifications that are suitable for adjacency if the building orientation, transitions, and architecture are
implemented with sensitivity to the context. The third category are those adjacent land classifications shown as blank,
neither C or 13, which represent classifications that are not typically appropriate adjacent to the subject classification and
shown as a blank box. (The neighborhoods surrounding the Bridges PUD site could be considered Suburban Residential
or Estate Residential.)
Again, this
rezone proposal
should be
reviewed with
consideration of
all sections of
the C3 Plan in
addition to site
features,
context, design
standards,
transition,
buffering, and
development
standards (see
graph below.)
The C3 Plan
describes the
purpose of
Estate
Residential
areas (large lots
with single
family
detached
homes) as areas to establish and protect residential housing opportunities for people who desire a large residential lot,
11
Bridges PUD Standards
Corporate Othce
Use Block
Office and
Residential.
Use. Block
Commercial
Amenity
Use Block
*Minimum Tract Size for DP
3 Acres
3 acres
3 Acres
Minimum Building Setback from 116
Street and Illinois Street
20'
20'
20'
Minimum Building Setback from
Springmill Road and 111 Street
20'
50'
30'
*Min. Side/Rear Yard Building Setback
15'
n/a
n/a
Minimum Building Height when Building
is not adjacent to 111 Street
38' or 3 floors
n/a
n/a
Minimum Building Height when Building
is adjacent to 111 Street
n/a
n/a
n/a
Maximum Building Height when Building
is not adjacent to Springmill Road or 111w
Street
the lesser of
90' or 6 floors****
60'
60'
Maximum Building Height when Building
is adjacent to Springmill Road or 111
Street
the lesser of
38' or 3 floors
the lesser of
38' or 3 floors
the lesser of
38' or 3 floors
Minimum Building Gross Floor Area
(GFA) when Building is not adjacent to
Springmill Road or 111 Street
15,000 s.f.
n/a
**2,500 s.f.
Minimum GFA when Building is adjacent
to Springmill Road or 111 Street
7,500 s.f.
n/a
n/a
Maximum Building Gross Floor Area
n/a
n/a
120.000 s.f.
Minimum Distance Between Buildings
30'
15'
n/a
enjoy secluded living, or prefer living integrally with nature, and who require minimal city conveniences. The C3 Plan
Land Classification Plan describes the Intensity/Density of Estate Residential land uses to be development as less than
1.0 dwelling unit per acre, or 1 u /a. Examples of this are Bridlebourne (northeast of 106th St. and Shelbourne Rd.) and
Laurelwood (southeast of 106th St. and Ditch Rd.). Appropriate adjacent land classifications that are Best Fit are Parks
and Recreation, Estate Residential, and. Low Intensity Suburban Residential. Appropriate adjacent land classifications
that are Conditional Fits are Suburban Residential and Institutional Node. Structure features of Estate Residential areas
have a maximum of three stories, have gable and hip roofs, where structures are generally wider than they are deep, and
the front facade generally faces a public right-of-way. Structure orientation on site would be a centralized building
envelope. Other C3Plan Development Features for Estate Residential Areas are: 1) to have a minimum of 10% open
space in subdivisions. The perception of substantial open space should exist from larger lots and setbacks; 2) to have
internal and external bicycle and pedestrian connectivity; 3) to protect existing (pre development) environmental
features; and 4) that guest houses and detached facilities are permissible.
Transition (Heights, Setbacks, Land uses, Buffers):
Heights:
Single family detached homes surrounding the site are 1 -2 stories tall.
1U Health /Clarian North hospital is 6 -7 stories tall, and could be a maximum of 9 stories or 150 ft., and potential
additional buildings on the Clarian North site, along Springmill Rd., north of 116 St can be a maximum 40 -ft tall.
Mormon meetinghouse and temple south of the site are proposed to be 35 -ft tall, with 120 -ft tall spire.
The Bridges PUD proposes maximum building heights of 3 stories or 38 feet, when adjacent to Springmill Rd.,
and maximum building heights of 60 feet, when adjacent to 1 16 St., within the Commercial Amenity Use Block
which is closest to the intersection of 1 16 St. and Spring Mill Rd.
Setbacks:
S -1 /Residence
zoning calls for
building setbacks of:
40 -ft front, 10 -ft side,
20 -ft rear.
S -2 /Residence
zoning calls for
building setbacks of:
35 -ft front, 10 -ft side,
20 -ft rear.
West 116th Street
Overlay Zone calls for
100 -ft front yard
building setbacks
along 116 Street
(within 990 -ft of 116th
Street's centerline),
and other setbacks
default to the
underlying zoning of
S -1 or S -2.
The Clarian North
PUD calls for building
setbacks of: 200 -ft
from US 31 116 St
12
Zoning
S -1
S -2
Lot Area (sq ft)
well septic
43,560
43,560
water septic
35,000
35,000
well sewer
25,000
20,000
water sewer
15,000
12,000
Front Yard
40'
35'
Side Yard
Single family
10'
10'
other
20'
20'
Aggregate Side Yard
Single- family
30'
25'
other
50'
40'
Rear Yard
Single- family
20'
20'
other
15'
15'
Lot Width
Single family
120'
100'
other
200'
200'
Lot Coverage (max)
35%
35%
Ground Floor Area
One-Story
1,000
1,100
Two -Story
800
800
for hospital, 20 -ft from Illinois St; 15 -ft side yard. Area 2A (near Springmill Rd 116 St 15 -ft front yard 30 -ft
max. Area 2B, near Springmill Rd. 116 St.: 15 -30 -ft front yard.
The Bridges PUD proposes a minimum 30 -ft building setback from Springmill Rd. and minimum 20 -ft setback
from 116 St., within the Commercial Amenity Use Block, closest to the intersection of 116 Springtill Rd (see
chart, above).
Adjacent Land Uses Appropriate Land Uses:
Land Uses, Best Fit vs. Conditional Fit: (see C3Plan section above.)
Clarian North PUD: The land uses permitted west of Illinois St., east of Springmill Rd, and north of 116 St.,
known as areas 2 -A and 2 -B are:
2 -A: (Area parallel and adjacent to Spring Mill Rd.) Single family dwellings, two family dwellings, multifamily
townhomes, home occupations, or an assisted living facility.
2 -B: (Area parallel and adjacent to Illinois St) Single family dwellings, two family dwellings, multifamily
townhomes, assisted living facility, child care center, day nursery, medical office buildings, offices, general service
(limited to ground floor or basement), retail limited, food services. (Here is a website link to the Clarian North PUD
ordinance Z- 409 -03: http:// cocdocs. ci. carrnel. in .us /Weblink /0 /doc /202.192/Page I .aspx)
S -1 S -2 Residential District, Additional Standards:
S -I Zoning: The S -2 /Residence zoning classification permits
Single Family dwellings and a Public Service Facility. Special
Uses (uses looked upon favorably and with BZA approval) would
be: Clinic or Medical Health Center, Place of Worship, Library,
Water Management Facility, College /School, Borrow Pit /Mineral
Extraction, Greenhouse, Raising /Breeding of Non -farm animals,
Recreational Facilities, Lake, Cemetery, and Tower.
S -2 Zoning: The S -2 /Residence zoning classification permits
Single Family dwellings and a Public Service Facility. Special Uses
(uses looked upon favorably and with BZA approval) would be:
Clinic or Medical Health Center, Place of Worship, Library, Water
Management Facility, College /School, Borrow Pit /Mineral
Extraction, Greenhouse, Raising /Breeding of Non -farm animals,
Recreational Facilities, Lake, Cemetery, and Tower.
The West 116 Street Overlay calls for a minimum lot area of 3
acres and a minimum 100 -ft front building setback. Portions of a
parcel that extend beyond a depth of 990 feet are exempt from the
requirements of this overlay.
Residential Open Space Standards (ROSO), SCO Chapter 7):
The Subdivision Control Ordinance's Open Space Subdivision design approach has been adopted to ensure a
minimum amount of neighborhood open space is integrated within all Major Subdivisions that are 5acres or more in
size. Open Space should be set aside for active or passive uses, and provide a network of open space. The open space
requirements emphasize the protection of natural areas, such as flood zones and woodlands, but also allow for more
structured open spaces, such as parks or squares, as well as for agricultural open space in the form of fields or
pasture. Open space should be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
Areas zoned S -1 and S -2 that are proposing residential plats must provide at least 15% open space. The base density
13
TABLE FOR BUFFERYARD DETERMINATION
SINGLE FAMILY
DUPLEX
MULTI FAMILY
ACTIVE
RECREATION
1VOLLfLLLLSNI
OFFICE;
RETAIL
WAREHOUSE;
LT. INDUSTRY
HEAVY
INDUSTRY
COLLECTOR
STREET
PARKWAY
(Prlm. or Sec)
ARTERIAL
(Prim. or Sec)
EXPRESSWAY
OR
INTEITANTE
HIGHWAY
SINGLE FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT
8
C
C
D
D
D
0
D
C
0
D
D
DUPLEX
DEVELOPMENT
C
A
C
B
B
C
C
D
B
0
D
D
MULTI FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT
C
C
B
B
B
C
C
D
C
0
0
D
ACTIVE
RECREATION
D
B
B
A
C
C
C
C
B
D
D
D
INSTrn1TIONAL
0
B
B
C
A
A
C
C
B
D
D
D
OFFICE; RETAIL
0
C
C
C
A
A
C
0
B
D
D
0
WAREHOUSE;
LT. INDUSTRY
0
C
C
C
C
C
A
B
B
D
0
D
HVY.INDUSTRY
D
D
D
C
C
0
B
B
B
D
D
0
Bufferyard Design Standards in the table below are stated in terms of minimum width and
number of plants required per one hundred linear foot increment.
BUFFERYARD
MINIMUM YARD WIDTH
FRONT SIDE REAR
SHADE TREES
ORNAMENTAL TREES
SHRUBS*
A
5'
10'
3
2
9
B
5'
10'
3
3
15
C
10'
20'
3
4
21
D
15'
25'
5
5
27
*Evergreen trees may substitute in lieu of shrubbery, on a 1:3 basis (1 conifer equals three shrubs)
for this type of qualifying subdivision is 1 unit per acre.
Buffering/
Landscaping:
The Silvara PUD
spells out specific
bufferyards which
meet, and sometimes
exceed, the
Buffcryard
Regulations of the
Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 26.04.
Zoning
Ordinance
Buffervards: The
Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 26
addresses perimeter
buffering to require
planting areas and
bufferyards between
and surrounding
land uses. Those
regulations are
summed up in the
table to the right.
C3 Plan Objective 2.2: The C3 Plan stresses buffering adjacent residential uses from retail centers. Buffering can
be anything from plantings, a wall, a transition of land uses, or just distance between buildings.
C3 Plan, Street Features: This section conveys the primary design standards that make each street classification
unique. The standards include: right -of -way, maximum number of lanes, minimum lane width, curbs, sidewalks and
paths, on- street parking, street trees, and buffer plantings. Certain Street classifications (as shown on the
Thoroughfare Plan Map) shall be buffered from properties with plantings, berms or walls, that front on them.
Springmill Rd. is considered a Collector Street (90 -ft wide right of way) and 1 16` St. is considered a Primary Arterial
(150-ftwide right of way).
14
as
WEST CARMEL POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
Introduction
The following sections convey the policies and ohjectives
for West Cancel. It is important to note that these sections
share some of the same policy headings as the City -wide
section, but the content under each heading is specific to
\Vest Carmel and adds to other City -wide ohjectives.
Policy 1: Manage Community Form
Objective 1,1: Preserve the estate character of West Carmel
by protecting large -lot residential areas and by requiring
new subdivisions to have large setbacks from and quality
landscaping along perimeter roads. Further, require exten-
sive re- vegetation along perimeter roads and within each
new development. A larger open space requirement should
also be considered.
Objective 1.2: Conservation subdivisions and innovative
residential community designs that protect vegetation, slopes
and are non monotonous in terms of architecture and material
selection are preferred.
Objective 1.3: Subdivision connectivity and transitions
between proposed developments and existing subdivisions
should be scrutinized to a greater degree in West Carmel.
Objective 1.4: \Vest Carmel has many non connecting subdivi-
sions. The proliferation of this pattern of development is
more tolerable in this district; however, critical connections
shown on the Thoroughfare Plan will he absolutely required.
Although there is less emphasis on vehicular connectivity,
bicycle and pedestrian connectivity will be strictly required.
For instance, where road connectivity between a proposed
development and an existing development is not required,
bicycle and pedestrian connections will be required.
Objective 1.5: With the success of the Monon Greenway,
other off street facilities are w demand. West Carmel has an
opportunity to utilize portions of several pipeline corridors
for such a trail. These corridors are shown as off street trails
in the 2020 Vision Plan and in the Alternative Transporta-
tion Plan initially adopted in 2001, and are supported in the
C3 Plan as well. Integrating this type of facility in some
areas will be relatively easy, but in already built environ-
ments may prove to be more difficult.
Objective 1.6: Carmel should partner with neighboring
Westfield and Zionsville to plan and implement a significant
greenway along Little Eagle Creek.
Objective 1.7: Continue expansion of bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure to connect neighborhoods with schools, parks,
WestClay's Secondary Core, and other destinations.
Policy 2: Be a Leading Edge City
Objective 2.1: Maintain and protect sub -areas in the City
of Carmel for estate character housing. These areas are
essential to attracting high quality businesses, providing the
desired quality -of -life for senior employees.
Objective 2.2: Encourage more custom home developments
to balance the housing inventory which has been slanting in
recent years toward production homes. Custom home neigh-
borhoods will also add character to West Carmel by reducing
monotony. Concurrently, allow carriage houses and other
compatible forms of accessory dwellings to provide flexibil-
ity and a range of housing options.
Objective 2.3: Adopt residential architecture standards to
ensure compatibility, a high quality aesthetic, energy
efficiency, and durability.
Policy 3: Perpetuate Economic Vitality
(no additional objectives apply to West Carmel)
Policy 4: Be a City of Neighborhoods
(no additional objectives apply to West Carmel)
Policy 5: Be an Adaptable City
(no additional objectives apply to West Carmel)
Policy 6: Inspire Community Character
Objective 6.1: Reinforce rural character including tree lines,
fence rows, barns, pockets of open space, and preservation
of wood lots. Residential intensity can exist, but generally
should not be obviously portrayed from perimeter roads.
Objective 6.2: Protect single- family residential character along West
96th Street between Spring Mill Road and Shelbourne Road.
Objective 6.3: Require commercial buildings along Michigan
Road to he constructed of durable materials and designed to
reflect "village" character. Continue to strengthen the exist-
ing zoning ordinance overlay to implement the requirements.
Objective 6.4: Require large setbacks and lot sizes, and only
residential, institutional, and park uses along 116th Street
from Spring Mill Road west to the Boone County Line.
Utilize the existing zoning ordinance overlay to implement.
Policy 7: Inspire Environmental Awareness
Objective 7.1: Strive to protect woodlots, wetlands, and other
valuable natural features in West Carmel. These features
contribute to the district's rural character, but they also
provide habitat for plants, birds, and other animals.
Policy 8: Inspire Healthful Living
Objective 8.1: Promptly work to obtain park land in the north
western portion of Clay Township while undeveloped land is
still available.
CAR.MEL CLAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
1
25
ESTATE RESIDENTIAL
Purpose
To establish and protect residential housing opportunities
for people who desire a large residential lot, enjoy secluded
living, or prefer living integrally with nature, and who
require minimal city conveniences.
Geographic Location
Predominant in West Carmel.
Land Uses
Single family detached residential only.
Intensity /Density
Residential development less than 1.0 dwelling unit per
acre.
Examples
Bridlebourne (northeast of 106th St. and Shelbourne Rd.)
Laurelwood (southeast of 106th St. and Ditch Rd.)
Appropriate Adjacent Classifications
Best Fit: Parks and Recreation, Estate Residential, and Low
Intensity Suburban Residential.
Conditional Fit: Suburban Residential and Institutional
Node.
Structure Features
Maximum three stories.
Gable and hip roofs.
Structures are generally wider than they are deep.
Front facade generally facing public right -of -way.
Structure Orientation On Site
Centralized building envelope.
Development Features
Minimum of 10% open space in subdivisions. The perception
of substantial open space should exist from larger lots and
setbacks.
Internal and external bicycle and pedestrian connectivity.
Protect existing (pre development) environmental
features.
Guest houses and detached facilities are permissible.
Regulation Implementation
Utilize traditional zoning to regulate this classification.
30 C FY OF CARMEL, INDIANA
This residence is a good example of Estate Residential in West
Carmel.
Estate Residential is established for large homes that may be
isolated on large estates.
Estate Residential is established for large homes on large lots that
may be located within a neighborhood.
CLAYi1RI11tiE Al
Towne Oak
Estates
(0.85)
Crooked Stick!
West (1.23)
1-
a I13ROVE
rt{r:zal r.
Estates of
Clay West L I
_(0.55) 1 4
LF�S:SPAMIG2
4 t i Crooked Stick
Estates Y
(.056)
Spring Run l
Estates
(0.68) 1t
i I t� M f I
Estanc iia
WI[[IAAt5
tint EKi
;I 1.
Chateaux
i De Moulin
(0.20) i`\ II 4�aiirir:, IAtu:"
471351.
1
k i �T t'µ'' r• 1 r fC
Rosada Hill
7 Coppergate L
0 ;Wt nde ntere'+-
m (0.55) v M 1- i r. .1 (0.33)
0
rairi�V ia� i
The S -2 area to the east is to be the transition from the U.S. 31 Corridor to the S -1 residential
land west of Spring Mill Rd. Spring Mill Road was repeatedly planned to be the dividing line
between S -1 and higher intensity. (As such in the 20/20 Plan, the U.S. Corridor Plan, and the
new Comp Plan.)
In the Clarian PUD, 13 -15 acres of Section 2 -A abut Spring Mill Rd. For transitioning, it was
required to permit only residential buildings limits ownership to "1 dwelling unit designed
used as a permanent residence." Lot coverage is limited to 75 Silvara's Village Neighborhood
permits 90
Farther east, the 12 -14 acres of Section 2 -B abuts Illinois, permitting various types of residential
buildings, Child Care Center, and Medical Office Buildings. Any Retail and /or Food Services
are restricted to the ground floor or basement of a primary building. Within 2 -B, maximum
building heights decrease on the western portion to 50' or 4 stories.
Densities of All Surrounding Subdivisions:
1 u/a or less: Median density 0.55
Spring Mill Streams (0.91)
Claybridge (0.87)
Williams Creek Manor (1.0)
Chateau De Moulin (0.5)
Estancia (0.20)
Winterwood (0.48)
Spring Mill Place (0.96)
Rosada Hill (0.33)
Laurelwood (0.49)
Queens Manor (0.18)
Crooked Stick Estates (0.56)
Spring Run Estates (0.68)
Estates of Clay West (0.55)
1 u/a or more: Median density 1.76
Claridge Farms (1.32)
Clay Springs (1.3)
High Grove (1.23)
Spring Mill Ridge (1.39)
Spring Farms (S -2 at 1.4)
Westpark (R -3 at 2.32)
Spring Lake Estates (S -2 at 1.76)
Williams Mill (S -2 at 2.35)
Meridian Suburban (2.17)
Reserve at Spring Mill (2.18)
VWC (2.1)— included even though only the
large lot area of VWC is within the
approx. 1 mile ring used
Average Density .59 Average Density 1.77
For all 24 subdivisions above, Median 0.96 /Average 1.14. This is without counting any
large lot independent landowners.
INf3.7AN2 749872v1
PUP CONCEPT PLAN
Clarian North Hospital Campus Planned Unit Development
Clarion PUD
Section 4.C.: "Area 2 -A is intended to provide a transition between potential residential uses on
the west side of Spring Mill Road and those high intensity uses recommended along the US 31
Corridor. Transition is accomplished in Area 2 -A by a combination of permitted use restrictions,
height regulations, architectural regulations and site design restrictions."
Permitted Uses: Single Family Dwellings, Two Family Dwellings, Multifamily Townhouse
Dwellings, provided however, no person, group of person or entity, other than the initial
developer, shall own more than one (1) dwelling unit and each dwelling unit shall be
designed for and used as a permanent residence. Additional uses are Horne Occupations,
Assisted Living Facility, Trail
Maximum Building Height is 40' with the maximum lot coverage for single /two family
dwellings is 50% of the lot. For multifamily townhouse dwellings, maximum lot coverage is
75% of the lot.
Section 4.D.: Development within Area 2 -B is intended for higher intensity dwelling, office
and other uses typically associated with and in close proximity to a major hospital facility.
Permitted Uses: Single Family Dwellings, Two Family Dwellings, Multifamily Townhouse
Dwellings, Assisted Living Center, Child Care Center, Day Nursery, Medical Office Buildings,
Offices, General Service Establishments (limited to the ground floor or basement of a primary
building), Retail (limited to the ground floor or basement of a primary building, Food Services
(limited to the ground floor or basement of a primary building), Accessory Uses and. Structures
(Accessory Uses and structures which are subordinate, appropriate and incidental to the above
permitted uses), and Trail.
Additionally, the maximum building height for buildings "greater than 200' from the west right
of -way line of Illinois Street: 50 feet, with a maximum of 4 stories." Within 200' of the west
right -of -way line of Illinois, buildings are limited to 60' with a maximum of 5 stories.
e.
r
A
s10, rfrov..
eib /(MY -515 A07— Lori 7Z kri
To: Carmel City Council
From: Richard Scott, President
Claybridge Homeowner's Association
Carmel, IN 46032
Subject: Pedestrian Access Between Claybridge at SpringMill Subdivision and The
Silvara Development
It has been reported that Claybridge Homeowner's Association residents have
agreed to permit pedestrian access between Claybridge Subdivision and The Silvara
Development. The access site is supposedly a pedestrian trail between the cul -de -sac at
the southeastern end of Suffolk. Lane and Silvara, across private land owned by either
Claybridge Homeowners Association or a Claybridge resident who lives on Suffolk Lane.
I would like to clarify the issue of a pedestrian access agreement between
Claybridge Subdivision and The Silvara Development:
We the undersigned hereby agree with these statements of fact.
Date
1. The Claybridge Homeowner's Association has not and will not agree to
permit any pedestrian access across Claybridge common land to the Silvara
Development.
2. Pedestrian access from Silvara to the cul -de -sac at the southeastern end of
Suffolk Lane in Claybridge would require an agreement to cross the private
property that surrounds the cul -de -sac. This property is owned by three
Claybridge Residents: Alan Breier, Robert Foley, and Eyas Hattab and none of
them has nor will they agree to a pedestrian access across their private property.
11
Richar cot reside
12838 e lk Circle,
/f6.
t, Claybridge HOA
Carmel, IN
attab, Claybridge Resident.
71 Suffolk Lane, Carmel, IN
6 (3f7_)1SG -2 ai,
Date e 1 mcy con-,
Alan Bret Claybridge Resident
648�S Lane, Carn}�l�
Date 1 LU��
Robej i oley, Claybridge Re
660 Suffolk Lane, Carmel,
///6//l ��17 l 3
Date
Carmel City Councilors and Neighbors November 7, 2011
My name is Jill Meisenheimer. I have lived in Carmel for 33 years. I live at 471 Burlington
Lane in Williams Mill, which faces Spring Mill Road and is south of 116 Street and the
proposed Silvara PUD.
Our zero lot neighborhood has 47 homes and our neighbors average 65 -70 years old. When
people moved into our neighborhood they believed that nearby S1 residential properties, such as
the Frenzel property, if developed would be built with 1 unit/acre. Many of my neighbors have
been actively involved in following and responding to the recently proposed dense developments
near 116 and Spring Mill Road.
I am concerned about current and future traffic gridlock. Right now, in order to go north
out of Williams Mill, often we must first go south, turn around, and then go north. The Silvara
traffic study did not include projected traffic from The Bridges and the Mormon Temple and
now Silvara wants twice the number of dwellings allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. When
the public requested that the traffic impact data available for each four of the 4 corners of the
intersection should be put together the city's response was that improvements to Meridian and
Illinois Streets would fix everything True or not, those are years away. Will Silvara be required
to wait until those roads are finished before beginning their development?
My next concern is that the Silvara proposal does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan
that has been approved by the current Council, which calls for 1 unit /acre west of Spring
Mill Road. Also, the 21 acres recently excluded from the Silvara PUD are likely to return in the
future for a rezone to higher density and/or commercial development. I worry that this could set
a problematic precedent for higher density and/or commercial development both in the Clarian
PUD located on the east side of Spring Mill Road and in future developments on the west side of
Carmel.
Lastly, I am very concerned that Silvara is using "Active Adult/Empty- Nester" housing as
a special reason to justify a PUD in order to increase density. Senior housing could be a
positive addition on the west side of Carmel and could be expected to have a somewhat higher
density than 1 unit/acre. Studies show that 89% those aged 50 and older want to "age in place"
in the familiar surroundings of their home or community. (AARP National Survey, November
2010).
However, Silvara's "Active -Adult /Empty Nester" dwellings are just smaller, with options
available to anyone, and can be built or purchased by any age group. Although the Silvara PUD
lists some Universal Designs features that can be offered by the builder to homeowners on active
adult homes, these features are optional, and will require additional cost by the homeowner.
(Page 50 Silvara PUD Redline). There is no grouping of homes for like -type ages and lawn
maintenance, snow removal, and security systems are available for an extra fee. This lack of
commitment to Senior Housing does not justify a special use for a PUD to include "Active
Adult/Empty Nester" dwellings.
1 have learned the consequences and the financial impact of not requiring universal design when
building an empty nester home. Seven years ago we decided to build an empty nester home at
Williams Mill. No one can predict when a short term or long term disability will become part of
our lives. At age 58, with knee problems, I needed a main floor master bedroom and grab bars in
the bathroom. My Dad, almost 90, had great difficulty climbing steps and needed a wheelchair.
We asked the builder to make our new home handicapped- accessible with a no -step entryway
and grab bars in the bathroom. We naively assumed this would be automatically done and did
not give him a list of other expectations.
So we were shocked to find that our home needed steps at each entrance and the doorways were
not 36" wide. The builder was able to widen some doorways, but it was too late to modify the
back door leading to our patio without adding an additional expense to our new home. Sadly, the
steps into our home made it difficult for my Dad to join our Sunday dinners and to enjoy our
backyard patio. Happily, I used the grab bars in our bathrooms before and after I had to have
back surgery and knee surgery.
If Universal Design is not standard and required for all "Active Adult/Empty Nester" dwellings,
the person buying the unit will have preventable and unnecessarily high expenses to revise their
home. Universal Design standards such as wider openings throughout, no step thresholds, and
grab bars need to be required in order to have Senior Housing that will be usable for a lifetime.
Those features benefit people of all ages and abilities, and add safety and value to a home. (Ten
Myths about Universal Design, 11/21/2011)
Our neighborhood at Williams Mill is small, friendly, and maintenance free. I especially
appreciate that we are a caring community, know our neighbors, and enjoy group activities
together. In spite of all the new development surrounding us, most of our residents value our
neighborhood enough to stay here, even knowing that traffic gridlock and continual construction
are in our near future.
Simply stated, the Silvara PUD doubled density will increase gridlock, it does not comply with
the Comprehensive Plan, and nothing in the optional "Active Adult/Empty Nester" standards
justifies a rezone to a PUD. Those dwellings need to be grouped together and be required to
ave Univers. Design standards. Please do not,approve this PUD as it is currently structured.
Jill H. Meisenheimer 844 -3920
To: Carmel City Council
Re: Silvara Rezone
November 7, 2011
My name is Jim Dillon and I live at 507 Cornwall Ct. Our property is 92 ft. from Silvara's
property line. We built our home in Spring Mill Streams 26 years ago. As with all
homeowners this was a major investment. Can you imagine how disturbing it was to
receive 4 registered letters the first year we were in our new home telling us that
something was happening within 600 ft. of our property? So we went to meetings and
watched. Finally we decided it was time to find out what the heck was going on. We
were so alarmed by what we learned we got involved and have been involved in the
community ever since. Rest assured when I tell you that I keep a close eye on Carmel's
Comprehensive plan. I've participated in several of the revisions, updates and special
committees.
The purpose of zoning is protection protection for homeowners, protection for
businesses, protection to make sure that every element of the community works
together for the benefit of everyone. The Comprehensive Plan guides that
development. Zoning standards secure that goal. Our Comprehensive Plan is the result
of thousands of hours of input from citizens as well as professional planners. This last
Comprehensive Plan cost the taxpayers many thousands of dollars.
There is a hierarchy among zoning categories with residential development receiving
the most protection, because home ownership is the largest single investment most
people ever make. But, within that category there is even another hierarchy that of
existing development over proposed development. I quote from Silvara's update of
October 7th "Silvara is a unique property that, at two hundred and eighty acres, is one
of the few remaining large properties within the community and functions as an "in -fill"
site to the existing, surrounding developments." We agree with this statement Silvara
IS an in -fill site that is completely surrounded by existing development. They go on to
say, "As a result, opportunity exists to truly apply the policies and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan and implement a thoughtful, site specific design program that is
sensitive to the existing development The opportunity is there, but Slivara has neither
matched the Comprehensive Plan nor is it sensitive to the existing development.
The Comprehensive Plan is very specific about the areas west of Spring Mill Road
when it clearly states this area should develop as large estate lots with a density of 1-
unit per acre. I quote from the Comprehensive Plan "encourage more custom home
developments to balance the housing inventory which has been slanted in recent years
toward production homes Does Silvara comply with the Comp Plan? Absolutely, NOT!
Silvara says they have removed the apartments but have they? They have included
provisions for "flats" as many as 40 in a building. What exactly is a "flat In England,
the word "flat" refers to an apartment. If these are meant to be condominiums, why not
call them condominiums. Flats, 40 to a building, sound like an apartment complex.
Therefore, is this really an apartment complex in disguise? So I again ask, have the
apartments really gone away?
Silvara volunteered to remove the commercial /retail component of the development.
Has the commercial really gone away? In reality what they did was to remove the 20
acres on the corner of 116 and Spring Mill from this PUD. It has not gone away, it is
simply sleeping for the time being. You can count that they will be back sometime in the
future asking to develop this as commercial.
The traffic this development will generate has been swept under the rug. We keep
hearing assurances that the improvements to Illinois and US 31 will make all our traffic
problems go away. We agree that these improvements will give relief from the
commuter traffic on Spring Mill but this will be replaced and exacerbated by the newly
generated local traffic on Spring Mill. 6,500 cars per day from Silvara added to the cars
from the Bridges, added to the cars from the Mormon Temple, added to the cars at
Clarian will be horrendous.
Silvara promised to match their perimeter lots with the existing perimeter lots in
neighboring subdivisions, but have they? NO. Lot widths are measured at the building
line. This is how you maintain continuity for the spacing of houses within a subdivision.
Adjacent S -1 lot widths are 120 ft. at the building line. What Silvara is promising sounds
like a match -but it isn't. They are committing to 120 ft. at the back lot line but the
building line will be 100 ft., these are standards for S -2 not S -1. The building line in
Claybridge is 140 ft.. There is no way Silvara perimeter lots match existing adjacent
perimeter lots.
In my years of watching and participating, I have seen ordinances come and go. Do
you remember the Cluster Ordinance that turned out to be a way for developers to
disregard lot standards and increase density? You surely remember the ROSO that
again allowed developers to disregard development standards and increase density.
The current ordinance du jour is the PUD. Silvara is a perfect example of why these
ordinances were repealed. It is flawed and there is no accountability once adopted.
At the Plan Commission public hearing the Silvara proposal was thrown against the wall
to see what would stick. Lots of things didn't stick so changes have been made to the
plan. Some were introduced at the first Sub Committee meeting. More changes were
made at the second Sub Committee and more were made at the third Sub- Committee
meeting. Even more changes were made for the Plan Commission vote. Silvara has
been a moving target. Does anyone know what the current proposal really is. The
information is widely scattered on the City's web site in multiple locations and some of
the data is not available at all. This reminds me of the 1000 page health are that
nobody had time to read.
PUDs are exempt from established standards and review processes. There basically
are no controls once a PUD is approved. David Walsh sent all of you an itemized list of
some of the flawed details and loop holes in the proposal before you tonight but he says
he could go on for another 20 pages. Is this really what you want to see happen? What
Silvara now boils down to is a project that probably no longer qualifies as a PUD. It
could and should be approved through the normal rezone process but not as a PUD. I
urge you to deny this PUD rezone request.
James C. Dillon
Proposed Water Non Recuring Fee Changes
Description Current Prposed
Fee Fee
Meter Installation Fee
5/8x3/4 $63 $84
1 $63 $84
1.5 $70 $94
2" meter $80 $109
Meter Re -read fee N/A $10
Subsequesnt Trip Fee -Meter Pit Inspection $39 $56
Irrigation Permit Fee $132 $323
Water Main Tap done by Carmel Utilities $312 $362
Water Main Tap Inspection Fee $86 $102
Water Main Tap reinspection Fee $43 $65
Disconnect/Reconnect Fee for non payment $43 $74
Reconnection Fee after hours $75 $87
Large Hydrant Meter Daily Rental Fee $20 $24
Small Hydrant Meter Rental Fee $10 $13
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
50.0
50.0
1
40.0
30.0
20.0
10,0
DUNKIN DONUTS FIRE
PERIOD BEGIN
Hours
END
111/11/201M [12:01 AM 1 111/1112010
111:59PM1
Refresh 1
Tower Levels
North Tower 4- South Tower -0- Wes; Tower
r
Level Waning
0.0
PEA is <T �e'�` e'� e�` r* r�`
xa° .a° .a° a° o qQ a` .o 1° d' o a .o° ..e.° Q q 4 z° qa °a 4 c? e
as
Thursday, November 11, 2010
(Tower Levels
100.0
90.0
80.0
.7.4"
t•) 50.0
40.0
200
10,0
MOHAWK HILLS FIRE
PERIOD BEGIN
Hours Hi 17/3/2007 1.:!]
112:01 AM
END
17/3/2007 1 7e1 7
111:59 PM'
1 Refresh 1
-0- JCIM Tourer -4.- South TGWU Or West Tcr.ve:
Leval likamiog
0 /0..1111.111111111111
T‘'N •i‘:` RI' IZI IC Ct. g "Z '4" q' V 4-N t• 'Z' N
I Z' 4 ‘e Q
q it it
,ft. b :S' ci ,.0 1 Cli 1, 9 13 e,.'' 0 51 te 9° ,p, c•
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
y 50.0
J
200
10,0
MONDAY JULY 25, 2011
PERIOD BEGIN
Hours 0,17/25/2011
112:01 AM
END
17/25/2011 1
11:59 PM]
Refresh I
(Tower Levels
-0- North Tower South Tower West t Tower
�7 Vi i' �q fi 4� s.r S�� Q e �i1 7 Q Q Q c.• CO Q
'1. ,y e„..4 41 a U a cs „L4 qs ci ti 0 (s:,7-'
ti7 C'
ti y
Monday, July 25, 2011
Tower Levels
WEDNESDAY JULY 27, 2011
PERIOD BEGIN
Hours 117/27/2011
112:01 AM
END
17/27/2011 M
111:59 PM'
1 Refresh
0.0 r
-0- North Tower -4.- South Tower -4- West MAIO(
0 1 1' 1' 0 0 0 e <f q 'e e 1> t1 e qNt% e
tar' C' t 0- N iZt N•• C• lb tr' K tS'
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10,0
FRIDAY JULY 29, 2011
PERIOD BEGIN
Hours [7/29/2011M
112:01 AM
END
17/29/2011
111:59 PM 1
I Refresh 1
Tower Levels
-0- North Tower South Tower -0- West Tower
i Zt s 12 ,4 44' 44' e 4k&' e e 44
e -CP CP :CP e -CP
lb" A to NI ev A •si .„,N
Friday, July 29, 2011
$50.00
$45.00
$40.00
$35.00
$30.00
$25.00
$20.00
$15.00
$10.00
$5.00
$0.00
Current Monthly Sewer Bill 6,000 Callon Consumption
Carmel 35.8% to 53.42% Lower
1
1
$35.14 $32.30 $34.63
$33.
$44.50
79
$44.50
$35.14 $32 30 $34.63
$33.7
20 73
550.00
545.00
540.00
535.00
530.00
$25.00
520.00
$15.00
510.00
$5.00
50.00
Proposed Monthly Sewer Bill 6,000 Gallon Consumption
Carmel is still the lowest in the area
(y
Al
9
Current Monthly Water Bill 8,000 Gallon Consumption
Carmel is 30.6% to 57.5% lower
$60.00
$50.00
$40
$30.00
$10.
$0.00
CARMEL
WESTFIELD INDIANAPOLIS FISHERS
ZIONSVILLE NOBLESVILLE
WATER
Proposed Monthly Water Bill 8,000 Gallon Consumption
Carmel is tied for the lowest water rate in
area
$60.00
$50.00
$40.00
$30.00
$20.00
$10.00
$0.00
$30.83 $30.83
CARMEL
$38.63
$38.63 $38.63
$50.29
WESTFIELD INDIANAPOLIS FISHERS ZIONSVILLE NOBLESVILLE
D WATER
Current Monthly Sewer Bill 6,000 Gallon Consumption
Carmel is 35.8% to 53.4% lower
$50.00
$45.00
$40.00
$35.00
$30.00
$25.00
$20.00
$15.00
$10.00
$5.00
$0.00
�kti
�P�
$50.00
$45.00
$40.00
$35.00
$30.00
$25.00
$20.00
$15.00
$10.00
$5.00
$0.00
Proposed Monthly Sewer Bill 6,000 Gallon Consumption
Carmel is still the Iowest in the area
Q O
P