HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondenceW. Carmel Marketplace Variances Page 1 of 1
Butler, Angelina V
From: Greg J. Ewing [GEwing@binghammchale.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 12:48 PM
To: Butler, Angelina V
Cc: Dobosiewicz, Jon C; Mary E. Solada
Subject: RE: West Carmel Marketplace Variances
Angie,
I don't know if you have seen the September 3 variance submittal, titled "Second Amended Application". This
September 3 filing represents the latest variance request. The variances requested are nine in number
specifically identified by case number on the first page of this September 3 submittal. The second page of this
September 3 submittal details the specifics of each variance requested.
All nine of these variances have been formally requested since the July 1 filing of the "First Amended
Application". However, the "degree" of the requested deviations have changed, due in large part to discussions
between Cindy Schembre (Duke) and Jon, and are reflected in the September 3 filing.
After significant negotiation/discussion with the DOCS, Duke is requesting these nine variances.
These variances reflect the site plan and elevations submitted with the August 31 info packet, which are the same
as were submitted with the September 3 filing.
Other than reducing the scale of some of the deviations, again due to negotiation/discussion between Cindy and
Jon, we still need these nine variances.
Greg
686-5228
..... Original Message .....
From: Butler, Angelina V [mailto:AButler@ci.carmel.in.us]
~ent-' Tuesday, September 07, 2004 11:27 AM
To.' Greg J. Ewing
Cc.' Dobosiewicz, .]on C
Subject-' West Carmel Marketplace Variances
Greg:
please be more specific and send me a breakdown as to which variances will be withdrawn and which
variances you are keeping. It is confusing, since some of the variances were stated as now being complied
with, according to the August 31,2004 committee info packet.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Angie Butler
Planning Administrator
Division of Planning & Zoning
Department of Community Services
City of Carmel
One Civic Square
Carmel, ZN46032 p317.571.2417 f317.57:L.2426
9/7/2004
B ngham · McHale.,
attorneys at [aw
September 3, 2004
Mary E. Solada
Parmer
msolada@binghammchale.com
VIA EMAIL & U.S. MAIL
Jon C. Dobosiewicz
Planning Administrator
City of Carmel
Department of Community Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Dear Jon:
I have filed in your offices on Sept 3, 2004, the latest amendments concerning the West
Carmel Marketplace DP, ADLS, and variances.
As noted in your verbal comments of August 31 (Special Studies meeting), and in recem
communications between Greg Ewing of my office and Angie Butler of yours, the amended
petitions and attachments provide details concerning the latest overall building square footage,
parking spaces, light poles/fixtures, signage type/size, and the specific variances requested.
The amendments represent the latest available details of the West Carmel Marketplace
concerning the variances as was requested by Angie. Other agreed upon details such as proposed
commitments will be fo.rthcoming soon.
Should you have comments or questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
MES/clh
Cc: Angle Butler
Cindy Schembre
898069
Sincerely,
Mary E. Solada
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street · Indianapolis Indiana 46204-4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 · Facsimile 317.236.9907 · binghamrnchale.com
Indianapolis , Jasper Noblesville
04070008 V; Sign Copy Variance Page 1 of 2
Butler, Angelina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Dobosiewicz, Jon C
Tuesday, July 20, 2004 5:01 PM
'Greg J. Ewing'
Butler, Angelina V
Subject: RE: 04070008 V; Sign Copy Variance
Greg,
We will not be issuing a variance docket for the tenants on a sign because you do not need one.
We have all the bases covered on the signs from our end. Everything is under 25.07.02-11 not -09. I think that is
where you are getting the tenants from.
If you want to make another application of discuss this further please call to set up a meeting.
Thanks,
Jon
..... Original Message .....
From: Greg J. Ewing [mailto:gewing@binghammchale.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 4:34 plVl
To: Dobosiewicz, .1on C
Cc: Butler, Angelina V
Subject: RE-' 04070008 V; Sign Copy Variance
Jon,
Sorry, if I am dense, i was not even thinking of a frontage argument. For the moment, I just want to know
if we need to file another variance.
The problem, Ithink, is procedural. We filed for the tenants-on-the sign variance, but were not yet
assigned a case number for that variance. We were assigned a case number (04070008 V) for "extra
changeable copy area" instead, which we did not yet file. Sorry to confuse matters, but I just want to cover
all the bases, with a focus on notice at the moment.
So, I assume, based on your response to my question sent to Angie, that we DO need to file the "extra
changeable copy" variance, but since that variance has already been assigned 04070008 V, we'll be given
a new case number for the tenants-on-the-sign variance, which we already filed, but have yet to be given a
case number for? Please confirm. Thanks.
Greg
..... Original IVlessage .....
From: Dobosiewicz, Jon C [mailto:.lDobosiewicz@ci.carmel.in.us]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 4:08 pivl
To: Greg .1. Ewing
Cc: Butler, Angelina V
Subject: FW: 04070008 V; Sign Copy Variance
Greg,
7/21/2004
04070008 V; Sign Copy Variance Page 2 of 2
It is our current position with regard to the ground signs that variance approval is needed from the
25.07.02-11 .g allowing a maximum of 2/3 of changeable copy (this includes sign panels) for a
Center identification Ground Sign not the following:
Your proposal to vary 25.07.02-09.b which addresses a ground identification sign for multi-tenant
ground floor buildings.
We are both getting to the same end point. However, based on your logic the tenants on block G
have no frontage on Michigan Road and therefore would not be permitted identification on the
ground signs along Michigan Road.
Thanks,
Jon
..... Original IVlessage .....
From: Greg J. Ewing [mailto:gewing@binghammchale.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 3:36 PM
To: Butler, Angelina V
Cc: IVlary E. Solada
Subject: 04070008 V; Sign Copy Variance
Angie,
Regarding one of the variances for the West Carmel Marketplace project, I want to resolve one point
of confusion, before notices go out for the BZA hearing of 8-23-04.
We filed on July 1st a variance request, among others, to provide for the ground signs to not have
all the tenants included on them. In that amended variance application, we specifically requested
variation from "25.07.02-09, b". I understand from Jon's comments that this particular variance is
not an issue with the staff, given the circumstances of this overall project and the number of ground
signs vs. tenants, etc.
Based on the assignment of variance petition numbers, it appears that we were assigned 04070008
V for this request, but the Chapter reference assigned by your office to this variance is "25.07.02-11
(g)", which refers to changeable copy area.
Jon's written comments for tonight's hearing, as I understand, state that a variance to provide for
ground signs, without all the tenants identified on it, is expected to be filed.
Since we did specifically file that variance on July 1st, and 04070008 V references a variance from
that same general section of the ordinance (changeable copy), I suspect we are not yet "credited" in
your office with filing the tenants-on-the-sign variance.
Question: Since both the changeable copy provision and the tenants-on-the-sign provision are both
derived from the same section of the ordinance (25.07.02), may we (your office and the petitioner)
utilize 04070008 V as the case number for a variance of these two elements of the same section?
With the notice deadline fast approaching, I just want to know if we need to file a new variance and
obtain a new variance case number. We don't want to file another variance for this if we don't have
to, but will if you say we must, of course. Thanks.
Greg
686-5228
7/21/2004
Butler, Angelina V
From: Dobosiewicz, Jon C
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 4:08 PM
To: Greg Ewing (E-mail)
Cc: Butler, Angelina V
Subject: FW: 04070008 V; Sign Copy Variance
Greg,
it is our current position with regard to the ground signs that variance approval is needed from the 25.07.02-
11 .g allowing a maximum of 2/3 of changeable copy (this includes sign panels) for a Center identification Ground
Sign not the following:
Your proposal to vary 25.07.02-09.b which addresses a ground identification sign for multi-tenant ground floor
buildings.
We are both getting to the same end point. However, based on your logic the tenants on block G have no
frontage on Michigan Road and therefore would not be permitted identification on the ground signs along
Michigan Road.
Thanks,
Jon
..... Original IVlessage .....
From: Greg .1. Ewing [mailto:gewing@binghammchale.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 3:36 plVl
To: Butler, Angelina V
Cc: Nary E. Solada
Subject: 04070008 V; Sign Copy Variance
Angie,
Regarding one of the variances for the West Carmel Marketplace project, I want to resolve one point of confusion,
before notices go out for the BZA hearing of 8-23-04.
We filed on July 1st a variance request, among others, to provide for the ground signs to not have all the tenants
included on them. In that amended variance application, we specifically requested variation from "25.07.02-09,
b". I understand from Jon's comments that this particular variance is not an issue with the staff, given the
circumstances of this overall project and the number of ground signs vs. tenants, etc.
Based on the assignment of variance petition numbers, it appears that we were assigned 04070008 V for this
request, but the Chapter reference assigned by your office to this variance is "25.07.02-1 l(g)", which refers to
changeable copy area.
Jon's written comments for tonight's hearing, as I understand, state that a variance to provide for ground signs,
without all the tenants identified on it, is expected to be filed.
Since we did specifically file that variance on July 1st, and 04070008 V references a variance from that same
general section of the ordinance (changeable copy), I suspect we are not yet "credited" in your office with filing
the tenants-on-the-sign variance.
7/20/2004
04070008 V; Sign Copy Varian.__ce ~ Page 2 of 2
Question: Since both the changeable copy provision and the tenants-on-the-sign provision are both derived from
the same section of the ordinance (25.07.02), may we (your office and the petitioner) utilize 04070008 V as the
case number for a variance of these two elements of the same section?
With the notice deadline fast approaching, I just want to know if we need to file a new variance and obtain a new
variance case number. We don't want to file another variance for this if we don't have to, but will if you say we
must, of course. Thanks.
Greg
686-5228
7/20/2004
Tin~lle¥, Connie S
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Butler, Angelina V
Wednesday, July 07, 2004 11:30 AM
Tingley, Connie S
Morrissey, Phyllis G; Pattyn, Dawn E; Babbitt, Pamela A; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Keeling,
Adrienne M; Kendall, Jeff A; Brewer, Scott I; Hancock, Ramona B; Dobosiewicz, Jon C;
Pohlman, Jesse M; Brennan, Kevin S
AMENDED Docket No. Assignment: (V) (former Walnut Creek) West Carmel Marketplace (#
04050029-30 V, 04050033-36 V, 04070008-10 V)
Connie,
Please prim and fax this c-mail to thc petitioner identified below and update thc file. I have updated thc necessary
Docket Numbers for (V) West Carmel Marketplace. They will be thc £ollowin~:
Docket Nos. 04050029-$0 V, 040500~-~6 V, and 04070008-10 V
($950.00 for thc 1st variance + $450 * 8 additional variances= $45~0)
Total Fee: $4,550.00
Docket Nos. 04050029-30 V, 04050033-36 V, and 04070008-10 V: West Carmel Marketplace
The applicant proposes a retail center and seeks the following Development Standards Variances:
Docket No. 04050029 V Chapter 23C. 10.02.2 rear foundation plantings- Primary Bldg
Docket No. 04050030 V Chapter 23C. 13 access to tracts
Docket No. 04050033 V Chapter 25.07.02-11.b sign number & type
Docket No. 04050034 V Chapter 25.07.02-11.c wall sign area-Primary Bldg
Docket No. 04050035 V Chapter 25.07.02-11.c ground sign area
Docket No. 04050036 V Chapter 25.07.02-11.d.i ground sign height- Primary Bldg
Docket No. 04070008 V Chapter 25.07.02-11(g) extra changeable copy area
Docket No. 04070009 V Chapter 23C.09.D facade projections/recessions
Docket No. 04070010 V Chapter 23C.09.D facade material change: horizontal-vertical
The site is located northeast of 99th Street and Michigan Rd/US 421. The site is zoned B-3/Business and B-2/Business
within the US Highway 421 Overlay. Filed by Mary Solada ofBingham McHale for Duke Realty.
Petitioner, please note the following:
1. This Item was on the of the June 16 agenda of the Technical Advisory Committee.
2. Mailed and Published Public Notice needs to occur no later than Thursday, July 29, 2004. Published notice is
required within the Indianapolis Star.
3. The Proof of Notice will need to be received by this Department no later than noon, Friday, August 20. Failure
to submit Proof of Notice by this time will result in the tabling of the petition.
4. The Filing Fee and Nine (9) Informational Packets must be delivered to BZA Secretary Connie Tingley no
later than NOON, Friday, August 13. Failure to submit Informational Packets by this time will result in the automatic
tabling of the petition to the Monday, September 27, 2004, agenda of the BZA.
5. This Item will appear on the August 23, 2004 agenda of the Board of Zoning Appeals under Public Hearings.
HOWEVER, this item may be tabled until Sept. 27; depending on how long the Plan Commission takes in reviewing the
DP/ADLS.
6. The petitioner will need to provide a fully filled-out Findings-of-Fact sheets for each petition the night of the
meeting for the Board's use (Sheet 8). On Ballot sheets, only fill out docket number, petitioner, and date (Sheet 7). Ballot
sheets must be collated.
7.) PETITIONER: refer to your instruction sheet for more details.
Please contact Ms. Solada at 635-8900 (Fax: 236-9907) with this information. Once the file is updated please return it to
my office. ~,
Thank you,
Angie
City of Carmel
Department of Community Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
317-571-2417
Fax: 317-571-2426
FACSIMILE TELECOPY COVER LETTER
DATE' July 7, 2004
TO'
Mary Solada, Bingham McHale, LLP
FAX: 236-9907
FROM' Connie
Attached hereto are 2 pages, including this cover letter, for facsimile transmission.
Should you experience any problem in the receipt of these pages, please call 317/571/2419
and ask for Connie.
NOTES'
You are listed as the contact person for this docket. Please make sure you notify your
Petitioner(s).
Attached is the filing information for:
West Carmel Marketplace
Please call if you have any questions.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The materials enclosed with this facsimile transmission are private and confidential
and are the property of the sender. The information contained in the material is privileged and is intended only for
the use of the individual(s) or entity(les) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any
unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied
information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile transmission in error, please immediately notify
us by telephone to arrange for return of the forwarded documents to us.
Butler, Angelina V
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Babbitt, Pamela A
Morrissey, Phyllis G; Pattyn, Dawn E; Babbitt, Pamela A; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Keeling, Adrienne
M; Kendall, Jeff A; Brewer, Scott I; Hancock, Ramona B; Dobosiewicz, Jon C; Pohlman, Jesse
M; Brennan, Kevin S
AMENDED Docket No. Assignment: (V) (former Walnut Creek) West Carmel Marketplace (#
04050029, 04050030 V, 04050033-36 V, 04070008-10 V)
Connie,
Please print and fax this e-mail to the petitioner identified below and update the file. I have updated the necessary Docket
Number for (V) West Carmel Marketplace. It will be the following:
Docket Nos. 04050029, 04050030 V, 04050033-36 V, and 04070008-10 V
($950.00 for the 1st variance + $450 * 8 additional variances= $4550)
Total Fee: $4,550.00
Docket Nos. 04050029, 04050030 V, 04050033-~, and 04070008-10 V: West Carmel Marketplace
The applicant proposes a retail center and seeks/the following Development Standards Variances:
Docket No. 04050029 V Chapter 23C. 10.02.2 t foundation plantings ~ ~,m,~ a~a~'
Docket No. 04050030 V Chapter 23C. 13
Docket No. 04050033 V Chapter 25.07.02-11.b
Docket No. 04050034 V Chapter 25.07.02-11.c
Docket No. 04050035 V Chapter 25.07.02-11.c
Docket No. 04050036 V Chapter 25.07.02-11.d.i
Docket No. 04070008 V Chapter 25.07.02-09(b)
Docket No. 04070009 V Chapter 23C.09.D
Docket No. 04070010 V Chapter 23C.09.D
access to tracts
sign number & type
wall sign area-Primary Bldg ~.
ground sign area ...._... ~,"~.
ground sign height
tenants sharing sign area'~-'~ 'g~'. o~.
facade projections/recessions
facade material change: horizontal-vertical
The site is located northeast of 99th Street and Michigan Rd/US 421. The site is zoned B-3/Business and B-2/Business
within the US Highway 421 Overlay. Filed by Mary Solada of Bingham McHale for Duke Real_t)'.
Petitioner, please no~t~e following:
1. This Item ~o~-~zeon the of the June 16 agenda of the Technical Advisory Committee.
2. Mailed and Published Public Notice needs to occur no later than Thursday, July 29, 2004. Published notice is
required within the Indianapolis Star.
3. The Proof of Notice will need to be received by this Department no later than noon, Friday, August 20. Failure
to submit Proof of Notice by this time will result in the tabling of the petition.
4. The Filing Fee and Nine (9) Informational Packets must be delivered to BZA Secretary Connie Tingley no later
than NOON, Friday, August 13. Failure to submit Informational Packets by this time will result in the automatic tabling
of the petition to the Monday, September 27, 2004, agenda of the BZA.
5. This Item will appear on the August 23, 2004 agenda of the Board of Zoning Appeals under Public Hearings.
HOWEVER, it is likely that this item will not be heard until Sept. 27; it depends on how long the Plan Commission takes
in reviewing the DP/ADLS.
6. The petitioner will need to provide a fully filled-out Findings-of-Fact sheets for each petition the night of the
meeting for the Board's use (Sheet 8). On Ballot sheets, only fill out docket number, petitioner, and date (Sheet 7). Ballot
sheets must be collated.
7.) PETITIONER: refer to your instruction sheet for more details.
Please contact Ms. Solada at 635-8900 (Fax: 236-9907) with this information. Once the file is updated please return it to
my office.
Thank you,
Angie
attorneys at
[ a w
Mary E. Solada
Partner
msolada~binghammchale.com
John C. Dobosiewicz
Planning Administrator
City of Cannel
Department of Community ServmcS
One Civic Square ~-~'>~ ~'~' ,.
C~el, ~diana 46032
Re. West Ca~el Marketplace
Our File'
Petitioner: Duke Construction, Limited Partnership
14647-56366
Dear Jon,
Please note the amended site plans and elevations, as filed today, concerning the
West Carmel Marketplace development proposal (04050028 DP/ADLS). We have also
filed an amended variance petition, consistent with the comments we have received from
both you and Angie Butler of your office.
Although discussions continue with respect to access from Michigan Road, the
alignment of the extension of Commerce Drive, and the issues of regional drainage, these
plans and elevations incorporate the following adjustments to address issues raised by
your comment letter of May 18, 2004, and the TAC meeting of June 16, 2004:
Please note that one, relatively small and non-critical property, which was
previously proposed to be included along the Michigan Road frontage, has been removed
from the overall site plan. Although Duke Construction, Limited Partnership, previously
received verbal commitments, and obtained consent for zoning action, from the owner of
this property, Porter Shank II, the acquisition process has failed to materialize, to date.
That said,
o
.
,
4~
The elevations now illustrate the sides and rear of the raised entry areas of the
primary building.
The elevations now illustrate the storefront areas behind the entry features of the
primary building.
The view of the raised entry areas has been added to the east elevation of the
primary building.
The materials have been labeled on the eastern portion of the north elevation, and
the eastern portion of the south elevation, of the primary building.
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street · Indianapolis Indiana 46204.4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 · Facsimile 317.236.9907 · binghammchale.com
Indi an apo lis Jasper N o b le sv ille
July 1, 2004
Page 2
Se
o
o
o
o
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Multiple pilasters have been added to both the north and south elevations of the
primary building.
Architectural elements have been added to most of the exterior comers of the
primary building, including the east side.
The window style elevation is now consistent for all tenants along the front fagade
of the primary building. Front faCade adjustments have been made to reduce
some of the building material changes of the primary building. However, the
petitioner maintains the opinion that modest material changes, given the context
of a large building as this, can provide an appropriate visual diversity, particularly
when compared to the monotonous west faCade of the adjacent "SuperTarget".
The proposed faCade vertical changes have been incorporated in the amended
variance petition.
The amended variance petition includes a requested deviation from the offset
requirements, for the primary building.
The elevations now illustrate the storefront areas behind the entry features of the
"B" Shops buildings.
Multiple pilasters have been added to the north and south elevations of the "B"
Shops buildings.
The amended elevations of the "B" Shops buildings propose architectural features
atop of each of the pilasters, providing a "pillar-cap" visual feature, each of which
functions much as a decorative wall sconce.
Architectural features have been added to the eastern comers of the "B" Shops
buildings.
Multiple pilasters have been added to the east elevation of the "B" Shops
buildings.
The amended variance petition includes a requested deviation from the 8-foot
building projection requirements. The amended plans include a 4-foot front
projection for the center of the "B" Shops buildings.
The utility screen wall along the east side of the "B" Shops buildings is intended
to conceal utility meters, etc.
The amended elevations illustrate roof elevations and rooftop mounted HVAC
locations.
All storm water will be handled internally. There will be no exterior downspouts,
scuppers, etc.
Material samples will be provided prior to the Plan Commission, including brick,
aluminum, stone, EIFS, glass, and paint.
Golden Section and regulating line analysis of the elevations are included with the
amended elevations for all buildings, showing the appropriate proportionality of
each elevation.
The additional architectural features of the amended elevations, particularly the
multiple pilasters, provide a detail similarity between the front and side elevations
of all buildings.
882414
July 1, 2004
Page 3
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
The amended elevations of all the buildings include a generally unified design for
the multiple storefronts. However, the petitioner maintains the opinion that
modest design changes, particularly regarding a building as large as the primary
building, can provide appropriate visual diversity and still be consistent with the
ordinance. The front faqade of the primary building's raised entry area height,
raised entry area perimeter shape, building materials, and front entry spacing are
generally consistent.
The original ADLS petition submittal omitted a physical count of the wall signs
for the second "B" Shops building, thus, omitting nine wall signs. There are a
maximum of 23 wall signs proposed. However, the actual number of tenants, and
related signs, will be likely less.
The petitioner will agree to~mber of colors for the wall signs for the
"B" h ........
Sops bmld~ngs to ~nze/~omb~nat~on. The petitioner mmntmns the
opinion that the primary bmTdin~all signs are significantly removed from
Michigan Road, with each tenant entry physically separated from one another,
thus preventing sign clutter or any negative wall signage impact.
The wall signs will consist of individual face lit channel letters. There will be no
raceways.
The amended elevations illustrate wall signs for the "B" Shops buildings as 35
square feet. The initially filed variance request for "B" Shops wall signage of 40
square feet is hereby withdrawn.
The amended elevations for the wall signs for the primary building are for
illustration purposes only. This illustration is exemplary of the ineffective size
the standard would provide, given the significant separation of the building from
Michigan Road, the significant separation of the individual tenant spaces, the
'existing frontage development effectively hindering visibility from Michigan
Road, and the lack of additional wall signage on the east, north and south
elevations of the building. Therefore, the initially filed wall sign size, only for the
primary building, is still requested.
Wall signs are not proposed on the sides of the buildings.
The petitioner understands that wall signs of a greater size than permitted would
result in DOCS proposing a prohibition on window signage, a further focus upon
uniformity of design and a prohibition of wall signs facing Commerce Drive.
The Center name "West Carmel Marketplace" has been incorporated into the
design of Ground Sign "A".
Although omitted in this first amended site plan submittal, the development has
been renamed "West Carmel Marketplace".
The elevations of Ground sign "A" now propose a 12-foot tall sign on a 2'6" tall
base. The pre-cast base would have "West Carmel Marketplace" identified with
mounted black letters on all four sides.
The sign panels of Ground Sign "A" will be opaque, with illumination of the copy
only.
882414
Page 4
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
The sign copy colors for Ground Sign "A" will depend on the tenants, which is
not known as of this writing.
The design of Ground Sign "B" has greater similarity to the amended Ground
Sign "A" elevations, as opposed to the originally filed Ground Sign "A"
elevations.
The amended variance petition includes a request to allow fewer than all tenants
on the ground signs.
The sign panels of Ground Sign "B" will be opaque, with illumination of the copy
only.
The sign copy colors for Ground sign "B" has not been determined, as of this
writing.
The parking light fixtures are proposed to be a maximum of 24 feet tall, including
base.
Flat lens fixtures will be provided for all parking and security lights, although
consistency with the existing curved lens fixtures at the adjacent "SuperTarget"
facility was intended with the original filing.
Shields will be provided on light fixtures adjacent to Commerce Drive and the
south property line.
Cut sheet will be provided for all building mounted lighting fixtures.
Brant Kercheval, a Landscape Architect with Duke, has been in discussions with
Scott Brewer of DOCS, and will be revising the landscaping plan accordingly.
Foundation plantings variance has been requested. Further justification for this
variance is provided with the variance application.
Although omitted from this first amended site plan submittal, the parking setback
from the common area drives adjacent to.the "B" Shops buildings will be reduced,
and the foundation planting strip increased accordingly.
The parking setback along Retail Parkway has been adjusted to a minimum 15
feet.
The parking setback along proposed 99th Street has been adjusted to provide for a
minimum 6 feet.
See # 42 above.
The amended variance petition no longer requests a minimum front yard setback
variance.
The amended variance petition no longer requests a minimum side yard setback
variance.
The petitioner would prefer to leave future landscaping of the overall south
property line to the developer of that parcel in the future, and to the
recommendations of the DOCS in coordination with adjacent property owners at
that future date.
Landscaping within designated wetlands near the eastern perimeter of the site is a
problematic issue. However, the petitioner is engaged in discussions with
adjoining neighbors to provide an adequate buffer acceptable to all parties.
882414
July 1, 2004
Page 5
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
The site plan has been carefully developed to address the existing development
pattem'of the corridor, the overall architectural and design intentions of the
overlay ordinance, and the commercial viability/economic sustainability of a site
which is properly zoned and recommended for such development by the
Comprehensive Plan.
A sidewalk is provided along the south side of Retail Parkway, both sides of 99th
Street, and along Commerce Drive behind the primary building.
Pedestrian connections between the sidewalks adjacent to commercial buildings
and the buildings are provided on the revised site plan.
Although omitted in this first amended site plan submittal, future amendments
will indicate a site plan with five noted storefronts for the primary building.
The amended variance includes a request to provide for the additional access via
the proposed 99th Street. The petitioner maintains the opinion that such an access
is justified, given the findings of the traffic study, the proposed aligmnent of 99th
Street with Mayflower Parkway Drive (Thoroughfare Plan), and the relocation or
removal of other established access points. Additionally, the petitioner has
initiated discussions with INDOT and the Hamilton County Highway Department
to address site access as related to traffic issues throughout the vicinity, including
the extension of Commerce Drive to 96th Street.
See # 56 above.
When the developer of the future development area files specific development
plans for the future development area, the exact locations of access points will be
determined through the coordination of that developer, the DOCS and the Plan
Commission. One access is identified to the future development area, via 99th
Street.
Access points to future outlots is indicated on the revised site plan. .
The removal of the relatively small Michigan Road frontage parcel owned by
"Porter Shank II" may hinder the proposed closing of curb cuts serving 'that
parcel.
The amended site plan proposes fight-in/right-out access points at some existing
points of access.
Subsequent to the preparation of the initial draft Traffic Study, A & F Engineering
has further studied the traffic issues in the vicinity, particularly with the eventual
extension of Commerce Drive to 96th Street. Such an extension provides further
justification for the proposed 99th Street traffic signal. As of this writing, the
petitioner is engaged in further discussions with INDOT and the Hamilton County
Highway Department in an effort to coordinate roadway related efforts of all
agencies, so as to enhance the potential for a 99th Street traffic signal
acceptability.
See # 62 above.
See # 62 above.
See # 62 above.
882414
July 1, 2004
Page 6
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
The petitioner, and A & F Engineering, is aware of the DOCS consultant
evaluation of the Traffic Study.
The petitioner is preparing to file a plat vacation of Block "F" of West Carmel
Center.
The petitioner is preparing to file a plat petition to provide for the creation of
outlots.
The petitioner would prefer not to file to rezone that portion of the site currently
zoned B-2 to the B-3 classification, given the additional time and representation
expense of such a perfunctory (petitioner's perspective) action. However, given
that such a rezone would not impact the use proposed or the proposed
development plan, the petitioner would consent to such a rezone if initiated by the
DOCS, at no cost to the petitioner.
The amended variance petition has been rewritten to provide less elaboration of
each point for which a variance is requested.
Thank you for your comments. We hope we have addressed your concerns thus
far, and look forward to working closely with you in our efforts to gain Plan Commission
and Board of Zoning Appeals approvals for the West Carmel Marketplace development.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Solada
Cc'
Angie Butler, DOCS
Cindy Schembre, Duke
Blair Carmosino, Duke
Greg Snelling, Woolpert
Brent Davis, CSO
882414
~b
May 18, 2004
Mary E. Solada
Bingham McHale LLP
10 West Market Street
2700 Market Tower
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Via Fax: 236-9907
Original by Mail
Re: Walnut Creek Marketplace
Dear Ms. Solada:
The following are preliminary comments on the Walnut Creek Marketplace DP/ADLS
application based on the information filed with the Department of Community Services on May
14, 2004. A separate review letter will be sent regarding the variance applications filed on the
same day.
ADIOS
Primary Building Elevations'
1. Provide section drawings illustrating sides and rear of raised entry areas.
2. Provide section drawings illustrating storefront area behind entry feature.
3. Add view of raised entry areas (west side of building) to east elevation. They have
been omitted.
4. Label materials on north and south elevations where faded out on submitted
elevations.
5. Provide additional architectural relief to north and south elevations (spandrel and/or
vision windows, columns, etc.)
6. Provide architectural elements at all (east side included) exterior comers of the
building similar to the type of element on the northwest and southwest comers of the
'B' Shops building.
7. It is not the intent of the Overlay ordinance to allow for the "Franchise Architecture"
of tenants in multi-tenant buildings to be set next to on another and skinned with a
consistent color and material pattern to comply.
a. Select one consistent window style (color, shape, etc.) The 'B' shops building
provides a good example.
b. Maintain consistent architectural design details. Symmetry and regulating lines
should be followed in the design.
c. Most of the proposed storefronts have to many changes in building materials
Page 1
ONE CIVIC SQUARE
CARMEL, INDIANA 46032
317/571-2417
o
along vertical lines. Material changes are permitted to change only along
horizontal lines. While the Plan Commission has permitted some variation from
this role the proposed elevations do not comply and are not consistent with other
multi-tenant buildings subject to the Overlay standards.
d. Changes in material color cannot be used exclusively for one tenant area as is seen
in the "Barns & Noble" appearing fagade.
Provide vertical relief along east elevation. It is anticipated that a variance will be
filed for offset requirements. This may be supported based on the response to
requested modifications.
'B' Shops Building Elevations' 9. Provide section drawings illustrating storefront area behind entry feature.
10. Provide additional architectural relief to north and south elevations (spandrel and/or
vision windows, columns, etc.)
11. Add exterior wall sconces to building elevations. Use same as specked on primary
building.
12. Add architectural element at eastern comers of building. Something not identical but
complimentary to the west comers.
13. Add vertical relief to east side of building (same as west elevation with less detail).
14. Building projections of 8' are required. While a variance application is anticipated
please provide greater relief. This could be accomplished by bumping out the three-
center tenant bays 4'+/-.
15. What is the purpose of the screening panels along the east side of the buildings?
All Buildings:
16. Illustrate roof elevation and rooftop mounted HVAC locations and heights with
dashed lines.
17. Verify that all storm water will be handled internally. Are there any exterior
scuppers, downspouts, etc.?
18. Provide material samples.
19. Provide Golden Section and regulating line analysis of elevations.
20. The Ordinance requires that the front and sides of buildings on comer lots be
similarly detailed. While DOCS will support less detailing on the side and rear
(north, south, and east) of the buildings more attention needs to be paid to these sides
in general and per comments above.
21. The Ordinance requires that buildings with multiple storefronts be of a unified design,
through the use of among other things common architectural details, signage and
lighting consistent with the overall building style.
Wall Signs'
22. The application calls out 14 wall signs while the elevations show 23. Please clarify
and correct submitted materials.
23. The Department will request the Plan Commission restrict the number of colors used
for the signs and the type of illumination. The Department has received negative
comments regarding the unrestricted variety of colors across other multi-tenant
building in the US 421 Corridor. The comments center on the idea that the signs
Page 2
ONE CIVIC SQUARE
CARMEL, INDIANA 46032
317/571-2417
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
detract form the architectural design of the buildings. Please visit the buildings at the
comer of 131 ~t Street and Hazel Dell Parkway for an example of the preferred method
of signage for multi-tenant buildings.
Please provide signage details (cut sheet illustrating mounting style, letter type,
lighting style, etc.) Individual face lit channel letters mounted directly to the building
is acceptable. Painting the brick behind the sign on the south end of the primary
building "Pier One" blue is not preferred.
Wall sign size for the "B" Shops building is permitted at 35 square feet. Please
revise application and elevations accordingly.
Wall sign size for the primary building is permitted at 115 square feet if frontage is
provided to US 421 and each tenant has between 151-300 feet of frontage. Please
provide elevations for comparison purposes that illustrate signage of this size.
Variance approval will be required for larger signs. DOCS will look for uniformity in
design when considering support for relief to allow larger sings on the primary
building. The 245 square feet proposed is more than twice what is permitted and
approximately 100 square feet larger than the largest size sign permitted under the
ordinance. On the record, DOCS will not support signage of this size for a multi-
tenant building.
Wall signs are permitted on the sides of buildings that face public streets. Please
show these on the building elevations if contemplated. Not preferred by DOCS on
east elevation of primary building.
Assuming that Duke will desire to seek variance approval for signage the Department
will ask the BZA to consider the following general conditions be added to any signage
variance approval'
a. Prohibit window signage.
b. The Plan Commission will address uniformity of design.
c. Prohibit wall signs facing Commerce Drive where public entry is not from that
frontage.
Ground Sign 'A"
29. Incorporate the Center name into the sign. Black painted letters cut into the cast stone
frieze along the top of the sign would be an attractive option.
30. The Department would like to see greater identification to the City of Carmel with
development is this area. If Duke is not stuck on the name "Walnut Creek
Marketplace" I would suggest "West Carmel Marketplace" as opposed to something
like "Walnut Creek Marketplace of Carmel".
31. The Department is not opposed to three ground signs along this significant length of
frontage. However, three signs of this type (area and height) will not be supported.
Please provide an illustration with same materials and the following specifications for
discussion'
a. Two-foot wide +/- columns on either side.
b. One row of sign panels, each two-foot tall and 4' wide, four panels tall.
c. Same cornice and frieze design. Incorporate center name.
d. Overall dimensions 8' wide, not to exceed 12' tall.
e. Realistically, there are not 12 tenants that require identification of US 421
(including future area) and DOCS would strongly prefer not to see duplication.
Page 3
ONE CMC SQUARE
CARMEL, INDIANA 46032
317/571-2417
32.
33.
The Department will only support opaque sign panels of the same color (cream
colored) with illumination of copy only.
The Department has a strong preference that the sign copy colors be limited to a
maximum of two.
Ground Sign 'B':
34. This style of sign would be supported along the interior drive, Retail Parkway, and
Commerce Drive at the entrances to the primary retail building as well as the 'B'
Shops buildings.
35. A variance will be needed to allow fewer than all tenants to be identified on these
signs. DOCS will support this request.
36. The Department will only support opaque sign panels of the same color (cream
colored) with illumination of copy only.
37. The Department has a strong preference that the sign copy colors be limited to a
maximum of two.
Lighting:
38.
39.
40.
41.
The maximum height of parking lot fixtures is 24'. This is including any base
structure. Please revise application information. The Department will not support a
request for relief.
Use flat lens fixtures only. Curved shown on application.
Provide shields on fixtures adjacent to Commerce Drive and south property line.
Provide cut sheets for all building mounted lighting fixtures (architectural and
security).
Landscaping-
42. Please meet with Scott Brewer of DOCS to discuss compliance with Ordinance and
acceptability of proposed plan.
43. It is recognized that you will request relief for the 5' building base landscaping
requirement along the east side of the primary building. This will be supported due to
the additional evergreen plantings along the Commerce Drive frontage.
44. The parking setback from the common area drives could be reduced down to 6'. With
this done adjacent to the 'B' shops buildings the east building base planting strip
could be widened to meet the 5' minimum. This is recommended.
45. The parking setback form Retail Parkway is 15'. Please revise plans.
46. The parking setback along your proposed 99th Street can be reduced down to 6'. This
may allow for an adjustment of setback of parking from Retail Parkway.
47. Red Baron Crabapples and Royal Star Magnolias are not shade trees. Shade trees are
required within interior parking lot islands. Please revise plans. Variance relief will
not be supported.
48. No variance approval is necessary from the requirements of Section 14.04.02
regarding landscaping.
49. No variance approval is needed from section 14.04.03 regarding minimum side yards.
50. DOCS recommends addressing landscaping along south property line of development
with this application as opposed to leaving discussion for future development phase.
51. Landscape Buffer plantings need to be addressed between your proposed storm water
Page 4
ONE CIV-IC SQUARE
CARMEL, INDIANA 46032
317/571-2417
detention areas and adjacent properties.
Develonment Plan
Site layout: 52. The Department would prefer a site layout that placed the buildings closer to the
primary road fights-of-way and provided parking in the rear or to the side of the
buildings.
53. Provide sidewalk (5' concrete) along both sides of public streets.
54. Provide pedestrian connections between the walks and buildings.
55. Modify primary building layout to match building represented in elevations (i.e. five
storefronts, variation on rear building footprint, etc.).
Access:
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
The Ordinance allows access via Commerce Drive and Retail Parkway. As we
discussed DOCS will not support access to the site (via US 421) as proposed on the
submitted drawings or as depicted within the traffic study as submitted. See
additional comments on traffic study below in next section.
The construction of Commerce Drive and its extension south to 96th Street is a critical
component of the Thoroughfare Plan. Construction on this site appears to be a
catalyst that warrants its construction. I say this based on the numbers in the traffic
study.
Identify location of access points to future development area. These shall align with
proposed access points along proposed Walnut Creek Drive
Identify location of access point to future outlots. Alignment is the issue.
With access being provided too the Speedway site and a primary/secondary plat
required we will request the closing of one of the cuts to this site along with the
modification of the other to a right-in/right-out. Access is further controlled by the
center median extending south form the signal at Retail Parkway and US 421.
The Department may support access to the subject property via right-in/fight-out
access onto US 421. These need to be designed with medians to encourage proper
use. We do have concern that extending a median may not be practical due to access
on the west side of US 421 but would ensure proper use of the right/in--right-out
access.
Traffic Study:
62. The following is stated to be clear that we are all on the same page. The traffic study
is not intended, nor will DOCS allow it to be used, to suggest that there is an
engineering need for the proposed traffic signal. The traffic study only concludes that
if access were permitted to the site at the proposed location it would warrant a signal
and that the signal installation would not diminish the level of service of the adjacent
signalized intersections. Policy neutral to be certain.
63. As required by ordinance access to this property is allowed from Retail Parkway and
Commerce Drive. Therefore, is incumbent on the applicant to illustrate how access
from these locations is insufficient to serve the site. The traffic study draws no such
conclusions. This should be explored.
Page 5
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDLANA 46032 317/571-2417
64.
65.
66.
The traffic study does not account for any traffic that would use the Commerce Drive
Extension other than traffic generated by the proposed development (25%). The
study should be revised to account for background use and trips generated by the
development to the north (Super Target and others).
Once we come to some conclusions regarding the suitability of access to the property
in relation to the Ordinance we will need to set a meeting with the State Highway
Department to obtain their input.
The Department will be requesting assistance in reviewing the technical merits of the
traffic Study from an outside consultant. Future comments will be delivered to the
applicant upon further review.
General Comments:
67. A plat vacation should be filed for Block "F" of West Carmel Center.
68. A Primary Plat application must be filed for the creation of the outlots including
Speedway property. Access will be a review criterion. See comments under access.
69. DOCS request that Duke agree to rezone the B-2 zoned property to a B-3 designation.
This will avoid any complication of a split-zoned property. This is not a requirement
but rather something that makes sense if the existing B-2 tract is no longer going to be
developed as a freestanding parcel.
70. The Variance application(s) needs to be less wordy and more to the point when
stating the requested relief. We do not need the "why" or "how" in this section we
need the "what". Call out specific sections of the code, state what is permitted and
state requested measure (setback, height, area, etc.). Keep it simple in this section.
You can add the "why" in another section.
Overall the proposed development lacks innovative site design. This is the same unimaginative
power center Duke stamps out in other conununities that do not have ordinances in place to
promote the steady flow of traffic and create a special sense of place through the use of a
common architectural and site design theme. With that said DOCS looks forward to working
with Duke in refining this proposal to meet the letter of the ordinance and intent where variances
are requested.
Sincerely,
tor
Department of Community Services
Z:\jdobosiewiczkLettersk2004\duke 5-17-04.rtf
Page 6
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
Babbitt, Pamela A
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Butler, Angelina V
Thursday, May 27, 2004 1:48 PM
Tingley, Connie S
Morrissey, Phyllis G; Pattyn, Dawn E; Babbitt, Pamela A; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Keeling,
Adrienne M; Kendall, Jeff A; Brewer, Scott I; Hancock, Ramona B; Dobosiewicz, Jori C;
Pohlman, Jesse M; Brennan, Kevin S
Docket No. Assignment: (V) Walnut Creek Marketplace (#04050029-04050036 V)
Connie,
Please print and fax this c-mail to thc petitioner identified below and update thc file. I have issued thc necessary Docket
Number for (V) Walnut Creek Marketplace. It will be the following:
Docket Nos. 04050025 through 04050036 V $950.00 for the 1 st variance + $450 * 7 additional variances=
$4,100
Total Fee: $4,100.00
Docket Nos. 04050029-04050036 V: Walnut Creek Marketplace
Thc applicant proposes a retail center and seeks thc following Development Standards Variances:
Docket No. 04050029 V Chapter 23C. 10.02.2 foundation plantings - ~'x'-'
Docket No. 04050030 V Chapter 23C. 13 access to tracts .- \~-~o
Docket No. 04050031 V Chapter 14.04.02.2 front yard - ~o ~'¼ ct~
Docket No. 04050032 V Chapter 14.04.03.2 side yard - ~','44~dro,O
Docket No. 04050033 V Chapter 25.07.02-11.b sign number & type ~~
Docket No. 04050034 V Chapter 25.07.02-11.c,.~ wall sign area .- [%,- q./,~w~0~ loid3- ~ '-]
Docket No. 04050035 V Chapter 25.07.02-11.c ground sign area -- ~ ? _3
Docket No. 04050036 V Chapter 25.07.02-11.d.i ground sign height --~'
The site is located northeast of 99th Street and Michigan Rd/US 421. The-~ 'site is zoned B-3/Business and B-2/Business
within the US Highway 421 Overlay. Filed by Mary_ Solada of Bingham McHale for Duke Realty.
Petitioner, please note the following:
1. This Item will be on the of the June 16 agenda of the Technical Advisory Committee.
2. Mailed and Published Public Notice needs to occur no later than Thursday, July 29, 2004. Published notice is
required within the Indianapolis Star.
3. The Proof of Notice will need to be received by this Department no later than noon, Friday, August 20. Failure
to submit Proof of Notice by this time will result in the tabling of the petition.
4. The Filing Fee and Nine (9) Informational Packets must be delivered to BZA Secretary Connie Tingley no
later than NOON, Friday, August 13. Failure to submit Informational Packets by this time will result in the automatic
tabling of the petition to the Monday, September 27, 2004, agenda of the BZA.
5. This Item will appear on the August 23, 2004 agenda of the Board of Zoning Appeals under Public Hearings.
HOWEVER, it is likely that this item will not be heard until Sept. 27; it depends on how long the Plan Commission takes
in reviewing the DP/ADLS.
6. The petitioner will need to provide a fully filled-out Findings-of-Fact sheets for each petition the night of the
meeting for the Board's use (Sheet 8). On Ballot sheets, only fill out docket number, petitioner, and date (Sheet 7). Ballot
sheets must be collated.
7.) PETITIONER: refer to your instruction sheet for more details and
please complete the following items:
1.) Do not fill in the blanks on the Ballot Sheets - only fill in the docket no. and petitioner.
2.) Be more specific with each variance requested: cite section of the ordinance and provide quantities, like sign area or
setback dimensions, based on what the ordinance requires verses what you proposes (specific quantities).
3.) Provide site plans with setback lines, etc. that show what the ordinance specifies, vs. what you are proposing.
4.) Label the square footage of the sign area and also provide a sign details breakdown, as you did with page 2 of the
ADLS application.
5.) Note that number of variances may increase/decrease depending on the DP/ADLS review by the Plan Commission.
Please contact Ms. Solada at 635-8900 (Fax: 236-9907) with this information. Once the file is updated please return it to
my office.
1
June 13, 2004
JAMES Ba~ar4ARD, MAYOR
Mary E. Solada
Bingham and McHale
2700 Market Tower
10 West Market Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-4900
RE' 9901 Michigan Road Landscape plan review comments
Dear Mary:
My comments on the landscape plan for the development located at 9901 Michigan Road
are as follows, and may be forwarded to whomever it may concern:
1. The development falls under the US Highway 421-Michigan Road Corridor
Overlay Zone Requirements found in Section 23C. 10 and the Bufferyard
Requirements in Section 26.4. The proposed landscaping plan submitted does not
meet all those requirements.
2. An over-all site plan needs to be submitted showing the all required landscaping
for bufferyards in Section 26.4 of the Carmel/Clay Land Use Ordinance. Included
on this plan should be a table that shows the amount of plant material required in
the bufferyards and the amount of plant material proposed by the plan. This plan
needs to include undeveloped portions of the site, common areas, and storm water
ponds.
3. There are various Overlay Zone requirements including greenbelt, perimeter
buffeting, foundation' planting (on all sides of every building), interior parking lot,
and perimeter parking lot (including a 6' planting strip in the front and sides of
parking along US 421). These areas must be labeled and the plant materials
within them must be marked and labeled. The required 6' planting strip is in
addition to the required greenbelt.
4. All plant material is required to meet American Standards for Nursery Stock-
1996 Edition and the Overlay Zone Ordinance, including the following: shade
trees - 2.5" caliper, ornamental trees - 1.5" caliper, evergreen trees - 8' in height,
and shrubs- 18" in height. Proposed shade trees and evergreens do not meet this
standard.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
ONE Civic SQUA't~E, CA'~MEL, IN 46032 PHONE 317.571.2417, FAX 317.571.2426
MICHAEL P. HOLLIBAUGH, DIRECTOR
Page 2, 9901 Michigan Road
5. For reasons of community plant health, species diversity is important. Of the 4
large maturing shade trees that are proposed, all four species are maples. No
more than 25% of any single genus can be proposed. Therefore, please choose 3
additional species (from 3 genus that recommended) of shade trees for this site.
You may find a recommended list on the Carmel website
(http ://www.ci.carrnel.in.us/services/DOCS/DOCSUFCarmelTreeSuggestions.ht
rn), or you may contact me to discuss recommended shade tree species.
Se
Only ornamental species have been proposed in the "islands" within the parking
lots. Large or medium growing shade trees need to be planned within parking
lots. Some innovative planning is required for successful parking lot tree growth.
Consideration should be given to adding irrigation, planting medium such
constructed or structural soils, and increased soil volumes for planting areas.
Perhaps planting island areas in the parking lot might be combined to produce
larger planting areas with more plant materials. This is encouraged within the
Michigan Road corridor.
Please reply to these comments in writing and by amended plans. You may contact me
by return email or at (317) 571-2478.
Sincerely, ,,~ ,~
Scott Brewer, Environmental Planner
Department of Community Services
CC:
Jon Dobosiewicz, DOCS
Angie Butler, DOCS
Woolpert LLP, Duke Realty
City of Carmel
Department of Community Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
317-571-2417
Fax: 317-571-2426
FACSIMILE TELECOPY COVER LETTER
DATE' May 27, 2004
TO' Mary Solada
Fax:
FROM'
Attached hereto are 2 pages, including this cover letter, for facsimile
transmission. Should you experience any problem in the receipt of these pages,
please call 317/571/2417.
NOTES: Docket Assignment Sheet. Please adhere to all filing and fee
dates to keep your project on track.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The materials enclosed with this facsimile transmission are private
and confidential and are the property of the sender. The information contained in the material is
privileged and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) named above. If you are
not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or the
taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this facsimile transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone to
arrange for return of the forwarded documents to us.
Butler, Angelina V
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Tingley, Connie S
Morrissey, Phyllis G; Pattyn, Dawn E; Babbitt, Pamela A; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Keeling, Adrienne
M; Kendall, Jeff A; Brewer, Scott I; Hancock, Ramona B; Dobosiewicz, Jon C; Pohlman, Jesse
M; Brennan, Kevin S
Docket No. Assignment: (V) Walnut Creek Marketplace (#04050029-04050036 V)
Connie,
Please print and fax this e-mail to the petitioner identified below and update the file. I have issued the necessary Docket
Number for (V) Walnut Creek Marketplace. It will be the following:
Docket Nos. 04050025 through//04050036 V $950.00 for the 1 st variance + $450 * 7 additional variances= $4,100
Total Fee: $4,100.00
Docket Nos. 04050029-04050036 V: Walnut Creek Marketplace
The applicant proposes a retail center and seeks the following Development Standards Variances'
Docket No. 04050029 V Chapter 23C.10.02.2
Docket No. 04050030 V Chapter 23C.13
Docket No. 04050031 V Chapter 14.04.02.2
Docket No. 04050032 V Chapter 14.04.03.2
Docket No. 04050033 V Chapter 25.07.02-11.b
Docket No. 04050034 V Chapter 25.07.02-11.c
Docket No. 04050035 V Chapter 25.07.02-11.c
foundation plantings
access to tracts
from yard
side yard
sign number & type
wall sign area
ground sign area
Docket No. 04050036 V Chapter 25.07.02-11.d.i ground sign height
The site is located northeast of 99th Street and Michigan Rd/US 421. The site is zoned B-3/Business and B-2/Business
within the US Highway 421 Overlay. Filed by Mary_ Solada of Bingham McHale for Duke Realty.
Petitioner, please note the following:
1. This Item will be on the of the June 16 agenda of the Technical Advisory Committee.
2. Mailed and Published Public Notice needs to occur no later than Thursday, July 29, 2004. Published notice is
required within the Indianapolis Star.
3. The Proof of Notice will need to be received by this Department no later than noon, Friday, August 20. Failure
to submit Proof of Notice by this time will result in the tabling of the petition.
4. The Filing Fee and Nine (9) Informational Packets must be delivered to BZA Secretary Connie Tingley no later
than NOON, Friday, August 13. Failure to submit Informational Packets by this time will result in the automatic tabling
of the petition to the Monday, September 27, 2004, agenda of the BZA.
5. This Item will appear on the August 23, 2004 agenda of the Board of Zoning Appeals under Public
Hearings.HOWEVER, it is likely that this item will not he heard until Sept. 27; it depends on how long the Plan
Commission takes in reviewing the DP/ADLS.
6. The petitioner will need to provide a fully filled-out Findings-of-Fact sheets for each petition the night of the
meeting for the Board's use (Sheet 8). On Ballot sheets, only fill out docket number, petitioner, and date (Sheet 7). Ballot
sheets must be collated.
7.) PETITIONER: refer to your instruction sheet for more details.
Petitioner: please complete the following items'
1 .) Do not fill in the blanks on the Ballot Sheets - only fill in the docket no. and petitioner.
2.) Be more specific with each variance requested: cite section of the ordinance and provide quantities, like sign area or
setback dimensions, based on what the ordinance requires verses what you proposes (specific quantities).
3.) Provide site plans with setback lines, etc. that show what the ordinance specifies, vs. what you are proposing.
4.) Label the square footage of the sign area and also provide a sign details breakdown, as you did with page 2 of the
ADLS application.
Please contact Ms. Solada at 635-8900 (Fax: 236-9907) with this information. Once the file is updated please return it to
my office.
Thank you,
Angie
Butler, Angelina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Rec'd today:
Tingley, Connie S
Friday, May 14, 2004 3:44 PM
Brewer, Scott I; Butler, Angie; DobosiewiCz, Jon C; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Keeling, Adrienne
Pattyn, Dawn E "'
d
UV Pulte Homes ':.~ .~- 0
Uikki Perry ~'L/~'- ~,,,
765-345-5943 ~. LI~ : ~
SU Platinum Properties LLC -' d-, iO,
Stoeppelwerth & Associates
849-5935 ,~ Z t %0"
Cherry Creek Estates
sales trailer
575-2350 ext 239
Stanford Park
amenity area
818-2900/818-2901
DSV
Bingham McHale
Mary Solada
635-8900
Greg Ewing
686-5228
Carml Clay Schools
modular classrooms
SU Fanning/Howey Associates
848-O966
I have placed them on the BZA shelf.
ct