HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondenceConn, An elina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Matt,
Mindham, Daren
Monday, August 06, 2012 11:52 AM
'Matt L. Griffin'
Conn, Angelina V
Gramercy
ADLS Submitta street styles.pdf; L130 Planting Details L130 (1).pdf; ADLS Submittal building
base plans.pdf; L120 Buffer Plantings.pdf
I was asked to email you an update. I think I have basically attached the latest landscape plans for this project. A|yssadid
a great job getting me these plans and answering a couple questions. I think we have a very good set of plans for where
the project is at. I understand there may be some more changes. I will await a more final draft after some issues are
resolved, but for now these Iandscape plan will suffice.
Daren Mindham
Urban For st
Department of Community Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 4GO3Z
Offce: 317'571'2283
From: Mindham, Daren
Sent: Monday, August 06 2012 11:47 AM
To: 'Alyssa Prazeau'
Subject: Gramercy
Alyssa,
The foliowing email represents comments for this project project specifically addressing the area of Iandscaping. |
have reviewed the drawings and offer the following comments:
URBAN FORESTRY REVIEW COMMENTS
1) On sheet L106 there is an ornamental tree at the bottom right that is not labeled. Should this have been
deleted as the matching one on the left was moved to the side of the building?
2) On sheet L118, there seems to be a street tree missing on the bottom right-there is a gap?
3) On sheet L126, will the rain garden island have runoff from the parking lot? There is no curb cut for water to
flow into the garden?
4) On sheet L303A and L303B, there are some dotted lines that should be deleted.
Obviously, these are minor and a revised version will not be needed as I assume more changes are on the way. 1 will just
check for these changes when a more final set is submitted. I am happy with all of your comments to my review and the
plan looks a lot better.
PS. 1 will send Matt an email as requested.
1
Conn, Angelina V
From: Mindham, Daren
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 11:06 AM
To: 'Alyssa Prazeau'
Cc: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: RE: Gramercy urban forestry response letter
if you could send over the actual plan changes on the landscape plans that would be great. As I am off tomorrow, getting
them to me late this afternoon is not necessary as it seems like you are busy today. I may have to find the original
perimeter tree buffer plan, if you have that accessible, I would like to get a copy so that we are both using the same
plan.
As for the notes in red, I don't see too many issues. It is totally fine to substitute ornamentals for shade trees.
will make a note to email Matt with any more comments, hopefully on Monday.
Daren Mindham
Urban (Forester
City of Carmel
Department of Community Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Office: 317 - 571 -2283
From: Alyssa Prazeau [mailto:aorazeauC context-design.comi
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 8:38 AM
To: Mindham, Daren
Subject: Gramercy urban forestry response letter
Daren-
Attached is the response letter to your comments from March 15. I thought I had sent this our previously, but it may
have been to Buckingham. Regardless, I apologize for the delay. The answers in red are those that may require some
discussion. I am happy to have those conversations with you at any time. If you would like to see the actual plan changes
as well, please let me know. I can send those over later today following a day full of meetings.
1r.hink Matt Griffin is looking for a letter of approval from you by next Tuesday. If this is an issue or if you need
additional information from me, please let me know.
Thanks,
Alyssa Prazeau
Alyssa P. Prazeau, ASLA
Managing Partner
CONTEXT
Landscape Architecture
12 South Main Street, Suite 100
Fortville, Indiana 46040
tel 317.485.6900
fax 317.485.6912
www.context- design.com
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are
addressed. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy this
message or disclose its contents to anyone. E -mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error -free as information could
be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for
any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please
request a hard -copy version. Consider sending time - sensitive messages and messages containing action deadlines via phone or fax.
Click here if you need to send me large files.
This message was scanned by IT Professionals and is believed to be clean.
Outsource. Expand. Simplify. Save. 1 http: / /www.indianatech.us
2
Conn, An s elina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mindham, Daren
Thursday, August 02, 2012 10:43 AM
Conn, Angelina V
FW: Gramercy urban forestry response letter
Responses to Urban Forestry Review Comments from 3- 15- 12.pdf
My newest set is from March 6th of all the L pages. I do have some single sheets of overall plans from June but that's not
what I need.
Attached are there latest responses to my comments. I am just looking for the latest submittal to compare the
responses too. I will see if David has something too.
Daren Mindham
Urban Forester
City of Carmel
Department of Community Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Office: 317 - 571 -2283
From: Alyssa Prazeau [mailto:aprazeau(acontext- design.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 8:38 AM
To: Mindham, Daren
Subject: Gramercy urban forestry response letter
Daren-
Attached is the response letter to your comments from March 15. I thought I had sent this our previously, but it may
have been to Buckingham. Regardless, I apologize for the delay. The answers in red are those that may require some
discussion. I am happy to have those conversations with you at any time. If you would like to see the actual plan changes
as well, please let me know. I can send those over later today following a day full of meetings.
I think Matt Griffin is looking for a letter of approval from you by next Tuesday. If this is an issue or if you need
additional information from me, please let me know.
Thanks,
Alyssa Prazeau
Alyssa P. Prazeau, ASLA
Managing Partner
CONTEXT
Landscape Architecture
12 South Main Street, Suite 100
Fortville, Indiana 46040
tel 317.485.6900
fax 317.485.6912
www.context - design.com
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are
addressed. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy this
message or disclose its contents to anyone. E -mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error -free as information could
1
p
Daren,
The following are our responses to your comments from March 15 to the March 6 drawings.
For your information, we are bringing the site plans to the 100% DD level, then will be
progressing Phase 1 Drawings to 100% CDs.
URBAN FORESTRY REVIEW COMMENTS
1) On sheet L100 -L126, wherever possible, please increase the distances on the trees from the
buildings. Ideally I would like to see the ornamentals at least 15' away and the shade trees
20'away.
Response: Trees in the building prototypes will be located with ornamentals at least 15' and
shade trees at least 20' off of the buildings wherever possible on a case by case basis.
On sheet L100 'Perennials' is spelled 'Perennals'twice.
Response: Spelling has been corrected.
3) On sheet L106 — Is this scale right, it's the same as L105 but the building is much larger.
Response: The scale is correct, the buildings are different sizes.
On sheet L107 and others, note the quantity for the Hedge Shrub, typ. In this case 4.
Response: The hedge shrubs are labeled with quantities, but as these are the prototypes
only, the intent is that it will be a continuous hedge between the buildings, so the actual
quantity will vary widely.
5) On sheet L115, will the trees on the corner affect vision clearance for traffic?
Response: Trees have been adjusted per Carmel's sight triangle requirements.
On sheet L118, please move the shade trees back off the sidewalk from 5' to at least 10' for
better pedestrian clearance.
Response: The trees have been moved to 10' off of the sidewalk.
7) On sheet L126, the ornamental trees seem to be planted in a very narrow location that will
have plenty of vehicle traffic near the garage doors. Please move these trees out of this
location and to the open lawn area to the left of the building where these trees can thrive.
Response:: The ornamental ntal tre s are required to meet the building perimeter requirements
for all the townhc use buildings. We would like to ise columnar shade trees es in odder. to meet
the building base requ ire idrents and 5, ddrrao„:l in this a c ndition. Placing ood oaardu(„,„,ntal trees on
the sides is an oaptioon, however, ve , in many instances, the areas r between buildings will be used
as a bioswale areas, and not rnaaay spro cies of ornamental �rnadraa:datc:al tdo o s will thrive there.
8) On sheet L200, will the design of the street trees affect vision clearance or pedestrian
traffic?
Response: Trees have been adjusted per Carmei's sight triangle requirements, and
pedestrian flow will not be affected.
9) On sheet L203, Section 1.4.3 states that street trees are to be at a minimum 30' apart. The
trees in the details seem to be 18' apart. Also, our City recommended standard on street
trees is that they are at least 20' from the intersection or stop sign. Will this affect these
details?
Response: Detail has been corrected to accurately depict how street trees are actually
placed in the plans, minimum 30' on center. All trees have been adjusted per Carmel's sight
triangle requirements.
10) On sheet L301 and L302,1 have some concerns on the number of locations that trees are
being located in less than ideal spots. My main concern is the small islands between the
garages on L302. Ornamental trees will only block vision pulling out and will impede
driveway space for the cars.
Re i rrma: i. rrr rr mental trees �: rrraM'' � aa ai
requirements far all NN
townhouse building a,a will be re pk;acr„ d with shaaafe.,^ tr(„?es The shade a'rr a!':.a, in these aar ely:5 will b
a,rt:rla.ar °ar vr' vorie tfes. The op.i r area ea
. between the buildings as intended to dNa- areas,
and aarnanw,,,ntral ¢ra r „ay will not thrive there.
11) On sheet L303A and L303B, 1 do not recommend Maples as they are overplanted within the
City and tend to have undesirable characteristics. A chart is attached with our Carmel
standards for diversity. Please choose trees off of our Recommended Tree list and i would
like to emphasize native species. 1 would like to also recommend substituting the London
Plane tree in the tree wells with Japanese Zelkova or a Ginkgo, while limiting the use of the
silver lindens in the tree wells. Please limit the honey locust to one variety and choose
another genus for greater diversity.
¢i l:aa:arasa 'The p rcta:tyepaia „�i ipFNea rY” a:."Na(rr , hias been raee iilrrieai to a;adair � t•h a . aci rra, Ni dr'al
12) On sheet L304, the chart is missing the words, 'Ornamental Trees 1/100 I.f'.
Response: The chart has been corrected.
13) I dislike the design of tree wells. Tree wells should be a last resort and since this project has
many if not all 'from scratch' construction, I would like to see more thought into providing a
better habitat for street trees. I have attached some pictures of styles that could work.
Res onrse, lea vi
incorporate trees within planting islands, a �✓a your d a'l,
whenever possible. in ,osme instances, tree welts may be the best option in order to provide
shade Within an urban plaza and urban stra etsccopesetti' p, We will rrapnimile the use of tree
y, setting,
wells wherever possible,
14) I do not see any perimeter landscaping plans along with a details plan with tree planting
detail, tree preservation details, plant schedule. Are these missing? I was satisfied with the
previously submitted landscape plans for these.
porspa:anse: The saar'aaaa detail plan pyroviikd within thr-r initial .subtrill¢'a':aI will still be use l he
pa,^r °irneter °planting plans have been aadjusta d to stave existing trees who „era possible 'his
rising tra-e5 to reinoin will bo” changing as grad( aail is provide( N,l'i'om ¢he ngin(.o!a.
a cNTFs T will ensure the pr a - r quantities shade, evergrean, and ornamental troTs, as
woell ra,s shrubs; ore provided to rrao "o „e¢ the buffer r °equiremen¢s i:xr° ersa';Pa assside. "Th s plan will ba,,^
submitted to the City once complete jar/inal review
Conn, An elina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Foley, Amanda J
Thursday, August 02, 2012 11:28 AM
Duncan, Gary R; Conn, Angelina V
Engineering Dept staff report
Olive Garden Restaurant
The Department reviewed and submitted comments for this project on 6/15/12. Revised plans were resubmitted on July
6, and the Department is in the process of reviewing the revised plans. We do not foresee any major concerns regarding
the site plan for this project.
Grammercy
The Department has met with the developer and reviewed the submitted traffic study, as well as, the access and
connectivity through the site. The traffic study looks accurate, and we have no issues with what has been presented. The
proposed connections to the site are acceptable, including the possible right -in /right -out off of Keystone..
Abbey Taphouse
We have not received adequate information to completely assess the ADLS amendment; however, we provide the
following comments. The Department recommends squaring off the intersection of 1st Street NE and 1st Avenue NE, 1) to
allow angled parking along is Avenue NE in the current public right -of -way, and 2) to create a safer intersection.
Squaring off the intersection would allow for a safer crosswalk distance for pedestrians, better site distance for drivers
going south on 1st Avenue NE (if there is parking along 1st Avenue NE), and alleviate confusion that the existing
intersection in its current state may create. We also recommend changing the parking along .tst Street NE to angled
parking.. The current plan to direct pedestrians behind the parked cars is not ideal; however, the concrete apron for
pedestrian traffic provides a good alternative to redirecting the pedestrians in front of the parked cars. There is a
significant increase in impervious surface from the existing conditions, and stormwater detention and star rrwa tear quality
treatment need to be taken into consideration.
Amanda Foley
Staff Engineer
City of Carmel'
571 -2309 (direct)
Conn, An•'elina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ochs, Timothy [Timothy.Ochs @icemiller.com]
Tuesday, April 10, 2012 4:05 PM
'brad.grabow @gmail.com'; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Conn, Angelina V
'Matt L. Griffin'; Andy Klineman
Gramercy Apr 10 Subdivision Committee Agenda
Mr. Grabow: As you may recall, I represent the Buckingham Companies. This morning, we were able to speak with
Councilor Rick Sharp about this project and then again this afternoon. We understand that he has requested that the
Committee continue this matter while the Carmel City Council contemplates certain issues associated with the proposed
redevelopment. Based on our conversations with Councilor Sharp, we have agreed, as a courtesy to him, to request a
continuance of tonight's meeting regarding Gramercy. This continuance will give us time to meet with him in an attempt
to resolve any existing issues.
My apology for the short notice of this request. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Tim
ICE
LEGAL CSU'PI ICt
TIMOTHY E. OCHS
Attorney at Law
Phone 317 - 236 -5952
Fax 317- 592 -4720
Cell 317- 695 -8386
Email timothy.ochs @icemiller.com
One American Square
Suite 2900
Indianapolis, IN 46282 -0200
www.icemiller.com
Open as vCard
* * * *** * *=k* ::I:** *** k * k-k-k:k**-k**-k ********** * * * * **>k** ** ** **:l ****** * * ***** k !4: >k.k *** *.k*******-1
** ***:3 * ** * :, *** *.k**** ** k.k ***** ** ****** * *** *** ** *:l **** * ** **** {,*****
CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Except to the extent that this advice concerns the qualification of any
qualified plan, to ensure compliance with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations, we are now required to advise
you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication,
including any attachments, is not intended or written by us to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone for the
purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties that may be imposed by the federal government or for promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any tax - related matters addressed herein.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This E -mail and any attachments are confidential and may he protected by
legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use
of this E -mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this E -mail in error, please notify us
1
Conn, An elina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hollibaugh, Mike P
Wednesday, April 04, 2012 11:53 AM
Matt L. Griffin; Duncan, Gary R; McBride, Mike T; Conn, Angelina V
RE: Gramercy Keystone Access
Matt,
I am not able to meet this week but will make time on Monday if that will work for you. I would suggest you should
bring in details of how you want the slip road to work, knowing the city's preference for keystone access is what we
discussed at the far south end of the property.
Mike H.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Matt L. Griffin
Sent: 4/2/2012 11:42 AM
To: Duncan, Gary R; McBride, Mike T; Hollibaugh, Mike P
Subject: Gramercy Keystone Access
After discussing internally, we are on board with the access options discussed at last week's meeting.
A slip road that exits from the 126th Street roundabout is our first preference for getting traffic into the new core from
Keystone.
Knowing that some of you may be on vacation — is there any time this week to meet up again briefly to discuss exits
from the site to keystone (does it happen at the slip road entry, or do we push it further south? Also — is it possible to
do the slip road entry off the 126th RAB, as well as a right in / right out at the south of the site on the carmel drive exit
decel lane?
Matthew Griffin, AICP
Development Manager
Buckingham Companies
941 NI, II'Vieridien Street
Indi inapon iI "wi 46204
Phone/Fax: 37:5546749
matt.griffin U bucki ngham- co.com
buckingham co.com
BUCKINGHAM
This ; coniusrmiciatioia is for use by the intended rer.rpierit and contains rnfaarmat .m that rndyF be ptirr rl @,agr,ar, confrdentish or coiryrry;littiti
tinder kiwi la' you arr° rhu, the farra.rtded, reciyarsaus yell are lin rr,byF formally rra+tified that „lily use, copying or ryis9arithitlarrr.ri this hailiegail,
sdi [lease notify the sender by return eihnilah and a�ia,Iet.r. this cisisilaii from your yssterrt,. f,yttfr ,ter.
ly stranr.rf rta the subject rnatter of the abaah:e ar lar ,tryi, this r;.. Mat does not r °aart tyt uta.°. .a contract offer, a. com...ct.
viitiEde or rtt pad
f saplicirty: and COrr.apic
itinendir."u1Cc.fnt„ or an. irr,.a tie 'rigs F. It a. does not con tiiiid . consent 4 a the use of ender r u;aarrtt„au,t IatkaanruLrbrarrtu tor
direct ri:narkCtifryr purposes rrr f'a.vo trrirt,,iy.r , .of titan t Cllr,lr °Ff parties,
An
nU
T.
Cc:
SUN]
Attachments:
DIflI
riollibaugh, Mike P
Thursday, Apr i 26, 2012 6:11 PM
McBride, Mike T
Duncan, Gary R; Conn, Angelina V
RE: Gramercy - snipped connections
gramercy AAA way RAB at Kinzer with Auman connection.pdf
Mike,
After we talked earlier this week, and after you and the Mayor got square on it, I talked yvith Matt again who said it was
just as misunderstanding and that the midpoint cut onto keystone was dead from their vieyv (too). VVIatt also expressed a
lot of interest in making the keystone cut on the south end as you recommended, shared this with as couple key PC
members, and don't think we need to spend much more tirne with it...if any, unless it is about the geometry of the south
cut and what improvements need to be made on that E- street (gollview dr? to connect yvith AAA?.
The three street cuts onto 126th and maintaining street connectivity with Aurnan appear to be the other tails wagging
the dog that will need your help, And since, right now, the connections onto Aurnan are not really part of the discussion
at PC, whatever insight/guidance you can share with the PC to maintain the three cuts onto 126th, I think it will help as
lot. Ok?
Also, do you know if Buckingham is looking at the roundabout at kinzer/aaa way (attached)? Lastly, has A&F talked with
Vali about updating the '06 traffic study for big gramercy??
thanks
Mike
Fedi, [rift: McBride, Mike T
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 5:10 r
T 11-follibaugh, Mike P
"c: Duncan, Gary R.
Subject: RE. Gramercy - snipped connections
M ke,
This seems .to speed directly to the connection to 126th Street which I do not believe we the Engineering Dept) have
raised any $ ignificant adversity to. Is this the appropriate place to interject our strong eeug bout the Keystone
connection?
Thanks,
'24(' id 7 ':frettele
City Engineer
City of Carmel, Indiana
Hollibaugh, Mike P
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 3:31 PM
McBride, Mike 1
c: Duncan, Gary R
Subject: FW: Gramercy - snipped connections
Imp dance: Hgh
Fro JEFF SPECK ricnajgoileffglettpeck&dmil
Sent: Saturday,. April 21, 2012 2:1 PM
Conn, Angelina V
MUM
From: Hollibaugh, Mike P
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 12:20 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K
Subject: FW: Gramercy - Apr 10 Subdivision Committee Agenda
Want to make sure you're in the loop too...
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Brad Grabow
Sent: 3/30/2012 9:03 PM
To: matt.griflinabuckingham- co.com
Cc: nkrental(aaol.com; ioshuakirshayahoo.com; Sue Westermeier; Steve Lawson; Hollibaugh, Mike P; John Molitor; Jay
Dorman
Subject: Gramercy - Apr 10 Subdivision Committee Agenda
Matt,
I delayed getting back to you with a suggested agenda for the first committee meeting only because the meeting
date was changed to April 10.
That said, the number one issue is a Keystone Pky access point, less from the standpoint of impacts internal
to Gramercy but more from a traffic flow concern for the Parkway. Specifically, the committee is interested not
in playing engineer for the Parkway, but in protecting the efficient and safe flow of traffic along and onto /off
the parkway. Appropriate approval from City of Carmel Engineering would be the way to demonstrate this to
the committee. Tied to this issue, discussion of the three 126th access points also must be deferred until the
Keystone access can be addressed concretely. (And at such time that we do get to these access points for
committee discussion, it would also he very helpful for you to give the committee some sense of the Fountains
access also, in a non - binding form of course because that's beyond this DP petition, recognizing that access and
traffic Mow really are a single matter that requires consideration of all entries and roads serving Gramercy.)
While the DP for Gramercy certainly depends greatly on whether a Keystone access point will exist, we
nonetheless can address other issues on April 10 first, if you need more time to resolve the Keystone questions.
Those would include 1) the plan's compliance with the PUD ordinance. 2) Auman and 126th Street impacts
and buffering, and then move to the project's interior matters, such as 3) architecture & 4) landscape.
(Lighting and signage also are dependent on the road plan and therefore dependent on access points, so they are
not a first meeting topic in my view.)
I'd like to defer retail until a later meeting so that we have a better sense of the residential character and
design. Lighting and signage also would come later, once access points and retail have been covered.
And while your company's handling of resident dis - /re- location is not a matter that requires (or should have)
Plan Commission oversight, it would be well to hear Buckingham's plans in this regard up front so that all on
the committee have a full understanding of how you are working with your tenants and then move on to matters
that ARE the responsibility of the committee to review.
Given our agenda of other items also for April 10, I'd suggest we plan to give Gramercy about 90 minutes of
the committee's time on April 10 and then continue the dialogue to May and possibly June for remaining
i
items. So, appropriate initial topics for the committee's consideration would include, in order and time -
permitting, construction /tenant management, compliance of the plan with the governing PUD ordinance,
Auman impacts /buffering, architecture & landscape plans. Access points /traffic could be inserted into the
agenda as early as you are ready to address them but with sufficient time (i.e., one week) for the committee's
study prior to the meeting.
I hope this is helpful to set expectations and enable you to align your work with this schedule. If you'd like to
propose alternatives, I'm open to those ideas and the reasons for any changes.
Thanks, Matt.
Brad Grabow
brad[DOT]grabow[AT]gmail [DOT]com
12530 Glendurgan Drive
Carmel, IN 46032 -8313
Conn, Angelina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hollibaugh, Mike P
Wednesday, March 21, 2012 9:43 AM
Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Conn, Angelina V
FW: gramercy demo definition 2012
Meant to send this yesterday
From: Matt L. Griffin [mailto:Matt.Griffir abuckingham- co.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 10:43 AM
To: Andy Klineman; Hollibaugh, Mike P
Subject: RE: gramercy demo definition 2012
• Phase 1 and 2 are in this DP Application.
• Phase 2 is simply infill apartments in the neighborhoods.
• The Golf Course /NW Corner will be a Phase 3 — and will have its own DP ADLS (or multiple DP ADLS). This is the
area that will contain the 50 SF Detached homes (and some additional property).
Matthew Griffin, AICP
Development Manager
Buckingham Companies
4 N. M ridian S:: ot
Ind anap lis, IN 4 204
Phone /Fax: 317.55,: '/9
matt.griffin@buckingham-co.com
buckingham - co.com
From: Andy Klineman
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 10:40 AM
To: 'Hollibaugh, Mike P'; Matt L. Griffin
Subject: RE: gramercy demo definition 2012
I think that is correct.
Matt, please confirm.
Andy
From: Hollibaugh, Mike P jmailto :MHollibaughCacarmel.in.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 10:39 AM
To: Andy Klineman
Subject RE: gramercy demo definition 2012
Thanks
Is 'phase 1' everything before the PC right now:' with phase Ii' the goif course /NW quad?
From: Andy Klineman fmailto: Andy .Klinemanabuckingham- co.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 10:22 AM
To: Matt L. Griffin; Hollibaugh, Mike P
Subject: gramercy demo definition 2012
Upon completion of Phase I, the proposed formula for demolition wo' d use the value of existing buildings, per the
records of the Hamilton County Assessor's Office, as the standard for measuring compliance — with a guaranteed
1
threshold that the aggregate project investment would be such that all buildings not completely demolished will have an
allocable share of total project investment - - - ' - - - - - : in excess of 50% of the current
assessed building values
As for the benchmarks, I think we should suggest "approximately" be added before the commencement date and "may"
before "include" in item #4.
In the second to last paragraph, "approximately" immediately before "1276"
2
Cc. earner's re pose fb 3 -Zd
1>p't - r�
3 -2v
Section 4 Design and Development Standards and Permitted Uses
4.1. Design and Development Standards. The design and development of the District
shall comply with Exhibit "G ", the Gramercy Design and Development
Standards.
Our propo„.. aplies See brca.kdown .1.
A. Gramercy Development, Phasing, and Access
1. Fifty percent (50 %) of the total acreage of the Real Estate may be
developed pursuant to the standards and requirements of this Gramercy
Ordinance without vehicular access to Keystone Avenue or Carmel Drive.
][1i.ese caauirwlinectio
yid. he rraaide as part of our developnaellt
2. The total remaining acreage of the Real Estate that is not
developed pursuant to Section 4.1(A)(1) above may be developed and
built pursuant to the standards and requirements of this Gramercy
Ordinance upon the acquisition of additional curb cuts and/or additional
real estate that can accommodate vehicular access to either Keystone
Avenue or Carmel Drive.
Bu.ckinghaurura ruo uuas the propel ty to the SO kit Ole ' "ou s) hill has been a
connect to Keystone. "'l Mesa connections are planned for this sieve ➢lopuirniaent.
➢1➢
r��u va�:a: ➢➢
B. Auman Drive Access: Streets located on the Real Estate that
approach and ultimately intersect with East Auman Drive shall incorporate
appropriate traffic calming techniques in their design, including but not
limited to jogs in the street alignment within the Real Estate. As part of
the ADLS and Development Plan process, the number and location of any
access points to East Auman Drive and /or Shoshone Drive shall be
reviewed and approved by the Plan Commission. Unless specifically
required by the Plan Commission, Department of Community Services,
Department of Engineering and /or the Board of Public Works, the
Developer shall not permit more than two access points onto East
Auman Drive and /or Shoshone Drive. Access point locations shall be
determined in cooperation with the Department of Community Services,
Department of Engineering and/or Board of Public Works.
Our current l.an lah ➢eratifies the our • a ➢Fuuich • Ill couruutal a tl lured 50 r ru uira ��uirr.r ll ➢Lai:
l�r���irrrl,i� rlr.,t�m�m r� lhr: uv�ww�. ��G�1���la����; ����l�t���,c��n��������,c�� ����� �uuu��(`�.u�i,��:wr °i��g the
g
rruu>m of tl>ar T.nes a would be
idr�,utified at the time when t.lw�� i �, ° 1 :� �� nn` 0 is ,.. i I .1.1gh4 before the PI
nwmission.
4.2. Permitted Uses and Use Areas. Exhibit "E ", which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, sets forth the general locations of Use Areas A,
B and C (as defined below). Exhibit "F ", which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, sets forth the Permitted District Uses for each
Use Area, subject to the other requirements and standards of this Gramercy
Ordinance, including the provisions contained in Sections 4.2(D) and 4.2(E)
below.
A. Use Area A. "Use Area A" shall be defined as the first and second rows
of Buildings that are either (1) situated immediately along and facing the
western property line or (2) situated immediately along and facing the
northern property line as generally depicted on Exhibit "E ".
B. Use Area B. "Use Area B" shall be defined as the third and fourth rows of
Buildings to the east and south of Use Area A as generally depicted on
Exhibit "E ". Within Use Area B, a minimum of seventy percent (70 %) of
the total gross floor area shall contain uses which are listed in Exhibit "F"
in the "Residential Uses" category, provided, however, that any uses listed
in Exhibit "F" in the categories titled "Miscellaneous," "Transportation
and Communication Uses," and "Temporary Uses," as well as the "Public
Park" use shall be excluded from any calculation of gross floor area.
C. Use Area C. "Use Area C" shall be defined as all areas of the Real Estate
not specifically identified or described as part of Use Areas A or B, as
generally depicted on Exhibit "E ". Within Use Area C, a minimum of
fifty percent (50 %) of the total gross floor area shall contain uses which
are listed in Exhibit "F" in the "Residential Uses" category, provided,
however, that any uses listed in Exhibit "F" in the categories titled
"Miscellaneous," "Transportation and Communication Uses," and
"Temporary Uses," as well as the "Public Park" use shall be excluded
from any calculation of gross floor area.
D. Limitations on Uses. Within the Gramercy District, no more than one
hundred fifty thousand (150,000) square feet shall contain permitted uses
listed in Exhibit "F" in the following categories: (i) "Office Uses "; (ii)
"Retail & Service Uses ".
o 1122 DP A.1
r ➢Ik.smu and Hittite
idly complies with t e se use require en s. plan. is r s lr,
uurcel ill rte tiifuture
retail (a "�l'�r rwa�uumat rly 1.3,( 0 sq. ft.)„
E. 126th Street/Keystone Avenue Special Use & Height Area. In addition to
the uses permitted in Use Area A and Use Area B respectively, all other
uses identified in Exhibit "F " shall be permitted as a Special Use, but only
in the portions of these Use Areas located to the east of the easternmost
entrance to the Real Estate from 126th Street. As part of a Special Use
request pursuant to this Section 4.2(E), the maximum Building Height
may be modified.
2 1 F A.10)1.,S does ucuuw t ui c➢ial s s
F. Mixed Uses. For any uses that are permitted in any Use Area as listed in
Exhibit "F", those permitted uses may be contained in different
combinations within a single Building.
G. Leasing. For any Dwelling Unit within the District, the owner of said
Dwelling Unit shall be permitted to lease or rent the Dwelling Unit to
another person(s), subject to the rules and ordinances of the City of
Carmel and the rules of any applicable Homeowner's Association.
H. Model Homes. Model Homes shall be permitted in any of the areas as
listed in Exhibit "F" and shall be governed by the City of Cannel's rules
and ordinances governing Model Homes.
I. Temporary Uses. Temporary Uses shall be permitted as listed in Exhibit
"F" and shall be governed by the City of Carmel's rules and ordinances
governing Temporary Uses.
111100022 DP A. 1➢1 comply. with t:1uuese rules. "The ➢plan has some mixing of use in.
➢Ilmuuu.i.l� n s. , 1I, 31111.d I. s ea to operations which vuuiit ➢III we will If fully c ply
4.3. Building Height. Exhibit "D ", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference, sets forth the general locations of the Perimeter Transitional Area,
the Interior Transitional Area, the Core Transitional Area, and the Core Area (as
defined below).
A. Perimeter Transitional Area. The "Perimeter Transitional Area" shall be
defined as the first and second rows of Buildings that are either (1) situated
immediately along and facing the western property line or (2) situated
immediately along and facing the northern property line as generally depicted on
Exhibit "D." The maximum Building Height within the Perimeter Transitional
Area shall be thirty -five feet (35').
B. Interior Transitional Area: The "Interior Transitional Area" shall be defined
as the third and fourth rows of Buildings to the east and south of the Perimeter
11/1101122
corn .mrnituimm uuua
Transitional Area as generally depicted on Exhibit "D." The maximum
Building Height within the Interior Transitional Area shall be fifty feet (50').
C. Core Transitional Area: The "Core Transitional Area" shall be defined as the
area generally depicted as the Core Transitional Area on Exhibit "D." The
maximum Building Height within the Core Transitional Area shall be sixty -
five feet (65').
D. Core Area: All areas of the Real Estate not specifically identified or described
as part of a Transitional Area on Exhibit "D" shall constitute the Core Area.
The maximum Building Height within the Core Area shall be one hundred
feet (100').
'° ply with. the IT'S/1.5f' l heiguh.t in..a�x stamrua:ll.ufi�rals set leo1 th. in the
�..t]Ih..�o��� will ea�uu�uuuu
attached exhibit.
4.4 Perimeter Setbacks.
A. Western Property Line: There shall be a minimum setback of fifteen feet
(15') from the western property line of the Real Estate.
B. Northern Property Line: There shall be a minimum setback of fifteen feet
(15') from the northern property line of the Real Estate.
C. Eastern Property Line: There shall be a minimum setback of thirty feet
(30') from the eastern property line of the Real Estate.
D. Southern Property Line: There shall be no minimum setback from the
southern property line of the Real Estate.
Internal Setbacks: There shall be no minimum setbacks required for any
internal boundary lines created by platting or splitting the Real Estate.
1110022 DP AD111.S complies with., and ex.u.e wds these setbacks, p'W',,'Y uconstruction at the
north is a'0 feet Prowl. the ROW (�1.5 feet is required), The east and �ru est boundaries do not
have new construction beyond the boundaries of renovated existing buildings,
4.5 Building Orientation. Any building situated along the portion of the Real Estate
directly adjacent to either 126`h Street or East Auman Drive shall be oriented in
such a way that the rear of the building does not face either 126`'' Street or East
Auman Drive.
11'1.00022 DI AD1.,S proposes anew clubhouse along 126mmm S eet., This clubhouse will fare
the st eet, There are an new stmru,cttures along Aumrnan Drive for this ((level pment propos O.
4.6 Trash Enclosures. No trash enclosures, compacters, dumpsters, or other
permanent structure or structures for refuse or recycling storage shall be located
such that it is visible from the properties (1) adjacent to the western perimeter of
the Real Estate and East of Auman Drive, (2) adjacent to the northern perimeter
of the Real Estate and 126th Street, or (3) adjacent to the eastern perimeter of the
Real Estate and Keystone Avenue.
Du.>mni Asters rwlill be r plae '�.m�.�. with compactors. 1,; e'1° ��; �ruu�.i labo�rl° �� srn�d'. w 11 have a
m w
maintenance buulldl t. g with atri enclose r,wd m »np '. Th. location of these is identified on
the 911. site pi 1
4.7 Streets. New streets located within the Gramercy District may be either (1)
dedicated to the public through the platting process, or (2) maintained in private
access easements (such as alleys) that shall connect to publicly dedicated streets,
as determined by the Developer and approved through the ADLS and
Development Plan process by the Plan Commission. Streets shall be designed in
accordance with the standards contained in Exhibit "G ", the Gramercy Design and
Development Standards. Streets shall remain open and accessible to the public
and shall not be gated or access - controlled, unless otherwise approved through the
ADLS and Development Plan process by the Plan Commission.
streets v . he dedicated tot e.e public s per the standards I. the e PU➢). u private
access streets are s anticipated. Streets have been designed in accordance to Exhibit
C.
Ali streets ill remain open and accessible to the pu.hluue, understand t any alteration
of such access would require additional Ma a..Alt a, utuud DPP approval.
Section 5 Accessory Buildings. All Accessory Buildings and Accessory Uses shall be
permitted except that any detached accessory building shown in any Development Plan
shall on all sides be architecturally compatible with the principal building(s) with which
it is associated.
Colo and rrn1 teria1s of acres ry buuuildivags will l
each neigh b uThro d.
uirnpatible w�itti tdls r ri�susl. tau shys� �taeh for
Section 6 Landscaping. Landscaping shall be required in accordance with the standards
contained in Exhibit "G ", the Gramercy Design and Development Standards. A
Landscape Plan shall be submitted as part of any ADLS approval and Development Plan
approval for any Section to be developed.
-Ube !at
l
tad by pr ��I���uir>ni �P��as lb saul��roirunli�tte °�l' R���ou���i �orev���.u�w��r��l l.� Carns���dll.
l..tcpain ou e^ t:rym Final t tus °ill be p.r i prior t:o the end ' tl
c o t���ut review l.r ;t
Kess,
Section 7 Lighting. Lighting shall be required in accordance with the standards contained
in Exhibit "G ", the Gramercy Design and Development Standards. A Lighting Plan shall
be submitted as part of any ADLS approval and Development Plan approval for any
Section to be developed.
See l,ight.ing exhibit
Section 8 Parking. Parking shall be required in accordance with the standards contained in
Exhibit "G ", the Gramercy Design and Development Standards.
Psutrking deg no and urnuuruwrb ^;urs fully eotutia.ply irtn. the require;
l°itati.da.rds flee the 1..and !tcape plans w l "or
mfg➢Ihiivw: trhood . or i�rsl ufirfill v vs rew:lu ilm ed p'h,uirVllauii uug sp
of the l tyD and its dIleslgrm
ails on p- .rirking lot setu ° tarurg Se ,„ the overm El
Section 9 Signage. Signage shall be required in accordance with the standards contained in
Exhibit "G ", the Gramercy Design and Development Standards.
Alll sip,„n age iv ill Fuu:uily c ;n y v<. ➢ut:]h the uirequiretiruenls o
y signage not presented in full detail through this rev
an independent ADLS petition.
lUL) and its design guidelines.
p roocess will IlIL e brought back as
Section 10 Approval Process
10.1. Nature of Development Requirements. The development requirements set forth
in this Gramercy Planned Unit Development District are expressed in detailed
terms as provided under I.C. § 36- 7- 4- 1509(a)(2). As permitted under I.C. § 36-
7-4-1509(e), the approval process contained in this Section 10 shall be adhered to
in order to obtain an Improvement Location Permit.
10.2. Approval or Denial of the Primary Plat/Development Plan. Exhibit "C ", which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, shall serve as the
Conceptual Plan (the "CP "). However, the CP does not constitute the approved
Development Plan or Primary Plat for the Real Estate, nor does it constitute the
ADLS approval for the Real Estate and the improvements thereon, considered in
connection with the Gramercy Ordinance. The development of any Section of
Gramercy shall require further (i) Architectural Design, Exterior Lighting,
Landscaping and Signage Regulations ( "ADLS ") approval pursuant to Chapter 24
of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance and (ii) development plan approval pursuant to
Chapter 24 of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance ( "Development Plan "), (iii) Primary
Plat approval, and (iv) Secondary Plat approval in accordance with Section 10.3
below. If there is a Substantial Alteration in the approved ADLS or Development
Plan, review and approval of the amended plans shall be made by the
Commission, or a Committee thereof, pursuant to the Commission's rules of
procedure. Minor Alterations may be approved by the Director. Notwithstanding
anything herein to the contrary, neither ADLS approval or Development Plan
approval shall alter the specific development requirements contained in this
Gramercy Ordinance unless agreed to by the Developer, and compliance with the
specific development requirements set forth in this Gramercy Ordinance shall not
be the basis for denial of ADLS approval or a Development Plan for a Section.
10.3. Approval or Denial of Secondary Plat.
A. The Director shall have the sole and exclusive authority to approve
without conditions, approve with conditions, or disapprove the Secondary
Plat (the "SP ") for the Gramercy Ordinance; provided, however, that the
Director shall not unreasonably withhold or delay the Director's approval
of the SP that is in substantial conformance with the Development Plan
and Primary Plat and is in conformance with this Gramercy Ordinance and
the Gramercy Design and Development Standards. If the Director
disapproves any SP, the Director shall set forth in writing the basis for the
disapproval. Upon receipt of such written disapproval, the applicant may
either amend the Secondary Plat to address the stated reasons for denial
and resubmit the amended Secondary Plat or schedule the request for
approval of the SP for a hearing before the full Plan Commission.
B. An amendment to the SP, which is not determined by the Director to be a
Substantial Alteration from the approved Development Plan and Primary
Plat, may be reviewed and approved solely by the Director. However, in
the event the Director determines that there has been a Substantial
Alteration between the approved Development Plan and or Primary Plat
and any proposed SP, the Director may, at the Director's discretion, refer
the amended SP to the Commission, or a Committee thereof, for review
and approval by the Commission and /or a Committee thereof.
C. The SP shall be a specific plan for the development of all of the Real
Estate or a Section that is submitted for approval to the Director, which
shall include reasonable detail regarding the facility and structures to be
constructed, as well as drainage, erosion control, utilities, streets and
building information.
This l l ,,1t1. p w�itoa ui
will a u ih(r , to I. iru,pll
part of the requir od »u11 d Opp rov u Thlis�,
ui�u. I p 00 roved 1.res.
10.4. Additional Notification Required. In addition to the public notice required by law
for any ADLS, Development Plan, or Variance Petition submitted for any
Section(s) of the District or any building(s) within the District, the Developer
shall provide the same notification via USPS mail to the following individuals: (i)
President of the Homeowner's Association, Enclave subdivision, (ii) President of
the Homeowner's Association or other appointed representative, Auman
subdivision, and (iii) President of the Homeowner's Association or other
appointed representative, Newark Village subdivision.
This tice has
IW
ode, 'o pi , v e il:F en su.binitt
Section 11 Construction Activity and Construction Traffic. Any construction activity
and /or construction traffic that occurs within and upon the Real Estate shall be subject to
all relevant regulations, ordinances, and technical specifications of the City of Carmel
that govern such activity. Unless specifically required by the City of Carmel Board of
Public Works and/or the City of Carmel Department of Engineering, the Developer shall
not permit any construction entrances and/or construction traffic onto East Auman Drive.
The Developer shall direct construction traffic away from residential neighborhoods,
subject to the direction of the City of Carmel Board of Public Works and /or the City of
Carmel Department of Engineering. Unless otherwise approved or required by the City
of Carmel Board of Public Works and /or the City of Carmel Department of Engineering,
construction work hours shall be between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm, and no work
shall be performed on the following days: New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence
Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day.
We °ill comply with. t
ui
uir requu.i.retnent.
Conn, Angelina V
From: Matt L. Griffin [Matt.Griffin@buckingham- co.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 12:26 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Cc: Timothy Ochs (Timothy.Ochs@icemiller.com); Andy Klineman
Subject: RE: March 20 Plan Commission meeting - dept. reports
Attachments: Gramercy PUD - Compliance Response.docx; Bike Route Diagram final.pdf; L006 lighting
schedule.pdf; lighting plan.pdf; Neighborhood Diagram.pdf; Plan Illustration.pdf
Angie,
Please see the below and attached. Do you want hard copies of these delivered as well?
1. The petitioner still needs to submit a complete set of plans to each Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
member, the Forestry Dept, Engineering Dept., etc.
City Departments have been provided plans. Will meet with TAC members at meeting on the 21st to
begin to address outstanding needs.
2. The petitioner should itemize /list how east aspect of this project proposal complies with the development
standards of PUD ordinance Z- 493 -06 (and its associated Exhibits and Commitments).
See attached for PUD
3. PUD's Exhibit G (Gramercy Design and Development Standards): please lust how east aspect of this
proposal complies with Exhibit G regarding the architecture, landscape plan, lighting plan, signage plan,
etc.
In production.
4. A Bicycle Route Plan needs to be submitted, as well as details on the Bicycle parking locations.
Attached.
5. Please show that the bike parking standards in the PUD are being met.
Attached in breakdown on Bike Route Diagram
6. Please provide a Lighting Plan and Photometric Plan, as well as design details for any exterior light
fixtures.
Attached.
7. DOCS needs more info about the signage design details and locations, such as the neighborhood access
points and major access points. Need a better signage location map and to show how it meets the PUD
requirements.
All details not submitted at committee will return for an ADLS review.
8. Please label the 2 -acre park in the core area.
Attached (neighborhood diagram). Also see green space plan (plan illustration)
9. Please show /label a 40 -ft building setback line from the western boundary of the site, per commitments.
Attached (plan illustration)
10. One the overall landscape plan, please show /label a 30 -ft wide linear park between east Auman Drive and
the westernmost row of buildings,
Attached (plan illustration)
11. Will any of Gramercy's streets eventually connect to Auman Drive East?
1
We will comply with the needs and requests of Carmel Engineering in regards to future connections
to Auman Drive. Those connections are not part of this DP /ADLS approval, but could be executed
during the development of the residual parcel.
12. PUD section 10.4 — additional notification required. Please show that this was done.
This has been completed. Will send copies and proof today.
Matthew Griffin, AICP
Development Manager
Buckingham Companies
941 II " P, M °riaip:t u.a ; mmm,! et:
hrldiadmap,o !!3, IN 40204
p'I nel n :: , 1 d t: 67,4r
mattlriffin@buckingham-co.com
buckingham- co.com
BUCKING
From: Conn, Angelina V [rnafito: on 5,`1" farmeU „iii ,cgl r]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 12:33 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: March 20 Plan Commission meeting - dept. reports
Hello, Plan Commission members:
1) Attached in 2 file formats are the department reports for the Tuesday, March 20 Plan Commission meeting.
Paper copies of this and any supplemental info will be mailed to you soon.
2) Electronic copies of the info packets can be viewed online at:
tt s: c.c.() •.c el '
nth! O I�':,
08
O
to find the year and docket no. for each petition.
; just refer to the dept. reports or agenda
) Right before the regular meeting, a meeting of the Carmel Plan Commission+ e will
occur at 5:30 PM on March 20, in the Carmel City Hall Caucus Rooms, 2nd Flr., 1 Civic Sq., Carmel, IN 46032
in order to discuss changes to the Plan Commission Rules of Procedure. (The Executive Committee members
are: Jay, Steve S., Ephraim, Josh, and Kevin.)
Have a great day!
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
City of Carmel Planning & Zoning Division
Dept. of Community Services
1 Civic Square, 3rd Fir.
Carmel, IN 46032
0: 317 - 571 -2417 1 F: 317 - 571 -2426 p E: aconn @Icasle
Check out our new website: www,carmeldocs.com
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
'this cothdonatithiat
under, IaW, it` you ar.R
ythe hi
the tntended net
:in ht. and contains nation tfdfiat rr ,a y �,; al, �. °fMrriirta r�:C�� i fxs °cipyr: €,E'At�,at
arc: fay retd fititi d that arty use., cortyna an cip i6 ' <nii.
2
Section 4 Design and Development Standards and Permitted Uses
4.1. Design and Development Standards. The design and development of the District
shall comply with Exhibit "G ", the Gramercy Design and Development
Standards.
Our imm mwltiosa l tom lit�s See breakdown in attached hed exhii iii.t.
A. Gramercy Development, Phasing, and Access
1. Fifty percent (50%) of the total acreage of the Real Estate may be
developed pursuant to the standards and requirements of this Gramercy
Ordinance without vehicular access to Keystone Avenue or Carmel Drive.
The t. °mmt'mm l m m ^ l m`wmIS msil.11l bellied a s IIUmart, m:mi° 4) 11 level'.1 m t..
2. The total remaining acreage of the Real Estate that is not
developed pursuant to Section 4.1(A)(1) above may be developed and
built pursuant to the standards and requirements of this Gramercy
Ordinance upon the acquisition of additional curb cuts and/or additional
real estate that can accommodate vehicular access to either Keystone
Avenue or Carmel. Drive.
lsum nin gIlh ama uichs IIY m mmllY tat y to the south (The IIP' "ommnt mlnstf and has 1be en. a11Y unnaved to
connect to Kitystonsu °himmise mwmmm mnctuimwmm:w amre ph uhuutsd for this dtvel a mw m to
B. Auman Drive Access: Streets located on the Real Estate that
approach and ultimately intersect with East Auman Drive shall incorporate
appropriate traffic calming techniques in their design, including but not
limited to jogs in the street alignment within the Real Estate. As part of
the ADLS and Development Plan process, the number and location of any
access points to East Auman Drive and /or Shoshone Drive shall be
reviewed and approved by the Plan Commission. Unless specifically
required by the Plan Commission, Department of Community Services,
Department of Engineering and /or the Board of Public Works, the
Developer shall not permit more than two access points onto East
Auman Drive and /or Shoshone Drive. Access point locations shall be
determined in cooperation with the Department of Community Services,
Department of Engineering and/or Board of Public Works.
Our u Itl
u uts the e� w � twill contain the
required 50 o llo t single
lamllw a�V�melllnshenwesas welID as tiny'
ground that may remain. main. iollltm'mping the
tam!:wi'ittllltwmim of those homes. Our n is up to aiiD co mmodat;t' .1, con w, e t:AUM':1Pns„„ v :VFW I'd
lmi€,:. m't mloit°ml at the lime when the development lop ment m:wl° this area is mml gilt. 'before the Han..
t_�wmm "mmamm'wlmomw.
4.2. Permitted Uses and Use Areas. Exhibit "E ", which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, sets forth the general locations of Use Areas A,
B and C (as defined below). Exhibit "F ", which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, sets forth the Permitted District Uses for each
Use Area, subject to the other requirements and standards of this Gramercy
Ordinance, including the provisions contained in Sections 4.2(D) and 4.2(E)
below.
A.
B.
C.
D.
11:11'.10111,ftl 11:1
luuurh , tint!. illull iii.ted.
111 1,111112 2. 11)1' III[. 1
G.
H.
Use Area A. "Use Area A" shall be defined as the first and second rows
of Buildings that are either (1) situated immediately along and facing the
western property line or (2) situated immediately along and facing the
northern property line as generally depicted on Exhibit "E".
Use Area B. "Use Area B" shall be defined as the third and fourth rows of
Buildings to the east and south of Use Area A as generally depicted on
Exhibit "E ". Within Use Area B. a minimum of seventy percent (70%) of
the total gross floor area shall contain uses which are listed in Exhibit "F"
in the "Residential Uses" category, provided, however, that any uses listed
in Exhibit "F" in the categories titled "Miscellaneous," "Transportation
and Communication Uses," and "Temporary Uses," as well as the "Public
Park" use shall be excluded from any calculation of gross floor area.
Use Area C. "Use Area C" shall be defined as all areas of the Real Estate
not specifically identified or described as part of Use Areas A or B, as
generally depicted on Exhibit "E ". Within Use Area C, a minimum of
fifty percent (50 %) of the total gross floor area shall contain uses which
are listed in Exhibit "F" in the "Residential Uses" category, provided,
however, that any uses listed in Exhibit "F" in the categories titled
"Miscellaneous." "Transportation and Communication Uses," and
"Temporary Uses," as well as the "Public Park" use shall be excluded
from any calculation of gross floor area.
Limitations on Uses. Within the Gramercy District, no more than one
hundred fifty thousand (150,000) square feet shall contain permitted uses
listed in Exhibit "F" in the following categories: (1) "Office Uses "; (ii)
"Retail & Service Uses ".
fully complies w ultlu these use. naquuiremu outs. Our plan is residential]
m ill ential]
auuuu:ullan of potential future retail t;oluluu osiuru at:ely l 1!„0lttt sq. it:r;t
126th Street/Keystone Avenue Special Use & Height Area. In addition to
the uses permitted in Use Area A and Use Area B respectively, all other
uses identified in Exhibit "F" shall be permitted as a Special Use, but only
in the portions of these Use Areas located to the east of the easternmost
entrance to the Real Estate from 126th Street. As part of a Special Use
request pursuant to this Section 4.2(E), the maximum Building Height
may be modified.
doss ilculu.mt; require u
l�uuire any special uses.
Mixed Uses. For any uses that are permitted in any Use Area as listed in
Exhibit "F ", those permitted uses may be contained in different
combinations within a single Building.
Leasing. For any Dwelling Unit within the District, the owner of said
Dwelling Unit shall be permitted to lease or rent the Dwelling Unit to
another person(s), subject to the rules and ordinances of the City of
Carmel and the rules of any applicable Homeowner's Association.
Model Homes. Model Homes shall be permitted in any of the areas as
11 1.0002 2 111'
tmw.r11m1mmrtlmr tl,
listed in Exhibit "F" and shall be governed by the City of Carmel's rules
and ordinances governing Model Homes.
1. Temporary Uses. Temporary Uses shall be permitted as listed in Exhibit
"F' and shall be governed by the City of Carmel's rules and ordinances
governing Temporary Uses.
r.°OMu11riy 11 heSe• es. Tthe phut has scow e hiking of use In
H!„, and I w?ocoilt, tmm operations whieb with we will fully comply
4.3. Building Height. Exhibit "D ", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference, sets forth the general locations of the Perimeter Transitional Area,
the Interior Transitional Area, the Core Transitional Area, and the Core Area (as
defined below).
A. Perimeter Transitional Area. The "Perimeter Transitional Area" shall be
defined as the first and second rows of Buildings that are either (1) situated
immediately along and facing the western property line or (2) situated
immediately along and facing the northern property line as generally depicted on
Exhibit "D." The maximum Building Height within the Perimeter Transitional
Area shall be thirty -five feet (35').
Interior Transitional Area: The "Interior Transitional Area" shall be defined
as the third and fourth rows of Buildings to the east and south of the Perimeter
Transitional Area as generally depicted on Exhibit "D." The maximum
Building Height within the Interior Transitional Area shall be fifty feet (50').
Core Transitional Area: The "Core Transitional Area" shall be defined as the
area generally depicted as the Core Transitional Area on Exhibit "D." The
maximum Building Height within the Core Transitional Area shall be sixty -
five feet (65').
Core Area: All areas of the Real Estate not specifically identified or described
as part of a Transitional Area on Exhibit "D" shall constitute the Core Area.
The maximum Building Height within the Core Area shall be one hundred
feet (100').
X111'111 1,, °
111110 comply with the
ewmrlu,.wnaitulnent ^: See: wttaw.11lted exhibit
4.4 Perimeter Setbacks.
A. Western Property Line: There shall be a minimum setback of fifteen feet
(15') from the western property line of the Real Estate..
B. Northern Property Line: There shall be a minimum setback of fifteen feet
(1,5') from the northern property line of the Real Estate.
C. Eastern Property Line: There shall be a minimum setback of thirty feet
(30') from the eastern property line of the Real Estate.
D. Southern Property Line: There shall be no minimum setback from the
southern property line of the Real Estate.
E. Internal Setbacks: There shall be no minimum setbacks required for any
internal boundary lines created by platting or splitting the Real Estate.
1 11t;1t 02,,Z DP ADES co 11lwlllits with, mmmrml exceeds ttmest� ^: setbacks. IINe %iT C0115tw ° hot wmwulm :pmt the
north is t O feet fr or the i0
W it 5 feet is III eqm:mlr ed;'D. The rw ^:ast mrrrm:;lll W t: b maZ1111 aS d mrlot.
1T11r"V "r':"' new construe bon lrr.' en d the 'boon rr mm�.' r' " . t •
yw �^ �1 ms of mwm�r��m��r�ww�rtr� a m.�m,�r� "rr�wtt lm��m�;mrlrlrrrt"y S
111011t.1 l2
B.
C.
D.
m w vlir ml height itkix sell ailllli larn..s set f ert1w ii the
4.5 Building Orientation. Any building situated along the portion of the Real Estate
directly adjacent to either 126`1' Street or East Auman Drive shall be oriented in
such a way that the rear of the building does not face either 126`h Street or East
Auman Drive.
11" 112 proposes anew clubhouse along 126th Street. phis m. °iLuiIbuIs use will Ike
the s m�mt., There are no
new slur Illmct:ures along �� Illmmmmm�mmm Drive for this sIIlm�m°�ms�topment. proposal.
4.6 Trash Enclosures. No trash enclosures, compacters, dumpsters, or other
permanent structure or structures for refuse or recycling storage shall be located
such that it is visible from the properties (1) adjacent to the western perimeter of
the Real Estate and East of Auman Drive, (2) adjacent to the northern perimeter
of the Real Estate and 126th Street, or (3) adjacent to the eastern perimeter of the
Real Estate and Keystone Avenue.
l tumm.mm111mstm "m°s will be replllmm ml0 with con pulmm°:Ill mrs,„ Each new nm'm,i hnorhund have ;1
mrmmmll1lllit:.er a.;m`mm.'t' building m'7u ''Imi .iD an enclosed conahhetor. The to mtion of these is iY'lmµntil,llm m :mm "III.
the
proposes] site lll.mlmmwmm
4.7 Streets. New streets located within the Gramercy District may be either (1)
dedicated to the public through the platting process, or (2) maintained in private
access easements (such as alleys) that shall connect to publicly dedicated streets,
as determined by the Developer and approved through the ADLS and
Development Plan process by the Plan Commission. Streets shall be designed in
accordance with the standards contained in Exhibit "G ", the Gramercy Design and
Development Standards. Streets shall remain open and accessible to the public
and shall not be gated or access - controlled, unless otherwise approved through the
ADLS and Development Plan process by the Plan Commission.
�mm +'llu st sm�mw is I lm°illll be m111mmmhulm.°ibed to the pllrul lb s per the ^ t mmulm°lmml mis ha the t'llPD. home mmle pri Ilu�ate
�lulm° as r
access streets ° mm also mmtmclsmmtml. Stmmmts have been
sm smhmm i msmsmm mme to Exhibit t p ,
streets remain open and mmmmmSsuhlm i to the public, mmmt mstmmrmmm that any alteration
of such. is m ess would. require mmlmlltimmulmmmt AD Pp and DP ;approval.
al.
Section 5 Accessory Buildings. All Accessory Buildings and Accessory Uses shall he
permitted except that any detached accessory building shown in any Development Plan
shall on all sides be architecturally compatible with the principal building(s) with which
it is associated.
Cider and materials or a te. susmmry br iiaiing "s Imvi111,1 be crosmmmismllutible bit the, design approach m for
each neighborhood.
orhood.
III
Section 6 Landscaping. Landscaping shall be required in accordance with the standards
contained in Exhibit "G ", the Gramercy Design and Development Standards. A
Landscape Plan shall be submitted as part of any ADLS approval and Development Plan
approval for any Section to be developed.
The tammmism °mmlmmm' sl
plait has lmm m ru "'llr surlmurInittmsm':l msmulml m °s:'sim smm'al by Cannel
mrum�mm�h III..
Urban an r& st; .µy Final construct iruuc t;l u l lr un^ °ill l provide riot t l he end oil itm
°Owr nitiee revie w process.
Section 7 Lighting. Lighting shall be required in accordance with the standards contained
in Exhibit "G ", the Gramercy Design and Development Standards. A Lighting Plan shall
be submitted as part of any ADLS approval and Development Plan approval for any
Section to be developed.
ie re
Lighting exhibit,
Section 8 Parking. Parking shall be required in accordance with the standards contained in
Exhibit "G ", the Gramercy Design and Development Standards,
hr'irkiroi design awl oturibees fully cornply with the req ireiree ts mi" the PUT) m i its design
it n taf l .
See the I t pe plans for details on narking screening.
"I the er ll
i fhi h ok l i, rs parking ha 1llogspares.
Section 9 Signage. Signage shall be required in accordance with the standards contained in
Exhibit. "G ", the Gramercy Design and Development Standards.
� l 111 s i g ui ag w, wpull gully w l t h uiw q ui i rer, ��m� wlu is of the �IIP ��� fl l�l.t rug Ills design f, u riellos s.
Ans signer i e not eresented in frill derail throubdi. this review process ocess will be brought ,lrt bawls as
an indepe acquit: A.D1...„,S petition.
Section 10 Approval Process
10.1. Nature of Development Requirements. The development requirements set forth
in this Gramercy Planned Unit Development. District are expressed in detailed
terms as provided under I.C. § 36- 7- 4- 1509(a)(2). As permitted under I.C. § 36-
7-4-1509(e), the approval process contained in this Section 10 shall be adhered to
in order to obtain an Improvement Location Permit.
10.2. Approval or Denial of the Primary Plat/Development Plan. Exhibit "C ", which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, shall serve as the
Conceptual Plan (the "CP "). However, the CP does not constitute the approved
Development Plan or Primary Plat for the Real Estate, nor does it constitute the
ADLS approval for the Real Estate and the improvements thereon, considered in
connection with the Gramercy Ordinance. The development of any Section of
Gramercy shall require further (i) Architectural Design, Exterior Lighting,
Landscaping and Signage Regulations ( "ADLS ") approval pursuant to Chapter 24
of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance and (ii) development plan approval pursuant to
Chapter 24 of the Carmel. Zoning Ordinance ( "Development Plan "), (iii) Primary
Plat approval, and (iv) Secondary Plat approval in accordance with Section 10.3
below, If there is a Substantial Alteration in the approved ADLS or Development
Plan, review and approval of the amended plans shall be made by the
Commission, or a Committee thereof, pursuant to the Commission's rules of
procedure. Minor Alterations may be approved by the Director. Notwithstanding
anything herein to the contrary, neither ADLS approval or Development Plan
approval shall alter the specific development requirements contained in this
Gramercy Ordinance unless agreed to by the Developer, and compliance with the
specific development requirements set forth in this Gramercy Ordinance shall not
be the basis for denial of ADLS approval or a Development Plan for a Section.
10.3. Approval or Denial of Secondary Plat.
A. The Director shall have the sole and exclusive authority to approve
without conditions, approve with conditions, or disapprove the Secondary
Plat (the "SP ") for the Gramercy Ordinance; provided, however, that the
Director shall not unreasonably withhold or delay the Director's approval
of the SP that is in substantial conformance with the Development Plan
and Primary Plat and is in conformance with this Gramercy Ordinance and
the Gramercy Design and Development Standards. If the Director
disapproves any SP, the Director shall set forth in writing the basis for the
disapproval. Upon receipt of such written disapproval, the applicant may
either amend the Secondary Plat to address the stated reasons for denial
and resubmit the amended Secondary Plat or schedule the request for
approval of the SP for a hearing before the full Plan Commission.
An amendment to the SP, which is not determined by the Director to be a
Substantial Alteration from the approved Development Plan and Primary
Plat, may be reviewed and approved solely by the Director. However, in
the event the Director determines that there has been a Substantial
Alteration between the approved Development Plan and or Primary Plat
and any proposed SP, the Director may, at the Director's discretion, refer
the amended SP to the Commission, or a Committee thereof, for review
and approval by the Commission and/or a Committee thereof.
C. The SP shall be a specific plan for the development of all of the Real
Estate or a Section that is submitted for approval to the Director, which
shall include reasonable detail regarding the facility and structures to be
constructed, as well as drainage, erosion control, utilities, streets and
building information.
This DP ARILS petition is isas tsar thmph ll (M ew i tetipst v i quoc ess petition
will adhere to these pules and procedures„„
10.4. Additional Notification Required. In addition to the public notice required by law
for any ADLS, Development Plan, or Variance Petition submitted for any
Section(s) of the District or any building(s) within the District, the Developer
shall provide the same notification via USPS mail to the following individuals: (i)
President of the Homeowner's Association, Enclave subdivision. (ii) President of
the Homeowner's Association or other appointed representative, Auman
subdivision, and (iii) President of the Homeowner's Association or other
appointed representative, Newark Village subdivision.
This notice i s s been eur .i e„ s Copies ui m s of notice receipts twee been submittest
Section 11 Construction Activity and Construction Traffic. Any construction activity
and /or construction traffic that occurs within and upon the Real Estate shall be subject to
all relevant regulations, ordinances, and technical specifications of the City of Carmel
that govern such activity. Unless specifically required by the City of Carmel Board of
Public Works and /or the City of Carmel Department of Engineering, the Developer shall
not permit any construction entrances and/or construction traffic onto East Auman Drive.
The Developer shall direct construction traffic away from residential neighborhoods,
subject to the direction of the City of Carmel Board of Public Works and /or the City of
Carmel Department of Engineering. Unless otherwise approved or required by the City
of Carmel Board of Public Works and /or the City of Carmel Department of Engineering,
construction work hours shall be between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm, and no work
shall be performed on the following days: New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence
Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day.
1 � �� 51i� 1�iuuulI err men ��1' �' °�u��° 111111 �° ��iu� r �uu �� IIII � �y �� � � � i�ll;l uu � � �� �,
March 20, 2012
Mr. Timothy E. Ochs
Ice Miller LLP
One American Square
Suite 2900
Indianapolis, IN 46282 -0200
CITY OF `CARMEL
JAMES BRAINARD, MAYOR
RE: Gramercy — Commitments /Definition of Demolition
Dear Mr. Ochs
In January and February of 2012 letters were sent from you requesting confirmation of a proposed
standard for building demolition within Buckingham's Gramercy project, in order to assist with
measuring compliance with their 2006 commitment to the Carmel City Council to ... "have completed
the demolition of all apartment buildings currently located on the Real Estate "...
Buckingham is proposing a formula be used to calculate whether the notion of demolition has been
fulfilled per Gramercy Commitment 7, Section 4.
The proposed formula for demolition will use the value of existing buildings, per the records of the
Hamilton County Assessor's Office, as the standard for measuring compliance — with a guaranteed
minimum investment threshold that exceeds 50% of the total assessed value of the existing
improvements on the real estate, and which provides that all Phase I buildings not completely
demolished will have renovation and remodeling costs that, on average, exceed 50% of their current
assessed values.
The Department is in agreement with this approach. It shall be the purpose of this letter, however,
to define a general standard of construction work for measuring the level of Phase I investment and
to achieve a level of mutual understanding between DOCS and Buckingham as the project moves
forward, in order to assist the Department with their on -going review of the Gramercy project, from
approval process to and through construction.
The new plan for Gramercy offers a distinctly different street layout and mix of uses than the original
concept plan presented with the rezone in 2006. And while this new plan will be compliant with the
development standards and all other commitments adopted with the Gramercy PUD ordinance,
Buckingham's new plan proposes a total renovation of the real estate combining a mix of new
buildings, new infill buildings and extensive building renovations that will create four distinct
apartment neighborhoods, as well as renovated pavement and other infrastructure, including a
bicycle and pedestrian system.
MIICHAllit, P.
.:ommuu'
PHoOW 317,57L2417, °' x . 1.7.571 ,21.26
L 11 u A IA; lit DuPru
March 20, 2012
Mr. Timothy E. Ochs
RE: Gramercy — Commitments /Definition of Demolition page 2
This new approach to the Gramercyplan will require a more nuanced approach to measuring
demolition, as only five (5) buildings proposed`to be completely removed.
The Department recognizes that demolition throughout the project's Phase I will occur in a variety of
different ways, depending on the improvements planned and needed in order to bring each existing
building up to new architectural and quality standards. For example, all buildings will see the
reconstruction of exterior facades, removal and replacement of roofs, and removal and replacement
of significant portions of the interiors, including appliances, fixtures, carpeting, and other interior
items.
In consideration of the above, the Department will monitor the project and evaluate progress with
the new demolition standard including the following benchmarks:
1. The work described above for Gramercy Phase I is slated to commence in 2013, and is
anticipated to take up to 3 years for completion.
2. Not less than five (5) of the existing buildings will be completely removed, leaving a total of 45
buildings.
3. All existing car port structures will be razed in Gramercy Phase I.
4. All 45 remaining apartment buildings will be partly demolished and fully renovated as per the
approved ADLS, docket number, key features including :
A. PARTIAL DEMOLITION
• replacement of roofs and roofing
• replacement of doors and windows
• removal of exterior features in need of replacement and repair
• removal of architectural elements not consistent with approved architectural styles
B. EXTERIOR RENOVATION
• painting and /or whitewashing all buildings
• new roof shingles
• new roof decking and /or framing, where needed
• new guttering and downspouts
• removal of gas meters
• new windows
• new front entry doors and sliding patio doors
• new architectural trim, consistent with respective neighborhood plans
• new balconies where consistent with architectural style
• new building landscaping
March 20, 2012
Mr. Timothy E. Ochs
RE: Gramercy — Commitments/Definition of Demolition page 3
C. INTERIOR RENOVATION
• new carpeting throughout
• new wall coverings
• new appliances
• new kitchen and bathroom flooring
• new light fixtures
• new bathroom fixtures including shower, vanity and sink
• new doors and other hardware throughout
• new kitchen cabinets, countertops and appliances
• new heating and cooling mechanical equipment
It is understood by the Department that the extent of building demolition /renovation will vary from
building to building, except that ultimately all of the buildings within each neighborhood (The
Crossing, The Mills, etc) will be of the same uniform architectural style and have consistent interior
treatments which will offer the same experience whether from a new building or a renovated
building.
It is further understood that, generally, the construction of infill units within the neighborhoods will
occur after the work to demolish and renovate existing buildings is completed, and after construction
of the new buildings within the Commons.
When completed, the combined unit count of Phase I and Phase II will be approximately 1280
apartment and townhome units. Additional residential units will be added to a third phase of
Gramercy, including single family residences
The Department looks forward to continuing our assistance to you on the approval process and
subsequent construction of Gramercy.
Yours truly,
•
Michael Hollibaug
Copy: Matt Griffin
File, Docket 11100022 DP ADIS
CITY OF CARMEL
JAMES BRAINARI), MAYOR
March 20, 2012
Mr. Timothy E. Ochs
Ice Miller LLP
One American Square
Suite 2900
Indianapolis, IN 46282 -0200
RE: Gramercy — Commitments /Definition of Demolition
Dear Mr. Ochs
In January and February of 2012 letters were sent from you requesting confirmation of a proposed
standard for building demolition within Buckingham's Gramercy project, in order to assist with
measuring compliance with their 2006 commitment to the Carmel City Council to ... "have completed
the demolition of all apartment buildings currently located on the Real Estate "...
Buckingham is proposing a formula be used to calculate whether the notion of demolition has been
fulfilled per Gramercy Commitment 7, Section 4.
The proposed formula for demolition will use the value of existing buildings, per the records of the
Hamilton County Assessor's Office, as the standard for measuring compliance — with a guaranteed
minimum investment threshold that exceeds 50% of the total assessed value of the existing
improvements on the real estate, and which provides that all Phase 1 buildings not completely
demolished will have renovation and remodeling costs that, on average, exceed 50% of their current
assessed values.
The Department is in agreement with this approach. It shall be the purpose of this letter, however,
to define a general standard of construction work for measuring the level of Phase I investment and
to achieve a level of mutual understanding between DOCS and Buckingham as the project moves
forward, in order to assist the Department with their on -going review of the Gramercy project, from
approval process to and through construction.
The new plan for Gramercy offers a distinctly different street layout and mix of uses than the original
concept plan presented with the rezone in 2006. And while this new plan will be compliant with the
development standards and all other commitments adopted with the Gramercy PUD ordinance,
Buckingham's new plan proposes a total renovation of the real estate combining a mix of new
buildings, new infill buildings and extensive building renovations that will create four distinct
apartment neighborhoods, as well as renovated pavement and other infrastructure, including a
bicycle and pedestrian system.
\a (,.:b■ A
•:PAR, ir!. . . 4;w ` (7,(.) NI tiff: ; ' ➢4.:11 °;p
1\11x711,
160 PH(2, F:, :5117,571 .2417 ,
� 14.;4ox11�1. P, T..,, l.uhsnu.lo_rru1 i)ir .v :4"N`a.nz
17.57.1..2426
March 20, 2012
Mr. Timothy E. Ochs
RE: Gramercy — Commitments /Definition of Demolition page 2
This new approach to the Gramercy plan will require a more nuanced approach to measuring
demolition, as only five (5) buildings are proposed to be completely removed.
The Department recognizes that demolition throughout the project's Phase I will occur in a variety of
different ways, depending on the improvements planned and needed in order to bring each existing
building up to new architectural and quality standards. For example, all buildings will see the
reconstruction of exterior facades, removal and replacement of roofs, and removal and replacement
of significant portions of the interiors, including appliances, fixtures, carpeting, and other interior
items.
In consideration of the above, the Department will monitor the project and evaluate progress with
the new demolition standard including the following benchmarks:
1. The work described above for Gramercy Phase I is slated to commence in 2013, and is
anticipated to take up to 3 years for completion.
2. Not less than five (5) of the existing buildings will be completely removed, leaving a total of 45
buildings.
3. All existing car port structures will be razed in Gramercy Phase I.
4. All 45 remaining apartment buildings will be partly demolished and fully renovated as per the
approved ADLS, docket number, key features including :
A. PARTIAL DEMOLITION
• replacement of roofs and roofing
• replacement of doors and windows
• removal of exterior features in need of replacement and repair
• removal of architectural elements not consistent with approved architectural styles
B. EXTERIOR RENOVATION
• painting and /or whitewashing all buildings
• new roof shingles
• new roof decking and /or framing, where needed
• new guttering and downspouts
• removal of gas meters
• new windows
• new front entry doors and sliding patio doors
• new architectural trim, consistent with respective neighborhood plans
• new balconies where consistent with architectural style
• new building landscaping
March 20, 2012
Mr. Timothy E. Ochs
RE: Gramercy — Commitments /Definition of Demolition page 3
C. INTERIOR RENOVATION
• new carpeting throughout
• new wall coverings
• new appliances
• new kitchen and bathroom flooring
• new Tight fixtures
• new bathroom fixtures including shower, vanity and sink
• new doors and other hardware throughout
• new kitchen cabinets, countertops and appliances
• new heating and cooling mechanical equipment
It is understood by the Department that the extent of building demolition /renovation will vary from
building to building, except that ultimately all of the buildings within each neighborhood (The
Crossing, The Mills, etc) will be of the same uniform architectural style and have consistent interior
treatments which will offer the same experience whether from a new building or a renovated
building.
It is further understood that, generally, the construction of infill units within the neighborhoods will
occur after the work to demolish and renovate existing buildings is completed, and after construction
of the new buildings within the Commons.
When completed, the combined unit count of Phase I and Phase II will be approximately 1280
apartment and townhome units. Additional residential units will be added to a third phase of
Gramercy, including single family residences
The Department looks forward to continuing our assistance to you on the approval process and
subsequent construction of Gramercy.
Yours truly,
•
Michael Hollibaug:
Copy: Matt Griffin
File, Docket 11100022 DP ADIS
Conn, An.lelina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hollibaugh, Mike P
Monday, March 19, 2012 6:09 PM
Conn, Angelina V
Keeling, Adrienne M; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K
RE: gramercy demo letter
Thank you. Well make the fix. As for Council approval, that is really an issue for Buckingham to deal with. he
commitment was enforceable by the Council and any nearby property owner, (not DOCS).
All this letter attempts to do is define what demo is... I think if the council or neighbors want to enforce the
commitment, the courts will have to decide what demo is, and, I suppose this letter wifii heap with that.
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 9:59 AM
To: Holllbaugh, Mike P
Cc: Keeling, Adrienne M; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K
Subject: RE: gramercy demo letter
Mike: Looks good. Need to be wordy, too. Don't worry about that Also, I have 2 review comments:
1. Make the word buildings plural in the paragraph located close to the bottom of page 1: as only six (6) *OW W g
are proposed to be completely remove...
2. Do they still need to seek Council's approval or interpretation of the commitment, too, to make it legal for them
to move forward?
-Angie
From: Hollibaugh, Mike P
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 7:44 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V; Keeling, Adrienne M; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K
Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P
Subject: gramercy demo letter
mornin y "all, please take a look at this Wetter, would appreciate your edits, etc. It is so wordy, whatever you think to
convey the message with less words.
Matt is chomping at the bit to get the issue of demo "reso
thank yo
Mrilke
0
ved" by today if possible, hoping to send out by noon today.
Conn, An elina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ochs, Timothy [Timothy.Ochs@icemiller.com]
Wednesday, March 14, 2012 11:46 AM
Hollibaugh, Mike P
Conn, Angelina V; Matt L. Griffin; 'Andy Klineman'; 'Justine M. Sharp'
FW: gramercy exhibit
EXHIBIT FOR CITY OF CARMEL.pdf
Mike: Our response to your questions contained in your e-mail are below. I wanted to get this to you in advance of our
meeting this afternoon with the hope that we can make the meeting more efficient and resolve the issue.
1. Will the level of demolition apply consistently to all buildings?
No. All interiors will receive a uniform improvement plan including, but not limited to, a mix of new flooring, wall
covering, appliances, counters, cabinetry, hardware, and fixtures. Exterior renovations, however, will vary,
sometimes significantly, from building to building. There will be 3 distinct approaches to the exterior renovations —
and each style will be applied in a designated neighborhood, as we have indicated in the most recent set of plans. All
buildings will have modifications to roof elements, and new shingles. Balconies may be added and other
improvements such as new windows and doors. How these renovations are applied varies due to the many different
building styles that currently exist on site.
2. That is, will all existing buildings be demolished to a level not less than 50% of their current value?
All buildings will have remodeling costs that exceed 50% of their current values.
3. Is a building's value the appraised value? Who makes that call?
Yes. This value comes from the Hamilton County Auditor's Office. The Records kept by the Auditor include the
assessed value of each building excluding the real estate. With Indiana's relatively new assessment system, assessed
values are supposed to reflect fair market value.
4. Does the new proposal to " remove and replace the exterior skins of the buildings" apply consistently to all
buildings or will it vary from building to building?
All buildings will have extensive work done to their exteriors, the specific work done, however, will vary. Some
buildings have new elements added to their exteriors. Some have elements removed. Some combination of exterior
renovation will occur for every building on site — as proposed in the detailed example renovation exhibits. The variety
of different buildings in Mohawk Hills and the different architectural themes being applied to the different sections of
Gramercy means that it is impossible to consistently apply.
Does remove and replace mean 100%
Remove and replace does not mean 100%. It means that all exterior skins will be renovated to into a more timeless
exterior as detailed in the renovation exhibits. This work could include painting, whitewashing, new materials,
addition of architectural elements, and removal of architectural elements as well as the replacement of all or portions
of some roofs.
Will the exterior of any buildings be retained?
Some elevations have areas that will not be replaced, but will be repaired and cleaned to align with that buildings
desired renovation style. The amount of exterior "retained" will vary from building to building.
5. Same question about roofs. Will the roofs of all buildings be removed and replaced? Does replacement mean
shingles or more significant, such as replacement of trusses for a new roofline?
All roofs will not be removed. All roofs will receive new shingles. Most roofs will have alterations in their roof lines in
terms of both additions and demolitions.
6. It would be helpful to have a drawing which maps demolition levels, something like:
• Buildings 100% demolished
• Buildings with 100% new exterior
• Buildings with partial new exterior - <50%
• Buildings with partial new exterior - >50%
Please see the attached exhibit, which we will discuss further with you.
7. The map would also illustrate the sequence /phasing of demo, as currently planned
All renovation is set to occur as part of our Phase 1. The desired start date of that work is Jan 2013. It is anticipated
to take up to 3 years for completion. Completing this project and maintaining occupancy introduces some
complication that makes a longer process.
Tim
ICE
LEGAL C0'B.lNit5i1NE°D_
TIMOTHY E. OCHS
Attorney at Law
Phone 317 -236 -5952
Fax 317- 592 -4720
Cell 317 - 695 -8386
Email timothy.ochs @icemiller.com
One American Square
Suite 2900
Indianapolis, IN 46282 -0200
www.icemiller.com
Open as vCard
... I. I. I :�;* ! * * * *is4.4'1''I•t•i. ,I. I• I..I *1:4' 4-1:4: l::l• {' {• *4' I' 'I' I..I * I• ! .,.:1::{:,l::l::{::{ * * * *is ** *1::1::1::1::} **,I..I..I.:I::I: :I :* **I' $• * • ! °I. I. }: °I.4:
********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Except to the extent that this advice concerns the qualification of any
qualified plan, to ensure compliance with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations, we are now required to advise
you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication,
including any attachments, is not intended or written by us to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone for the
purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties that may be imposed by the federal government or for promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any tax - related matters addressed herein.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This E -mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by
2
City of Carmel
I DIMO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
March 13, 2011
Mr. Matt Griffin
Buckingham Companies
941 N Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
RE: Gramercy PUD (Mohawk Hills Redevelopment) DP /ADLS
Dear Mr. Griffin:
The following letter represents continents for this project specifically addressing the area of alternative
transportation. I have reviewed the project submitted for the March 21, 2012 Technical Advisory
Committee meeting, and offer the following comments:
Alternative Transportation Review and Comments
1) Please provide a Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Map for the development showing the planned
locations of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure for the entire development including the
north -south and east -west bike routes mentioned in Gramercy's Bicycle Plan.
2) Please provide a comprehensive Bicycle Parking Facilities Map showing the propose type(s)
and locations of the bicycle parking within the development.
3) Please consider providing long -term covered bicycle parking for the residential portion of
this development.
4) The City of Carmel's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan requires a 10' multi -use path on 126th Sr
Please revise the plans to reflect this.
5) Please ensure that all sidewalks and paths are on both sides of all thoroughfares and that all
internal sidewalks and paths are connected throughout the site.
6) Please maintain a minimum of a 5' clearance from obstructions for all sidewalks.
7) Please indicate ADA compliant handicap ramps and crosswalks at all crossings.
We request that all responses to our continents be provided in writing. Failure to provide written
responses may result in delay of the review process.
ONE CIVIC SQUARE
Page 1
CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571..24
iirlr 11)))4,1011111111
ri
Conn, Angelina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Matt,
Littlejohn, David W
Tuesday, March-13, 2012 1:58 PM
'Matt L. Griffin'
Conn, Angelina V
RE: Alt Trans TAC review - Gramercy DP /ADLS
On some of them it is tough for me to tell what is going on so some details would probably help. On a few of the
crossings 1 circled it looks like there is a ramp planned for one side of the street but not the other. That would lead
people into the street with without anywhere to go on the opposite side.
Thanks,
David Littlejohn, AICP
Alternative Transportation Coordinator
Department of Community Services
City of Carmel
One Civic Sq
Carmel, IN 46032
(317) 571 -2306
RA Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
From: Matt L. Griffin [ mailto: Matt.Griffinebuckingham- co.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 12:30 PM
To: Littlejohn, David W
Subject: RE: Alt Trans TAC review - Gramercy DP /ADLS
Thanks David,
Do you have suggestions on crossings at these intersections, or should I forward to our ped designer and have them
create some detailed safe crossings?
Matthew Griffin, AICP
Development Manager
Buckingham Companies
941 N. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone /Fax: 317.554.6749
matt.qriffin@buckinqham-co.com
buckingham - co.com
BUCKINGHAM
From: Littlejohn, David W [mailto:dlittlejohnCa carmel.in.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 12:18 PM
To: Matt L. Griffin
1
Conn, An elina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Conn, Angelina V
Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:23 AM
Boone, Rachel M.; Littlejohn, David W
Gramercy info packet
Hi, Rachel — the Gramercy info packet has some signage info. Do you think you could take a look at it today or tomorrow
and let me know what else the petitioner needs to provide? All I saw was a signage location map under tab D — Signage
Plan.
Hi, David — the Gramercy info packet might have some info about bike parking and paths. Do you think you could take a
look at it today or tomorrow and let me know what else the petitioner needs to provide? All 1 saw was the Bicycle Plan
under the Commitments tab.
I have a paper copy of the packet you can borrow, or you can view it online at
http: / /cocdocs.ci.carmel .in.us /Weblink /DocView.aspx ?id = 784758 &dbid =0 (March 2012 Plan Commission info packet).
Thanks for looking at this stuff.
-Angie
LEGAL COUNSEL
February 21, 2012
111111II01 W 1111111111111
kkk
1111111111111111 )V Ork.11„,r,L„vvvv)vVvrrl'
Mr. Michael P. Hollibaugh
Carmel Planned Commission - Dept. of Community Services
1 Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
RE: Gramercy/Demolition Standard
Dear Mike:
WRITER'S DIRECT NUMBER: (317) 236 -5952
DIRECT FAX: (317) 592 -4720
INTERNET: Timothy.Ochs() .icemiller.com
Via Electronic Mail and
Regular U.S. Mail
As you will recall, I previously sent to you a letter, dated January 12, 2012, concerning
demolition related to the Gramercy Rezoning. My letter asked you to confirm that the
demolition standard is met if the work performed related to the Gramercy project exceeds 50%
of the current value of the project buildings.
In response to that letter, you asked us to clarify our position and, in particular, provide
additional information that would allow the Department of Community Services to clearly
calculate whether the demolition standard was met once construction at Gramercy was
completed. This letter contains a more specific formula that will allow the 50% determination to
be made in a clear manner using publicly available data.
Simply put, we suggest that the formula used require that the total of the project costs
exceed 50% of the total assessed value of the existing improvements on the real estate. This
approach has several merits, including the use of readily identifiable values determined by
someone other than the owner or developer and ease of calculation.
Upon completion of the work, cost data can be provided upon written request to
demonstrate the threshold has been met.
Thank you for your attention to this matter,. Please contact me if you have any additional
questions.
Very truly yours,
ICE MILLER LLP
Om. American Square Suite. 2900 Ouaaivamol olllis;„ ON 46282..0200 9 3117 - 236- 210(9 O.: w117 -236- 22.119
9[04I9APOLV9 GI11 (1A00 CLOaVIEILAND C0ILi9MGUS DUPAGl1 COUNTY OIL VVASIOONGION 00 rwrww.OQ.eumuP9s:o
Mr. Michael P. Hollibaugh
February 21, 2012
Page 2
TEO:dlp
cc: John Molitor Esq. (via e-mail)
Andrew Klineman (via e-mail)
Conn, An elina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Matt L. Griffin [Matt.Griffin@buckingham-co.com]
Friday, February 10, 2012 9:39 AM
Conn, Angelina V
RE: Gramercy & Feb. 21 PC meeting?
Letter is forthcoming. Just sent Tim Ochs the info — he will follow up with you today.
Yes — we are requesting continuance.
Matthew Griffin, AICP
Development Manager
Buckingham Companies
941 N. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone/Fax: 317.554.6749
matt.ciriffin rbbuckindham-co.com
buckingham co.com
RUCKING
From: Conn, Angelina V [maiito:Aconn@carmel.in.clov]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 9:36 AM
To: Matt L. Griffin
Subject: Gramercy & Feb. 21 PC meeting?
Matt 1). Are you glaci Friklay? a irL. r,DK, [lens S thE? qUeStiOn (f. day: Is Gro.nlercy toiated t) the March 20 .PC:
.rykseting? t'st rnUf s. kJ 1)WV th arlks
This con-lnalanicatilon is •for use. tl) ir..dL al or coryyrighted
under 1,...roy, If you art„!'„ not. the intended ret'ipient yau hereby forrn.Mly notified th at. an:+r, use., copying OI" s trit) utior) of tills 4„„',:Mai.1„ in
fpr „ln part, i «,h1b1t d 1 nder by return J4 nd delet n M rom yotH
explicitly and conspiel.lcmsy stated •in the sl.lbjf.„.'„c rIlaiter of the abo,,,,e e-IVI ail, this e-tivia.il .cloes not <„'onst.i1.1„.101.e. a corltract ofl'er„ a corltracl •
azrp,„11(11.1I„lent„ or an a.(.....I.;epta.ro.:e of a •coraract cyfflf„1., hot constitute •(:.olaserlt. to 1.11(.. 1,lise .,,,..,;e:.nder's cont'ac:t. iinfornlati (..),n for
4 flfl' purposes or flf...)r tra.nsfers clata to tid p '/,;„
CJ'f
LEGAL. C0VJASEL.
February 10, 2012
Mike Hollibaugh
Director of Community Services
City of Carmel, Indiana
1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor
Carmel, IN 46032
RE: Docket No. 11100022 DP /ADLS
751 East 126th Street, Carmel Indiana
Mohawk Hills Apartments
Dear Mike:
WNTFR's DIRECT NUMBER: (317) 236 -5952
DIRECT FAX: (317) 592 -4720
INTERNET: Timothy.Ochs@icemiller.com
Via Electronic Mail and
Regular U.S. Mail
As you are aware, we represent the Buckingham Companies with respect to Docket No.
11100022 DP /ADLS: Gramercy PUD, which is currently scheduled for Public Hearing before
the Carmel Plan Commission on February 21, 2012. This petition had been previously continued
in order to provide everyone involved with the project adequate time to review proposed
revisions. Despite our efforts, the revisions are not yet finalized. As a result, we respectfully
request a continuance to the March 20, 2012 Plan Commission Public Hearing.
We have sent to all persons that originally received notice of the public hearing a letter
notifying them that we are seeking the continuance requested in this letter. Finally, we anticipate
filing revisions to the current plans shortly. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this
letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
ICE MILLER LLP
Tino 2c%s
Timothy E. Ochs
TEO:dip
d LGaau. G:, °;uuo Sq:u ata^ 'V:J • hIfii to ap,'H4'., uM1 Ili 1J.2— i.i20(Ih • G" i V e `Li;' q':8 • q„' 317 L;i4 ",I4I2III)
LIPIAINLhPOIli CIO 4:;411 Vd L LiLU L.pm���i�UJH!.; 011)PAIGE i1 (X.. 3i4 PI. • AP,,i.ro4'1PNG ON
•w w
Conn, An elina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Matt L. Griffin [Matt.Griffin@buckingham-co.com]
Thursday, February 02, 2012 4:19 PM
Conn, Angelina V
Tac
No Tac. We need to push it off one more time.
The good news is that we will be more than ready for your march meeting!
Matthew Griffin, AICP
Development Manager
Buckingham Companies
941 N. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone/Fax: 317.554.6749
matt.ciriffin@buckinqham-co.com
buckingham-co.com
11,11611
!
M PA
Th.i.s ecyna.rnunication is foi.—use b„„ii, the irA.ended recipient uid .contains in,14,Drmation that rflay be pri,,,llestA „ con.fidential
Jfl you]. not the intx,mded ire;cdpiera, 3,iou are heal,d...),,y .fi,,A7n13.1.1y notified that fuly use, .„,.'„opyi,..r.q.„;. cli.„1,1.ribu.t.i.„,„:m (1 n MaiL,
N,A,41.01.4,,,„ (yr irh pit is stri.4,,71.1 3,1 f.).rohibitcd„. anKytify sender 1 w M u1 md dk,!,l M 1 11 you.r systenl, 1 J11
expl...ic,',itty and (,,:“,„onspicuously statM 111 the subject inattel- 4„,'..),f. t11 al Mail„, this e„,„M„„,iil does not .a„ contrac t offer, a (.1)11t1
arnendrrient,„ or an. '.,'1‘.:',4„,;'.e,:ptner„, (..)f. a contract offer, 711,11..i"..,„„ 1 1IVI1IJ ioes ncm, c„onstitutt.,', tc..) the use 111 "..,„„/,',,,mik?,rs f,x)ntak.„.t. information for
direc t rryarketi.ns .1vI1po,,,4,',:s. or .for transfers of data ix.)
ra vv ''1 ---oL W
Conn, An elina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
fyi
From: Matt L. Griffin [mailto:Matt.GriffinObuckinaham- co.com]
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 12:49 PM
To: Hollibaugh, Mike P
Cc: Ochs, Timothy; Brad Chambers
Subject: RE: Demo - definition
Hollibaugh, Mike P
Friday, January 27, 2012 3:07 PM
Conn, Angelina V
Donahue -Wold, Alexia K
FW: Demo - definition - Gramercy PUD
Mike,
We will get you answers on the below. Let me get with our teams internally.
As a side note — did you get a chance to look into the POM parcel at the corner?
Matt
From: Hollibaugh, Mike P [ mailto :MHollibaughacarmel.in.aov]
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 12:43 PM
To: Matt L. Griffin
Cc: Ochs, Timothy; Brad Chambers
Subject: RE: Demo - definition
Matt, Working on this today and wanting to get finalized asap. Getting close, but need to ask for a little more info:
1. Will the level of demolition apply consistently to all buildings? That is, will all existing buildings be demolished to a
level not Tess than 50% of their current value?
2. Is a building's value the appraised value? Who makes that call?
3. Does the new proposal to " remove and replace the exterior skins of the buildings" apply consistently to all
buildings or will it vary from building to building? Does remove and replace mean 100 %Will the exterior of any
buildings be retained?
4. Same question about roofs. Will the roofs of all buildings be removed and replaced? Does replacement mean
shingles or more significant, such as replacement of trusses for a new roofline?
5. It would be helpful to have a drawing which maps demolition levels, something like:
• Buildings 100% demolished
• Buildings with 100% new exterior
• Buildings with partial new exterior - <50%
• Buildings with partial new exterior - >50%
6. The map would also illustrate the sequence /phasing of demo, as currently planned
I'm heading out to lunch will be give you a call later in the PM or on Monday. Thanks
Mike H.
From: Matt L. Griffin fmailto :Matt.GriffinObuckingham- co.com}
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 10:19 AM
To: Hollibaugh, Mike P
Subject: Demo - definition
Mike,
Not sure if you and John Molitor have had a chance to review the demo language that Tim drafted (of if you have
already discussed with Brad).
Any response, or feeling on it at this point? Can we put it to rest, or is it still in a stage of unrest?
Matthew Griffin, AICP
Development Manager
Buckingham Companies
941 N. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone /Fax: 317 554.6749
matt.criffin@buckinaham-co.com
buckingham - co.com
BUCKINGHAM
Nora luouumM
LEGAL COUNSEL
January 12, 2012
1111111111111 mi 1111111
Mike Hollibaugh
Director of Community Services
City of Carmel, Indiana
1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor
Carmel, IN 46032
RE: Docket No. 11100022 DP /ADLS
751 East 126th Street, Carmel Indiana
Mohawk Hills Apartments
Dear Mike:
WRITER'S DIRECT Num:4ER: (317) 236 -5952
DIRECT FAX: (317) 592 -4720
INTERNET: Timothy.Ochs icemiller.com
Via Electronic Mail and
Regular U.S. Mail
As you are aware, we represent the Buckingham Companies with respect to Docket No.
11100022 DP /ADLS: Gramercy PUD, which is currently scheduled for Public Hearing before
the Carmel Plan Commission on January 19, 2012. This petition had been continued from the
December Plan Commission hearing in order to provide more time to review the numerous plans
and drawings and address concerns.
As a result of that comments made at the December public hearing and other meetings
with residents and surrounding property owners, Buckingham Companies has proceeded forward
with revisions to its plans. In order to provide everyone involved with the project adequate time
to review these revisions, we respectfully request a continuance to the February 21, 2012 Plan
Commission Public Hearing.
We have sent to all persons that originally received notice of the public hearing a letter
notifying them that we are seeking the continuance requested in this letter. Finally, we anticipate
filing revisions to the current plans shortly. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this
letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
TEO:dlp
One American Square Suu to 2900 V' d aruaVpons, AN 4
Very truly yours,
ICE MILLER LLP
(22,/ S'
Timothy E. Ochs
-0200 ! E 317 -236- 2100 f F 317-236-2219
UNIMANAIP0ILVS j CHICAGO J CLEVELAND COLUMBUS 1 DUPAGE' COUNTY UIL 1 WASHVINGTO1N DC
avvvvv, cemli Ver.romn
Ochs, Timothy
From: Ochs, Timothy
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 11:46 AM
To: 'Hollibaugh, Mike P'
Cc: 'Conn, Angelina V; Matt L. Griffin; 'Andy Klineman'; 'Justine M. Sharp'
Subject: FW: gramercy exhibit
Attachments: EXHIBIT FOR CITY OF CARMEL.pdf
Mike: Our response to your questions contained in your e-mail are below. I wanted to get this to you in advance of our
meeting this afternoon with the hope that we can make the meeting more efficient and resolve the issue.
1. Will the level of demolition apply consistently to all buildings?
No. All interiors will receive a uniform improvement plan including, but not limited to, a mix of new flooring, wall
covering, appliances, counters, cabinetry, hardware, and fixtures. Exterior renovations, however, will vary,
sometimes significantly, from building to building. There will be 3 distinct approaches to the exterior renovations —
and each style will be applied in a designated neighborhood, as we have indicated in the most recent set of plans. All
buildings will have modifications to roof elements, and new shingles. Balconies may be added and other
improvements such as new windows and doors. How these renovations are applied varies due to the many different
building styles that currently exist on site.
2. That is, will all existing buildings be demolished to a level not less than 50% of their current value?
All buildings will have remodeling costs that exceed 50% of their current values.
3. Is a building's value the appraised value? Who makes that call?
Yes. This value comes from the Hamilton County Auditor's Office. The Records kept by the Auditor include the
assessed value of each building excluding the real estate. With Indiana's relatively new assessment system, assessed
values are supposed to reflect fair market value.
4. Does the new proposal to " remove and replace the exterior skins of the buildings" apply consistently to all buildings
or will it vary from building to building?
All buildings will have extensive work done to their exteriors, the specific work done, however, will vary. Some
buildings have new elements added to their exteriors. Some have elements removed. Some combination of exterior
renovation will occur for every building on site — as proposed in the detailed example renovation exhibits. The variety
of different buildings in Mohawk Hills and the different architectural themes being applied to the different sections of
Gramercy means that it is impossible to consistently apply.
Does remove and replace mean 100%
Remove and replace does not mean 100 %. It means that all exterior skins will be renovated to into a more timeless
exterior as detailed in the renovation exhibits. This work could include painting, whitewashing, new materials,
addition of architectural elements, and removal of architectural elements as well as the replacement of all or portions
of some roofs.
Will the exterior of any buildings be retained?
Some elevations have areas that will not be replaced, but will be repaired and cleaned to align with that buildings
desired renovation style. The amount of exterior "retained" will vary from building to building.
5. Same question about roofs. Will the roofs of all buildings be removed and replaced? Does replacement mean
shingles or more significant, such as replacement of trusses for a new roofline?
1
IC'€
LEGAL COUNSEL
11111111111111111NIIII4 \111111111011
January 12, 2012
Mike Hollibaugh
Director of Community Services
City of Cannel, Indiana
1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor
Carmel, IN 46032
RE: Docket No. 11100022 DP /ADLS
751 East 126th Street, Carmel Indiana
Mohawk Hills Apartments
Dear Mike:
Wturat's DutECrNUMBER: (317) 236 -5952
DEtECr FAX, (317) 592 -4720
INTERNET; Timothy.Ochs®icemiller.com
Via Electronic Mail and
Regular U.S. Mail
As you are aware, we represent the Buckingham Companies with respect to Docket No.
11100022 DP /ADLS: Gramercy PUD, which is currently scheduled for Public Hearing before
the Carmel Plan Commission on January 19, 2012. This petition had been continued from the
December Plan Commission hearing in order to provide more time to review the numerous plans
and drawings and address concerns.
As a result of that comments made at the December public hearing and other meetings
with residents and surrounding property owners, Buckingham Companies has proceeded forward
with revisions to its plans. In order to provide everyone involved with the project adequate time
to review these revisions, we respectfully request a continuance to the February 21, 2012 Plan
Commission Public Hearing.
We have sent to all persons that originally received notice of the public hearing a letter
notifying them that we are seeking the continuance requested in this letter. Finally, we anticipate
filing revisions to the current plans shortly. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this
letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
ICE MILLER LLP
r, otk, E Ode
Timothy E. Ochs
TEO:dlp
One Amerkan Dti¢Iu ar e Stott 0 ' Vatia9uwoapes, 09 462924120O P 17 2;)&a `2'104) 1 IF 3 7-236- 3219
VNOVANAPOLIS CHVCAGO v6AN3 COLUMBUS OURAGIE COUNTY V L AQNIING'tiN- ....... �,. _.... ,..,..,.. -r ...,.._ _ ..._�
03" vvww. cemuVVea corn
CARMEL TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING: Ci ents
Date: Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Place: Dept. of Community Services Conference Room, 3 rd Floor, Carmel City Hall.
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Note: The Department f Public tilities of the City In lanup lis floia Citizens
er (C W) has revie e Ufe bek.w lista TAC ag-n a t*fSCS. C s respuLJi e f r
e ch topic is slate iin the B Bu Text el c topic escri .ti
9:00 a.m. Docket No. 11110009 DP/ADLS: Fifth Third Bank.
The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a new bank building. The site is located at 205
E. Cannel Dr. The site is zoned B-8/Business and lies within the Carmel Dr. — Rangeline Rd.
Overlay Zone. Filed by Kurt Prosser of the GPD Group.
C has n objection to the approval sf the site plan and design for a new bank
building. This site is served by CarneU Utilities.
9:15 a.m. Docket No. 11110015 DP/ADLS: The Bridges PUD, Office & Residential Use Block, Berm.
The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a perimeter buffer landscape plan on
approximately 1.6 acres along 1111" St. & Springmill Rd. The site is located at 11405 Springmill Rd.
and is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson &
Frankenberger for JEC Partnership LP.
C has no bjection t the approval of the site plan and design fort the proposed
development. This site is served by Carmel Utilities.
9:25 a.m. Docket No. 11100022 DP/ADLS: Gramercy PUD (Mohawk Hills Redevelopment)
The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a multifamily apartments infill and renovation
project on 116.4 acres. The site is located at approximately 751 E. 126111 Street. at the southwest
corner of 126th St. and Keystone Pkwy. The site is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by
Matthew Griffin of Buckingham Companies.
CM! has n j ction to the approval of the Impr•ve ent Location P rmit. This site is
serve by C rmel Utilities.
9:35 a.m. TABLED TO JAN. 18: Merchants' Square, Enterprise Rent-A-Car (former Hardee's site).
The applicant seeks the following use variance approval for an auto leasing business:
Docket No. 11100006 UV ZO Ch. 19.01: Permitted Uses. The site is located at 2350 E.
44-e St. It is zoned B 8/Business, Filed by Jeff Gowdy of Enterprise.
WWW.CARMELIN.GOV
File: TAC2011-1221.doe
Page 1 of 1
ONE CIVIC SQ. CARMEL IN 46032 (317) 571-2417
Conn, An elina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tingley, Connie S
Wednesday, December 21, 2011 8:41 AM
Conn, Angelina V
TAC
Matt Griffin stopped by. Pls table Gramercy to Jan 18 mtg.
ct
Conn, An ' elina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Matt,
Mindham, Daren
Monday, December 19, 2011 10:40 AM
'Matt L. Griffin'
Conn, Angelina V
Gramercy
The following email represents comments for this project specifically addressing the area of urban forestry. I
have reviewed the drawings and offer the following comments:
URBAN FORESTRY REVIEW COMMENTS
1) On page L110 The proposed numbers for the 'Ponds' landscaping seem to be off.
Proposed shade trees — 11 (my count 15); Proposed Ornamentals — 8; (My count 6); Proposed shrubs — 63
(My count 60)
2) On page L110 The proposed numbers for the 'Gramercy Townhome' landscaping seem to be off.
Proposed Ornamentals — 5; (My count 4); also Ginkgo is not a ornamental as it can get very tall. Maybe a
Japanese Tree lilac would be better here.
3) All plant schedules will need a quantity column.
4) Sheet Notes on the bottom right of most pages: the words 'General Landscape' are spelled wrong.
5) Eventually, all plant material will need to be labeled. However, the species selections are great, I just want to
make sure that diversity is achieved. I would like to limit maples as much as possible as they are over
planted do not do well in urban settings.
6) At this point, I did not verify if the shown trees are equal to what is noted in the Landscape Requirements,
but the stated requirement numbers to seem to be right.
7) Some of the trees are shown in parking lot stalls not landscaping areas, like on L123 and L121.
Side note: Has there been a plan put into place to have all of the ash trees removed or treated, has an
inventory or count taken place.
Hopefully, my comments will get you to a better finalized point, I assume by what I was given to review that everything
with landscape design has not been figured out.
Please illustrate how these comments will be addressed by letter or revised plan. If you have any questions, feel free to
contact me. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Dairen IVi'ir dham
Urban Forester
INntAtiN
December 14, 2011
Mr. Matt Griffin
Buckingham Companies
941 N Meridian Street
Indianapolis. IN 46204
City of C
mel
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
RE: Gramercy PUD (Mohawk Hills Redevelopment) DP/ADLS
Dear Mr. Griffin:
The following letter represents comments for this project specifically addressing the area of alternative
transportation. I have reviewed the project submitted for the December 21, 2011 Technical Advisory
Committee meeting. and offer the following comments:
Alternative Transnortation Review and Comments
1) Please provide a Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Map for the development showing the planned
locations of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure for the entire development.
2) Please provide a comprehensive Bicycle Parking Facilities Map showing the propose type(s)
and locations of the bicycle parking within the development.
3) The City of Cannel's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan requires a 10' multi-use path on 126th St.
Please revise the plans to reflect this.
4) Please ensure that all sidewalks and paths are on both sides of all thoroughfares and that all
internal sidewalks and paths are connected throughout the site.
5) Please maintain a minimum of a 5' clearance from obstructions for all sidewalks.
6) Please indicate ADA compliant handicap ramps and crosswalks at all crossings.
We request that all responses to our comments be provided in writing. Failure to provide written
responses inay result in delay of the review process.
It is critical that this office be made aware of all modification made on the plans being re-submitted,
particularly if any such changes are considered "new" or fall outside of our previous reviews. Please
ONE CIVIC SQUARE.
Page 1
CARAIEL, INDIANA 460.32 31"7/5"71-2417
City of Carmel
/Nt) I ion', DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
provide revised plans indicating all revisions. Please notify us of any changes and specifically state any
changes, including changes resulting from Plan Commission, Special Studies or other committee
meetings.
The Department of Community Services reserves the right to provide additional comments based on
subsequent reviews.
If you have questions, please contact me at 571 -2417.
Sincerely,
David Littlejohn
Alternative Transportation Coordinator
Department of Community Services
cc: Angie Conn, Department of Community Services
Engineering Department Review
Project File
Page 2
CAR MI
VN,^A 46 432 317/571 -2417
Conn, An elina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Matt L. Griffin [Matt.Griffin@buckingham-co.com]
Wednesday, December 14, 2011 12:31 PM
Conn, Angelina V
RE: Gramercy PUD - landscape plan
Our open house went well last night. Had some LONG conversations with the Auman Drive team. Overall they are
favorable, but they still have some issues (mostly with the future of 126th street — and not our project).
It was from 5-8 and we likely spoke with 100+ people over that time frame. Many folks were relieved, and stated as
long as we keep to what we are showing they would be happy.
No telling how the 20th will go, but we feel pretty positive, at least as a starting point.
tthe Griffin, MCP
Devekpr .,n' anager
Buckinjtham C mpanies
941 N. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone/Fax: 317.554.6749
mg,,groffin buckingha -co.com
buckingham•co.com
From: Conn, Angelina V fmailto:Aconnftcarmel.in. ov
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 12:26 PM
To: Matt L. Griffin
Cc: Tingley, Connie S
Subject: RE: Gramercy PUD - land pe plan
Whew. Ok!
-Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
From: Matt L. Griffin fmailto:Matt.GriffinPbuckingham-co.corni
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 12:24 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: RE: Gramercy PUD - landscape plan
That is a not a go.
I think you guys have enough to chew on at this stage 0
Conn, An elina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Conn, Angelina V
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 12:01 PM
'Matt L. Griffin'
'Ochs, Timothy'
FW: Docket No. Assignment: ( #11100022 DP /ADLS) Gramercy PUD (Mohawk Hills
Redevelopment)
Good morning, Matt:
Just a reminder that the filing fee is due on or before December 9, if you want to be placed on the Dec. 20 Plan
Commission meeting agenda.
Also, any supplemental info packets will be due by Noon. December 9.
Public notice should have been made on or before Nov. 25.... Proof of notice is due by Noon on Dec. 16.
We will keep your item on the Dec. 20 TAC meeting agenda, as well.
-Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 2:53 PM
To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Mindham, Daren; Hancock, Ramona B; Littlejohn, David W; 'jmolitor @prodigy.net; Boone, Rachel
M.; Tingley, Connie S; Duncan, Gary R; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Blanchard, Jim E; Stewart, Lisa M; Martin, Candy;
Druley, Elizabeth A; Haney, Douglas C; Mishler, Nicholas F; Maki, Sue; 'GARY DOXTATER'; Thomas, John G; Redden,
Nick; Barnes, David R
Cc: 'Matt L. Griffin'; Weiss, Zeff A.; 'Ochs, Timothy'; ' Andy .Klineman @ buckingham - co.com'
Subject: Docket No. Assignment: ( #11100022 DP /ADLS) Gramercy PUD (Mohawk Hills Redevelopment)
1 have issued the Docket Number for Gramercy (DP /ADLS). It is the following:
Docket No. 11100022 DP /ADLS: Gramercy PUD (Mohawk Hills Redevelopment)
The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a multifamily apartments infill and rehabilitation project on
116.4 acres. The site is located at approximately 751 E. 126th Street, at the southwest corner of 126th St. and
Keystone Pkwy. The site is zoned PUD /Planned Unit Development. Filed by Matthew Griffin of Buckingham
Companies.
Matt can be contacted at (317) 710 -9196.
FEES:
116.4 -acre DP
$15,019.68
ADLS
$912.00
Total due:
$15,931.68
Petitioner. please note the following:
1. This item will be on the Wednesday, Nov. 16 meeting agenda of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC),
which begins at 9am. A representative must be present at this meeting. The petitioner must submit plans and
review materials to all TAC members by Nov. 2 via email and /or mail. The updated TAC members list is online
at: www.carmel.in.gov / Modules /ShowDocument.aspx ?documentlD =708.
2. Mailed and Published Public Notice needs to occur no later than Friday, Nov. 4. Published notice is required
within the Indianapolis Star. Try to ,get the public notice ad to the IndyStar by Noon, two days prior to the public
notice deadline, in order for them to publish it on time. Also, the placement of a public hearing sign on the
property is required; see application.
Conn, An ' elina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Conn, Angelina V
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 3:18 PM
'Jennifer Ward'
jenniferward @ indy. rr.com
RE: Docket No. 11100022 Mohawk Housing Partners -- Request for information, Gramercy
City of Carmel SWPPP Requirements.pdf
Hi, Jennifer, I have consulted with someone in the Carmel Engineering Dept. about your question, and here
is that response, below. I hope this helps. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance, or if I have
not fully addressed your question.
"Our department does not require any Quality of Life impact study. These are usually required for Federal level
projects. There are some typical environmental studies done before development, such as a Phase 1
Environmental Assessment or a Water Resources Study, but none that are required at the local level.
We do require a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for any projects that disturb over 1/4 acre of land. This plan
identifies all of the typical pollutants associated with development that can pollute surface waters. It also identifies
controls needed during the construction process to prevent these pollutants from leaving the site. Although it does
not address air pollution specifically, it does require dust control measures since it is a form of soil erosion. The
plan also addresses spill prevention and response, solid and hazardous waste disposal, and trash containment
amongst other pollution prevent measures. Compliance with this plan is enforced by our department.
During demolition, I believe the onus is on the contractor /site owner to investigate and properly dispose of any
hazardous materials that may exist. The Demo permit is issued through the Carmel Building and Code Services
Dept., so they should have more specifics if you need them.
Any noise generated by the construction would have to fall within the limits of our City Code noise ordinance
(typically 6am to 10pm) or as specified by the Board of Public Works."
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
City of Carmel Planning & Zoning Division
Dept. of Community Services
1 Civic Square, 3rd Flr.
Carmel, IN 46032
0: 317 - 571 -2417 1 F: 317 - 571 -2426 1 E: aconnc carmel.in.gov
Check out our new website: www.carmeldocs.com
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
From: Jennifer Ward f mailto :jwardOintearationpartners.coml
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 12:43 PM
To: Ochs, Timothy; Conn, Angelina V
Cc: jenniferwardOindy.rr.com
Subject: RE: Docket No. 11100022 Mohawk Housing Partners -- Request for information
Tim, Thanks for the reply. I will work with the city to determine the best course of action at this point.
I would consider the determination of environmental and quality of life impact to be something that the city of Carmel
would have required at some point in the consideration process. My property is east of this project and as such is
downwind of any of the construction /demolition debris as well as the noise pollution.
I will reach out to city to see if they did their own study as they considered your request. I did see a traffic study.
However, this doesn't speak to the ground, air, utilities and noise during the construction and post construction stages.
Angie: Wouldn't the city have requested this information be included in the original petition or somewhere along in the
process?
Thank you,
Jenny We rd
Account Executive
4a
C: 317.650.2292 F: 317„324,1524
E: jward @integrationpartners,com
From: Ochs, Timothy jmailto :Timothy.OchsCaicemiller.coml
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 9:44 AM
To: Jennifer Ward
Subject: RE: Docket No. 11100022 Mohawk Housing Partners -- Request for information
Jennifer: A environmental or qualify of life impact study has not be completed nor is one required or anticipated. The
pending petition is the next step in the process that was started a couple of years ago with the adoption of the Gramercy
Planned Unit Development Ordinance also known as a PUD. The uses, density and other "big picture" development
issues were decided at that time. The petition seeks approval of a development plan and ADIS, which is a more detailed
plan that must comply with the previously approved PUD. The issues that I would expect to be dealt with in an
environmental or quality of life impact study were considered at the public hearings related to the adoption of the PUD.
This petition is just the details related to the proposed implementation of that already approved PUD.
You will be receiving another letter very shortly indicated that we are seeking a continuance from the November 15 plan
commission hearing to the December 20, Plan Commission hearing. We are seeking this continuance in order to further
refine and develop the detailed plans. This will also give everyone, including the neighbors to this project, more time to
review and consider the plans when they are finalized. All submitted plans and documents are matters of public record
and will be available for you to review and copy.
My apology for the delay in responding to your first e-mail, but I was unsure whether we would be seeking a
continuance or not, and I wanted to provide you with the most updated information. If you have any further questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Tim
ICE
LEGAL COUNS E L
TIMOTHY E. OCHS
Attorney at Law
Phone 317 - 236 -5952
Fax 317 - 592 -4720
Cell 317 - 695 -8386
Email timothy.ochs @icemiller.com
One American Square
Suite 2900
Indianapolis, IN 46282 -0200
www.icemiller.com
From: Jennifer Ward f mailto: iwardaintearationaartners.coml
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 9:27 AM
To: Ochs, Timothy
Cc: ienniferwardOindv.rr.com; rhancockacarmel.in.gov; iadamsCtcarmel.in.gov
Subject: RE: Docket No. 11100022 Mohawk Housing Partners -- Request for information
Mr. Ochs,
Would you kindly advise if there is an environmental or quality of life impact study that has been completed for
this project plan? If so, where is this available for viewing? If not, is it the intent to have this study completed?
Thank you.
Regards,
Jenny Ja r
w) 9
C: 317.6502292 F: 317.324.1524
jward@integrationpartners.com
WWVV inl q:at.oirl artlyeH, corn
From: Jennifer Ward
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 4:15 PM
To: timothy.ochsaicemiller.com
Cc: jenniferwardOindv.rr.com
Subject: RE: Docket No. 11100022 Mohawk Housing Partners -- Request for information
Mr. Ochs,
Ramona had deferred to you for the answer on the impact study. Would you be able to advise at your
convenience please?
Thank you,
dl a:u17 ard
.Account Executilvrr
.1„11„.te ..: I' .t '... j ri
C: 31 7.650.2292 F.: 31 7.32 .1 524
E: i ,ard.; t' � .atl,ou.uprru r °uu us.cor a
uu,uter.,
From: Hancock, Ramona B jmailto:RHancock @ carmel.in.aovl
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 2:20 PM
To: Jennifer Ward; ienniferwardaindv.rr.com; Adams, John; timothv.ochsicemiller.com
Subject: RE: Docket No. 11100022 Mohawk Housing Partners -- Request for information
Our files are always open for public inspection. The Development Plan can be viewed at:
Dept of Community Services
City Hall
One Civic Square
Carmel IN 46032
3rd floor, hard left off the elevator
Our offices are open 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM
3
Ramona Hancock
From: Jennifer Ward f mailto :jwardOintegrationpartners.com]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 12:36 PM
To: Adams, John; timothy.ochsOicemiller.com
Cc: jenniferward@indv.rr.com; Hancock, Ramona B
Subject: Docket No. 11100022 Mohawk Housing Partners -- Request for information
Gentlemen,
Is there a Quality of Life Impact Study covering air /sound /soil /water /etc. regarding this project that has been
completed? Also, we would like to know where the development plan can be viewed? My neighbors and I
would like to see this information prior to the hearing on the 15`h. If either of you could advise at your earliest
convenience, it would be appreciated. Thank you.
Regards,
Jenny
ard
Account Executive
tiv
C: IO::Yd.:324.15,24
E: jwaud624. nter t aN'uor•ull adt:ro a°s.co n
**I * * * * * * * * * * * ** ****** a**** i*********************** I********************* I** i * * **I * * * * * * * * *** * * *** * **I * **
9 �' I'^I•1'-'•P•i.^I.- •l.•i.•i.t.Y9..h^Y**I:**.k*i•^Y^Y•i tt*-a- :•i'9••Ytt'l••P•i t**k*Yk*** i 9' tt
CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: ARE: Except to the extent that this advice concerns the qualification of any
qualified plan, to ensure compliance with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations, we are now required to advise
you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication,
including any attachments., is not intended or written by us to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone for the
purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties that may be imposed by the federal government or for promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any tax- related matters addressed herein.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This E -mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by
legal privilege. Ii" you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use
of this E -mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this E -mail in error, please notify us
immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system.
Thank you.
ICE MILLER LLP
* **k*k*k*k*k` *N•*g:g **k*k*k*g.k** * == =*k*➢ **k **k ** **k = *Ra **k*k* * *~' *k*k ':i *:a * : *k* * *k*1*** t** * **k *k *k *k*k*k* * **i:*k* * **k*k*Y• **!***k* ** * *i *k *k
,fl. fl. i t fl" fl" 1'1' • i A- '� k °6' 1 4•1••** * ** **I* 9'^Ytt * **k **k .'*I *t* 4'1:* * * **i**Y*
4
c
L TECHNICAL ADVISORY CO
MEETING AGENDA
ITTEE
Date: Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Place: Dept. of Community Services Conference Room, 3RIFloor, Cannel City Hall.
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Note: The Department of Public Utilities of the City of Indianapolis d/b/a Citizens Water
(CW) has reviewed the below listed TAC agenda topics. CW's response for each topic is
...stated in the Bold Blue Text below each topic description.
9:00 a.m. St. Mary & St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church.
The applicant seeks the following special use & development standards variance approvals:
Docket No. 11100013 SU ZO Ch. 5.02: Special Uses, religious use.
Docket No. 11100014 V ZO Ch. 5.04.01: Max. building height exceeds 35-ft.
The site is located at 12174 Shelborne Rd. It is zoned S-1/Residence. Filed by Don
Highlander of Connecting Spaces, LLC.
CW has no objection to the above described request. This site is not served by CW.
The site is within the Carmel Utilities Service Territory, currently serving this vicinity.
9:10 a.m. Carey Addition, Lot 3 - Starting Line Preschool.
The applicant seeks the following special use approval:
Docket No. 11100019 SU ZO Ch. 8.02: Special Uses, preschool.
The site is located at 110 3rd Ave NE. It is zoned R-2/Residence and lies with the Old Town
Overlay Character Subarea. Filed by Diane Atkins.
CW has no objection to the above described request. This site is not served by CW.
The site is within the Carmel Utilities Service Territory, currently serving this vicinity.
9:20 a.m. Tabled indefinitely: Merchants' Square, Enterprise Rent-A-Car (former Hardee's site).
The applicant seeks the following use variance approval for an auto leasing business:
Docket No. 11100006 UV ZO Ch. 19.01: Permitted Uses. The site is located at
2350 E. 116th St. It is zoned B-8/Business. Filed by Jeff Gowdy of Enterprise.
CW has no objection to the above described request. This site is not served by CW.
The site is within the Camiel Utilities Service Territory, currently serving this vicinity.
9:30 a.m. Docket No. 11100022 DP/ADLS: Gramercy PUD (Mohawk Hills Redevelopment)
The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a multifamily apartments infill and
rehabilitation project on 116.4 acres. The site is located at approximately 751 E. 126th Street,
at the southwest corner of 126th St. and Keystone Pkwy. The site is zoned PUD/Planned Unit
Development. Filed by Matthew Griffin of Buckingham Companies:
CW has no objection to the above described request. This site is not served by CW.
The site is within the Carmel Utilities Service Territory, currently serving this vicinity.
WW,CA R. M ELIN,00
Pik TAC2011-1 II 16 doc
Page 1 of 1
ONE CIVIC Q. CARMEL IN 46032 (317)571-2417
0 ( a ;)e Cod Way
Sncud:r Ana, C llluofelllla9270
V oVV Free r e A 01018 6 r 1 „,, 5i",,V
I:''ryp 1.714 569..0 'r9t'
IF :ex 1.7.14..542.4999
Cafifornila ffoeVV .0 71 1.99 9968
6 davidAziVilgruedproctuots,corn
November 8th, 2011
Carmel /Clay Plan Commission
City Hall Council Chambers
1 Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Re: CI- awe. rcj
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Commission,
I am writing to you today in response to a letter received from Mr. Timothy E
Ochs, Esq. of Ice Miller LLP. In Mr. Ochs letter, he informs us that his firm
represents Mohawk Housing Partners LLC and Mohawk Associates LLC, the
owner of Mohawk Hills Apartments. The purpose of my writing to you today, is
your hearing on the 15th of November. My only concern is that the entrance to
Mohawk Hills Apartments is directly across the street from the home I own in the
Enclave.
I am not opposed to a redevelopment of Mohawk Hills, it has been my opinion for
quite some time now, that Mohawk is not a very attractive development, and has
long ago needed a serious face lift, or better, tear down and rebuild, so this does
not concern me. I entrust that your Commission will approve something that will
be a significant improvement in the aesthetics of the neighborhood.
I do have one request. Is it possible to have the entrance to the apartment
complex relocated? I am the father of a 17 year old daughter, and anyone who
has been, or is going through this period of life knows, that daddy's constantly
worry about their daughters driving. My daughter only encounters two dangerous
spots on her way to school, and one of them is turning left out of the Enclave
onto 126th street. I would not want to see additional traffic, and construction
traffic be something my daughter has to contend with on her way to school.
Thank ou for considering my request.
"=rkin
597 Melark Drive
Carmel, Indiana 46032
CC: Timothy E Ochs, Esq.
01r1i ocd y
Ile, 'i i 5690 98
(11II 5f 0 rina t [I I.71 9868
V l itg(J, 1 i rt r d p•r i' J (11 S CO
November 8th, 2011
Carmel /Clay Plan Commission
City Hall Council Chambers
1 Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
�� � C r ravie r_ej
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Commission,
I am writing to you today in response to a letter received from Mr. Timothy E
Ochs, Esq. of Ice Miller LLP. In Mr. Ochs letter, he informs us that his firm
represents Mohawk Housing Partners LLC and Mohawk Associates LLC, the
owner of Mohawk Hills Apartments. The purpose of my writing to you today, is
your hearing on the 15th of November. My only concern is that the entrance to
Mohawk Hills Apartments is directly across the street from the home I own in the
Enclave.
I am not opposed to a redevelopment of Mohawk Hills, it has been my opinion for
quite some time now, that Mohawk is not a very attractive development, and has
long ago needed a serious face lift, or better, tear down and rebuild, so this does
not concern me. I entrust that your Commission will approve something that will
be a significant improvement in the aesthetics of the neighborhood.
I do have one request. Is it possible to have the entrance to the apartment
complex relocated? I am the father of a 17 year old daughter, and anyone who
has been, or is going through this period of life knows, that daddy's constantly
worry about their daughters driving. My daughter only encounters two dangerous
spots on her way to school, and one of them is turning left out of the Enclave
onto 126th street. I would not want to see additional traffic, and construction
traffic be something my daughter has to contend with on her way to school.
Thank you f• r considering my request.
D- rkin
597 Melark Drive
Carmel, Indiana 46032
CC: Timothy E Ochs, Esq.
LEGAL COUNSEL
November 9, 2011
11111111111111111 111111111
Mike Hollibaugh (mhollibaugh @carmel.in.gov)
Carmel Department of Community Services
1 Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
Angie Corm (aconn @carmel.in.gov)
Carmel Department of Community Services
1 Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
WRITER'S DIRECT NUMBER: (317) 236 -5952
DIRECr FAX: (317)592 -4720
INTERNET: Timothy.Ochicemiller.com
Via Electronic Mail
RE: Docket No. 11100022 DP /ADLS: Gramercy PUD (Mohawk Hills
Redevelopment)
Dear Mike and Angie:
This letter serves as the Petitioner's formal request to continue the above referenced
petition currently scheduled for the November 15, 2011 Plan Commission public hearing to the
December 20, 2011 Plan Commission public hearing. The purpose for this request is to allow
additional time to further refine the plans associated with the application and allow adequate time
for review by Staff and the Plan Commission prior to the public hearing.
Thank you for your attention to this letter.
Very truly yours,
ICE MILLEFL
Timothy E
TEO:dlp
cc: Matt Griffin (via e-mail)
Andy Klineman (via e-mail)
chs
One Ammo Squarc ¢Sonde 21900 I Ornineoanl(burhn ON 4 &s19t2- Q12191) 11317-236-21 F 31/ -2;:4k -221
VNDVANAv )LJ CHICAGO I DJiAQ9 COUNTY Vi INA "MOOV'iy vvrarvv l'iruullter. u1111
Conn, An elina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Angie,
Matt L. Griffin [Matt.Griffin@buckingham-co.com]
Tuesday, November 08, 2011 11:16 AM
Conn, Angelina V
Gramercy Update
I think we are going to request continuance to the Dec. Plan Commission Meeting.
We really appreciate the efforts to keep this moving, but to be honest we need to work out a few site plan details, and
we feel like it will be a stronger plan if we can hold off a bit.
I have met with most of the applicable tac memebers face to face — but will be getting info packs to them as well — as I
realize this is on the agenda for the 191h•
or Tim Ochs will be following up with you today.
Matthew Griffin, AICP
Development Manager
Buckingham Companies
941 IN, .N14,,?ridan Street
Inclienapas„0,N 46204
hone/V ex:
mattariffin@buckindham-co.com
buckingham-co.com
BUCKING
Fiir gri: Conn, Angelina V [rnailt :Ac nn( v
Se t: Monday, INsvembeir 07, 2011 11:1' M
Griffin
Cc: eiss, Zeff A.; Andy Klinernan
Subje F14: N v., 16 Technical Advice Adv ry Cmm i ee meeting agenda
Hey, Matt —
S me T C members ha e not received plans yet. Vu can send a mass email t a f the •pdfs fthe site plan
and pr posed building eievati ns as a first step...
The 1AC members list is attached and has their email addresses._
They just need soH ethi g t revie bef re the meeting .n the 16th.. Please get them this inf S P, since they iere
supposed t. have it ver 2 eeks ago.
As
Y
Thanks,
u still have irit paid the fain fees f his petiti r e need that 5 P.
ngie run, Nanning Administrator
Cuty of Carmei Nanning Zoning Division
** o p,p1
(...6)(E)
ei
,y
November 10, 2011
.Renton C. Ward, OT.74
Surveyor of 3- familton County
(Phone (317) 776-8495
(Fax (317) 776 -9628
Buckingham Companies
ATTN: Matt Griffin
941 North Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
VIA E -MAIL: Matt.Griffin cr buckingham- co.com
Re: Gramercy PUD
Dear Mr. Griffin:
r)
Suite 188
One 3familton County Square
,Aoblesvi11e, Indimm 46060-2230
We have reviewed the concept plans submitted to the Hamilton County Surveyor's Office on
November 10, 2011, for this project and have the following comments:
1. The proposed project falls in the incorporated area and MS4 jurisdiction of the City of
Carmel.
2. The proposed project DOES fall in a Carmel Wellhead Protection Zone.
3. The project falls partially in the Moffitt - Williamson Regulated Drain Watershed.
4. Please submit complete construction plans, the secondary plat, and drainage
calculations to this office when they become available.
5. The Hamilton County Surveyor's Office has no objections to the design change.
6. Please note that further comments may be necessary at a later date.
Should you have any questions, I can be reached at 317- 776 -8495.
Sincerely,
Greg Hoyes, AC, CFM, CPESC
Plan Reviewer
CC: Angie Conn Carmel DOCS, John Thomas Carmel Engineering
Dave Barnes Carmel Engineering, Greg liko Crossroad Engineers
City of Carmel
hvon N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
November 10. 2011
Mr. Matt Griffin
Buckingham Companies
941 N Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
RE: Gramercy PUD (Mohawk Hills Redevelopment)
Dear Mr. Griffin:
The following letter represents comments for this project specifically addressing the area of alternative
transportation. I have reviewed the information submitted for the November 16. 2011 Technical Advisory
Committee meeting, and cannot offer comments at this point. Comments will be provided after more detailed plans
are submitted.
We request that all responses to our comments he provided in writing. Failure to provide written responses may
result in delay of the review process.
It is critical that this office he made aware of all modification made on the plans being re- submitted, particularly if
any such changes are considered "new" or fall outside of our previous reviews. Please provide revised plans
indicating all revisions. Please notify us of any changes and specifically state any changes. including changes
resulting from Plan Commission, Special Studies or other committee meetings.
The Department of Community Services reserves the right to provide additional comments based on subsequent
reviews.
If you have questions, please contact one at 571 -2417.
Sincerely,
David Littlejohn
Alternative Transportation Coordinator
Department of Community Services
C Angie Conn. Department of Community Services
Engineering Department Review
Project File
tttll
Page 1
V.,:IfNDIrINA 46032. 317/571 -2417
Conn, An ' elina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Thank you, Angie!
Jennifer Ward [jenniferward@indy.rr.com)
Wednesday, November 09, 2011 2:31 PM
Conn, Angelina V
Hancock, Ramona B; jward@integrationpartners.com
RE: Gramercy PUD - 2005 file
I do not see an environmental impact study. Perhaps, I a missing something? There was a lot to read through and the
longer documents could not be downloaded as PDF. There is a page limit.
My home backs up to Keystone to what would be facing the middle zone of this project. All the winds blow from there to
my back yard. During the road construction, my daughter and my animals became ill due to dust and debris and fumes
landing in my yard and making its way into my home. My daughter has asthma and severe allergies. My gardening
efforts were as much as ruined. Much of the time, due to the noise and air pollution at the time that the construction
was centered adjacent to our area, we could not go in the back yard. Sometimes the dust was so dense that I had to
cover my mouth with a mask to walk in my own back yard. This project will have even more demolition of more
elements and last for a longer period of time.
I need to understand the potential health hazards to myself and my neighbors for both during the
construction /demolition period as well as to when and what will be constructed (commercially) upwind from us. Is
there a chance that you can inquire on these issues and whether a study was done prior to the meeting that is now
being held in December? This would be very much appreciated. Do you know if there is already counsel engaged to
handle the collective parties that are in opposition to moving forward without relief regarding these and other matters?
I appreciate your prompt reply and your assistance.
Thank you,
Jenny Ward
From: Conn, Angelina V fmailto:Aconncarmel.in.govl
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 1:32 PM
To: ienniferwardaindy.rr.com
Cc: Hancock, Ramona B
Subject: Gramercy PUD - 2005 file
Hi, Jennifer —
here is a website link to the 2005 plan commission file for the initial Gramercy rezone in 2005/2006.1 do not think there
was an Environmental Impact Study done, but feel free to look through the file contents to see if I might have
overlooked it. There is a Traffic Impact Analysis...
Here is the website link to docket no. 05120025 Z: http: / /cocdocs .ci.carmel.in.us /weblink /0 /fol /205254 /Rowl.aspx
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
City of Carmel Planning & Zoning Division
Dept. of Community Services
1 Civic Square, 3rd Flr.
Carmel, IN 46032
0: 317 -571 -2417 I F: 317 -571 -2426 I E: aconnCalcarmel.in.gov
Check out our new website: www.carmeldocs.com
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
Conn, An
From:
Sent:
To:
�
elina V
Conn, Angelina V
Thursday, November 10, 2011 9:25 AM
Akers, William P; Blanchard, Jim E; 'Brooke Gajownik'; 'David Lucas'; Duffy, John M; Duncan,
Gary R; Ellison, Christopher M; 'Greg Ilko'; Hohlt, William G; Huffman, David; 'Jason Kirkman';
'Jason LeMaster; 'Joel Thurman'; Krueskamp, Theresa A; Redden, Nick; 'Ron Farrand'; 'Ryan
Hartman'; 'Shirley Hunter'; Westermeier, Mark; 'Gary.McNamee@duke-energy.com'; 'Yackle,
Troy '; Ilclark@vectren.com1; Thomas, John G; 'Greg.Hoyes@hamiltoncounty.in.gov';
`'TT'-)'; y Be ; Green, Timothy J; 'dwhiting@citizensenergygroup.com'
Co' Boone, Rachel M.; Carter, Rona m E;woynk y� Nicholas F; 'Chuck Shupperd';
.
Alexia K; Hancock, Ramona B; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Knott, Bruce; 'Richard Heck'; 'Marilyn
Anderson'; 'Mark Zukerman'; McBride, Mike T; Pace, Paul V; 'Judy Hagan'; Tingley, Connie S
Maki, Sue; Keeling, Adrienne M; Stewart, Lisa M; 'mw9285@aol.com'; Haney, Douglas C;
'Jeffrey Cohen'; Barnes, David R; Worthley, Matthew D; 'amy.schnick@hamiltoncounty.in.gov':
Wenger, Garry; 'Ron Morris'; smike.whitman duke-energy.com';
lennifermarlett@veoliawaterna.com1; 'RIchreis@aol.coms; Hoover, Aaron; Druley, Elizabeth A;
'Boyer, Jeremy; 'Wiseman, Alan'; Kempa, Lisa L; 'Whiting, Duane A.';
'Matt L. Griffin'; 'Weiss, Zeff A.'; Martin, Candy
Subject: RE: Nov. 16 Technical Advisory Committee meeting agenda
Attachments: Gramercy Plans 10-4-11.pdf
TAC members attached is some preliminary info about the Gramercy PUD item.
-Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
From: Conn Angelina V
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 11:48 AM
To: Akers, William FD; Blanchard, Jim E; 'Brooke Gajownik'; 'David Lucas'; Duffy, John M; Duncan, Gary R; Ellison,
Christopher M; 'Greg Dko'; Hohlt, William G; Huffman, David; 'Jason K]rkman% 'Jason LeMaster'; 'Joel Thur
nar/%
Krueskamp, Theresa A; Redden, Nick; 'Ron Farrand'; 'Ryan Hartman% 'Shirley Hunter'; Westermeier, Mark;
' � conf� John \Gary.PbNan�ee@�]uke'energycom';"Yack�,Troy ; ^ —�' Thomas, , .
Y]reg.Hoyes�)hamiKoncountyin.gm/% ' n�)harni�oncountyjn.00v% �an.
'doland.vv.wise@usps.gm/% Mindham, Daren; Littlejohn, David W; 'KREBS, STEVEN J (A]TINB)% 'Larry Beard'; Green,
Timothy J; ldwhiti - mu zom
Cc: Boone, M.; Carter, Ronald E; Mishler, r Nicholas F; 'Chuck Shupperd'; Donah Alexia K; Hancock Ramona B; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Knott, Bruce; 'Richard Heck'; 'Marilyn Anderson'; 'Mark Zukerman'; McBride, M
Uwel; Pace,
ce,
Paul V; 'Judy Hagan'; Tingley, Connie 5; Maki, Sue; Keeling, Adrienne M; Stewart, Lisa M;'nw930S@aozon%Haney,
Douglas C; y Cohen'; Barnes, David R:Vorthey Matthew C;'any.schnick@ham\honcounty.inzov% Wenger, Garry;
'Ron 'nni - d — con%jennifer. dett@veoiawaterna.com%'Rbhreis@am|zon% Hoover,
Druley, El �a bethAc 'Boyer, Jereny% 'Wiseman, Alan'; Kempa, Lisa L; 'Whiting, Duane A.'; ' ,~^^=~...~,_ comn%
leffrey.gowdy@erac.com% 'Don H� Nander'; 'dkatkns22@nlsnzonf% 'Matt L. Griffin'; 'Weiss, Zeff A.'; Martin, Candy
Subject: RE: Nov 16 Technical Advisory Commftttee meeting agenda
Hi - We just got word that the Enterprise Rent a Car item would like to be tabled indefinitely. Revised agenda is
attached.
-Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
From: Conn Angelina V
Sent: Ridav.Noven�berO4,ZD11 11:22 AM
To: Aken�'''William P; Blanchard, Jim E; 'Brooke G jown\k';'OavidLucas'; Duffy, John M; Duncan, Gary R; Ellison,
Christopher M; 'Greg Ilko'; Hohlt, William G; Huffman, David; 'Jason Kirkman'; 'Jason LeMaster'; 'Joel Thurman';
1
LEGAL COUNSEL
lorlh
November 9, 2011
puruomua dour
'10" or mr l pumri II ryry
owe
w@. uamm/ ll dk
Mike Hollibaugh (mhollibaugh @carmel.in.gov)
Carmel Department of Community Services
1 Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
Angie Conn (aconn @carmel.in.gov)
Carmel Department of Community Services
1 Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
RE: Docket No. 11100022 DP /ADLS: Gramercy PUD (Mohawk Hills
Redevelopment)
WRITER'S DIRECT NUMBER'. (317) 236 -5952
DIRECT FAX: (317)592-4720
INTERNET. Timodry.Ochs(t9icemiller.mm
Via Electronic Mail
Dear Mike and Angie:
This letter serves as the Petitioner's formal request to continue the above referenced
petition currently scheduled for the November 15, 2011 Plan Commission public hearing to the
December 20, 2011 Plan Commission public hearing. The purpose for this request is to allow
additional time to further refine the plans associated with the application and allow adequate time
for review by Staff and the Plan Commission prior to the public hearing.
Thank you for your attention to this letter.
Very truly yours,
ICE MILLE
l
Timothy E. i chs
TEO:dlp
cc: Matt Griffin (via e-mail)
Andy Klineman (via e-mail)
at,
One American Square 1 Suuitte 2900 ' GemelianUpofus, BPS 46262• -0200 P 317 -236 -2100 1 317 •23h -2219
IN0)ANAP0L S CHNCAGO DUPACF COUNTY NL ASH1NG1f0N DC: WWW, ;rmmrllemm, °.a. »a
Conn, Angelina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ryan,
Mindham, Daren
Wednesday, November 09, 2011 3:12 PM
'ryan.perdue'; Jon Dobosiewicz
Fetahagic, Alen; Schrage, Brad; Alec Michaelides; Conn, Angelina V
RE: Written responce to review comments
Daren Mindham Letter.pdf; Treedetail - Carmel.jpg; Evergreendetail - Carmel.jpg; Shrubdetail-
Carmel.jpg
1. To respond to your comment on #3, please plant the 10 trees along the perimeter of Illinois St in accordance to
the perimeter bufferyard requirement. Attaching these 10 trees to a future project with a separate approval will
not be acceptable. There is ample greenspace for these trees, but please arrange them so that they will not be
affected by the future bridge construction.
3) Per sec 7.6.B this area between the parking lot and 111. St. need 23
more shade trees to satisfy they perimeter Ixiffer of Illinois St,
It is our understanding per your discussion with Jon Dobosiewicz,
that this number has been reduced to 10 shade trees. We have
noted on the current plan that at each entrance off of Illinois St.
there will be 5 additional trees planted in coordination with the
design of the coinnlon area for development. This will provide 10
additional shade trees.
2. Also, the planting details did not show up on the document when I printed it out, Please make sure it is a format
that will work when printed. I have attached them in jpeg form if the pdf format was a problem.
Daren Mindham
Ur ban resite
City of Carmel
Department of Community Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Office: 317 -571 -2283
From: ryan.perdue Lrnailto :ryandlerdue bcgobaG.ne j
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 5:34 PM
To: Mindham, Daren; Jon Dobosiewicz
Cc: Fetahagic, Alen; Schrage, Brad; Alec Michaelides
Subject: Written responce to review comments
Daren,
Attached is a Getter in response to your review comments regarding the landscape pan for HealthSouth.
Thanks,
Ryan Perdue
Conn, An;.selina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hollibaugh, Mike P
Thursday, November 03, 2011 11:24 AM
mgriffin@buckingham- co.com; Conn, Angelina V
Fw: Names /numbers for Auman Drive
Matt, here are some names for you from Candy.
Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless
Original message
From: "Martin, Candy" <cmartin @carmel.in.aov>
To: " Hollibaugh, Mike P" <MHollibaugh @carmel.in.ciov>
Sent: Wed, Nov 2, 2011 16:46:33 GMT +00:00
Subject: Names /numbers for Auman Drive
Ok, here are some names and numbers that I have for the Auman Drive gang
Jim and Annette Martin (my parents)
730 East Auman Drive
Carmel, IN 46032
317 - 846 -6347
Candy Martin
110 West Main Street #216
Carmel, IN 46032
317 - 716 -2156
Rick and Holly Martin (my brother lives north of complex, down street from Blanchard and Seidensticker, also Holly is
Dan McQuinn daughter and both grow up in this neighborhood)
412 Ash Drive
Carmel, IN 46032
317 - 846 -3896
Judy Gest
720 East Auman Drive
Carmel, IN 46032
317 - 846 -3026
Megan McVicker (lives in neighborhood and also works at CRC)
710 East Auman Drive
Carmel, IN 46032
317 - 571 -2791
Curt and Marylou Waters
724 East Auman Drive
Carmel, IN 46032
317 - 844 -5678
Carl and Andi Wilson
1
1006 East Auman Drive
Carmel, IN 46032
317 - 846 -9456
Dan and Patty McQuinn
1024 East Auman Drive
Carmel, IN 46032
317 - 846 -9886
Lester and Rita Roach
824 West Auman Drive
Carmel, IN 46032
317 - 846 -9235
Let me know if you need anymore. My parents may have a few more in their contact book O
Thanks
Candy Martin
City of Carmel
Office of the Mayor
317 - 571 -2401 Direct
317- 844 -3498 Fax
Conn, Angelina V
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 10:32 AM
To: 'Matt L. Griffin'
Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P
Subject: RE: Gramercy dp /adls applications?
Matt —
To ensure you remain on the Dec. 20 plan commission meeting timeline, we will need something filed by the end of
today, even if it is just the filled out DP & ADLS applications, a rough site plan, and rough building elevations. TAC
members also need plans by Monday at the latest.
-Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
From: Matt L. Griffin : :... f._.
jmailto: Matt .GriffinCalbuckinQham- co.coml
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 11:23 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: RE: Gramercy dp /adls applications?
Short answer — yes.
Long answer— yes with caveats.
Will get it dropped off.
Matthew Griffin, AICP
Development Manager
Buckingham Companies
941 N. Meridian Street
Vndianapoiiis, VN 46204
Phone /Fax: 31 7.554.6749
mattgriffin@buckingham-co.com
buckingham - co.com
1
BUCK" N G
From: Conn, Angelina V jmailto:AconnOcarmel.in.novl
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 11:17 AM
To: Matt L. Griffin
Subject: Gramercy dp /adls applications?
Hi Matt — will you be filing these applications soon? The filing deadline was last Friday and I think we agreed you could
submit them as iate as today or tomorrow....
Angie
Mindham, Daren
From: Mindham, Daren
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 10:09 AM
To: 'Matt L. Griffin'
Subject: RE: Mohawk Apartments
Attachments: Treedetail- Carmel.pdf; Shrubdetail- Carmel.pdf; Evergreendetail- Carmel.pdf; Tree
Preservation Detail.pdf; Recommended Tree List.pdf; Species Diversity for Developments.pdf
Matt,
I have attached some of our standards for landscape plans.
Tips:
Show /label utilities on landscape plan
Have separate plan for tree preservation
Depending on size, break down property into four zones and have a different zone on each page with a master page
with all four
Goal:
Implement rain gardens and larger landscaped areas into parking lot areas along with pervious pavement
Is it possible to save some of bald cypress along 126th St?
Hopefully, this will help. Shoot an email if you have any questions.
The emerald ash borer is starting to really spread, its hit and miss from 146th and Rohrer to 96th and Hazel Dell.
Daren Mindham
Urban Forester
City of Carmel
Department of Community Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Office: 317 - 571 -2283
From: Matt L. Griffin lo®
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 9:40 AM
To: Mindham, Daren
Subject: Mohawk Apartments
buskin ark -co.ca ;
Daren,
I hope things are going great there —and that your war against the ash monster is holding steady. I see it ate the trees at
city hall.
I wanted to touch base with you — as we (Buckingham) will be bringing forward a plan for renovation and infill for the
entirety of Mohawk Apartments. It's a huge site, and will require a pretty extensive landscape plan. We are working
with Context (Alyssa Prazeau) for the landscape plan.
Didn't know if you have any tips, or suggestions before she gets underway. But I figured I would reach out and ask.
Matthew Griffin, AICP
Development Manager
Buckingham Companies
941 N. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone/Fax: 317.554.6749
mattoriffinabuckingham-co.com
buckingham-co.com
1
BUCIUNGHAM"
*14.**Mir***.*-ole
This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains information that may be preged confidential or
copyrighted under lhaw„ If you are not the, intended recipient, you are hereby formally notified that any L.1 Se , copying or
distribution of this e- a ill, n vvhoe or in part, is strictly prohibited. Phease nothfy the sender by return eMaV and delete this
e- from your system. Unless exphicitiy and conspicuously stated in the si„Jbiect Inflatter of the, above e-Maih, this e- i,JU
does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment, or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-MaII does not
constitute consent to the use of senders contact information for direct marketing purposes or for transfers of data to third
parties,
2
CARMEL TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA:
Citizens Water Comments 10 -11 -2011
Date: Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Place: Dept. of Community Services Conference Room, 3'' Floor, Cannel City Hall.
Time: 9:00 a.m.
NOTE: The department of Public Utilities of the City of Indianapolis d/b /a Citizens Water
(CW) has reviewed the TAC agenda topics listed below. CW's response for each topic is in
Bold Blue Text below each topic description.
9:00 a.m. Docket No. 11090005 TAC: Carmel Hope Fellowship Church, Phase 3.
The applicant seeks TAC approval for a 6.284 sq. ft. building addition for a sanctuary and
meeting rooms, as shown on the original BZA special use approval in 2008. The site is
located at 14535 Cary Rd. and is zoned R -1 /Residential. Filed by Jamie Shinneman of
Weihe Engineers, Inc.
CW has no objection to the proposed building addition to Carmel Hope FellowshiQ
Church, Phase 3. This site is not served by CW, it is inside the Carmel Utilities service
territory.
9:15a.m. Gramercy PUD; brief introduction of construction plans. For the November 16 TAC
meeting _Buckingham Companies will bring through their plans and DP /ADLS Applications
for Gramercy PUD (now Mohawk Hills Apartments & Golf Course), which is located at the
southwest corner of 126`x' St. and Keystone Pkwy, on approximately i 13 acres. The site is
zoned PUD /Planned Unit Development.
CW has no objection to the proposed Gramercy PUD. This site is not served by CW, it
is inside the Carmel Utilities service territory.
WWW
Page I of 11
ONE CIVIC SQ. CARMEL.. IN 4
7) 74 -2Ig7
Conn, Angelina V
From: Redden, Nick
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:38 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: RE: TAC meeting
Thank you, Angie. I'm planning to ei•mall a letter. before the end of today. Then my comment uld be the usual "I sent
a letter with comments and have no further corimments at this .time."
Nick,
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 10:45 AM
To: Redden, Nick
Cc: Druley, Elizabeth A
Subject: RE: TAC meeting
Sue, W can do that for you. (also Daweiw Mindham vU not be attending the !C Meeting, eithe, so don't feel bad)
Do you have any letters you need me to hand out? Or will you Post send me an email with your comments
-Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
Fr. : Redden, Nick
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 9:03 AM
Ti: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: TAC meeting
Good morning, Angie,
I'm going to be absent tomorrow. Would you mind giving my comment at the TAC meeting?
Sincerely,
Nick