The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCorrespondenceCERTIFICATION OF THE CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION ON THE PETITION OF THE CITY OF CARMEL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES TO AMEND THE CARMEL/CLAY ZONING ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO INDIANA CODE 36-7-4-605 ORDINANCE No. Z-444-04 Add Chapter 23F: Range Line Road/Carmel Drive Overlay Zone, as amended by the Common Council. To-' The Honorable Common Council Of the City of Carmel Hamilton County, Indiana Dear Members: The Carmel Advisory Plan Commission offers you the following report on the application of the Department of Community Services (Docket No. 04010027 OA) to the Commission to Add Chapter 23F: Range Line Road/Carmel Drive Overlay Zone. The Carmel Plan Commission's recommendation on the petition of the Department of Community Services, as amended by the Common Council, is Favorable. At its regular meeting of January 18, 2005, the Carmel Plan Commission voted eight (8) in Favor, zero (0) Opposed, zero (0) Abstaining, to forward to the Cbmmon Council, as amended by the Common Council, the proposed Ordinance No. Z-444-04 with a Favorable vote. ATTE/): / Raq~o~ ~n co~c~, ~e~:r~ary '~ Carmel Advisory Plan Commission Dated: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 2005~0119; Z-444-04; Range Linc Rd Carmel Dr Overlay Certification Leo Dierck~man, President~[/~~' / Received Carmel Clerk. Treasurer CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT January ~8r2005 nj. Docket Nos. 04010027 OA; and 04080048 Z: Z-4(,$-04 (as amended and approved by City Council) Proposed Chapter 23F: Range Line Road/Carmel Drive Overlay Zone The petitioner seeks to add new provisions regarding development standards for properties along portions of Range Line Road and Carmel Drive to the Zoning Ordinance. Filed by the Department of Community Services. 5j. Docket Nos. 04070029 OA: Z-461-04 (as amended and approved by City Council) Temporary Use Regulations Ordinance & Resubdivision; Lots containing Two-Family Dwellings The applicant seeks to amend Chapters 3, 25, 25.07, and Appendix A of the Carmel~Clay Zoning Ordinance. The applicant also seeks to add Section 5.8 to the Carmel Subdivision Control Ordinance regarding resubdivision of lots containing two-family dwellings. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services. Please see the information packet dated January 7th distributed last week with the meeting agenda. Please not one correction; the two ordinance numbers for the Range Line item are Z- 444-04 and Z-463-04 respectively. The Department recommends that the Plan Commission approve both ordinances as approved by the City Council. PCR-2005-0118 NELSON & FRANKENBERGER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW JAMES J. NELSON CIIARLES D. FRANKENBERGER JAMES E. SHINAVER LAWRENCE J. KEMPER JOHN B. FLATF EREDERIC LAWRENCE Of Counsel JANE B. MERRILL 3105 F~ST 98TII STREET SUITE 170 INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46280 317-844-0106 FAX: 317-846-8782 December 9, 2004 Mr. Mark Ratterman CARAMEL CI'IY COUNCIL One Civic Square Carmel IN 46032 Re: Carmel Drive/Rangclinc Road Overlay Zone [)car Councilor Ratterman: This letter is in response to your inquiries regarding concerns lenders might have with the development standards contained within thc proposed Carmel Drive/Rangeline Road Overlay Zone (the "Overlay"). Since Kroger has instructed us not to attend the Land Use Land Annexation comrmttee meeting on Thursday, December 9, 2004, this letter and the enclosures are being sent to you in lieu of attending the meeting. At the outset, 1 wanted to let you know that the Kroger site is not presently encumbered by a mortgage. However, they could later encumber it with a mortgage, as could any third party purchaser of the site. In addition, thc Kroger store has no current tenant, although I believe that Charter One Bank obtained approval for a sign, and they will be a tenant in the near furore. As a result, I have enclosed herewith a sample commercial mortgage (hereafter "Mortgage") and sample commercial lease (hereafter "Lease") since no such documents signed by Kroger presently exist.. In looking at thc "Application of Proceeds" provision on page 3 of the Mortgage, you will note that the lender has two primary options in thc event of casualty: (i) restoration of the premises or (ii) apphcafion of thc proceeds to the balance outstanding. In the event of restoration of the premises, the mortgagor is to reconstruct thc building "in a manner satisfactory to lender" and, upon satisfactory proof of such expenditure, lender shall pay or reimburse grantor from the proceeds. Assuming that the lender would not want to reconstruct the building in violation of a local ordinance, the development standards of thc Overlay would at this point control. However, the insurance proceeds would be sufficient only to reconstruct the building, and would be insufficient to cover the entire cost of moving thc building pad, moving utilities, etc. As a result, the mortgagor/land owner would have to pay thc difference out-of-pocket, which costs could be significant. A lender might have concerns with th/s in that, unless the mortgagor/landowner has a significant cash reserve for this purpose, either (i) they may not be able to pay the difference or (ii) paying the difference would negatively impact thc continued viability of murtgagor's business. Consequently, the Overlay makes lender's loan to the mortgagor/landowner riskier. Nelson & Frankenberger December 9, 2004 Page 2 In looking at thc l,ease, you will note that landlord is obligated to repair and restore the premises to their condition prior to the damage or destruction. However, the Landlord would not be able to restore the building to its prior condition due to the Overlay. The Lease also states that in the event the premises cannot be restored to their condition prior to the destruction, either landlord or tenant may terminate the Lease. This results in primarily two negative consequences (i) the Landlord has breached the Lease in that they have failed to restore the premises to their prior condition or (ii) either landlord or tenant may terminate the Lease, resulting in the loss of landlord's tenants. In either event, the landlord may either be in breach of the Lease or lose their tenant, both of which would increase the likelihood of landlord's loan default and, as a result, make the loan riskier. Hopefully, the foregoing information will help further analyze the impact the proposed Overlay may have on businesses xvithin the Overlay. Should you have any questions regarding thc foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, NELSON & FRANKENBERGER l,awrenle~mper LJK/mlf Enclosures " MORTGAGE oan No: 20105324290 (Continued) Page 3 voluntary or involuntary; whether by outright sale, deed, installment sale contract, land contract, contract for deed, leaeehold interest with a term greater than throe (3) years, lease-option contract, or by sale, assignment, or transfer of any beneficial interest In or to any land trust holding title to the Real Property, or by any other method of conveyance of an interest in the Real Property. If any Grantor is a corporation, partnership or limited liability company, transfer also includes any change in ownership of more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the voting stock, partnership interests or limited liability company interests, as the case may be, of such Grantor. However, this option shall not be exercised by Lender if such exercise is prohibited by federal law or by Indiana law. TAXES AND LIENS. The following provisions relating to the taxes and liens on the Property are part of this Mortgage: Payment. Grantor shall pay when due (and in all events prior to delinquency) all taxes, payroll taxes, special taxes, assessments, water charges and sewer service charges levied against or on account of the Property, and shall pay when due all claims for work done on or for services rendered or material furnished to the Property. Grantor shall maintain the Property free of any liens having priority over or equal to the interest of Lender under this Mortgage, except for those liens specifically agreed to In writing by Lender, and except for the lian of taxes and assessments not due as further specified tn the Right to Contest paragraph. Right to Contest. Grantor may withhold payment of any tax, assessment, or claim in connection with a good faith dispute over the obligation to pay, so long as Lender's interest in the Property [s not jeopardized. If a [lan arises or is filed as a result of nonpayment, Grantor shall within fifteen (15) days after the lien arises or, if a lien is filed, within fifteen (15) days after Grantor has notice of the filing, secure the discharge of the lien, or If requested by Lender, deposit with Lender cash or a sufficient corporate surety bond or other secudty satisfactory to Lender in an amount sufficient to discharge the lien plus any costs and attorneys' fees, or other charges that could accrue as a result ct a foreclosure or sale under the lien. In any contest, Grantor shall defend itself and Lender and shall satisfy any adverse Judgment before enforcement against the Property. Grantor shall name Lender as an additional obliges under any surety bond furnished in the contest proceedings. · Evidence of Payment. Grantor shall upon demand furnish to Lender satisfactory evidence of payment of the taxes or assessments and shall authorize the appropriate governmental official to deliver to Lender at any time a written statement of the taxes and assessments against the Property. Notice of Construction. Grantor shall notify Lander at least fifteen (15) days before any work is commenced, any services are furnished, or any materials are supplied to the Property, if any mechanic's lien, matertalmen's lien, or other lien could be asserted on account of the work, services, or materials. Grantor will upon request of Lender furnish to Lender advance assurances satisfactory to Lender that'Grantor can and will pay the cost of such improvements, PROPERTY DAMAGE INSURANCE. The following provisions rolating to insuring the Property are a part of this Mortgage: Maintenance of Insurance. Grantor shall procure and maintain policies of fire insurance with standard extended coverage endorsements on a replacement basis for the full insurabte value covering all Improvements on the Real Property in an amount sufficient to avoid application of any coinsurance clause, and with a standard mortgagee clause in favor of Lender. Grantor shall also procure and maintain comprehensive general liability insurance in such coverage amounts as Lender may request with Lender being named as additional tnsurads in such liability insurance policies. Additionally, Grantor shall maintain such other insurance, including but not limited to hazard, business interruption and boiler insurance as Lender may require. Policies shall be written by such insurance companies and in such form as may be reasonably acceptable to Lender. Grantor shall deliver to Lender certificates of coverage from each insurer containing a stipulation that coverage will not be cancelled or diminished without a minimum of ten (10) days' prior written notice to Lender and not containing any disclaimer of the insurer's liability for failure to give such notice. Each insurance policy also shall include an endorsement providing that coverage in favor of Lender will not be impaired in any way by any act, omission or default of Grantor or any other person. Should the Real Property be located in an area designated by the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency as a special flood hazard area, Grantor agrees to obtain and maintain Federal Flood Insurance, if available, within 45 days after notice is given by Lender that the Property is ~ecated in a special flood hazard area, for the full unpaid principal balance of the loan and any prior liens on the property securing the loan, up to the maximum policy limits set under the National Flood Insurance program, or as ctherwise required by Lender, and to maintain such insurance for the term of the loan. Application of Proceeds. Grantor shall promptly notify Lender of any loss or damage to the ProperS. Lender may make proof of lass if Grantor fails to do so within fifteen (15) days of the casualty. Whether or not Lender's security is Impaired, Lender may, at Lander's election, receive and retain the proceeds of any Insurance and apply the proceeds to the reduction of the Indebtedness, payment of any lien affecting the Property, or the restoration and ropair of the property. If Lender elects to apply the proceeds to restoration and repair, Grantor shall repair or replace the damaged or destroyed Improvements in a manner satisfactory to Lander. Lender shall, upon satisfactory proof of such expenditure, pay or reimburse Grantor from the proceeds for the reasonable cost of repair or restoration if Grantor is not in default under this Mortgage. Any proceeds which have not been disbursed within 180 days after their receipt and which Lender has not committed to the repair or restoration of the Property shall be used first to pay any amount owing to Lender under this Mortgage, then to pay accrued interest, and the remainder, if any, shall t:)e applied to the principal balance of the Indebtedness. If Lender holds any proceeds after payment in full of the Indebtedness, such Loan No:20105324290 MORTGAGE (Continued) Page4 proceeds shall be paid to Grantor as Grantor's interests may appear. Grantor's Report on Insurance. Upon request of Lender, however not more than once a year, Grantor shall furnish to Lender a report on each existing policy of insurance showing; (1) the name of the insurer; (2) the risks insured; (3) the amount of the policy; (4) the property insured, the then current replacement value of such property, and the manner of determining that value; and (5) the expiration date of the policy. Grantor shall, upon request of Lender, have an independent appraiser satisfactory to Lender determine the cash value replacement cost of the Property. LENDER'S EXPENDITURES. If any action or proceeding is commenced that would materially Affect Lander's interest in the Property or if Grantor fails to comply with any provision of this Mortgage or any Related Documents, including but not limited to Grantor's failure to discharge or pay when due any amounts Grantor is required to discharge or pay under this Mortgage or any Related Documents, Lender on Grantor's behalf may (but shall not be obligated to) take any action that Lender deems appropriate, including but not limited to discharging or paying all taxes, liana, security interests, encumbrances and other claims, et any time levied or praced on the Property and paying all costs for Insuring, maintaining and preserving the Property. All such expenditures incurred or paid by Lender for such purposes will then bear interest at the rate charged under the Note from the date incurred or paid by Lender to the date of repayment by Grantor. All such expenses will become a part of the Indebtedness and, at Lender's option, will (A) be payable on demand; (B) be added to the balance of the Note and be apportioned among and be payable with any installment payments to become due during either (1) the term of any applicable insurance policy; or (2) the remaining term of the Note; or (C) be treated as a balloon payment which will be due and payable at the Ncte's maturity. The Mortgage also will secure payment of these amounts. Such right shall be in addition to all other rights and remedies to which Lender may be entitled upon Default. WARRANTY; DEFENSE OF TITLE. The following provisions relating to ownership of the Property are a part of this Mortgage: Title. Grantor warrants that: (a) Grantor holds good and marketable title of record to the Pro. berty in fee simple, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances other than those set forth in the Real Property description or in any title insurance policy, title report, or final title opinion issued in favor of, an~l accepted by, Lender In connection with this Mortgage, and (b) Grantor has the full right, power, and authority to execute and del[var this Mortgage to Lender. Defense of Title. Subject to the exception in the paragraph above, Grantor warrants and will forever defend the title to the Property against the lawful claims of all persons. In the event any action or proceeding is commenced that questions Grantor's title or the interest of Lender under this Mortgage, Grantor shall defend the action at Grantor's expense. Grantor may be the nominal party In such proceeding, but Lender shall be entitled to participate in the proceeding and to be represented in the proceeding by counsel of Lender's own choice, and Grantor will deliver, or cause to be delivered, to Lender such instruments as Lender may request from time to time to permit such participation. Compliance With Laws. Grantor warrants that the Property and Grantor's use of the Property complies with all existing applicable la#a, ordlnancee, and regulations of govemmantal authorities. Survival of Representations end Warranties. All representations, warranties, and agreements made by Grantor in this Mortgage shall survive the execution and delivery of this Mortgage, shall be continuing in nature, and shall remain in full force and effect until such time as Grantor's Indebtedness shall be paid in full. CONDEMNATION. The following provisions relating to condemnation proceedings are a part of this Mortgage: Proceedlnge. If any proceeding in condemnation ts filed, Grantor shall promptly notify Lender in writing, and Grantor shall promptly take such steps as may be necessary to defend the action and obtain the award. Grantor may be the nominal party in such proceeding, but Lender shall be entitled to participate in the proceeding and to be represented in the proceeding by counsel of its own choice, and Grantor will deiivar or cause to be delivered to Lender such instruments and documentation as may be requested by Lender from time to time to permit such participation. Application of Net Procaede. If ail or any part of the Property is condemned by eminent domain proceedings or by any proceeding or purchase in lieu of condemnation, Lender may at its election require that all or any portion of the net prcceeds of the award be applied to the Indebtedness or the repair or restoration of the Property. The net proceeds of the award shall mean the award after payment of all reasonable costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees incurred by Lender tn connection with the condemnation. IMPOSITION OF TAXES, FEES AND CHARGES BY GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES, The fotlowing provisions relating to governmental taxes, fees and charges are e part of this Mortgage: Current Taxes, Feee and Charges. Upon request by Lender, Grantor shall execute such documents in addition to this Mortgage and take whatever other action is requested by Lender to perfect and continue Lender's lien on the Real Property. Grantor shall reimburse Lender for all taxes, as described below, together with all expenses incurred in recording, perfecting or continuing this Mortgage, including without limitation air taxes, fees, documentary stamps, and other charges for recording or registering this Mortgage. Taxee. The following shall constitute taxes to which this section applies: (1) a specific tax upon this type of Mortgage or upon all or any part of the Indebtedness secured by this Mortgage; (2) a specific tax on Grantor which Grantor is authorized or required to deduct from payments on the Indebtedness secured by this type of Mortgage; (3) a tax on this type of Mortgage chargeable against the Lender or the holder of the 18. DAMAGE BY FIRE OR OT}EER CASUALTY. 18.1 Reparable Damage. If fire or other casualty insurable under a standard fire and extended risk policy of insurance required to be carried by Landlord covering tho Premises shall render the whole or any material portion of the Premises untanantsble, and if the Premises can reasonably be expected to be reparable within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of such avant, then Landlord shall repair and restore the Premises to their condition prior to the fire or other casualty within such one hundred eighty (180) day period (subject to delays for causes beyond Landlord's reasonable control such as delays due to issuance of building permits or obtaining of insurance proceeds provided Landlord diligently pursues the same) and notify Tenant in writing that it will be doing so, such notice to be mailed within ninety (90) days from the date of such damage or destruction, and this Lease shall remain in full force and effect, but the Minimum Rem, Additional Rent and other costs for the period during which the Premises are untenantable shall be abated. 18.2 Irreparable Damage. If fire or other casualty insurable under a standard fire and extended risk policy of insurance required to be carried by Landlord covering the Premises shall render the whole or any material portion of the Premises untenantsble and the Premises cannot reasonably be expected to be reparable within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of such event, or if an uninsurable casualty shall render the whole or any portion of the Premises untenantable, then Landlord or Tenant, by notice in writing to the other, mailed within ninety (90) days from the date of such damage or destruction, may terminate this Lease effective upon a date within thirty (30) days from the date of such notice. The Minimum Rent, Additional Rent. and all other costs shall be abated for the period during which the Premises are untenantable, Upon termination, all prepaid rents and/or deposits shall be returned to Tenant and neither Landlord nor Tenant shall have any other future obligations or responsibilities under this Lease. ~. 18.3 Landlord's Repair. In the event Landlord is required tn restore or repair the Prcnlises within the one hundred eighty (180) day period set forth in Section 18.1, then Landlord, upon Tenant's reopening of the Premises for business with the public, shall provide Tenant with two ( 1 ) day of free rent for each one (1) day that the repairs exceed one hundred eighty (I 80).days, In the event that such damage or destruction cannot be repaired within two hundred forty (240) days from the date of such event, or if such damage or destruction included the loss of one (1) or more of tho Anchor Tenants, then Tenant. at its option, by written notice m Landlord, may terminate this Lease which shall be effective upon Landlord's receipt of such notice. Any limitation on Landlord's obligation to rebuild following damage or destruction based on the availability of insurance proceeds shall in no event be deemed to mean or include a deficiency in insurance proceeds by reason of.' (a) Landlord's failure to carry the insurance required by this Lease; (b) Landlord's election to carry insurance in an amount less than one hundred percent (100%) of replacement cost; or (c) the amount of any deductible under any insurance carried by Landlord. 18.4 Repair and Restore. If LaIidlord or Tenant does not terminata this Lease pursuant to its rights herein, then Landlord shall repair and restore the Premises and the Shopping Center as the case may be to their condition prior to the damage or destruction within that time period reasonably necessary for such repair and restoration (subject to delays for causes beyond Landlord's reasonable control such as delays due to issuance of building permits or obtaining of insurance proceeds provided Landlord diligemly pursues the same) and the Minimum Rent, Additional Rent and other costs shall be abated during the restoration and/or repair period until Tenant opens for business in the Premises but in no event later than ninety (90) days after exclusive possession is delivered to Tenant, In no event shall Landlord be obligated to repair or restore any special equipment or improvements installed by Tenant. Tenant agrees that promptly after completion of Landlord's repair and restoration of the Premises, Tenant will proceed with reasonabIe diligence and at its sole coat and expense to rebuild, repair, and/or replace its signs, fixtures, and equipment within ninety (90) days after exclusive possession of the Premises is delivered to Tenant. 18.5 Termination of Lease. In the event of termination of this L~ase pursuant to this Section, Minimum Rent, Additional Rent, and other costs shall be apportioned on a per diem obligatlom or reaponslbilities under the Lease. 18.6 Damage During Last Year of Lease Term. Notwithstanthng anything to the contrary herein contained, in the event the Premises shall be damaged or destroyed by fire or otherwise in excess of thirty percent (30%) of the full replacement cost of the Premises during the last year of the Lease Term (un/ese Tenant has exercised an option to extend the Term as provided for in Section 3. l(b)), either party shall have the option to tartan/ate this Lease as of the date of such damage or destruction by giving written notice to the other party within ninety (90) days following the date of such damage or destruction. 18.7 Damage to the Shopping Center. In the event the Shopping Center is damaged by an insurable casualty required to be insured by Landlord, Landlord shall promptly commence such repairs and diligently prosecute the same until completed. If Landlord's reconstruction of the Shopping Center adversely affects Tenant's conduct of business in the Premises, Minimum Rent, Additional Rent, and ali other costs shall be abated for the period during which the Premises are affected. 19. EMINENT DOMAIN. 19.1 TotalTaking. IfallthePrcmisesaretakenbythepowerofeminemdomainexercised by any governmental or quasi-governmental authority, this Lease shall terminate ,~ of the earlier of (i) the date Tenure is required to vacate the Premises, or (ii) the date rifle passes to the condemning authority, and upon either such date of termination, all Minimum Rent, Additional Rent. and other costs due hereunder shall be paid to that date. The term "eminent domain" shall include the taking or damaging of property by, through, or under any governmental or quasi-governmental authority, and any purchase or acquisition in lieu thereof, whether or not the damaging or taking is by the government or any other person. 19.2 Partial Taking. Tenant may terminate this Lease upon written notice to Landlord for any of the following events of Partial Taking: (a) If more than five pement (5 % ) of the Rentable Square Feet of Floor Area of the Premises shall be taken or appropriated; (b) The access to the Premises is adversely affected; (c) The visibility of the Premises is adversely affected; (d) The parking available to thc Premises is reduced; (e) If Tenant's bnsiness will otherwise be adversely afl~cled; If Tenant does not elect to terminate the Lease in the event of a Partial Taking, tile parties agree that rental due under the Lease shall be equitably reduced in consideration of the Partial Taking. 19.3 Damages. Landlord reserves all rights to the entire damage award or payment fur any taking by eminent domain, and Tenant shall make no claim whatsoever against Landlord for damages for termination of its leasehold interest in the Premises or for imerference with its business. Tenant shall, however, have the right to claim from the condemning authority all compensation that may be recoverable by Tenant on account of any loss incurred by Tenant, including, but not limited to, loss due to removing Tenant's merchandise, furniture, trade fixtures, and equipment or for damage to Tenant's business, loss of business, and/or loss of leasehold interest: provided, however, that Tenant may claim such damages only if they are awarded separately in the eminent domain proceeding and not as part of Landlord's damages. KROGER FOOD STORES December 6, 2004 VIA IIAND DELIVERY Carmel Common Council One Civic Square Carmel, 1N 46032 Kroger - Carmel Drive/Rangeline Road Overlay Zone Ordinance Nos. Z-444-04 and Z-463-04 Dear Cotmcil Members: The purpose of this letter is to express concerns Kroger' has regarding the impact the proposed Cannel Drive/Rangeline Road Overlay Zone ("Overlay Zone") will have on its grocery store located at the southeast comer of Executive Drive and Rangeline Road in Carmel. We believe that the proposed Overlay Zone has a noble objective; however, for the reasons set forth below, the application of the Overlay Zone to Kroger would have potentially catastrophic consequences. As you know, there are two elements to the proposed Overlay Zone: (i) the Text Amendment Ordinance ("Text Amendment") which establishes the development standards within the Overlay Zone and (ii) the Rezone Ordinance which establishes the boundaries of the Overlay Zone. The apparent pm-pose of the proposed Overlay Zone and the enhanced development standards is to redevelop lhe area along Rangelinc Road and Carmel Drive per the "New Urbanism" architectural trend and also to create a level of cousistency in terms of design along that corridor. However, one problem with this approach is that, while it attempts to establish uniform architectural and development standards for this corridor, there remains a diversity of uses along the corridor for which the architectural and development standards are not well suited. Kroger, in particular, is a unique use in this cmxidor in that it is the only grocery store in this comdor, and some of the development standards contained witlfin the proposed Text Amendment are not conducive to a competitive and feasible site plan for a grocery store, nor do they promote an cfficient use ofthat space. Kroger has owned the real estate at its Rangeline Road store location for over 10 years, and it has invested a sig~fificant amount of money in developing its site per the existing Ordinance and approvals obtained. To now subject the site to new development standards will impose undue hardship on Kroger and potentially.jeopardize K. roger's original investment in tiffs site. In this regard, the following provisions of the proposed Text Ainendmcnt cause Kroger conccru: Development Plan approval of any additions to existing structures which exceed either 50% of the gross floor ama of the existing structure or 5,000 square feet; Restoration of a building after 100% destructiou of the building in cmnpliancc with the proposed development standards; 3. A maximum front building set back of 10 feet; The requirement that principal buildings must have at least two floors of occupiable space, with the second and higher floors to be (i) at least 50% of the size of the building footprint and (ii) oriented to the front of the building such that its front line is equal to that of the first floor; 5. A maximum building footprint of 40,000 square feet; 6. The requirement that parking area shall be located at thc rear or side of the building. Kroger believes that lhe aforementioned provisions are not feasible for Kroger and for competitive use of its site. Requiring a second floor of occupiablc spacc is not a practical or efficient use of a grocery store. Further, thc existing building footprint is approximately 64,000 square feet, and limiting the maximum building footprint of a reconstructed building in thc event of catastrophic loss to 40,000 square feet would reduce the size of thc grocery store by almost one-third (1/3). In addition, reqniring that parking areas be located in the rear of thc building also presents logistical problems in that the rear of the building is typically thc location of loading docks for the unloading of product for sale. Requiring a semi-tractor trailer to navigate through a parking lot in order to reach a loading dock will present many practical problems and result in customer complaints. The requirement that the building be moved forward to within 10 feet of the ~ight-of-way line of Rangeline Road is particularly troublesome for K~-oger. Although Carmel has limited lhe applicability of this requirement to (i) a catastrophic event resulting in destruction of 100% of thc building or (ii) an addition of greater than 50% of the gross floor area ofm~ existing building or a 5,000 square feet, requiring this iu any case would impose an undue hardship on Kroger, in the following ways: Restriction on use. The development standards would apply in the event that Kroger desired to expand its store a minimmn of 5000 square feet. This imposes a severe restriction on Kroger's use of the site and its ability to markct the site to third parties, as neither ga'oger nor a third party purchaser could justify the cost of moving thc entire building to Rangclinc Road in order to construct a 5000 square foot addition to thc building. Insurance and Utilities. Although it might appear that requiring compliance with the development standards in thc event of a catastrophic loss would not negatively impact K~'oger, it would. Although the building may have burned to the ground, lhere still would exist water and sewer hookups underneath the building pad as well as other utilities that have been routed specifically for the current location of the building. In the event ora catastrophic loss requiring the building to be moved forward to Rangeline Road, insurance proceeds would be insufficient to cover the loss and also cover the costs of moving the building forward, foundation, utilities, etc. These uninsured costs would then likely be borne by Kroger alone, which would impose a sig~fificant hardship. Lender problems. A lender might be unwilling to extend credit to Kroger knowing that, in the unlikely event of a foreclosure and its ultimate ownership of the property, its ability to sell the property wouh'l be limited since, any potential purchaser would have all of the legitimate concerns set forth above. In other words, any potential purchaser of the site would also have less interest in the site as (i) a 5000 square foot addition to the building to fit their needs and (ii) a catastroplfic loss would require movement of tho building forward to Rangcline Road, resulting in significant unmsnred costs. Competition. RequilSng that the building bc moved forward to Rangeline Road also puts Kroger at a competitive disadvantage relative to its competitors in Ihe ama (i.e., Marsh, Mei.jer, etc.) in that (i) they arc not obligated to comply with these requirements, (ii) they do not have to incur the costs of making these improvements, and (iii) they arc not subject to requirements resulting in a less efficient use of their properties. Devaluation. Subjecting the Kroger site to this requirement would also devalue the real estate in that it would be very difficult for Kroger to sell the real estate as (i) another grocery chain would not likely be interested in thc site given thc new dcvclopmcnt standards which arc not conducive to the use of the site as a grocery store and result in a less cfficicnt usc of thc site and (ii) any othcr potential user of thc site would also have less interest in the site in that a 5000 square foot addition to the buikting to fit their needs would require movement of thc building lbrward to Rangcline Road, which would again rcsult in significant costs. Inconsistent Application. Finally, with a few exceptions, Carmel's vision bccomcs a reality along this corridor only if evcryonc suffers a catastrophic loss, which is m~likcly. As a result, the purpose of the Overlay Zone most likely will never be realized, yet the few unfortunate property owners to which it might apply in the cveut of a catastrophic loss would suffer a significant hardship in being required to comply with dcvclopmcnt standards set forth iii the Text Amendlncnt. As discussed above, there are many issues with the proposed Overlay Zone which cause concern for Kroger and which could have significm~t negative impact on the Kroger site. Kroger believes the proposed Overlay Zone, while possessing a noble objective, does not take into account the uniqueness of Kroger's site and, if applied to the Kroger site, would render it unusable to Kroger in the event ora catastrophic event as well as severely limit the marketability of the property. As a result, due to the foregoing concerns, Kroger would respectfully request that it be exempted from the application of the Carmel Drive/Rangeline Road Overlay Zone Ordinance. Very. h~-uly y o. gr~ Dani~J.J.~DiCioccio Assistant Real Estate Manager The Kroger Co~npany NELSON & FRANKENBERGER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORA'lION ATTORNEYS ATLAW 310~ F,A~T ~ ITH SUIT~ INDIA.N.4J~OLL% INDIANA 46'~0 FAX: 317-~46-~7 ~2 Nov~nber 17, 2004 VIA FACSIMILE: S71-2426 AND REGULAR MAlL Mike Hollibaugh Carmel ~ of Community Sen, ices One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Re: Kroger - Carmel Drive/Rengcline Road Overlay Zone D~er Mike: Kroger has contacted us with concerns regarding the impact the proposed Carmel Drive/1tangeline Road Overlay Zone will have on its grneery store located at the southeast comer of Executive Drive end Rangeline Road in Carmel. We believe that the proposed Carmel DrivdRangeline Road Overlay Zone has a noble objective; howe4,er, for the reasons set forth below, the application of the Carmel Drive/Rangeline Road Overlay Zone to Kroger would have potentially cateslrophic consequences, As you know, there nrc two elements to thc proposed Overlay Zone: (i) the Text Amendmcut Ordinance which establishes the development standards withi~ the Overlay Zone and (ii) the Rezone Ordinance which establishes the boundaries of thc Overlay Zone. Thc apparent purposc of the proposed Overlay Zone and the enhanced developmeat standards is to redevelop the arca along Rangeltne Road end Carmel Drive per the "New Urbanism" architectural Irend and also to create a level of consistency in terms of design along that corridor. However, one problem with tiffs approach is that, whilc it attempts to establish uniform architectural and development standards for this corridor, there remains a dive~ily of uses along the corridor for which the architectural end development standards are not well suited. Kroger, in particular, is a unique use in this corridor in thai it is the only grocery store in ~his corridor, n~d Somc of the development standards being proposed in the Text Alnendment are not conducive ~o the typical site plan for a grocery swre, nor do they promote an efficiani use of that space. NO, 5446 P, 3 NOV, 17. 2004 9:25AM NELSON FRANKENBERGER _ Mike Holltbaugh November 17, 2004 Page 2 Althoul~l~ ~.ere are additional provisions of the proposed Ordinance which cause concern for Kroger, the following provisions cause Kroger the most conr.~m: 3. 4. 5, Development Plan approval of any addtlions~o existing structures which exceed eithcr 50% ofth~ gross floor area of the existing structure or 5,000 square feet; Restoration of a building after 90% destruction of the building in compliance with the proposed dcvelopmcnt standards; A maximum front building set back of 10 feet; The requirement that principal buildings must have aI l~ast two floors of occupiable space, with the second and higher floors to be (i) at least 50°,4 of the size of the buildi~ footprint and (ii) oriented to the front of the building such that its front line is equal that of the first flOor; A maximum building footprint of 40,000 square feet; _ r~ ~o 10'0% The requircm~nt that parking area shall be located at the rear or side of the building. Kroger believes that the aforementioned provisions are not feasible for Kroger and for competitive use of its site. Requiring a second floor of occupinble space is not a practical or efficient use of a grocery store. Furthennore~ the existing building footprint is approximatcly 64,000 square fcet, and limiting the maximum building fooiprint of a reconsmleted buildln.go in the event of catas~ophic loss to 40,000 square fevt would reduce the size of the grocery store by almost Oho-third (1/3). In addition, requiring that paridn~o areas be located in the war of the b.ilding also presents logistical problems in that the rear of the building is typically thc local/on of loading docks for the unloading of product for sale. Requiring a semi-tractor lraller to navigate ~h'ough a panking lot in order to rcach a lolding dock will present many logistical problems and possibly result in customer complaints. The requirement that the building bc moved forward to within 10 feet of thc fight-of-way linc of Rangcline Road is particuiady troublesome for Kroger. Although Carmcl has limited the applicability of Ibis requirement to (i) a calaslrophic event resulting in dcstruction of 90% or more of the building and (ii) modification or almation of greater than 50% of the gross floor area of an oxisting building or a $,000 square foot addition, requiring this in any case would impose an tm. due hardship on Kroger, in the following ways: NOV. 17, 2004 9:25AM NELSON FRANKENBERGER NO. 5446 P, 4 November 17, 2004 ?ag~ 3 ]?~iig~E_QIL~. It would appear that the development standards would apply in the event that Kroger desired to expand i~s store a minimum of 5000 square feet or in the event that Kroger or a buyer of the real estate alt~d greater timn fii~y percent (50%) of thc gross floor area of the existing buildiag. This imposes a severe resection on Kroger's use of the site a~d its ability to mark~ the site to third parties as (i) Kroger could not justify the cost of moving the entire building to Rangelin~ in order to construct a 5000 square foot addition and (ii) neither K_roger nor a third party purchaser could justify the cost of moving the ent~ building to Rengeline in order to modify or alter gr.,ater than 50% of the gross floor area of the building. ~af~IL0_~. Although it might appear that requiting compliance with the development standards in thc event of a catesttophic loss would not negatively impact Kroger, it would. Although the building may have burned to the ground, there still would exist water and sewer hookups underneath the building pad as well as otbe~ utilities that have been muted ~ally for the current locatiun of ~ building. In the event of a ¢~,*-~rophic loss such that the building would be required to be moved forwerd to Rangeline Road, it is unlikely th~ insurance proceeds would be suffident to covc~ the loss and also cover the costs of moving thc building forward, which would require movement of utilities, moveu~ent of water end sewer, etc. These costs would then likely be borne by Kroger alone, which would impose a significant hardship. ~. A lender might be unwilling to ommd credit to Kroger knowing that, in thc unlikely event of a foreclosure and its ultimate ownership of the property, its ability to sell the property would be limited since, any potential purchasc-r would have all of the legitimate concerns set forth above. In othe~ words, any potential purchaser of the site would also have less ineT. st in the site in that any renovation of the building to fit their needs would require movement oflhe building forward to Rangeline Road which would again result in si~nificant costs. Competition. Requiring that the building be moved forward to Rengeline Road also puts Kroger at a competitive disadvantage relative to its competitors in thc area (i,c., IVlarsh, Meijer, etc.) in that (i) they are not required to comply with these requirements, (ii) they do not have to incur thc costs of making thcse improvements, and (iii) they are not subject to requirements resulting in a less efficient use of their properties. NOV. 17,2004 9:26AM NE[SQN FRANKENBERGER _ N0,5446 P, 5 Mike ttollibaagh November 17, 2004 Page 4 ~I~L~_.~.. 5ubj~c~8 the Kroger site to this Z~luirement would also devalue ~e ~ e~te ~ ~t it ~d bo ~ ~ffic~t ~r ~g~ to ~ ~e ~ es~ ~ (i) ~o~ ~ c~a wo~d ~t ~y ~ ~ ~ ~e ~ ~v~ ~e n~ ~elo~nt ~ ~& ~ not c~u~ to ~e ~ of ~ si~ ~ a ~ ao~ ~d ~t ~ s le~ effici~t me of ~ rite ~d 0i) ~y o~ pot~fi~ ~ of ~e ~ wo~d ~so have i~s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y r~on of~ b~ding ~ fit ~ n~s ~d ~ mo~m~t of ~ ~l~g f~ m ~e~ RoM w~ch wo~d ag~ ~t ~ silent ~i~l~.tl~. Finally, with a few exceptions, Carmel's vision becomes ~ reality along th~s cor~dor only i~ everyone suffers a cat~trophic loss, which is unlikely. As a result, the purpose of the Ordinauce most likely will neve~ be re~ized, yct the fow unfortunate property owno~ to which it might apply in thc event of a caIastrophic loss would sul~r a si~tmificant hardship in being required to comply with the Ordinance. As discussed above, there ur~ many issues with the proposed Carmel Drive/Rangeline Road Overlay Ordinance which cause concern for Kroger and which could have si_~nifcant negative impact on the Kroger site. Kroger believes the proposed Ordinance, while possessing a noble objective, does not take into account the uniqueness of Kroger's site and, if applied to the Kroger site, would render it unusable to Kroger in the ev~mt of a catastrophic event as well as severely limit the mafi:etability of the propen'y. As a result, due to th~ foregoing concerns, Kroger would respectfixlly r~st that it be exempted fi'om the application of the Cam~el Drive/Rangeline Road Overlay Zone Ordinance. We look for~d to further discussin~ this with you at our mee/ing on November 18, 2004. Very truly yours, NELSON ,~ FRANKENBERGER LJK/jlw Law~emper H:'O m~ fil~egez~R ~,lLu~ Ov~lm~lollibtu~ IIz 1 ] NOV, 17, 2004 9:24AM NELSDN FRANKENBERGER _ NO, 5446 P, 1 JAMI~ ~. 1~L~Olq CHARL~ D. FRANKBNBI/RGBR IAMI~ ~. SI, flNAVI/R lARRY I. ~41~L~ $OKN B, lqATr OF COUNSEL Date: Nov~nber 17, 2004 NELSON & FRANKENBEROER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW To: Mike Hollibaugh Company: Carmel DOCS Fax: 571-2426 S(JITE 170 INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 4~280 ~17-8l~0106 PAX: M7~7~ From~ Phone: Pages: Lawre~..~: J. Kcmper 317-844-0106 ._L (including cover sh~t) Subject: Kroger -Carmcl DrivedP. angelia¢ Road Overlay Zone Comra~gts: The information comaiucd ia ~ flacaimlle message is inicaded only for ~he use of t~e individual or eality atoned above, Ir'the reader m-recipient ofligs me~agc is not dm intended re~ipieut er em mnploy~e or agent of the ha=,-t*d recipient who is ~'~sponsible for delivering it to the ~nt~nded rectpieut, you are hereby notified fl~at any dissemination, dis~'ibution or cogytn$ of ~ communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this c~nm~icition in error, please notify us by telephone (coiled) and r~a~rn the or~rml m~ssage t~ us at the above indicated addrc~ via the U.S. Postal Service. Receipt by anyone oth~ tban ~ intended recipient is not a waiver of an attomey-clieflt or work prmiuct privilege. '" Carmel United Methodist Church Carmel United Methodist Church Request to C~el PI~ Co~ission re: Carmel Drive- Rangeline Road Corridor- Overlay Octo~ I am here to represent the Carmel United Methodist Church, located at 621 South Rangeline Road. As you are aware, our church is located at the comer of 126th St. and Rangeline Road. We have nine parcels of land that represent nearly eight acres that are affected by this Overlay Ordinance. We understand the concerns that a growing community has to ensure that new growth will match the esthetics envisioned by the city planners. We also are aware that the city is attempting to make these areas friendly to foot traffic and attractive to citizens and visitors. Established in 1848, Cannel United Methodist Church is one of the oldest churches in Carmel. On November 23, 1958 we held our very first church service in our present location and have remained good neighbors to all of Carmel. We have had several renovations and additions since 1958, and have always worked with the City of Carmel to ensure the colonial style of our architecture remained pleasing to our needs and to the visions of the Carmel planners. As recently as in 2004 we worked with the City of Carmel in the construction of our new sign that now sits at the comer of 126th Street and Rangeline Road. With the assistance of the city we constm6ted a sign that complements everything the city is doing around that intersection. We have always opened not only our doors but our property to the citizens of Carmel for any and all events taking place close to our location. As you know, our beautifully landscaped front lawn is opened each 4th of July week to the public to use for picnicking and fireworks displays. Additionally, for years our parking lots have been used as an overflow parking facility for city-wide functions. Our wish is to continue these types of friendly gestures to the city of Carmel. The Carmel United Methodist Church has been and wishes to remain a valuable asset to the City of Carmel. As you may also wish to remember, our Mission Outreach House, which opened nearly two years ago is home to a Salvation Army office which offers services to Hamilton Co. and Marion Co. residents. Our Food Pantry cares for an average of 28 Hamilton Co. families each week. Yet another mission housed in that same building supplies 10 to 12 families each week with our 2"d Starts program which supplies household goods to needy families moving into homes and attempting to start new lives after having fallen on hard times. It is not unforeseen that in future years, we would want to expand our facility again; adding new classrooms, a new sanctuary or even adding to our Mission House. If we 621 S. Range Line Road · Carmel, Indiana 46032 · 317.844.7275 · 317.848.8790 Fax · www.carmelumc.org take this ordinance literally, much of what we have today would become obsolete. That beautiful park like setting that is currently open to the public would no longer be available. We would be subjected to the same ordinance that governs businesses to conslructing closer to the roadway. It is our goal to keep this green space available for our use and for future use by any passerby that might be inclined to stop and enjoy some Carmel hospitality. More than likely, if we build or add on, we would be doing so by at least 5,000 square foot and or by two stories. As our h/story has proven, we would continue working with the City of Carmel to conform to the high standards that complement what the city has envisioned for the "Heart of Carmel". One of our main concerns is that we as a church are unlike any other business or facility that currently exists on Carmel Dr. or Rangeline Rd. We would like to formally request that the Carmel United Methodist Church be exempted from this overlay ordinance. Alternatively, we would request that language be added to the ordinance under 23F.02.02 Development Plan. We would request that a section (C) be added to read Special Uses. The Carmel United Methodist Church would be allowed to add up to 100% of the gross floor addition without conforming to the ordinance as it currently is whtten. This would allow us the opportunity to make future additions that would suit our needs and still fit into the city's vision for this area of Carmel. Further, we understand that if the Carmel United Methodist Church were to sell any of our parcels to another party this "Special Use" section would be void for them and that they would be bound by the ordinance. We would also offer that if the city feels the need to oversee new construction of churches, or reconstruction of existing churches, consider an ordinance that would govern such requests. Sincerely, l~g~r Corm -~- ............ /'Busiyiess A&ninistrator Caffnel United Methodist Church Page I of 1 Mo Merhoff From: Bill Wiggam Jr. [BillJr@CarmelWelding.com] Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 10:48 AM To: Cc: Subject: Rangeline Road/Carmel Drive Overlay mratterman@ci.carmel.in.us; rattermann@mibor, net; jgriffiths@ci.carmel.in.us; jgriffiths@netdirect, net; fglaser@ci.carmel.in.us; rsharp@ci.carmel.in.us; rsharp@indy.rr, com Mo Merhoff Greetings, I have met with city employees and other business owners along Rangeline Road for years now, discussing the plans for the area. I have tried to keep abreast of the progress as it has moved from small task forces, to plan commission, now to the Council. I now realize you will be discussing it tonight at the meeting. I will be out of town and will not be able to attend, but I wanted to briefly bring up some points to think about, and then we should have the opportunity to discuss in more detail. This plan does not take into consideration the existing business owners in the area. It is suggesting a complete makeover of the areas in question. 1 don't think, if this plan were in place today, that there would be a single business that would qualify to the building codes, parking in rear, two occupied floors, etc. It could discourage improvements to existing properties because of the cost to meet the requirements. This plan did not meet the satisfaction of the business owners we have heard from, and I don't think it met the approval of the plan commission either. The ones responsible for coming up with this plan are probably not business owners in the area. It seems the planners are suggesting the way we all do business along Rangeline Road is not the right way to do it, and we need a drastic change to stay in business. I am not against change, we just need to keep the interests of business owners in mind, and protect the existing businesses that have some how managed to survive for many years, even though their building is not o~ Georgian architecture and their customers can park in front of the building. Other overlay plans the city has completed were largely made up of undeveloped land, and the overlay probably enhanced the value of land in those areas. This is not even close to the same venture. Here we have solid businesses, and this overlay would only put more restrictions on these businesses, and quite possibly lower the land value due to limiting the number of potential buyers to only those buyers the can afford to adhere to this plan. I encourage you to listen to the interests of these businesses. I apologize for not being able to attend tonight, but I look forward to discussing this with you at a later time. Thank you, Bill Wiggam Jr CarmeI Welding 3174846-3493 l 0/18/2OO4 Conn, Angelina V From: Jane. Martz@topics.com Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 2:16 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: Re: FW: City council notices: Warren House and Range Line Rd/Carmel DrOverlay Zone Angelina - I'll get that in Tuesday's issue. <ACon n~cl.carmel.ln.us> 09/30/2004 01:29 PM To: "jma rtz@topics.com" <'jmartz@topics,com'> Subject: FW: City council notices: Warren House and Range Line Rd/Carmel Dr Overlay Zone I am sorry, here are the corrected versions with the correct mtg date of oct. 18. Please publish each item one time on Tuesday, October 5, OR Friday October 8, in the Neblesville Ledger. Please reply so that I know you have received this e-mail. <<2004-0929; Z-444-04; Council Notice.df>> <<2004-0929; Z-458-04; Council Notice.df>> ..... Original Message From: Conn, Angelina V ~ent: Ti~ursday, September 30, 2004 1:22 PM To: Cc: Doboslewicz, 3on C; Keeling, Adrienne M; Griffin, Hart L; Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: City council notices: Warren House and Range Line Rd/Carmel Dr Overlay Zone Jane, Please publish each item one time on Tuesday, October 5, OR Friday October 8, in the Noblesville Ledger. Please reply so that I know you have received this e-mail. << File: 2004-0929; Z-444-04; Council Notice.df >> << File: 2004-0929; Z-458-04; Council Notice.df >> Sincerely, Angie (Butler) Conn Planning Administrator Division of Planning & Zoning Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, [N46032 p317.571.2417 f317.571.2426 *** eSafe has scanned this email for malicious content and found it to be clean *** *** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders *** 9/30/2004 From: Sent: To.' Subject: Dobosiewicz, Jon C Monday, September 20, 2004 9:56 AM Keeling, Adrienne M FW: Carmel Drive-Rangeline Rd. Corridor OverPay Can you take a c~ack at this for Larry? Jori ..... Original Message ..... From: Larry Kemper [mailto:larry@nf-law.com] Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 9:36 AM To: Dobosiewicz, Jen C Subject: Carmel Drive-Rangeline Rd. Corridor Overlay Kroger has contacted us afte~ receiving notice of tomorrow's Plan ConLmission public hearing regarding the above. In reviewing the proposed overlay, I had a few questions: 1. Does the overlay change in ~ny way the underlying zoning or permitted uses as each applies to the Kroger parce|s? 2. For which dimensional and quantitative standards in the ordinance might a zoning waiver be obtained? 3. As long as Kroger constructs improvements to the existing building consistent with the recently approved ADLS applications before the expiration of the letters of grant, it does not need to comply with sections 23F.08 through 23F.16 of the above, regardless of when the above is adopted? 4. To what does section 24.03 o~ the above ordinance pertain? 5. After the installation of the drive-through and signage-per the recent approvals, under what circumstances must Kroger comply with sections 23F.05 through 23F.16 of the above {ie. an exterior remodel, loss of less than 90% of building, loss of greater than 90% of building, etc.)? 6. Would sections 23F.05 through 23F.07 of the above only apply to Kroger if there was greater than 90% destruction of the existing building? 7. Under what circumstances would the landscaping requirements of Section 23F.11 apply to Kroger (ie.an exterio~ remodel, loss of less than 90% of building, loss of greater than 90% of building, etc.)? 8. At which City Council meeting will the above be eligible for adoption? I apologize for the long list of questions, but I appreciate any insight you can provide. PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW ADDRESS BELOW. Lawrence J. Kemper NELSON & FRANKENBERGER 3105 E. 98th St., Suite 170 Indianapolis, IN 46280 (317) 844-0106 (phone) (317) 846-8782 (fax) NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY 1 solely for the use of tho addressee hereof. In addition, this message and the attachments (if any) may contain ]rlforlrlat ion that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are riot the intended recipient of this message, you are p~ohibited from reading, disclosing, reproducing, distributing, disseminating or otherwise using this transmission. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient is not intended to waive any right or privilege. If you have received this message in error, please promptly notify the sender by reply E-mail and immediately delete this message from y©ur system. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. September 13, 2004 ~Title, <~FirstNamc,} ~LastNamc,, ~JobTitle,> <~Company, <~Address 1, <,Address2,, <~City,}, ~State,> ~PostalCode~} Dear ,~Title,, ~LastName,,: As someone owning property on Carmel Drive or Range Line Road, you should have recently received notification from thc City of Carmel regarding a proposed Overlay Ordinance. Last Febrnary, the Carmel Department of Community Services introduced legislation creating a Carmel Drive - Range Line Road Overlay Zone (Chapter 23F of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance). The intent of the ordinance is to provide standards for design within the area, and act as a precursor to the establishment of a Central Business District zone, which the city projects wonld be in place in approximately two years. The Chamber and several of its members have met throughout the past six months with the Sub- Division Committee of the Carmel Plan Commission to discuss and propose amendments to the ordinance. Many changes from the initial document have been made. In August, the Sub-Division Committee separated the text of the overlay from the definition of the district (i.e. what areas would be inclnded) and voted to send the ordinance to the fifll Plan Commission. The Public Hearing on the establishment of the district, and thc final vote on the passage of the text of the ordinance will be conducted at the next Plan Commission meeting on Tuesday, September 21 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. This ordinance has the potential to affect your property and the Chamber encourages you to familiarize yourself with the legislation and take advantage of the ol~portunity to share yonr opinions ar the upcoming meeting. Copies of the proposed ordinance are available from the Department of Community Services or from the Chamber. Contact us at 846.1049 or mo@carmelchamber.com to obtain a copy of the proposed overlay or with any questions you might have. As always, we appreciate the continuing contribntions you make to the community and welcome your input regarding the fnture of Carmel's business district. Sincerely, Maurccn Mcrhoff President REWRY IMMONS ORNEHM, LLP 8888 Keystone Crossing, Suitel200 * indianapolis, Indiana46240 · (317)580.4848telephone · (317)580-4855facsimile · www. drewrysimmons.com Paul G. Reis preis@drewrt./simntons.com Ms. Dianna Knoll 1305 Smokey Row Lane Carmel IN 46033 August 9, 2004 RE: Proposed Cannel Drive - Range Line road Corridor - Overlay Zone Dear Ms. Knoll: Following the Committee meeting of August 3 and receipt of the revised draft of the proposed ordinance, I have reviewed the newest draft and respectfully submit the enclosed markup of the proposed ordinance with my comments and proposed revisions. Thank you very much for your consideration of these comments and proposed revisions. Best Regards, PGR/Ig CC~ DREWRY SIMMONS VORNEHM, LLP Jon Dobosiewicz, Adrienne Keeling - DOCS Mo Merhoff, Chamber of Commerce REWRY IMMON$ ORNEHM, L~-P 8888 Keystone Crossing, Suitel200 · indianapolis, Indiana46240 · (317)580-4848telephone · (317)580-4855facsimile- www. drewrysimmons.com Paul G. Reis preis@drewwsimmons.com August 9, 2004 Mr. Dan Dutcher 11583 Sutton Place Drive Carmel IN 46032 RE: Proposed Cannel Drive - Range Line road Corridor - Overlay Zone Dear Mr. Dutcher: Following the Committee meeting of August 3 and receipt of the revised draft of the proposed ordinance, I have reviewed the newest draft and respectfully submit the enclosed markup of the proposed ordinance with my comments and proposed revisions. Thank you very much for your consideration of these comments and proposed revisions. Best Regards, PGR/Ig CC~ DREWRY SIMMONS VORNEHM, LLP Jon Dobosiewicz, Adrienne Keeling - DOCS Mo Merhoff, Chamber of Commerce ORNEHM, 8888 Keystone Crossing, Suitel200 · Indianapolis, Indiana46240 · (317)580-4848telephone · (317)580-4855facsimile. www.drewrysimmons.com Paul G. Reis preis@drewtnjsirmnons, com August 9, 2004 Ms. Stephanie Blackman 5350 Rippling Brook Way Carmel 1N 46033 RE: Proposed Carmel Drive - Range Line road Corridor - Overlay Zone Dear Ms. Blackman: Following the Committee meeting of August 3 and receipt of the revised draft of the proposed ordinance, I have reviewed the newest draft and respectfully submit the enclosed markup of the proposed ordinance with my comments and proposed revisions. Thank you very much for your consideration of these comments and proposed revisions. PGR/lg CC2 Best Regards, DREWRY SIMMONS VORNEHM, LLP Jon Dobosiewicz, Adrienne Keeling - DOCS Mo Merhoff, Chamber of Commeme DREWRY SIMMONS VORNEHM, LLP AT TO R N E Y $ 8888 Keystone Crossing, Suite 1200 · Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 · (317) 580.4848 telephone · (317) 580.4855 facsimile · www. drewrysimmons.cnm Paul G. Reis preis@drewrysimmons, com August 9, 2004 Mr. Rick Ripma 4451 Haven Court Zionsville IN 46077 RE: Proposed Carmel Drive - Range Line road Corridor - Overlay Zone Dear Mr. Ripma: Following the Committee meeting of August 3 and receipt of the revised draft of the proposed ordinance, I have reviewed the newest draft and respectfully submit the enclosed markup of the proposed ordinance with my comments and propoded revisions. Thank you very much for your consideration of these comments and proposed revisions. Best Regards, PGR/lg DREWRY SIMMONS VORNEHM, LLP Jon Dobosiewicz, Adrienne Keeling - DOCS Mo Merhoff, Chamber of Commerce DREWRY SIMMONS VORNEHM, LLP A T T 0 R N E Y 8 8888 Keystone Crossing, Suite 1200 · Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 ° (317) 580-4848 telephone · (317) 580-4855 facsimile ° www. drewrysimmons.com Paul G. Reis preis@drewrysimmons, com August 9, 2004 Ms. Susan Westermeier 12981 Regent Circle Carmel IN 46032 RE: Proposed Carmel Drive - Range Line road Corridor - Overlay Zone Dear Ms. Westermeier: Following the Committee meeting of August 3 and receipt of the revised draft of the proposed ordinance, I have reviewed the newest draft and respectfully submit the enclosed markup of the proposed ordinance with my comments and proposed revisions. Thank you very much for your consideration of these comments and proposed revisions. Best Regards, PGR/lg CC: DREWRY SIMMONS VORNEHM, LLP Jon Dobosiewicz, Adrienne Keeling - DOCS Mo Merhoff, Chamber of Commerce ' DREWRY IMMONS ORNEHM, LLP~ 8888 Keystone Cramlng, Suite 1200 * Indianapoli.~, Indiana 462~0 · (317) 580-4848 telephone · (317) 580~1855 facsimile · www. drewrysimmons.com Paul G. Reis preis@drewrysimmons, cora July 26, 2004 Ms. Stephanie Blackman 5350 Rippling Brook Way Carmel, Carmel 46033 RE: Proposed Cannel Drive - Range Line Road Corridor - Overlay Zone Dear Ms. Blackman: In furtherance of our comments presented to you at your last Sub-Division Committee meeting on July 6, we have prepared our suggested revisions and comments for your review and discussion at the next Committee meeting scheduled for Tuesday, August 3. Enclosed with this correspondence is a markup of the proposed ordinance with those comments and proposed revisions. Should you have any questions or if you would like to discuss this matter in the interim, please feel f~ee to contact me. Thank you very much for your consideration of these comments and proposed revisions. Best Regards, PGR/lg DREWRY SIMMONS VORNEHM, LLP Jon Dobosiewicz, Adrienne Keeling - DOCS Mo Merhoff, Chamber of Commerce CARMEL ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 25F: CARMEL DRIVE- RANGE LINE ROAD CORRIDOR - OVERLAY ZONE 23F.00 ~:~rmel Drive - Range Line Road Overlay Zone. 23F.00.01 Puroose. Intent and Authority. The purpose of this overlay zone is to allow for the establishment of n more fully integrated mixed-use pedestrian oriented district that is safe and attractive offering a range of activities and opportunities to all segments of society. It is the intent of this zone to provide a consistent urban design treatment for properties in cenual Cannel; to provide opportunities for investment; to minimize suburban sprawl and infrastructure costs; to enhance the aesthetic qualities of property, and to protect the health and safety of property owners and citizens. Further, it is the intent of this overlay zone to provide a temporary regulation, that will support the ongoing redevelopment of Carmel City Center, and Old Town, and tbe Avenue of Art and Design, acting as a transition until a specific plan for Carmel's central business district (CBD) is adopted, and which plan will serve as the basis for CBD Zone. / This district is superimposed over the other primary zoning districts and its regulations shall supersede those of the primary zoning districts over which it is superimposed, Tbe~.~i~_~...~ -t Comment: Co,moil establishing this zone, is relying on I.C. 36-?-4-1400 et seq, .. Commissi~ eat~b ' ",.. [ ttmaush fais ordin~7district 23F.00.99 Aoolication Procedure. '[. I~etml: Plan C ommYaaion A. Deveinoment Plan. See Section 24.##: Development Plan. B. Architectural Design. Erterior Liehtin2. Landsca~in~ and Sisrnaee (ADLS). See Section 24. ##: .4rchitectural Design, Exterior Lighting. Land.~caping and Signage (.4DLS). ZOn~) are hereby established as shown on the Zoning Map. The zone shall generally be defined as follows: i~ a,'o. th, ~unor f~ 23F.02 PI~.P Commission AoorovaI. 23F.02.01 The plan Commission must approve, approve with condMons, or disapprove the Development Plan (DP) and Architectural Design, Erterior Lighting, Landscaping and Siguagu (ADL$) for any tract of land in the Carmel Drive - Range Line Road ColTidor Owriay Zone. 23F.02.02 Develooment Plan. A public hearing shall be held by the Commission before it decides whether to approve or disapprove a DP. A DP shall be required for additions or modifications to existing structures which exceed either of the following: A. Thirty-five percent (35%) of the original gross floor ar~a of thc existing structure, applicable from the date of this ordinance, or B. Five thousand (5,000) squar~ feet. Chaoter 23F: Carmel Drive - Ran£e Line Road Corridor Overlay Zone Reis Markun 7-26-04 23F-] 23F.02.03 Architectural Design. Exterior Li~htint. Landseaoin~ and Sinna~e. Tho Commission shall revi~,v and appwve or approve with conditions thc Architcoturai D~sign, Exterior Lighting, Landscaping and Signagc (ADLS), access to propert~y, site layout, parking and site circulation, ~a~_: ~nd such- app ro~al~ ~-hatl -be-neceas my prior ~o:- ...................................................... : O~et~d: pursuant to ...................................................................................................... ~,,., a butJneaa o~ prope~y own~ to expend projeot's~ossfloorarea~ ~* ~, ~r~/l~ ,~t~na ~ · r~ t,~ /'~'.a'~.~'~ct%,~ /¢~ammienandCotmoilahouldceoaide~ Chapter 23F: Carmel Driw - Range Line Road Corridor Overlay Zone 23F-2 23F.04 Svccial Uses: Prohibitcd Uses. See Appendix A - Schedule of Uscs. 23F.04.01 Svccial Uses. All Special Uses which are pcrmi~cd (upon ob~ainiag a Special U~ approval ~om ~c Bo~d) in ~c undor~ing ~ning d~c~s), excep~ ~oso uses c~ssly ~clud~ in ~is S~on or in Appendix A: Schcdul~ of Uses, ~ period in ~e Or,lay Zone unnn the ~nnmval of ~e addition, ~y Use ~i~i~g at ~e ~me of ~c~s~ge of~is C~r which d~s not con~ to underlying zoning distichs), sh~ll ~ Us~ ~1 not be considered lc~l nonconfo~ing us~ nor r~uim Sp~ial Usc a con~nuancc but sh~l r~u~ S~cial Usc approval for any ~mra~on, enl~gcment or c~ion. 23F.04.02 Prohibited Uses. A. Automobile, Track, BoaL Mobile Home, Manu~m~d Housing or RV Sales, B. Sexually Orient~ Businesses C. All Indus~iaI Uses in Appendix A __ ~ . ~ J' ~Not~in8 in ~h~ O~pt~r s~ll p~~n of a buil~ or ~mr~ des~oyed less ~e nin~ ~ent (90%) of ~ ~~6E~ (~xclusive of · e valu~ of~c lot) ~ cxplosio~ fi~, flood, c~q~e, ~ndsm~ act of God, riot or ac1 of a public enemy, subsequent to th~ p~sagc of~is Chapter; or sh~l prevent &e ~ntinuancc of&c usc, except ~ illegal noncon~ng ~e, of such building, s~c~e or p~ ~er~f, ~ such ~c existed at ~c time of such impai~cnt of such buildin~ ~u~ro or p~ ~e~o~ ~1 such rcsm~tion ~d cons~c~on shall be subje~ ~ ~e ob~ining of ~ Imp~ve~nt ~tion Pc~ with ~c f~s ~ived for &c ~stomfion of a building or s~cmre d~oy~ less ~ ninc~ ~mcnt (90%) ~d rc~o~ a~ording m i~ s~ of cxis~n~ p~or to dcsUuction. ~1 restorations ~sulfing in a div~genc~.~_~.p~.p~&~_~l~g.~.~- des~oycd nineW p~ccnt (90%) or mo~ sh~l ~ subject to obmin~g ~ Improvement Lo~fion P~it ~d pay~nt of ~s, ofu~o I ~aoter 23F; Carmel Drive - Rans~e Line Road Corridor Overlav Zone Reis M~trkun 7-26-t)4 ~ 23F-3 23F.0~ Buildinl~ Setbacks. Ch~.[}tcr 2~F: ~rmeI Drive - Ran2c Linc Road Corridor Overlay Zone 23F-4 23F.05.01 "~ ~X~23F.05.02 Build-to Line. A. Minimum: Zero (0) feet[ ............................................................................ ."' B. Maximum: tan (I0) fe~t. subject to sub~aram'aob C below~ C. Up to thirty-percent (30%) oftbe fi'ont fa~atin may be recessed for =nU-ances and outxloor seating; however, no entrance shall be re~ss=cl more than ten (10) re=t, and no outdoor seating area shall be r~c~ssed mor~ than i~v= ney (20) feet, subject to Commission approval, t. Side and Rear Setbacks. Tber~ are no minimum side or r=ar setbacks; however, no buildings or other permanent improvement shall encroach into required landscape ar=as. 23F.06 Buitdin~ Orientation. 23F.06,01 Every parc=l with frontage on a public stxeet must haw a building that fronts on ~ 23F.06.02 Except for those lots with 120 fect or Icss of frontage on a public street, =very parcel must have a building that occupies a minimum of 70% of tbat frontageS. ..................................... , ",,',,,'~,, d 23F.06.03 Buildings on lots witb i20 f~t or less of frontogc on a public street must occupy the maximum ',, ',," amount of frontage except for driveways, sidewalks and other similar features, as determined ",,,,,'..,,,, ", ~ by the Corem ss on.L .................................................................................... 23F.06.04 Additional buildings may be built in the r~r of the property. "~ ,. 23F.06.05 All Principal Buildings shall face a public stxect~ with a prima~ entrance from a pubIi¢ street. ', 23F.0606 The primary enmmae must be readily apparent as a prominent architectural feature and visible 23F.07 Buildina Hcinht. 23F.07.01 ~ ............................................................................................................. 23F.07.02 Minimum hcight: twenty-six (26) fcct "('", Chauter 23F: Carmel Drive - Range Line Road Corridor Overlay Zone Rcis. Markut~ 7-26~-0~4 23F-5 23F.07.03 Maximum height: A. Thirty-five (35) feet, or thr~e stories, whichever is greater, if adjacent to singI¢-faimly residential zone. B. Fifey-flvc (55) feet, or five (5) s~ries whichever is gs*ater 23F.08 l~uildin~ Foomrint. 23F.08.01 Minimum: 5000 square feet 23P.og.o2 M imum:20oo0 23F.09 Cons~ction Materials. ";,,, 23F.09.01 Principal Buildin~ must be fac~ on ~ont ~d sides wi~ bhck or stone and ~i~ed in me~l, stone, pr~t ~n~e~, wood, or s~eco. 23F.09.02 Re~ bulldog ~¢de mt~rinis ~y v~, how~, con.inured ~ ~e ~ont ~d side ~¢des. 23F.10.03 23F. 10.04 23F. 10 Architectural Design. Buildings in the Zone must be built as multi-sto~y commercial storefront types, whose characteristics include~ ................................................................................................. .. 23F.10.01 A gsound floor with transparent stor~front glas~ ...................................................... 23F. 10.02 Upper floors built of brick with windows inserted into th= wall '.. A distinct cornice line at the top of the wall and intermediate horizonUd elen-,=nts, such as a ~m at the top of thc ground floor ar= optional. 23F.10.05 23F.10.06 23F.10.07 23F.10.05 23F.10.09 23F.10.10 23F,10.11 The fagadc shall be flat, with ralinf provided by windows and surrounds, storcfionts, doors, and features such as special brick coursing pilasters and lintels. . .......... The first floor and all other floors will have a coordinaRd composition, which will usually be indicat*d by thc alignment of uppcr floor windows and other fcatorcs with opcnings and f~atures of the first floor. building, except far pedes~an entxan¢¢s to parkin8 areas or small entrance lobbies for upper fl0orsj_ ..................................................................... ~ Every face of the building with frontage on a public street must havc opcnings for windows. Large expanses of glass are allowed, but the building may not be conslruct~d entirely of a metal and glass curtain wall. Fixed or retractable awnings ate pcnnit~d if they complement a building's atchitectoral style, material, colors, and details; do not conceal architectural features (such as cornices, columns, pilastar~, or decorative details); do not impair fagade composition; and are designed as an / ¥1 integral part of the fn;~de. Metal or aluminum awnings arc prohibited. {~"~{~m' ~ on thu front elevation ofth~ building_ at the ~._ound eve .... .-] Comment':.. Thts' s v~ ~nd do~s ~t Because th= buddmgs are wewed very close up, all buddmgs should exhibit articulated detail { and ornament that is scaled to the pedestrian. Rooftop mechanical and telecommunication equipment shall be ful{y screened on all sides using parapets, penthouse screens or other similar method and which are integrated into the overall building design and approved by the Commission. Chauter 23F: Carmel Drive- Ranee Linc Road Corridor Overlay Zone 23F-6 23F.11 Landscaoin;. 23F.11.01 Shade flees shall be planted within the sU'~t right-of-way, parallel to ~ach s~ per standards of thc City. Maximum spacing between u'~es shall bo fiity ($0) f~et, and a minimum ............................................................................ planted one (1) shade tree and five (5) shrubs per every nine (9) spaces.[ 23F,I Log 23F.12 Lighting. 23F.12.01 23F.12.02 23F.12.03 Street lighting shall be provided as part of all projccts, on both sides of thc street when possible and spaced no less than one hundred (100) feet apart, and of a design per the adopted Citystyle.r......l Comman~. Is~h~ ~ ov~'all lighting Exterior hghrmg of the budding or s~te shall bc designed so that hght ~s not directed offthe stte [adoet~l and the light source is shielded from direct offsite viewing. For any use abuthng single-family residential uses, illumination levels shall not exceed 0.5 foot candles at the properly line. Exterior lighting shall be architecOlrally integrated with thc building style, material and color. Chal~ter 23F: Carmel Drive - Range Line Road Corridor Overlay Zone ~ 23F-7 23F.12.04 23F,12.05 Rooftop lighting shall be prohibited. All exterior architectural, display, decorative and sign lighting shall be generated ftom concealed, Iow level fixtures. The maximum height of light standards in parking areas shall not exceed the building height, or twenty-five (:25) feet, which ever is less. When light standards abut or fall within ninety (90) feet of single family residential, their height shall not exceed fifte~l (15) feet. 23F.13 Si~na~e. 23F.13.01 23F.13.02 23F.13.03 23F.13,04 Unless specified as exempt ~rwisc noted below, the Sign Ordinance A Ground S~gns B. AllothersignsspecifiedinSection25. OT. OI-4:Prohiblted$ign$. Wall signs ar~ allowed provided that they fit within the horizontal and vmical elements of the building and not obscur~ details of the building· No sign shall bo allowed to extend above the cornice line of a building, Size shall be determined by Sign Chart A of Section 25.07: Sig~ Ordinance. In cases where Wall Signs are located less than five that (5') ftom a right-of-way line, the Wall Sign shall be deemed to be located five (5) feet f~om the right-of-way for purposes of applying Sign Chart A to detexmine the allowable sign 23F.14 23F.15 pedestrian Circulation. 23F.14.01 Sidewalks along public streets shall be a minimum of eight (g) feet in width. 23F.14.02 Walkways shall be provided on at lraut one side of the building and shall provide access betw~n rear parking ~rca$ and Principal building entrances or the street. Unless otherwise · noted in this ordinance, the minimum width for walk'ways shall be six (6) feel 23F 14 04 Neither sidewalks nor walk'ways shall be used by automotive Irafti¢. ',. 23F. 14,05 Pedestrian access shall be coordinated with and provided to adjoining properties. '., p~peny. ¥¥ 23F.15.01 23F,15.02 23F.15.03 23F.15.04 23F.15.05 23F.15.06 Parking areas shall be setback not less than six (6) feet behind the Front Binld-to-Line. Parking areas shall be located at the rear or side of buildings, and screened per Section 23F. 11.03. Parking space dimensions shall be 9' x 20', or 10' x 18', including two (2) feet for bumper overhang. Adjacent/adjoining parking lots shall be interconnected either by alley or intemaI driveway, and coordinated te accommodate pedestxian access, f Paths within parking lots of more than three rows shall be designated to accomraodate / pedestrians safely fi.om parking areas to sidewalks, walk. rays and/or building(s)~ ................. t Comraene ~s i[v~ aaa w~u agai~ ] Bicycle parking shall be provided one space per 100 feet of street frontage. [ ~rovi~ ~qu~t~ pe~ J Chaoter 23F: Carmel Drive - Range Linc Road Corridor Overlay Zone Reis Marktm 7-26-0~4 23F-8 23F.16 Product Material & ~efus= Storage 23F.16.01 23F.16,02 23F.16.03 Material or product storage shall occur within the Principal building or an Accessory building. Any Accessory Building for storage shall: A. Be architecturally compatible with the Principal building and imegrated imo the overall site layout. B. Be approved by the Commission. Any Accessol~ Building for storage or disposal of refuse shall: A. Accommodate waste and recyclable materials, and, if applicable, grease or other cooking refuse. B. Be fully enclosed except for doors or gates which are kept closed unless loading or unloading. C. Be architecturally compatible with the Principal building and integrated into the overall site layouL D. Be approv~ by the Commission. 23F.17 Other Reouiremcnts. All other rcquimmcn~.s not mentioned in this Section shall remain as stated for that primary zoning cl~sification disUict mapped. 23F.18 Sunset Provision. This Chapter expires December 31, 2006. Chapter 23F: Carmel Drive - Rante Line Road Corridor Overlay 23F-9 CHAPTER 23F: CARMEL DRIVE- RANGE LINE ROAD OVERLAY ZONE AMENDMENT LOG Ordinance No. Docket No. Council Aovroval Effective Date Sections Affected Z- Chaotcr 23F: Carmel Drive - Ranee Line Road Corridor Overlav Zone 23F-10 D~wRY SIMMONS PITTS &VORNEHM, LLP 8888 Kt'~rslon{* Crossillg Suite 1200 · Indianapolis, hldiana 46240 · (317) 581)-4848 telephone * (317) 580-4855 fiscsimile ° www.drewrysimnmn~.cmn VIA HAND DELIVERY Carmel Plan Commission Subdivision Committee City of Carmel I Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 March 2, 2004 O0,p: RE: Carnlel Drive/Range Linc P, oad Overlay Zone Ordinance Docket No. 04010027 Our File Number: 3196.001 Dear Committee Members: I represent Centre Associates and Kosene Mohawk, LLC, 6wners of thc Centrc Shopping Center and Mohawk Landing Shopping Ccnter, respectively. For background purposes, the Centre is located at the northwest corner of 116~ Street and Range Line Road and Mohawk Landing is located at the southeast comer of City Center Drive and Range Line Road. Both centers }lave been a part ora thriving shopping area along Range Line Road for the past twenty years. Their existence and thc vitality of their tenants arc greatly tllrcatencd by the proposed Cra'reel Drive/Range Linc Road Overlay Zeno Ordinance. Thc owners oF the shopping centers respectfully off'er the lbllowing reasons for thc Cannel Plan Conlmission to not recommend approval of the proposed ordinance: 1. Thc proposed ordinancc does not properly address existing buildings mid actually exempts vacant areas where development according to tho ordinance could more practically occur. 2. Thc proposed ordinance docs not addrcss buildings that are destroyed duc to fire, tornado or otbcr acts of God. 3. The maxinlum setback required along the street prohibits parking in fi'ont of buildings and limits a business' ability to draw customers fi-om tbe street. Also, if Range Une Road nccded to be widened, buildings would have to bo moved or denlolisbed. 4. The requirement in the ordinance to bavc two occupiablc floors is not desired by retailers in the marketplace and will affect the owners' ability to attract viable tenants. 5. The ordinance will require existing businesses to obtain a several variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals i£thcy desire to make improvements to existing buildings. The variance process is a tinle-consuming and expcllsive process. Ca~ mci Plan Conm15ssion Subdivision CommiUee Malch 2, 2004 Page 2 of 2 6. Vague language needs to be better defined in Ibc ordinance (e.,g. "rear building materials colors and composition must be coordinaled with front and side Iheadcs" (23F.7.2); "pedestrian scale" 23F.8. ii and "olher requiremenls remain in place" (23F. 16) make predictability difficult for existing bailding owners. 7. Additional zoning ordinances arc not necessary. Carmel currently has extensive zoning ordinances m place that address building setbacks and height, parking, landscaping, lighting and signage along Range Linc Road and Carmel Drive. Centre Associates and Mohawk Landing have recently made significant investments to their shopping centers including upgrades to buikling facades, lighting, signage and parking areas. Tbese investlncnts will soon bc wasted if the proposed ordinance is passed. If you have ally questions regarding these comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at (317) 580-4848. Sincerely, DREWRY SIMMONS PITTS & VORNE[IM, LLP Marl< T. Monroe Remaining Plan Comrnission Members Ramona Hancock, Pltm Commission Michael Hollibaugh, Carmel DOCS Issues connected with proposed Chapter 23F of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance as drafted · Existing businesses in the affected areas request time to contribute to the process. The ordinance is similar to overlays developed for City Center and Old Meridian. However, those areas were both primarily undeveloped, and in the case of Old Meridian, the existing development - Meijer - was taken into account. In this case, the area affected is developed and existing businesses do not appear to have been taken into account. There is a need for a clear definition for existing businesses of what circumstances would invoke requirement of compliance with the overlay. o Loss of building through fire, tornado or other happenstance out of the owner's control? o Remodel, add-on (by percentage, requirement of building permit or some other value?) o Change in business ownership? o Change in business entity? What is the rationale behind the zero setback? Carmel Drive could need a center turn lane, widening, other additional lanes or improvements/expansions in the future. How would they be accommodated? · How will variances be accommodated, if at all? What is the rationale behind two-story requirement and size of footprint, both of which substantially increase construction costs and lessen the opportunity for potentially interested business entities or developers. Several recently-completed buildings do not comply, meaning those businesses would incur additional costs, at the very least, of obtaining a variance at such time as they remodel or sell. An 8000 square foot building with appropriate parking, landscaping, etc. simply will not fit on several of the smaller properties. How is that being considered in the overlay? This and other parts of the proposal could seriously limit the opportunities for existing businesses to sell their business or their property due to the expense of complying with the overlay. Vague language (e.g. "rear building materials (colors and composition must be coordinated with front and side facades" (23F.7.2); "pedestrian scale" 23F.8.11 and "other requirements remain in place" (23F. 16) make predictability difficult for future developers. What need does the ordinance address that cannot be answered by the ordinances already in place or by clarifying some of the areas within those ordinances that make predictability for developers extremely difficult? Hollibau~h, Mike P From: Sent: To: Subject: Mo Merhoff [mo@carmelchamber.com] Monday, February 23, 2004 4:04 PM Hollibaugh, Mike P RE: Carmel Drive/Range Line Overlay Overlay Issue points,doc ~i Nike: I'm continuing to receive input on this, but here ar the issues on the overlay we've compiled so far. Mo *** eSafe has scanned this email for malicious content and found it to be clean *** *** IMPORTANT: DO not open attachments from unrecognized senders *** Hollibau~lh, Mike P From: Sent: To: Subject: Dave Coots [DCoots@chwlaw.com] Tuesday, February 17, 2004 9:48 AM hollibaugh mike (E-mail) Carmel Drive/Rangeling Road Overlay Mike, as an abutting Carmel Drive landowner and an attorney having represented a number of affected landowners, I would ask that the Commission at its 2/17/04 meeting table the public hearing since I am told that no proposed ordinance has been made available for public study prior to the hearing date. I do have a copy of Chapter 23F, but am advised that changes are being made to that ordinance. initial concerns raised by 23F are: what is grandfathered in terms of remodeling, add-on, etc 2. how can you exclude uses that currently exist without compensation or condemnation process 3. what is the rational behind zero setback when Carmel Dr conceivably will need a center turn lane, widening, center trolly lane or whatever. 4. new construction(which probably will require a tear down) could not use existing foundations, utility locations, parking lots, existing trees or otherwise. It seems as if the ordinance is designed for a vacant strip(like City Center) and not what exists. 5. requiring 2 floors of occupied space adds substantial costs to construction re elevators, construction methods(metal beams) handicap access 6. what is the rational behind the footprint requirement/restriction 7. architecturally, few offices want/need a ground floor with storefront glass you can see, a number of questions exist as to the ordinance I reviewed and by no means do I feel the above complete. I guess I am having a real problem understanding what is wrong with what we now have that requires such a radical change. I do believe ADLS review both corridors makes sense, but within the confines of the underlying ordinance, not remake. appreciate your thoughts, a continuance of tonigb~ts hearing with time to participate the department to address what the percieved concerns are and time to include ffected property owners in the drafting, not responding to the proposed ordinance. Thanks Issues connected with proposed Chapter 23F of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance as drafted Existing businesses in the affected areas request time to contribute to the process. The ordinance is similar to overlays developed for City Center and Old Meridian. However, those areas were both primarily undeveloped, and in the case of Old Meridian, the existing development - Meijer - was taken into account. In this case, the area affected is developed and existing bnsinesses do not appear to have been taken into account. There is a need for a clear definition for existing businesses of what circumstances would invoke requirement of compliance with the overlay. o Loss of building through fire, tornado or other happenstance out of the owner's control? o Remodel, add-on (by percentage, requirement of building permit or some other value?) o Change in business ownership? o Change in business entity? What is the rationale behind the zero setback? Carmel Drive could need a center turn lane, widening, other additional lanes or improvements/expansions in the future. How would they be accommodated? · How will variances be accommodated, if at all? · What is the rationale behind two-story requirement and size of footprint, both of which substantially increase construction costs and lessen the opportunity for potentially interested business entities or developers.. · Several recently-completed buildings do not comply, meaning those businesses would incur additional costs, at the very least, of obtaining a variance at such time as they remodel or sell. An 8000 square foot building with appropriate parking, landscaping, etc. simply will not fit on several of the smaller properties. How is that being considered in the overlay? This and other parts of the proposal could seriously limit the opportunities for existing businesses to sell their business or their property due to the expense of complying with the overlay. Vague language (e.g. "rear building materials (colors and composition must be coordinated with front and side facades" (23F.7.2); "pedestrian scale" 23F.8.11 and "other requirements remain in place" (23F. 16) make predictability difficult for future developers. What need does the ordinance address that cannot be answered by the ordinances already in place or by clarifying some of the areas within those ordinances that make predictability for developers extremely difficult? Babbitt, Pamela A From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Butler, Angelina V Friday, January 30, 2004 8:41 AM Babbitt, Pamela A Morrissey, Phyllis G; Pattyn, Dawn E; Tingley, Connie S; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Keeling, Adrienne M; Kendall, Jeff A; Brewer, Scott I; Hancock, Ramona B; Dobosiewicz, Jon C; Stahl, Gayle H; Pohlman, Jesse M Docket No. Assignment:(OA) Ordinance Amendment, Range Line Road/Carmel Drive Overlay Zone (#04010027 OA) The following Docket No. has bccn assigned to the Zoning Ordinance Amendment petition filed by the Department of Community Services: · This Item will not appear on an agenda of the Technical Advisory Committee. · This Item will appear on the Tuesday, February 17, 2004, agenda of the Plan Commission under Public Hearings. · Published Public Notice needs to occur no later than Friday, February 6, 2004. NOTICE IS TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE INDIANAPOLIS STAR. · Thc Proof of Notice will need to be received by this Department no later than noon, Friday, February 13, 2004. Failure to submit thc Proof of Notice by this time will result in the automatic tabling of the petition to thc Tuesday, March 16, 2004, agenda of the Plan Commission. · Fifteen (15) Informational Packets must be delivered to Plan Commission Secretary Ramona Hancock no later than noon, Friday, February 6, 2004. Failure to submit Informational Packets by this time will result in thc automatic tabling of the petition to the Tuesday, March 16, 2004, agenda of the Plan Commission. Sincerely, Angie Butler Planning Administrator Butler, An~lelina V To: Babbitt, Pamela A Cc: Morrissey, Phyllis G; Pattyn, Dawn E; Tingley, Connie S; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Keeling, Adrienne M; Kendall, Jeff A; Brewer, Scott I; Hancock, Ramona B; Dobosiewicz, Jon C; Stahl, Gayle H; Pohlman, Jesse M Subject: Docket No. Ass[gnment:(OA) Ordinance Amendment, Range Line Road/Carmel Drive Overlay Zone (#04010027 OA) The following Docket No. has been assigned to the Zoning Ordinance Amendment petition filed by the Department of Community Services: Add Chapter 23F: Range Line Road/Carmel Drive Overlay Zone Docket No. 04010027 OA · This Item will not appear on an agenda of the Technical Advisory Committee. · This Item will appear on the Tuesday, February 1~, 2004, agenda of the Plan Commission under Public Hearings. · Published Public Notice needs to occur no later than Friday, February 6, 2004. NOTICE IS TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE IND[ANA?OLIS STAR. · The Proof of Notice will need to be received by this Department no later than noon, Friday, February 13, 2004. Failure to submit the Proof of Notice by this time will result in the automatic tabling of the petition to the Tuesday, March 16, 2004, agenda of the Plan Commission. · Fifteen (15) Informational Packets must be delivered to Plan Commission Secretary Ramona Hancock no later than noon, Friday, February 6, 2004. Failure to submit Informational Packets by this time will result in the automatic tabling of the petition to the Tuesday, March 16, 2004, agenda of the Plan Commission. Sincerely, Angle Butler Planning Administrator